Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Establishing a sustainable mining operation: an overview

David Laurence
School of Mining Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a review of the literature on sustainability in mining, it was found that there is limited guidance for
Received 5 March 2010 mine operators to put sustainability frameworks and theory into action on the ground. This paper argues
Received in revised form that operators can improve the sustainability of their mine sites by ensuring that leading practices are
26 August 2010
implemented in five areas. In addition to the widely-accepted dimensions of Environment, Economic and
Accepted 27 August 2010
Community, Safety and Resource Efficiency must be addressed. The need for highlighting these addi-
Available online 6 September 2010
tional elements is demonstrated in an analysis of over one thousand unplanned or prematurely closed
mines over the past 30 years.
Keywords:
Sustainable mining
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Premature mine closures
Community
Economy
Environment
Safety
Resource efficiency

1. Introduction commonly-held view that economic growth, and ecological or

The aim of this paper is to provide mine operators with guidance
on improving the sustainability of their sites. It begins with
a review of the literature on sustainable development in the mining
industry. It then presents the results of investigations into non-
sustainable mines typified by their premature or unplanned closure
in the last 30 years. Using this data, it is argued that more emphasis
needs be placed the safety and resource efficiency areas of activi-
ties, which, along with the other dimensions of economy, envi-
ronment and community, will help mine management achieve
sustainability in their operations.
2. Sustainable development and the mine operator
For over 20 years, the words ‘sustainable’ and ‘sustainability’
have been in the lexicon of governments and policy makers
throughout the world. It is generally agreed that sustainable
development was first defined in 1987 by the Bruntland Commis-
sion as “a system of development that meets the basic needs of all
people without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own life-sustaining needs” (United Nations, 1987). This
definition marked a significant departure from the previous
E-mail address: d.laurence@unsw.edu.au.
environmental values were incompatible. This growth-can-be-
good concept struck a long-lasting chord with governments and
business, as evidenced by the definition’s wide use 23 years later.
In the mining industry, the words were probably first used in the
early 1990s at fora such as the Rio Summit in 1992. Authors such as
Von Below (1993) emphasised the importance of on-going mineral
exploration, technological innovation, and environmental rehabil-
itation if the impacts of depleting resources and environmental
degradation caused by mining are to be addressed. Allan (1995)
argued that sustainable mining could exist if the rate of use of
minerals does not exceed the capacity to find new sources,
acceptable substitutes or recycle. Sustainable mining also includes
an environmental component, and miners should use the land with
care. Learmont (1997) illustrated with case studies of long-life
mines that mining can be considered a sustainable activity. The
conventional approach whereby miners can achieve sustainable
development by embracing social, environment and economic
concerns, was presented by James (1999).
Views on sustainable development in the mining context seem
to be polarized. For example, Eggert (2006) described sustainability
in the context of environmental quality, economic growth, and
social justice. Horowitz (2006) argues that even though mining and
sustainability seem to be an oxymoron, the terms are not neces-
sarily antithetical. Rajaram et al. (2005) also suggested that
sustainable mining could be considered an oxymoron:

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.019
 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284 279

Mine Closures 1981-2005

30%

Percentages of Closures
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

n
t

l
v.

es
r

s
es
d

gy
d

es

ed
en
y
n
to

io
es

es

sh

n
te
te

ic
er

et
io

io
lti
e

l ti
su

at
tra

i fi
nm
le

rg
ad
le

u
ic

at
nt

f
at

cu
tre

at
cu

Sa

ss
ti m
r
pr

is
ep
ep

lu
is

/in

or
ti
r

gr

el
ro
ffi
st

ns

ffi

la
in

al
en
h

pl

es
td
w
D

er

lr
vi
di
di
w

nc
ec
m

et
y

ex
/l o

th

ria
nm

En
e

n
cu

Lo

al
ad

do

on

M
e

U
rc

pa
ts

eo

ea

ad

st
ic

of
ou

er
p/

/
n

i
os

t
ts

hn
m

du
/g

w
pe

uc

gr
ck
hi

ov
ke
es

co
gy

ec

In
et

od
rs

or
La
/g
h

ar
R

/w
lo
ve

t/t
it
ig

Po
or

Pr
tf

m
eo

ds
H

en
ei

at
no

of
G
ec

oo

pm
ul
ss
id

eg
R

Fl

ui
D

Lo

Eq
Primary Reason for Closure

Fig. 1. Mine closures 1981e2005 e primary reason for closure (Laurence, 2006).

