“For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry

Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Resources Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol “For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry Claire M. Mason a,n, Gillian Paxton b, Richard Parsons a, Joanna M. Parr a, Kieren Moffat a a b Earth Science and Resource Engineering, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, PO Box 883, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia School of Social Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 19 November 2013 Received in revised form 31 January 2014 Accepted 31 January 2014 This study explores expectations for mining from a national perspective. Data were collected from six workshops involving forty-seven participants. Participants were asked what objectives the onshore or offshore mining industry in Australia should achieve. Similar objectives emerged across the workshops, although higher standards were sought for offshore mining compared to onshore mining. Participants wanted mining activity to minimise environmental impacts, look after local communities, keep Australia's economy strong, provide employment for Australians, leave an endowment for future generations and maintain Australia's international standing. However, participants' attitudes and expectations towards the mining industry shifted as the focus of the workshop discussion changed and different social identities became salient. That is, attitudes towards mining appear to vary according to the inter-group context. Thus, to fully understand social expectations for mining it will be necessary to explore the multiple frames of reference that individuals can adopt towards the industry. Crown Copyright & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mining objectives Social identity Social licence to operate Introduction The importance of social acceptance is not a novel concept in the mining industry, which has long been aware that failure to achieve and maintain effective relationships with key stakeholders can have very negative implications for a mining operation (e.g., Boutilier and Thomson (2009), Bridge (2004), Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability and Business for Social Responsibility (2004)). The term ‘social licence’ is used in mining discourse to denote the informal and tacit community acceptance of mining operations and research has explored the local expression of social licence and how it may be achieved. Research into social licence has focussed on directly affected local communities involved in mining activities (Campbell and Roberts, 2010; Gunningham et al., 2004; Joyce and Thomson, 2000). Similarly, in practice, mining companies tend to conceptualise social licence principally in terms of relations with local communities rather than with broader society (Owen and Kemp, 2013; Parsons and Lacey, 2012). However, the general public will also have expectations as to how the industry should conduct itself, and this broader societal perspective will also influence whether or not a mining operation is deemed to be acceptable and deserving of a ‘social licence’ n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61 7 3327 4164. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Mason). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.01.008 0301-4207 Crown Copyright & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. (Gunningham et al., 2004). Through mobilizing public opinion, non-governmental organizations have been able to halt mining projects or take companies to court (Prno and Slocombe, 2012). Yet to date, this societal perspective has not received much attention. In Australia, national expectations have become particularly relevant in the context of offshore, or seafloor mining. As landbased mineral and bulk material deposits become harder to find and more costly to extract, mining companies have begun to look at extensions of onshore mineralisation, nearshore mineral deposits and deep marine minerals (Littleboy and Boughen, 2007). While offshore mining is fairly well-established internationally, there has been very little offshore mining activity in Australia to date. However, geological surveys have revealed potential mining opportunities in, for example, the seaward extension of terrestrial deposits, placer deposits of heavy minerals, and marine deposits of gravels and sands for building aggregates (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Geoscience Australia, 2006). Furthermore, given the importance of the mining industry for Australia’s economy, the potential to expand mining activity into the offshore domain is an issue that could have national importance. But while offshore mining may be technically and economically feasible, its acceptability within Australian society is less clear. Proposals to explore for offshore minerals in Australia have given rise to negative community responses. Between 2000 and 2003, two applications to explore the seafloor for marine aggregates in 2 C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 Commonwealth waters off New South Wales were refused by the State government despite having the backing of the Commonwealth government (Johns, 2008). The New South Wales government declared a moratorium on seafloor mining owing to “community concerns” regarding environmental impacts. More recently, public concerns (particularly from Indigenous groups) about proposed offshore exploration activity in the Northern Territory led to the Territory government placing a three-year moratorium on offshore mining in coastal waters. In this instance also, the mining company had been given approval for exploration by the relevant government authorities. Thus, the regulatory requirements appear to have been out of step with social expectations and or concerns. Our goal in this research was to develop a better understanding of the expectations that underlie public reactions to mining activity. There has been considerable research exploring local community attitudes towards mining activity, which has revealed both positive attitudes (mainly associated with employment and business opportunities) and concerns and even conflict associated with community displacement, environmental impacts, health and safety issues, increased cost of living and disruption to local businesses (Hilson, 2002; Mutti et al., 2012; Petkova et al., 2009). However, although mining (and in particular, the sustainability of mining) is often the subject of public discussion (Dougherty, 2011; Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006; Kemp and Owen, 2013; Mutti et al., 2012), there has been very little research exploring public attitudes towards mining or systematically surveying societal expectations for mining. Ray (1975, 1979) examined public attitudes towards strip mining amongst residents of Ohio and found that although affective reactions towards strip mining were mostly negative, many participants also believed that the assets gained from the activity outweighed the liabilities associated with it. Ray argued that the inconsistency between the affective and cognitive reactions towards this mining activity represented instability in public attitudes towards mining that might be resolved over time. However, this