8th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference

The global mining sector operates in a context of historical, recurring, and unresolved community-level grievances. Evidence suggests this ‘grievance landscape’ is expanding, with more allegations and claims making their way into the public domain. While community-level grievances in mining have become more visible, little is known about how companies handle these within the organisation. Over the last few decades, specific high-profile incidents and issues have been handled by mining companies through inquiry processes with a deliberate public interface. This type of company-initiated, public-facing inquiry process – which I refer to as “company-commissioned public inquiries” (CPIs) – is extremely rare. The circumstances that push some companies to embark on a public-facing process are unknown. Also unknown are the circumstances preventing companies from using this approach in similar cases. My thesis presents one substantial research question and three sub questions:

1. Under what circumstances do private mining companies commission public inquiries?

a. What are the pre-cursor conditions for commissioning these inquiries?

b. What organisational systems and processes enable the commissioning?

c. Do a) and b) deviate from the norm? If so, how?

This is a social science thesis in the nature of exploratory research, employing qualitative methods. The research questions are framed by a collection of sociological concepts such as ‘thresholds’ for going public and ‘deviance’ from normative processes. The research is designed to be executed across four phases: 1) Preparatory research; 2) Identification of cases; 3) Key informant interviews; and 4) Consolidation of findings. Here, I focus on Phase two: Identification of cases. Little is available through research on CPIs as mining companies rarely subject themselves to a public process of inquiry. While the body of knowledge on government inquiries is extensive as a ‘proxy’ literature, the pre-cursors to initiating a public inquiry are not well studied. An analytical set of CPIs in the mining sector was identified to learn as much as possible about the context in which this type of inquiry has occurred in the past. The process of collecting and identifying the set began with existing knowledge and resources within my research team. Next, I conducted an in-depth, exhaustive review of academic literature, global reporting databases, and official records. When a ‘lead’ was identified, such as an incident or grievance, it was cross-referenced with other source materials. Cases were then screened using a broad criteria and sorted using a narrow criteria. The selection process was systematic, with the criteria and case set tested and confirmed by other researchers. Over eighty cases were collected, screened and finally sorted into four groups: Core, secondary, outlying and periphery. Establishing the sub groups was not a linear process. Not only did it require adjusting and deliberating the criteria but testing sociological concepts. A method was established to analyse the core set through a comprehensive read of the inquiry final reports. Information related to pre-cursor conditions, grievances, initiation, and triggers was then coded using the NVivo software. Key themes and gaps identified in the core set are highlighted against the outer sets. This will inform the interviews in Phase three of my research. This thesis will provide new insights into how mining companies approach community-level grievances and why they address some issues in public and others in private.

*Co-winner of the short video competition