“It is true that no single mine can last forever but this is really
not relevant. This is because sustainability encompasses many
more values than the continuing availability of the resource
being developed. Indeed it is the very fact that mineral devel-
opment will end some day that makes the integration of those
other sustainability considerations into the mining process
highly appropriate” (p. 2).
The authors also offer a definition of sustainability in the context
of mining, indicating that
“mining is sustainable when it is conducted in a manner that
balances economic, environmental and social considerations,
often referred to as the ‘triple bottom-line”, and that “sustain-
able mining practices are those that promote this balance” (p. 3).
And the discussion on sustainability continues to be relevant.
There is current debate, for example, on the sustainability of surface
coal mining in the Appalachian region of the USA. Despite many
critics, at least one recent paper asserts that this is “one of the best
examples of sustainable development not only in the United States,
but in the world” (Gardner and Sainato, 2007 p.48). This is based on
the premise that the mining practices “create jobs, living space and
recreation for this and future generations”. Many reject such claims,
including Hansen (2009) who described the practice thus:
“Mountaintop removal, which provides a mere 7 percent of the
nation’s coal, is done by clear-cutting forests, blowing the tops
off of mountains, and then dumping the debris into streambeds
d an undeniably catastrophic way of mining. This technique has
buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams in mining
debris and by 2012 will have seriously damaged or destroyed an
area larger than Delaware. Mountaintop removal also poisons
water supplies and pollutes the air with coal and rock dust.”
Despite the considerable literature on the topic, including Glavic
and Lukman (2007), who provided a useful summary of the
numerous sustainability terms and definitions, there remains
considerable misunderstanding and hesitancy for companies to
embrace sustainability in their operations. The first point of
confusion is about the word sustainability itself. Although dictio-
naries list a number of meanings for the verb “sustain”, the one of
most use to practitioners and stakeholders involved in the mining
industry is to prolong (eg Webster), lengthen or extend. The pocket
Oxford dictionary defines ‘sustain’ as “cause to continue or be
prolonged for an extended period or without interruption”. This is
an entirely achievable goal in the mining context. Even though it is
not possible for a mineral resource to last forever, it is possible for
the mining operation and the benefits it provides to be prolonged. A
useful analogy is the sustain pedal on a piano which, when
depressed, allows the strings to resonate long after the keys have
been pressed, but the resonation does not last indefinitely.
A key question, therefore, is as follows: what does sustainability
or sustainable development mean to mine managers and other
senior personnel who are engaged by their board to run
a successful business? In this context, Rajaram et al. (2005) noted
that some businesses find the concept of sustainability to be too
vague to be able to understand the impact on their business. In an
effort to clarify the situation, Hilson and Murck (2000) provide
useful guidelines for mining companies seeking to operate more
sustainably. They listed six recommendations that if followed,
“would help any mine improve the sustainability of its industrial
practices” (p. 231): 1) improved planning, 2) improved environ-
mental management, 3) cleaner technology implementation, 4)
increased stakeholder involvement, 5) formation of partnerships,
and 6) improved training. The analysis adds significantly to the
knowledge base in transforming the many words on sustainable
development into practical action on sites. Hilson and Basu (2003,
p. 320) discuss further the difficulties of applying sustainable
development to a mining context. The reasons cited include the
existence of innumerable frameworks and indicator sets and
a multitude of interpretations of sustainable development. The
authors propose a framework of sustainable development based on
the three pillars underpinned by good governance (p. 329).
The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
represents the views of most of the largest global mining and metal
companies and regional and national mining associations in
addressing the core sustainable development issues facing the
industry. It developed ten principles to guide its member compa-
nies on implementing sustainable development in their operations.
The principles are based upon the issues identified in the Mining,
Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) project, a two-
year consultation process with stakeholders which sought to
identify the issues relating to sustainable development in the
280 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284