inconsistency can be understood as reflecting two prevailing inherently conflicting ideologies about mining: one of mining as a process of transformation that enables social development; and another of mining as a destructive activity, threatening the existing social and environmental world (Bridge, 2004). More recent research suggests that these conflicting reactions towards mining have not resolved themselves over time. For example, interviews conducted with representatives of Argentinean civil society revealed that on the one hand they were aware of the profitability of mining, but on the other hand, fearful about its long-term environmental impact and effects on human health (Mutti et al., 2012). Similarly, when Mason et al. (2010) explored stakeholders’ attitudes towards offshore mining, they found that although stakeholders were concerned about potential environmental impacts, they nevertheless sought to understand the potential economic and social impacts in order to establish whether they benefits of offshore mining might outweigh the costs. This study sought to provide insight into public expectations of mining by engaging with ‘ordinary’ Australians and asking them to identify their objectives for the mining industry in Australia. The study participants were asked to discuss their objectives rather than their expectations because objectives are more easily elucidated. However, the discussion of objectives followed a structured values-focused approach which has been shown to be effective in explicating values, expectations and objectives for structured decision-making (Arvai et al., 2001; Hill, 1982). The workshop discussion was therefore designed to provide insight into what it is that makes mining activity more or less acceptable to members of Australian society. The research was informed by the social identity approach (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). As we explain in more detail below, the social identity approach is concerned with the way in which group identities (e.g., “Australian”) influence individual perception and behaviour. National identity and expectations for mining Social identity theory (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and its extension, self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), is a well-established psychological framework which explains how our perceptions, behaviour and interpersonal relations are affected by our feelings of belonging to certain social groups. According to the theory, a person’s perceived membership of certain groups, and the value and emotional significance of those memberships, represents an important part of our selfconcept. When we define ourselves in terms of one of our group memberships (i.e., when we adopt a particular social identity) our perceptions and behaviour become group-based and guided by the norms of that social category or group. We also seek to positively differentiate our own group (the ‘in-group’) from an ‘out-group.’ The out-group is whatever group is most salient and different from the in-group in that situation. Research shows that when a social identity is primed, it affects our behaviour such that we make decisions and allocate resources in ways that favour members of the in-group relative to the out-group (Tajfel et al., 1971). According to social identity theory, a chief motivation for these processes is our need for positive self-esteem and our need to reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2000; Turner, 1975). That is, by evaluating our own group more positively than the out-group, we provide a basis for feeling good about ourselves. Further, by adopting the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours that are understood to be typical or characteristic of our in-group, we have clear prescriptions to guide our behaviour in that situation. The social identity approach has been applied previously in the realm of natural resource management. For example, Fielding et al. (2008) found that farmers’ intentions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices were influenced by their identification with the group of growers in their region and whether or not they believed that engaging in these sustainable practices was characteristic behaviour for growers in their region. In another study, researchers found that environmental behaviour, specifically, willingness to engage with information on climate change, was affected by the inter-group context (Rabinovich et al., 2012). That is, when British students were asked to compare themselves with Swedish people, they subsequently reported weaker environmental values and were less likely to engage in sustainability-related behaviour. In this inter-group context, adopting weaker environmental values represented a means of differentiating the in-group from the outgroup. However, in comparison to the United States, the British see themselves as having relatively strong environmental values. Thus, when they were asked to compare themselves with the United States, they reported stronger environmental values and were more likely to engage in sustainability-related behaviour. These studies illustrate how the inter-group context and national identities can influence attitudes and behaviours relating to natural resource management. In this study, we use the social identity approach to understand the perceptions, expectations and reactions that Australians exhibit towards the mining industry. The operation of social identity effects would be indicated by group-based perceptions (members of groups being described homogeneously rather than as unique individuals), expressing values and standards for evaluation that favour the in-group relative to the out-group and exhibiting preferential treatment of in-group members relative to outgroup members. By asking individuals to identify what they see as important objectives for mining in Australia, we created a context in which their social identity as “Australian citizens” was likely to be salient. Prior research, exploring community reactions to a specific mining operation has captured reactions and attitudes that reflect the values and interests of the local community in relation to the C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 mining company. However, when a national identity is primed, the salient outgroup is likely to change and consequently, we should also see a change in the attitudes and behaviours that are expressed. When we explore how Australians describe their objectives for mining in Australia, national identity and issues of national interest will be more salient, potentially making some values more or less important. Thus, by exploring national, rather than community objectives for mining, there is potential to gain new insight into the drivers of public reactions to mining. This study also examines whether expectations and objectives for offshore mining differ from objectives for onshore mining. Social identity research has found that uncertainty tends to strengthen group cohesion and homogeneity and extremitise prototypes (Hogg and Abrams, 1999). While onshore mining is well-established in Australia, offshore mining is new and its impacts are not well understood (Mason et al., 2010). According to the social identity approach, this