Understanding stakeholder values in post-mining economies: a literature review

This literature review considers a range of factors regarding the concepts of ‘value’ and ‘values’ (including financial, tangible and  intangible, measurable and non-measurable). The review is the first output from a project that examines ways of thinking about possible  complementarities and trade-offs between values (and systems of values) held by stakeholders. In doing so, the project provides a  foundation for other projects concerned with diverse aspects of transformations in mining economies (e.g. relating to tools to manage  closure and strategic planning processes).This literature review considers a range of factors regarding the concepts of ‘value’ and ‘values’  (including financial, tangible and intangible, measurable and non-measurable). The review is the first output from a project that examines  ways of thinking about possible complementarities and trade-offs between values (and systems of values) held by stakeholders. In doing  so, the project provides a foundation for other projects concerned with diverse aspects of transformations in mining economies (e.g.  relating to tools to manage closure and strategic planning processes).

The literature review provides a synthesis of key insights into the rationale for considering values in the transition to post-mining land uses  in section 2. The different dimensions of value differences are summarised in section 3, including the degree to which values change over  time and space. Following on from this, a synthesis of the different ways of negotiating differences in values is provided in section 4.  Together these sections help to understand values from different perspectives as well as possible ways to achieve ‘win-wins’ for different  systems of values.

This literature review takes a broad approach to what we mean by ‘values’, rather than a narrow emphasis on ‘financial value’ or ‘financial  worth’. One of the underlying rationales for this review was the need to shift post-mining land use evaluation from a focus on singular  ‘value’ to plural ‘values’. While both are crucially important to the resources sector, the latter takes a wider and more inclusive approach.  The singular ‘value’ focuses on those aspects of mining that can be reduced to a single measure, often conceptualised as financial worth  expressed as net present value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), or as a measure of size in weight or volume. These measures of value  have the benefit of being expressed in a single unit which makes them more tractable and easier to communicate. While a singular value  (e.g. expressed as NPV) is important, to focus exclusively on a ‘value as financial worth’ runs the risk of ignoring a wider range of  considerations which speak to things that matter to people (i.e. ‘values’) and potentially missing opportunities for post-mining land uses. 

This wider range of values incorporates a suite of issues which are often less tractable and more difficult to represent in balance sheets or  quarterly reports. The implication of this tendency is that these broader ‘values’ may receive relatively less attention, despite their  importance in transitions to post-mining economies. These issues are broad but may include externalities related to quality and quantity of  resources such as water, opportunity costs and a range of intangibles such as sense of identity, connection to country, appreciation of  natural wonder and human endeavour. Despite being less tractable, these broader values can be reflected in concepts such as ‘social  licence’ which, from an industry perspective, can lead to disruption to mining activities (Owen, 2016). In extreme situations, failure to come to terms with a wider set of values can lead to conflict. The cost of this conflict has been estimated to be US$20 million per week of  delayed production in NPV terms (Franks et al., 2014). It is important to emphasise that a broader recognition of values is not only about  avoiding costs. It is also about realising opportunities and this is why moving from ‘value’ to ‘values’ is a key consideration in the context of post-mining transitions.