Mine Closures 1981-2005

20%

Percentage of Closures
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
D

ds

ity

s
e

y
gs

s
n
ps

s
n

s
es

er
al
AM

lit
ur

t ic
tio

ct
io

ue
al
oi
lin

bi
m

th
ct

su
pa

he
at

ne
qu
tv

iss
a
i

du

O
ru
li t
Ta

is
im

st

st
ge
pi

ra
er

bi

st

Ae
ge
h
te

e
ha
n

fra
eg

ek
at

ac

op
as
pe

ct

ita
W

re

re
In
ld

le

Sl
pa
W
O

er
/c
oi

or

p
im

H
rs

ea
/s

Po

ive
nd

nd

H
La

R
ou
gr
er
nd
U

Primary Environmental Impacts

Fig. 2. Major environmental impacts of mine closures.

mining and minerals sector. The principles include references to managers with tools to better manage their eco-conscious portfo-
ethical business practices; upholding fundamental human rights lios. Many financial institutions have also adopted the Equator
and respecting cultures; implementing risk management strate- Principles, which ensure that projects “are developed in a manner
gies; continual improvement in health, safety and environmental that is socially responsible and reflect sound environmental
performance; and contributing to the social, economic and insti- management practices” (Mason, 2008, p. 91).It needs to be recog-
tutional development of the communities in which mines operate nised that the DJSWI and the Equator Principles are voluntary and
(ICMM). non-binding and many investors, particularly in developing coun-
The principles broaden the definition of the triple bottom-line tries, are not required to adhere to them.
concept and provide strategic goals for corporations. However, they
ignore one important dimension that distinguishes mining from all
other activities: a focus on the mineral resource itself. The challenge 3. Sustainable Mines e a critical perspective
is to manage the resource in a sustainable way.
Before they invest in mining projects, financial institutions Temporary mine closures in Australia and to a more limited extent,
require that companies produce evidence of a business program internationally, were examined during the period 1981e2009
that adequately addresses sustainability issues in their projects, (Laurence, 2006, 2009). The sample size consisted of approximately
and apply stringent rules on resource companies looking for 1000 unplanned or premature mine closures. The research was
funding. As Mason (2008) indicates, many banks belong to the Dow divided into two periods: 1) 1981 to 2005, where the bulk of the
Jones Sustainability World Indexes (DJSWI), which track the closures occurred; and 2) 2005 to 2009, which included those mines
performances of sustainable companies and provide money that closed due to the Global Financial Crisis. The relevance of this
data is that around 75% of the mines that closed during that 30-year

Mine Closures 1981-2005

45%
Percentage of Closures

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Indus tr y image
Employ ees

inv es tment
Ster ilis ed or e

c ommunity /town
( bus ines s es etc )

oppor tunities
employ ee

Indigenous
Indir ec t
Regional/loc al

Death/los s of
Los s of

Primary Social/Economic Impact

Fig. 3. Major Socio-Economic impacts of mine closures.
 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284 281