uncertainty should be reflected in stronger prototyping and a stronger bias towards Australian interests when seeking to define objectives for offshore mining compared to onshore mining. Method The data for the research derived from six workshops held in Brisbane and Newcastle over a three month period in 2009. The data were therefore collected prior to the national debate that arose when the Australian government proposed a new mining tax. Forty-seven people participated in these workshops—24 men and 23 women ranging in age from 21 to 65 years (M ¼41 years). Participants were recruited by two market research firms (one in Brisbane and one in Newcastle) who were instructed to invite adult Australian citizens who were representative of the population in terms of their gender, educational background, ethnicity and age. As befits a qualitative study, the aim was not to achieve a truly representative assessment of public opinion, but to encourage as diverse a spectrum of opinions as possible. Participants received a cash incentive to attend the two and half hour workshop but they were not informed of the purpose of the workshop until they arrived at the venue. Two workshops were held in Newcastle and four in Brisbane. The workshops all followed the same structure but in half of the workshops (one in Newcastle and two in Brisbane) the aim was to identify objectives for onshore mining and in the other half of the workshops (again, one in Newcastle and two in Brisbane) the aim was to identify objectives for offshore mining. The workshops followed a process that has been shown to be effective in explicating values, expectations and objectives for structured decision-making (Arvai et al., 2001; Hill, 1982). There were two stages to the workshops. The first stage involved providing information to participants. A person with several years’ experience as a researcher in the mining domain presented an overview of either the onshore minerals industry or the potential offshore minerals industry in Australia. This presentation was intended to give participants an understanding of the technologies and methods used for mining and how mining fits into the broader Australian economic and social context (including some of the main debates that have been or are taking place around mining that relate to the broader community). To ensure the content of these presentations was balanced, they were reviewed by the research team and both an industry and a non-governmental organization representative from the project’s Steering Committee. Participants were encouraged to ask questions of the presenter both during and after the presentation. In the second stage of the workshop, participants’ objectives were elicited and explored. Immediately after the presentation, participants independently brainstormed objectives for the Australian 3 offshore or onshore mining industry, writing down their ideas about what they would like to see the Australian onshore/offshore mining industry achieve. They were then encouraged to share their ideas and, as a group, develop a list of “important objectives for the Australian onshore/offshore mining industry”. After the list had been developed, the objectives were discussed in more detail, with participants being asked to explain why each objective was important and what indicators should be used to determine whether the objective was being met. Audio recordings of each workshop were transcribed and analysed for key themes or categories through a process of reflective and interpretive qualitative analysis (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Miles and Huberman, 1994). As the workshop discussion had followed the values-based structured decision-making approach (Arvai et al., 2001), many of the themes captured objectives identified by the workshop participants. However, informed by the social identity approach, the coders also analysed what groups were identified, how they were described and what comparisons were made between groups. Four of the researchers, all social scientists employed within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia’s national science organization), carried out the coding. Each researcher coded the workshops that he/she had facilitated, and one researcher subsequently reviewed and consolidated the themes. Memos were used to record the groups’ interpretive process and the themes and relationships that were observed in the data. In addition, the research team met regularly to develop an intersubjective understanding of emerging themes and concepts. Results and discussion Six objectives were identified fairly consistently across the workshops. Participants wanted the mining industry to: (1) Minimise environmental impacts, (2) support and look after local communities, (3) keep Australia’s economy strong (4) provide employment for Australians and look after workers, (5) leave something for future generations of Australians, and (6) maintain Australia’s international standing. Below, we describe how the six objectives were expressed. Minimise environmental impacts The importance of minimising environmental impacts was identified across all of the workshops and generated considerable discussion. In the context of the environment, mining activity was seen as destructive, with participants describing mining as “ripping stuff up”, “tear[ing] everything out”, and “stripping the country bare of everything we’ve got”. In contrast, both the onshore and the offshore environment were seen as complex, “pristine” and “sensitive”, such that if “the balance of the environment” was disturbed, there would be “follow-on effect[s]”. However, while participants appeared to attach similar values to the onshore and offshore environment, participants sought higher standards for environmental protection in the context of offshore mining. While all participants agreed that it was important to “minimise environmental impacts”, some participants in the offshore workshops stated that mining should not be allowed to damage or change the natural environment, aiming for “no impact, zero tolerance on impact”. Participants were fearful that there could be dire consequences if mining activity was carried out in the marine environment: What happens to the Continental Shelf then when you are digging away at it, over time? [Newcastle Offshore 10 June] 4 C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 In contrast, in the context of onshore mining, participants appeared to accept that some level of damage had to be tolerated in exchange for the benefits achieved from mining. For example, when discussing rehabilitation of onshore mining sites, one participant suggested that miners should: “Sort of leave it as you find it or as best you can”. Whereas, participants in the offshore workshops suggested that miners should be required to “return it to its original state” or “leave it to a standard that is even better [than it was originally]”. When discussing this environmental objective, participants sometimes expressed prototypes of Australians as being connected with and valuing the environment. One participant explained the “spiritual” value of the environment by saying: It’s us … It defines who we are … It’s our heritage … It expresses who we are. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] In contrast, mining companies “… don’t really care that much because they are not going to be around”. However, some participants differentiated between Australian companies and overseas mining companies, suggesting that mining in Australia should be done by Australian companies because “you would hope that Australian companies would care more about [the environment]”. Thus, by being Australian-owned, some mining companies were assumed to share the in-group characteristics. Support and look after local communities The wellbeing of local communities was the main topic of discussion in the onshore mining workshops. In the offshore mining workshops, this objective was not identified in two of the three workshops and received relatively little discussion in the third workshop. Presumably, the lack of emphasis on human communities in the offshore workshops reflects the fact that activity occurring in the marine environment was not expected to have as much impact on human beings. The discussion around this objective revealed that participants wanted local communities to be protected from negative impacts associated with mining activities. They were concerned that mining operations could cause health problems, raise the cost of living and increase the level of crime within the community. However, their primary concern was that community members’ identity, way of life and cultural values should be respected and protected. They believed that in the past, when mining companies had taken actions to support communities, they had not had sufficient understanding of what was important to the community in question and consequently their decisions had not really been in the interests of the community. They wanted mining companies to take the time to understand what is important to the community, letting them define what needs to be respected and protected. They also stipulated that the community should have a comprehensive understanding of what was happening, perhaps even “involvement in both the planning and the running of the mine” because: They are the ones who have got to live with it in the future, or try and live with it. [Newcastle Offshore 10 June] Participants also appeared to expect mining companies to give back to the community and take some responsibility for its welfare. They suggested that mining companies should provide infrastructure (schools, housing, improved roads, hospitals, supermarkets), development programs and employment opportunities and ensure that “something is left for the community or town where the mine has been set up, once it’s closed down”. One participant said: … the mine’s got an obligation to make sure that … everybody in that community has what they need to survive. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] Participants suggested that mining companies should develop a plan for mine closure and assist the community to identify alternative purposes that the mine site could be used for and alternative sources of livelihood for the community. They also wanted mining companies to retrain workers so that they would have the skills required to venture into these new areas. In these discussions, the workshop participants referred to “the community”, “communities” or “them” rather than “us”. Thus, the workshop participants did not appear to identify themselves as local community members. However, consistent with the idea that they were defining themselves as Australians (and therefore these local communities were part of the in-group), they exhibited a strong desire to see community members protected from negative impacts and wanted to secure good outcomes for them. They did not show the same concern for the needs of mining companies, expressing instead a desire to: Shut it down, some of the operations, until they respond to the demands of society. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] Furthermore, while participants expressed a more positive attitude towards Australian mining companies in the context of the environment, they did not appear to differentiate between Australian and overseas mining companies when discussing the need to look after local communities. Thus, in this context the ingroup appeared to be “Australian people” and the out-group were the more impersonal entities labelled “mines” or “operations”. Keep Australia’s economy strong Another objective, identified in all of the workshops, related to mining’s economic impact. Participants were aware that mining is “a big driving force in Australia economically” and they saw “making money” or “strengthening the economy” as the primary reason for the existence of the mining industry in Australia. In the onshore workshops, the economic contribution of mining was seen as vital for Australia as a means of paying for social services such as caring for the elderly, providing better health infrastructure, delivering high-quality education and defence to “protect Australia”. Some participants described mining as “sustain[ing] the country” because it enabled Australians to maintain the standard of living and the quality of life that they currently enjoy. The discussion around economic benefit had a very nationalistic tone, particularly in the offshore mining workshops. This tone was reflected in participants’ desire to ensure that Australia received as much economic benefit from this new mining activity as possible, in their concern about high foreign ownership of mining companies and in their references to “our land and our resources”. Across the workshops, participants were concerned that Australia does not currently realise much of the economic benefit associated with its mineral endowment. Participants thought there should be an effort to ensure that Australia retained as much as possible of the profits realised from Australian mineral resources. They suggested that mining should be carried out by Australian companies, that the resources should be processed in Australia, and that the resources should be used to manufacture Australian products and grow other Australian industries: We seem to be shipping everything out … [to be] processed overseas. [Instead] we should be looking at value-adding in Australia. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] Furthermore, while participants valued the economic contribution made by the mining industry in Australia, they noted that “you don’t want to make the money to the detriment of the country”. There were concerns that mining could have negative impacts on other industries, such as farming, viticulture, tourism, C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 5 and in the case of offshore mining, the fishing industry. Furthermore, they did not want Australia to be solely reliant on the mineral industry because they feared it would give mining companies so much power that they would be able to “manipulate the rules and regulations”. Participants were concerned that in the past, mining had been allowed to go ahead despite very negative impacts to environments and communities and therefore they wanted to emphasize that economic values should not predominate over all other values. concern towards young Australians and future generations of Australians. These feelings were primarily connected to the environmental impacts of mining. One participant suggested