Measurement of Environmental Performance of Mining Firms ? Technical Approaches and Strategic Implications

Mining firms are widely criticised for their adverse impacts on the environment. At the same time many firms in the industry devote extensive resources, both financial and managerial, to the reduction or elimination such impacts. Very considerable improvements have been made, although these are sometimes overshadowed by a few high-profile accidents, such as the occasional collapse of a cyanide-containing tailings dam. In parallel, much effort is also directed at projecting a positive environmental image, as witnessed by extensive environmental reporting, both on paper and increasingly through web-platforms. Mining projects today almost invariably involve some form of environmental protection. In industrial countries regulations in this area are extremely stringent, as is enforcement. In less well developed countries, regulation and enforcement may be weaker, but firms are in many cases and for a number of reasons committing themselves to high levels of environmental protection, even if they might get away without doing so. Research in the area of environmental performance of mining firms has so far paid much attention to concepts such as sustainability indicators and the sustainability of individual firms. Given the still raging debates about the appropriate way to determine the degree to which any given firm is sustainable (Welford 1995) as well as the usefulness of what will in the final analysis be a value judgement, anyone on the sidelines of the debate will come back to the fundamental issue, how is knowledge that a particular firm has been judged ?sustainable? going to be made use of. This issue remains unresolved, which may explain the lack of progress in formulating a useful definition of a sustainable firm The question addressed in this paper is not so much about what firms are doing on the ground or in any particular case of environmental protection, but more in the subsequent use of these efforts - and by extension - on the overall direction of corporate environmental strategy. The fundamental problem facing all mining firms is that they cannot easily benefit from unilaterally reducing their environmental impact. The firm can of course avoid liability and keep a variety of stakeholders happy and hence experience lower costs of obtaining the [input] resources they need (in a broad sense, not just minerals), but this represents only part of the opportunities available form pursuing an environmental strategy (Reinhardt 2000). The other part, which may have an enormous potential, involves the concepts of competitor management and product differentiation. The logic of keeping stakeholders happy has been most forcefully argued by Pfeffer and Salanchick (1978) who link the behaviour of firms in all domains to their ability to obtain the resources they need, at a cost that is lower than it would otherwise be (Pfeffer & Salanccik 1978). Several varieties of strategy can be included under this heading, including cost reduction and risk management. The alternative logic is to convince customers that they want to pay more for minerals supplied by mining firm X or directly attributable to mine Y, or by making all mineral users pay more. These two strategies, which may be referred to as product differentiation and competitor management, respectively (Reinhardt 2000) are related to the demand side of mineral supply, whereas cost reduction and risk management are related to the supply side. Mining firms have not pursued the demand side very much, if at all. This is probably due to the extreme difficulty of moving mineral products, bulky and unglamorous as they are, away from their