period were unplanned or premature. In other words, the operations

were not sustainable.
Fig. 1 illustrates that around 25% of mines that closed in the
period between 1981 and 2005 were planned closures, due to
resource exhaustion or depletion. In these cases, the opportunities
for achieving the desired stakeholder outcomes could be maxi-
mised. For example, employees were able to work for lengthy
periods at their mine with certainty; governments obtained
maximum royalty, taxation and other fiscal benefits; environ-
mental outcomes could be planned and goals achieved over
a particular period of time; local businesses which supply or
depend on the mine could operate with certainty; and alternative
land uses could be planned with certainty as there will be no point
in re-mining the resource at some point in the future.
The following graphs illustrate the impacts that the premature
mine closures had in terms of sustainability. The environmental
impacts (Fig. 2) are significant, and include all the usual issues
associated with legacy sites including acid rock drainage; tailings;
waste rock and voids. The socio-economic impacts (Fig. 3) were
grouped and included severe impacts on employees, as well as
indirect impacts on contractors and local businesses, local
government, demise of indigenous opportunities and sometimes,
death of a town. Importantly, it was noted in the research that
sterilised ore was an issue. The safety and health impacts identified
included vertical openings (a fall hazard); steep faces on open pits;
hazardous substances and so on (Fig. 4).
A follow up study of mines that closed from 2005 until mid-
2009 reflected the impact of the Global Financial Crisis (Laurence,
2009), as illustrated in Fig. 5. Most of these more recent closures
involved the commodities copper, nickel, gold and coal. In the case
of coal, closures were due to falling commodity price; reduction
in sales volumes due to declining markets and lower demand;
safety issues, including regulatory intervention; high costs; adverse
geological and geotechnical issues; and lower-than-expected
reserves. Nickel and copper were hit particularly hard by a plum-
meting commodity price. Gold was not really affected by the GFC,
and the closures were due to other reasons including stability of
pit; technical issues; project funding issues (for expansions or
working capital); deteriorating global capital markets; rising costs;
costs pressures; low grades; operational issues underperforming;
strategic operational review e plant design and operational issues;
reached pit limit; delay in plant commissioning, which caused
suspension; voluntary administration; exhausted resources; and
failure to meet environmental requirements. If these were to be
grouped, it would be seen that economic reasons caused many
closures but resource efficiency issues and others were also
significant.
Mine closures were negligible between the end of 2004 and
mid-2007 because of the rising demand for metals and energy
Fig. 5. Premature Mine closures 2005e2009 by Commodity Type (Laurence, 2009).
minerals at the time. Many new mines commenced as either re-
incarnations of older closed mines or deposits that had been
evaluated a number of times in the past and found to be sub-
economic. They appear to have commenced on the basis of a non-
sustainable mix of extraordinarily high prices and low grades,
metallurgical complexities or other reasons. These mines were the
first to fall over when the price dropped dramatically.
The reasons for the premature mine closures illustrated in Fig. 1
can be aggregated into broad sustainability dimensions as shown in
Table 1. Table 2 illustrates that although the Economic dimension is
the most significant primary driver of premature mine closure, the
(Resource) Efficiency dimension is also highly significant. Although
less significant, the community, environment and safety were also
the primary reason for closure in 22% of cases.
The above analysis focused on those mines that were not
sustainable and demonstrated that mine closure was due to
causation factors that included one of more dimensions of
sustainability. The next question that needs further research is:
what are the characteristics of truly sustainable mining operations?
The author worked for a number of years for a major mining
company operating in Broken Hill, Australia. It mined silver, lead
and zinc. This particular ore body is still being exploited 110 years
after its initial discovery. Clearly, a world class mineral resource
with high metal grades is a major reason for its longevity. The view
here is that attention to the dimensions of sustainable mining
practices has also been a key. This includes a focus on:
1. The economics of the mine. Although the mine was located in
a relatively isolated part of Australia (1200 km west of Sydney),
staff were constantly reminded that mining is a globally
competitive business. Furthermore, mines are price takers not
price makers and management could only control the cost-side
of the business. Being in the lowest quartile of the cost curve
should enable the company to sustain itself if and when the

Mine Closures 1981- 2005

40%
Percentage of Closures

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Vertical Voids Subsidence Landslips Hazardous Other
openings materials
Primary OHS Impact

Fig. 4. Major Health and Safety impacts of mine closures.

282 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284

Table 1
Analysis of Premature Mine Closures by Reason for Closure.