that future generations of Australians “will be condemning us for what we have done”. Another felt: Provide employment for Australians Participants were also concerned that future generations should still be able to gain livelihoods from the environment. In particular, they were concerned that future generations of Australians would not have a mineral endowment to sustain them. There was a shared awareness that Australia’s mineral resources are finite – “eventually it’s going to run out” – and they were concerned that once “the wealth is gone, how do we sustain ourselves?” Once again, there was a nationalistic orientation to this concern but in this context, participants’ salient out-group was foreigners rather than mining companies. That is, they appeared to be concerned that Australia would fall behind other nations because it was not managing its resource endowment strategically. They asked: Another objective that was identified in all of the workshops was to provide employment for Australians. Employment was seen as another means through which the mining industry could be “putting something back into Australia”. That is, by providing employment, mining was perceived to be further strengthening the economy, and by skilling and educating the Australian workforce it “adds value to the future of Australia”. One participant explained it this way: If we have a knowledge base, we know knowledge and technology always advances people, advances the nation … Australia benefits in more ways than just the monetary value for doing the onshore mining. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] Participants believed that the industry should adopt a localised approach to employment by employing “the local community first”, and then “having jobs for Australians”, “rather than bringing overseas workers in”. Participants further stipulated that these jobs needed to offer fair pay and good conditions for workers. They were particularly concerned about ensuring a high level of safety for workers. One participant explained: I think you need the confidence to be able to send your husbands and sons off to the mines … and have the peace of mind that they’re not going to be flown back in a box. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] Participants also sought to ensure that workers would not just be sacked when there was a downturn in the industry or the mine closed: Maybe they could put something in place where they could … encourage employees to learn perhaps a new skill, trade or education? [Brisbane Onshore 2 July] The position that participants took when discussing this objective was similar to the position they adopted when talking about looking after local communities in that they did not differentiate between Australian and foreign-owned mining companies. When discussing jobs and employment, participants appeared to take on the perspective of “Australian workers”. In this context, the mining companies (“employers”) represented out-group members, regardless of whether they were Australian or not. Leave an endowment for future generations of Australians The fifth objective, which was identified in four of the six workshops, was about ensuring that future generations are not disadvantaged (relative to Australians now) by current mining activity. There was a concern that future generations of Australians would have to live with a damaged environment or a reduced mineral endowment as a result of current mining activity. Participants were aware that they were enjoying the benefits of mining activity and they appeared to feel a sense of responsibility and … a social and moral responsibility there in terms of: we live and enjoy whatever the habitat might be now, but if we destroy it then future generations will not see that, or experience it. [Brisbane Offshore 4 August] I mean, is Australia the only country that getting rid of all its wealth to allow the rest of the world to use our wealth to develop themselves up and then we’ve got nothing, we’ve got to buy all their stuff off them? [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] They therefore recommended that some “minerals should be left there” “to allow our needs to be met over the next 100 years”. Alternatively, it might be acceptable to use up these mineral resources if some of the revenue from mining was used to provide “the time and money to discover” alternative technologies that might eliminate the need for these minerals in the future. Another participant thought that the needs of future generations could be met by investing the revenue from mining into Australia’s education and health systems: I think if we had the primary resource that generates the dollars and gives us the education of our kids, hospitals, etc … that’s driving the future of Australia … because I think we’re a AA rating at the moment, but we’ll get back. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] The mention of Australia’s “AA rating” appeared to refer to Australia’s credit rating and further illustrates the shift in orientation that occurred when this objective (and the next objective) was discussed. That is, as mentioned above, workshop participants were comparing themselves with people from other nations rather than comparing themselves with mining companies. Consistent with social identity theory, participants sought to ensure that future Australians (in-group members) would not be disadvantaged relative to future citizens from other nations (the outgroup). Maintain Australia’s international standing In five of the six workshops, maintaining Australia’s international standing emerged as an objective for the mining industry. Many participants felt that the mining industry was important for Australia’s international status. One participant suggested that, by keeping Australia’s economy strong, the mining industry helped to ensure that Australia was not “dictated to by other countries”. Another participant made this idea more explicit: The more money we make, we are more respected by the right countries, like the US, the UK. If we’re not making as much 6 C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 money, we’re seen as lower on the food chain. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] upon the mining industry, such as when they were discussing economic benefits: Some participants also saw the mining industry as a source of international status because it represented a realm within which Australia could develop special expertise or an innovative knowledge base: That is where the majority of money …. comes into Australia, we’re not a manufacturing country. Our manufacturing is quite a low level so we have to rely on the primary industries to get the money in, to give us the quality of life, what we’re living now, what we’d expect and for all the future generations …. [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] Well it may be that Australia becomes the place in the world where everyone goes to university on mining-related [degrees]. [Brisbane Offshore 30 July] However, they were also concerned that the mining industry could have a negative effect on Australia’s reputation as a good global citizen: Cooperation with neighbouring countries is my big thing to make sure that we’re not going to bugger up someone else’s shore, oceans, fishing seeing as we’re so close …. [Brisbane Offshore 30 July] However, when discussing environmental and social impacts, participants were more antagonistic in their attitude towards the mining companies: … I think that that needs to be the message that companies need to understand. We don’t want them. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] They also suggested that Australia had a responsibility to ensure that its mineral resources were going to be used in a manner that is consistent with national values and interests: As predicted, the acceptability of mining also varied according to whether it was occurring onshore or offshore. While onshore mining was (to a degree) accepted as a necessary and familiar part of the Australian landscape, more reluctant and cautionary attitudes were expressed towards offshore mining. One participant explained: If we mine it, we want to watch the whole process so that [if] it’s going to another country and they … use it irresponsibly then we shouldn’t be exporting to them. [Newcastle Offshore 10 June] We all know what onshore mining is, or the majority of us know of somebody who’s involved in it, or it’s been around for so long, whereas offshore mining to me, I didn’t even know it existed. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] In the discussion of this objective then, we see further evidence that participants had adopted a national social identity. They sought to promote the status of the in-group and were concerned to maintain a good reputation internationally. In this context again, Australians were compared with people of other nations. Thus, mining companies, rather than being the out-group, represented a potential source of advantage that needed to be managed well for the benefit of the in-group. Australians and mining: Shifting identities and positions As well as providing insight into Australians’ objectives for the mining industry, the workshop discussions revealed the way in which participants tended to position themselves in relation to the mining industry. While one participant, at the end of the workshop, declared: “I’m pretty much against mining full stop” he was in the minority. Most participants appeared to view decisions about mining as involving trade-offs, and therefore they wanted to ensure that the activity was managed in such a way that the benefits would outweigh the costs. Mining was perceived as necessary, but economic interests had to be balanced against environmental and community interests. Participants described achieving this balance as a difficult dilemma: At what point do you say ‘well that’s not enough to justify the environmental damage that it’s going to do?’ [Brisbane Onshore 22 July] However, more detailed analysis revealed that participants’ positions towards the mining industry shifted according to the context in which it was being discussed. By comparing the material under each objective, we could see different attitudes being expressed towards mining companies as different objectives were discussed. We also saw changes in the way in which participants described the relationship between “Australians” and “mining companies” associated with different objectives. For example, there were times when participants expressed a sense of dependence Participants believed that the consequences of mining in an offshore environment were not well understood, and they called for pilot research exploring all potential impacts before condoning mining in the offshore domain. They also emphasized that this research should be carried out by independent groups (not funded by mining companies) to ensure that it was unbiased, and they called for a strong regulatory framework to govern the industry. In line with social identity research, the greater uncertainty associated with offshore mining appeared to be associated with lower levels of trust towards mining companies. Thus, participants’ positions towards mining and mining companies were not fixed, but rather, fluctuated according to the context in which mining was being discussed. These shifts can be explained by the social identity approach. As noted above, we saw changes in terms of which in-group and out-group was most salient over the course of the workshop discussion. Self-categorisations exist as part of a hierarchical system of categorisation, with higher-level categorisations (such as Australian citizen) subsuming various lower-level categorizations (such as stewards of Australia’s natural environment) (McGarty, 1999). Our cognitive system matches social categories with properties of the social context and brings into active use the category that best fits the field. Discussions about the importance of minimising environmental impact and discussions about taking mining into the offshore domain appeared to make an “environmental steward” identity more salient. When people adopt different social identities, they also adopt what they see as the prototypical attitudes and behaviours for this group. So when participants adopted the identity of stewards of the environment, they also expressed high levels of environmental concern and more antagonistic attitudes towards the mining industry: Give them an inch they’ll take a mile. [Brisbane Offshore 30 July] In this context, the out-group was the mining industry and, in line with social identity theory, participants tended to evaluate the two groups in ways that reflected favourably on the in-group. C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 Australians were described as “really concerned about the environment” whereas miners just think “… profit, profit, profit, shareholder, shareholders ….” Similarly, whereas Australians were seen as the rightful owners of Australia’s natural environment and mineral resources, miners were depicted as a group that “just take and go” with “our” resources. However, discussions about international standing and leaving a legacy for the future changed the basis for comparison such that the out-group became “other nations”. This change in selfcategorization brought with it shifts in attitudes and behaviour. Now, rather than expressing negative attitudes towards the mining companies, participants began making statements that differentiated Australians from people of other nations—again, describing the two groups on dimensions that reflected more favourably on Australians. Whereas Australians were seen as having “higher standards here with the pollution levels and different things”, other countries were associated with negative elements such as “drugs”, “terrorists” and “bugs and things like that, that come in with woods”. Also evident was the tendency to favour the in-group over the out-group in the allocation of benefits. Participants suggested that: They should have a legislation passed that any more new mines set in place have to be Australian owned …. Or we transfer the wealth of Australia to somewhere else. [Newcastle Onshore 17 June] In this context, Australian mining companies were viewed more inclusively because they were more in-group (Australian) than out-group (other nationality): … the Australian companies get an invite to Australia to mine. [Brisbane Offshore 30 July] In summary, then, our analysis offers two ways of understanding participants’ attitudes towards mining. From