Reason for Closure Percentage Sustainability

1. High costs, low prices
2. Open cut resource depleted
(but remaining underground
resource)
3. Receivership/administration
4. Geology or geotechnical problems
5.The mine did not fit the (new)
company’s strategies
6. Low ore grades
7. Loss of markets
8. Regulatory or government
intervention
9. Floods/wet weather
10. Production difficulties
11. Equipment/technical difficulties
12. Lack of exploration
13. Safety
14. Industrial relations
15. Poor grade estimation
16. Metallurgical
17. Other
Planned closures
a
Minor dimension in brackets.
of total dimensiona
closures
23 Economic
8 Efficiency
7 Economic
4 Efficiency
4 Community (Economic)
3 Efficiency
3 Economic
3 Community (Safety/
Fig. 6. Sustainable Mining Practices (after Laurence and Scoble, 2009).
economic/environmental)
3 Environment (Efficiency)
2 Efficiency
2 Efficiency (Economic) 5. High environmental standards. The community surrounded
2 Efficiency (Economic) the mining operation and thus it was in its interests to protect
2 Safety the environment. It was one of the first in Australia to have its
1 Efficiency
own nursery for tube stock for mine rehabilitation. It also
1 Efficiency
1 Efficiency provided free plants to employees. One of its employees
6 All created (Albert Morris), in the 1930s, created a green belt
75% surrounding the mines, to repair the damage caused by timber
25% getting for mining and smelting and also to repair the effects of
over-grazing by sheep.

The sum total of these initiatives was a mine with exceptional

lead or zinc price dropped. Higher cost producers would have
to close.
2. Community support and engagement. The Zinc Mine as it was
known was the lifeblood (along with the North mine) of the
city. Examples of its strong corporate citizenship include
providing an amenities scheme whereby employees took out
loans from the company to purchase white goods, and other
furnishings for a home. The company also provided low interest
home loans. It provided a kindergarten and employed teachers.
It maintained two cricket ovals, a bowling green and a recrea-
tional park for its workers and their families. It supported
a local university. It supported the arts and the local repertory
society.
3. High standards of safety. The company was a global leader in
safety innovations and being one of the first to employ safety
officers. It was one of the first to insist on the wearing of
personal protective equipment in the form of safety glasses and
hearing protection. Penalties for breaking the rules were severe
with a week’s suspension from work for a miner if he was guilty
of a blasting infringement for example.
4. A focus on mining the resource efficiently. The mine utilised six
different underground mining methods some of which were
truly innovative, such as the Vertical Crater Retreat and
Undercut and Fill methods. The emphasis was on extracting as
close to 100% of the ore body as possible, as the grades were
exceptionally high and the ore valuable.
Table 2
Sustainability Dimension and Premature Mine Closures.
Sustainability Percentage of
Dimension Premature Mine
Closures
Economic 44
Efficiency 34
Community 11
Environment 6 the State on behalf of the community; therefore, there is an
Safety 5
longevity, staffed by a loyal, committed workforce living in a city
with amazing amenities considering its isolation, with a very stable
population base. For a further review of the many more sustainable
and well managed mining operations, see Learmont (1997).
4. Sustainable Mining practices e an alternative model
The literature illustrates that mining can contribute to sustain-
able development by focusing on successful economic, environ-
mental and community outcomes. However, in a mining context,
these pillars (the triple bottom-line) fail to adequately cover two
important areas. One is safety, which receives more attention in the
mining sector than arguably any other industry. The media
coverage and political focus applied to any mine “accident” exceeds
virtually all other industries. It is common for regulators to force
a mine to close on the basis of a poor mine safety record. Examples
include the Westray mine in Novia Scotia, the Lassing mine in
Austria, the Gretley and the Moura mines in Australia and the Sago
Mine in West Virginia. Although acknowledged as extremely
important by regulators and mining companies, its importance is
not borne out in the literature on mining and sustainable
development.
The second missing dimension is a focus on extraction practices
of the mineral resource itself. In the literature, researchers have
tended to concentrate on the exhaustibility of the resource as
a depleting asset (Auty and Mikesell, 1998; Mikesell, 1994).
However, the researchers approach the subject from a macro level
and usually from an economic perspective. It is suggested that there
is a need to focus on the micro level, at the individual mine site,
where the resource is managed sustainably or unsustainably. In this
paper, this element or dimension is termed ‘resource efficiency’ or
simply ‘efficiency’. It separates mining from other industries and is
the basis or platform for any sustainable benefit to flow to the
community. In most countries, the mineral resource is “owned” by
immediate link to the triple bottom-line.
 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284
Too often, an ore body or coal seam is mined without any regard
for the long term, resulting in a reduced mine life. In addition,
government regulators rarely scrutinise how companies mine
a particular deposit, usually focusing only on the safety and envi-
ronmental aspects. The reasons may be political, given that the
community has more of an interest in these aspects, or simply the
lack of technical expertise in government.
Mine managers will be on track in establishing a sustainable
mining operation if they then focus on the following five areas:
safety, environment, economy, efficiency and the community (see
Fig. 6). A brief description of each dimension follows.
4.1. Safety
For both ethical and business reasons, a mining operation
should aim to prioritise safety.
Characteristics of safe mines include a commitment to risk
management; appropriate attitudes and behaviours; reporting
systems need to be in place; a focus on education and training; and
a focus on processes and equipment (Laurence, 2005).
4.2. Economy
Unless a mine is profitable, it cannot be sustainable. The aim for
mine managers is to generate profit responsibly for as long as
possible by keeping costs to a minimum while maximising revenue.
This will also maximise the equitable benefits to all stakeholders,
including shareholders, employees, local communities and busi-
nesses, which depend on the mine, as well as the governments that
benefit by means of taxes and royalties. Yearling (2003 quoted in
Rajaram et al., 2005) makes the point that if a mining company
integrates sustainable development into its operations, its
economic performance will improve in the form of lower labor
costs; fewer labor disputes, and increased retention rates; lower
health care costs; lower production costs; lower regulatory burden;