one perspective, participants could be seen to be trying to balance a set of (sometimes competing) objectives to achieve maximum benefit and minimum negative impact from the mining industry. In line with this analysis, participants described decisions about the acceptability of mining as a trade-off between economic, environmental and social factors. From this perspective, judgments about the acceptability of mining operations might be represented using a structured decision-making approach (cf., Esteves, 2008). However, we saw an additional process influencing attitudes towards mining. As the topic of the workshop discussion changed, different social identities became salient for participants and different out-groups were identified. Consequently, the attitudes and objectives they expressed changed to reflect what they saw as prototypical for the salient in-group. Ultimately, in a decisionmaking context, these changes in social identity could be associated with different judgments about the acceptability of mining operations. From this perspective, evaluations of the mining industry will vary according to context and therefore cannot be simply represented as a simple trade-off between objectives. A similar conclusion was reached in another study exploring social license to operate. Prno (2013) found that what works for social license to operate at one time and place will not work in others. He concluded that context is an important driver of social license to operate outcomes. Our study, using a social identity approach to understanding objectives for mining, provides a framework for understanding the way in which contextual factors can affect attitudes and objectives for mining. 7 Conclusions In this study, we explored objectives for the mining industry from a national perspective. We were able to identify six objectives that emerged fairly consistently both for onshore and offshore mining. They reveal that members of the general public are both conscious of and concerned about the specific impacts and concerns that have been documented in relation to local communities in mining regions. However, their objectives also encompass other national issues, such as the strength of the economy and Australia’s standing in the international community. We also found that discussions of these different objectives made different social identities salient and resulted in participants adopting different positions towards the mining industry over the course of the workshop. Thus, the conflicting attitudes and ideologies that have been identified in relation to mining (Bridge, 2004; Mason et al., 2010; Mutti et al., 2012; Ray, 1975, 1979) appear to be connected to the multiple social identities that form part of our self-concept and become salient in the context of discussions about national objectives for mining. We also explored whether objectives for offshore mining differed from objectives for onshore mining. We found that similar objectives were identified in the onshore and offshore mining workshops but higher standards and expectations were expressed for some objectives in the context of offshore mining. In the context of the social identity approach, these higher standards can be understood as a function of the uncertainty that is associated with offshore mining. Under conditions of uncertainty or threat, intergroup processes such as negative prototyping and in-group bias are strengthened (Hogg and Abrams, 1999). In line with this research, we found that participants not only expressed more concerns and uncertainty about offshore mining compared to onshore mining, they also expressed more negative prototypes of mining companies in the offshore mining workshops compared to the onshore mining workshops. They also appeared to be seeking a “better deal” for Australia (i.e., they exhibited heightened in-group bias) before sanctioning offshore mining activity. Two limitations associated with this study need to be acknowledged. First, we should not assume that the positions adopted by participants in this workshop are indicative of how they would respond to proposed mining activity in their local area. Research on public support for renewable energy has shown that, while national opinion polls indicate high levels of public support for renewable energy, actual projects often meet with local opposition (Toke, 2005). The aim of this study was to explore a societal perspective on mining—a perspective that is currently underrepresented in the literature. Whilst our small sample could not be considered representative of the Australian population as a whole, the consistency in the objectives that were identified across the six workshops, across locations and contexts (onshore versus offshore mining), suggests that these objectives are likely to be important for many Australians. It is also necessary to acknowledge that the scope of the workshop discussions was probably constrained by the manner in which the research questions were framed. That is, we asked participants to consider what objectives should be achieved from the Australian mining industry, rather than whether or not Australia should have a mining industry. While this position reflects the fact that Australia has a mining industry, it is also important to acknowledge that this starting point would have constrained the discussion by making assumptions about what is negotiable and what is not (Lakoff, 2004). It is perhaps for this reason that the objectives that were identified reflected fairly preconceived notions about the costs and benefits of mining activity (cf. Buxton, 2012). However, while it is important to understand these objectives, the greater challenge lies in establishing how these objectives 8 C.M. Mason et al. / Resources Policy 41 (2014) 1–8 should be prioritised and what standards and measures should be used to assess performance against the objectives (Giurco and Cooper, 2012; Ivanova and Rolfe, 2011). Structured decisionmaking approaches (Arvai and Gregory, 2003; Esteves, 2008), stated preference techniques (Ivanova and Rolfe, 2011) and deliberative discussions (Walton, 2012) can be utilized to deal with this challenge, but our research suggests that the positions that people adopt will be influenced by the way in which mining activity is framed and the context within which this process is carried out. As our salient social identity can change from moment to moment, so too can our position towards mining companies. Therefore, for an individual, a community or a nation, there may be multiple ways of understanding their expectations and objectives for mining. In order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of social expectations for mining, it will be necessary to explore the multiple frames of reference that individuals can adopt towards mining. This, in turn, will reflect the range of social identities that are relevant for the issue under discussion. Only by exploring each of these frames of reference can we understand the complexity of social expectations for mining. References Arvai, J., Gregory, R., 2003. Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ. Sci. Technol 37 (8), 1469–1476, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es020762p. Arvai, J., Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., 2001. Testing a structured decision approach: value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Anal. 21 (6), 1065–1076, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216175. Boutilier, R., Thomson, I. (2009). How to Measure the Socio-political Risk in a Project. Paper Presented at the XXVIII Convencion Minera Internacional, Veracruz, Mexico. Bridge, G., 2004. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour 29, 205–259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163434. Buxton, A. (2012). MMSD þ 10: Reflecting on a Decade. Sustainable Markets Discussion Paper. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development. Campbell, G., Roberts, M., 2010. Permitting a new mine: insights from the community debate. Resour. Policy 35, 210–217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. resourpol.2010.04.001. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Geoscience Australia (Cartographer). (2006). Australian Offshore Mineral Locations. Dougherty, M.L., 2011. The global gold mining industry, junior firms, and civil society resistance in Guatemala. Bull. Lat. Am. Res 30, 403–418. Esteves, A.M., 2008. Mining and social development: refocusing community investment using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resour. Policy 33 (2008), 39–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2008.01.002. Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M., Hogg, M.A., 2008. Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 23–48, http://dx.doi. org/10.1348/014466607  206792. Giurco, D., Cooper, C., 2012. Mining and sustainability: asking the right questions. Miner. Eng. 29, 3–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.01.006. Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A., Thornton, D., 2004. Social licence and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc. Inquiry 29, 307–342, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00338.x. Hill, G.W., 1982. Group versus individual performance: Are Nþ 1 heads better than one? Psychol. Bull. 91, 517–539. Hilson, G., 2002. An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy 19, 65–73. Hogg, M.A., 2000. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social identity processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11, 223–255, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000040. Hogg, M.A., Abrams, D., 1988. Social Identifications. Routledge, London. Hogg, M.A., Abrams, D., 1999. Social identity and social cognition: historical background and current trends. In: Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. (Eds.), Social Identity and Social Cognition. Blackwell Publishers Inc., Oxford, pp. 1–25. Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability and Business for Social Responsibility. (2004). Business and Economic Development: Mining Sector Report. Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (AccountAbility) and Business for Social Responsiblity (BSR). Ivanova, G., Rolfe, J., 2011. Assessing development options in mining communities using stated preference techniques. Resour. Policy 36, 255–264, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.03.001. Jenkins, H., Yakovleva, N., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. J. Cleaner Prod. 14, 271–284. Johns, S.M., 2008. Exploring the Social Dimensions of an Expansion to the Seafloor Exploration and Mining Industry in Australia: Australian Context Review. CSIRO, Sydney. Joyce, S., Thomson, I., 2000. Earning a social licence to operate: social acceptability and resource development in Latin America. Can. Min. Metall. Bull 93, 49. Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., 2013. Community relations and mining: core to business but not “core business”. Resour. Policy 38, 523–531. Lakoff, G., 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. San Val, California. Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2007. An array of qualitative data analysis tools: a call for qualitative data analysis triangulation. Sch. Psychol. Q 22, 557–584, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557. Littleboy, A., Boughen, N., 2007. Exploring the Social Dimensions of an Expansion to the Seafloor Exploration and Mining Industry in Australia: Synthesis Report. CSIRO, Sydney. Mason, C., Paxton, G., Parr, J., Boughen, N., 2010. Charting the territory: exploring stakeholder reactions to the prospect of seafloor exploration and mining in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Australia. Mar. Policy 34, 1374–1380, marpol.2010.06.012. McGarty, C., 1999. Categorization in Social Psychology. Sage Publications, London, UK. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mutti, D., Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust, D., Marco, M.H.D., 2012. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry; perspectives from stakeholder groups in Argentina. Resour. Policy 37, 212–222. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2013. Social licence and mining: a critical perspective. Resour. Policy 38, 29–35. Parsons, R., Lacey, J. (2012). Maintaining discursive legitimacy of a contested practice: how the Australian minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate. In: Paper Presented at the Fifth Australasian Caucus of the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Melbourne, AU. Petkova, V., Lockie, S., Rolfe, J., Ivanova, G., 2009. Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies. Rural Sociol 19, 211–228. Prno, J., 2013. An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resour. Policy 38, 577–590, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.09.010. Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2012. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour. Policy 37, 346–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002. Rabinovich, A., Morton, T.A., Postmes, T., Verplanken, B., 2012. Collective self and individual choice: the effects of inter-group comparative context on environmental values and behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 561–569, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02022.x. Ray, J.R., 1975. A human factor in strip mining: trade-offs between attitudes and opinions toward the industry in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci 75, 314–320. Ray, J.R., 1979. Changes in the stability characteristics of Ohioans attitudes toward strip mining, 1970–75. Ohio J. Sci 79, 164–169. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., Flament, C., 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1, 149–178. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. NelsonHall, Chicago, pp. 7–24. Toke, D., 2005. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 33, 1527–1539, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.009. Turner, J.C., 1975. Social comparison and social identity: some prospects for intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 5, 5–34. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., Wetherell, M.S., 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Blackwell, New York. Walton, M.L., 2012. A case study investigating the influence of deliberative discussion on environmental preferences. Soc. Nat. Resour. Int. J 26 (3), 303–324, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.689932.