lower closure costs; lower cost of borrowing; lower insurance
costs; and improved investor relations.
4.3. Resource efficiency
A mine also has to be efficient in the way the resource is
managed and extracted. Mining engineers, geologists and metal-
lurgists collaborate to optimise resource extraction. Examples of
non-sustainable mining practices abound and include “high
grading” the ore body, which entails mining only the highest grade
material for short term gain. This is a practice used by companies
and individuals within those companies with a short time frame.
This, in turn, is a symptom of the high turnover at many mine sites
and the drive to “make one’s name” as quickly as possible without
regard for the longer-term extraction of the deposit. Particularly in
these times of high commodity prices, it makes sense to consider
mining lower grades which will extend the mine life and thus
stakeholder benefits, without compromising the revenue stream.
Another example is underground mining only the lowest horizon of
a thick coal seam (>6 m), rather than mining the full seam thick-
ness. Mines in China have been criticised for their safety record but
due to the implementation of novel techniques such as longwall top
coal caving, it is possible to extract the full height of even a 10 m
seam, thus optimising the extraction of this valuable resource.
Efficiency also encompasses the management dimension at a mine
site, as poor management decisions can often lead to production
difficulties or equipment breakdown or industrial relations or other
factors that impact on optimum resource extraction.
The literature is very scant on the resource efficiency dimension
of sustainability. It is touched upon by Weber (2005) in an analysis
283
of Kennecott Utah copper’s operations. He argues that it is better to
produce for as long as possible from existing mines, rather than
opening new mines elsewhere. This is as long as the mine can be
made productive, within sustainability constraints. Basu and van
Zyl (2006) use the word ‘efficiency’ in their model of sustain-
ability in mining, embodied in the concept of industrial ecology. In
this case, ‘efficiency’ is used in reference to both production and
energy use, not the mineral resource.
4.4. Environment
Adopting leading environmental management practices on
mine sites makes excellent business sense. Unless steps are taken in
the planning and operational stages to protect environmental
values, long-term liabilities such as acid mine drainage, may result.
Thanks in part to the increasing awareness of environmental issues,
there is considerable literature relating to the environment and
sustainable development. This dimension includes the concepts of
ecosystem integrity and natural resource productivity (Akerman,
1998). The new context, however, is the interaction between
mining, global warming and other significant emerging issues. The
potential for environmental disasters such as those that occurred at
Baia Mare, Los Frailos, Omai, OK Tedi and many more are ever-
present. however. These events are subjected to criticism long after
the event and a recent example is Whitmore’s (2006) analysis of
the Summitville mine acid mine drainage catastrophe of 1992. The
environmental aspects of sustainable development in mining have
been covered fully elsewhere in the literature (eg Hilson and Murck,
2000, p. 229; DRET) and do not require repeating in this paper.
4.5. Community
Finally, a mine needs a ‘social licence to operate’. This has been
described as “generating social capital when a share of the wealth
generated finds its way back into the community for the de-
velopment of socially useful infrastructure and institutions”
(Rajaram et al., 2005 p. 3). Unless the community is engaged and
supportive of a mining operation, opposition and confrontation
may ensue. Mining operations run by corporations have been dis-
rupted on many occasions in the recent past particularly from local
artisanal and small-scale miners, who were mining in many cases
before the commencement of the larger-scale operations (Fisher,
2007). The author recently experienced this first hand at an oper-
ation in the Philippines where small-scale miners tunnelled
underneath an open pit bench. When the bench was blasted a large
void appeared that luckily did not result in injury or worse for
either the small-scale miners or company personnel. The issue of
large-scale and small-scale mining interaction is beyond the scope
of this paper but there are some excellent examples of innovative
solutions to this most difficult problem of coexistence in Ghana (see
for example Hilson, 2002; Aubynn, 2009). Zimbabwe is another
example, where the rights of both small- and large-scale miners
have been contested for many years, originally in gold mining but
more recently diamonds, culminating in the Eastern Highlands
diamond rush and expulsion of a British mining company (eg
Spiegel, 2009; Laurence et al., 1998).
Dysfunctional community interaction will ultimately distract
management from its main focus of efficiently running the mine.
Enlightened mining companies, particularly those operating in the
developing world, maintain their social licence to operate by
undertaking various initiatives, including preferentially employing
local people; training and providing skills in businesses or enter-
prises that will endure after the mine closes and so on. An example
is the Sepon gold-copper operation in Laos, employing approxi-
mately 7000. Most of the employees are drawn from the 70 villages
284 D. Laurence / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 278e284
surrounding the mine. The company has built extensive training
workshops to provide electrical, mechanical, welding, automotive
and other skills through apprenticeship and other programs. It also
provided the funding for enterprises such as silk weaving and
farming innovations.
5. Conclusion
This paper suggests a sustainable mine is one that is safe,
demonstrates leading practice in environmental management and
community engagement, is economically robust and which, very
importantly, efficiently uses the mineral resource. If this is done
well, the mine life will be optimised, the community benefits
maximised, and the industry itself will have wider community
acceptance.
An examination of the data on around 1000 mine closures over
the past 30 years found that the economic and efficiency dimen-
sions were causal factors in the 75% of mines that closed prema-
turely. Although there is no evidence that the implementation of
sustainable mining practices would have prevented all the mine
closures, it is suggested that many would have benefited from both
an extended life and less severe legacy impacts to both the envi-
ronment and the community.
Acknowledgement
The author is extremely grateful for the valuable comments
provided by Prof. Gavin Hilson in the preparation of this paper.
References
Akerman, R., 1998. Is mining compatible with sustainable development? A world
bank perspective. International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME)
Newsletter 6 (2).
Allan, R., 1995. Sustainable mining in the future. Journal of Geochemical Exploration
52, 1e4 (Elsevier).
Aubynn, A., 2009. Sustainable solution or a marriage of inconvenience? The coex-
istence of large-scale mining and artisanal and small-scale mining on the
Abosso Goldfields concession in Western Ghana. Resources Policy 34, 64e70.
Auty, R.M., Mikesell, R.F., 1998. Sustainable Development in Mineral Economies.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Basu, A.J., van Zyl, D.J.A., 2006. Industrial ecology framework for achieving cleaner
production in the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production
14 (3e4), 299e304.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET), 2006. Available at:. Leading
Practice Sustainable Development for the Mining Industry Handbook Series
http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/resources_programs/lpsdpmining/Pages/
default.aspx.
Eggert, R., 2006. Mining, sustainability and sustainable development. In:
Maxwell, P.M. (Ed.), Australian Mineral Economics. AusIMM Monograph 24.
Fisher, E., 2007. Occupying the margins: labour integration and social exclusion in
artisanal mining in Africa. Development and Change 38 (4), 735e760.
Gardner, J.S., Sainato, P., 2007. Mountaintop mining and sustainable development in
Appalachia. Mining Engineering 59 (3), 48e55. Pro Quest Science Journals.
Glavic, P., Lukman, R., 2007. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (18), 1875e1885.
Hansen, L., 2009. A plea to President Obama: end mountaintop coal mining. Yale
Environment 360 Available at: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?
id¼2168 (accessed 01.01.10.).
Hilson, G., 2002. Land use competition between small- and large-scale miners:
a case study of Ghana. Land Use Policy 19 (2), 149e156.
Hilson, G., Basu, A.J., 2003. Devising indicators of sustainable development for
the mining and minerals industry: an analysis of critical background issues. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 10 (4), 319e332.
Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry: clar-
ifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy 26, 227e238.
Horowitz, L., 2006. Mining and sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14 (3e4), 307e308.
ICMM website. available at. http://www.icmm.com/.
James, P., 1999. The miner and sustainable development. Mining Engineering 51 (6),
89e92. Littleton.
Laurence, D.C., 2005. Safety rules and regulations on mine sites e the problem and
a solution. Journal of Safety Research. ISSN: 00224375 36 (1). ISSN: 00224375,
39e50.
Laurence, D.C., 2006. Why do mines close. In: Proceedings First International
Seminar on Mine Closure. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN
0 975675664, pp. 83e94.
Laurence, D.C., 2009. Premature mine closures and the global financial crisis e have
we learnt anything from the recent past? In: Proc. International Mine Closure
Conference Perth, ISBN 9780980418590.
Laurence, D.C., Carr, M., Svotwa, R., 1998. Environmental Protection and Its
Employment Effects on Miners in Small and Artisanal Mines in Zimbabwe. ILO
Geneva Industrial Activities Branch.
Learmont, D., 1997. Mining must show that it is sustainable. Mining Engineering 49
(1), 11e12. Littleton.
Mason, A., 2008. Sustainable mining. Equities 57 (4), 90e92.
Mikesell, R.F., 1994. Sustainable development and mineral resources. Resources
Policy 20 (2), 83e86.
Rajaram, V., Dutta, S., Parameswaran, K., 2005. Sustainable Mining Practices: A
Global Perspective. Taylor and Francis Group, London UK, ISBN 90 5809 689 0.
Spiegel, S.J., 2009. Resource policies and small-scale gold mining in Zimbabwe.
Resources Policy 34 (1,2), 39e44.
United Nations, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future. Available at: http://www.un-documents.
net/wced-ocf.htm.
Von Below, M.A., September 1993. Sustainable Mining Development Hampered by
Low Mineral Prices. Resources Policy. Butterworths, pp. 177e183.
Weber, I., 2005. Actualizing Sustainable Mining: Whole Mine, Whole Community,
Whole Planet through Industrial Ecology and Community-Based Strategies.
Society of Mining Engineers, USA.
Whitmore, A., 2006. The Emperor’s New Clothes: sustainable mining? Journal of
Cleaner Production 14, 309e314.