11
an advantage in altering practices and implementing new
regulations to achieve compliance.
Yet, companies with new or developing copper projects
were more resilient in the execution of ESG in their min-
ing operations and exploration. These companies were able
to establish a concrete foundation from the initial stage
which prevented the altering of rooted operational behav-
iors or practices. Companies with new copper projects
were more effective in communicating with communities
and securing a positive relationship through the early for-
mation of a community engagement plan. They were able
to recognize and implement community expectations into
their mine design and planning to create a sustainable and
community-friendly operation.
Despite all efforts used to create and implement an
ESG framework, companies are facing pressure from stake-
holders and the government to eliminate and engineer safer
mining practices. According to industry professionals, a
concise and specific ESG framework is needed in the min-
ing industry to create structure and organization because
companies are uncertain of what they need to do at a base-
line level. Companies are relying on consultants, organiza-
tions, and their own knowledge to determine whether their
monitoring and risk-solving are being done properly. It is
difficult to navigate and follow rules that provide a lot of
gray areas and require the guidance of others since inter-
pretation can lead to variations on what companies believe
they need to do and their actions.
Overall, the interviewees believe that stricter ESG is
necessary to help companies understand what is expected
of them and to know all the responsibilities they have while
not seeming too concerned about the effect on copper
production. Although ESG will create an expensive short-
term cost, it will provide a long-term disciplined solution
to mining minerals while considering prevalent and future
environmental, social, and governance issues.
CURRENT ESG RISK ANALYSIS AND
MANAGEMENT
In order to ensure the effectiveness of an ESG framework, a
diverse set of factors must be developed and function inter-
dependently. Two important factors to consider in order to
ensure ESG compliance are competent and well-rounded
risk analysis and management systems. The risk manage-
ment program serves as a five-step process that allows com-
panies to prepare and plan for identified project risks and
take preventative actions in order to mitigate them. The
risk management system is made up of the following stages:
Identification
Detecting, describing, and recognizing potential project
risks, in each of the copper supply chain stages, which can
negatively affect the company’s ability to operate efficiently,
safely, and economically. The risks identified can be associ-
ated with the following damages:
• Inadequate working conditions
• Worker’s exposure to contaminants, chemicals, and
fatal tasks
• Irreversible water, soil, and land impacts
• Over-emissions of GHG
• Money, time, and resource loss
• Low copper recovery
• Low income
• Negative reputation
• Mine or ground failure
• Exploitation of human rights
• Not meeting production targets, etc.
Assessment
Estimating and determining the potential hazards or con-
sequences associated with the occurrence of the identified
risk. In this stage, risk analysis models are used to evaluate
the likelihood of a risk occurring and the negative ramifi-
cations that will follow. A risk analysis model requires the
assigning of the probability of occurrence [range: 1 (rare)
to 5 (definitely)] and consequence [range: 1 (insignificant)
to 5 (severe)] such that the two scores will intersect in
the center and estimate the urgency and grade of the risk
[range: 1 (very low to 25 (extreme)]. The assigning of scores
is based on the risk’s exposure and effect on workers, the
company and its components, stakeholders, nearby com-
munities, etc.
Mitigation
Planning and developing detailed processes or solutions to
reduce or prevent the project risk from worsening or occur-
ring. With the help of the information collected in the
previous two steps, multiple plans are formulated with the
help of a diverse team to determine the best possible miti-
gation solution. This “best plan” is then put into action.
Monitoring
Observing, reviewing, and altering risk mitigation solu-
tions to ensure the maximum minimization of the risk and
its consequences. This step deals with the collection of real-
time data and results from the implemented solution to
determine its effectiveness and is often completed with the
help of software, sampling, surveying, etc.
an advantage in altering practices and implementing new
regulations to achieve compliance.
Yet, companies with new or developing copper projects
were more resilient in the execution of ESG in their min-
ing operations and exploration. These companies were able
to establish a concrete foundation from the initial stage
which prevented the altering of rooted operational behav-
iors or practices. Companies with new copper projects
were more effective in communicating with communities
and securing a positive relationship through the early for-
mation of a community engagement plan. They were able
to recognize and implement community expectations into
their mine design and planning to create a sustainable and
community-friendly operation.
Despite all efforts used to create and implement an
ESG framework, companies are facing pressure from stake-
holders and the government to eliminate and engineer safer
mining practices. According to industry professionals, a
concise and specific ESG framework is needed in the min-
ing industry to create structure and organization because
companies are uncertain of what they need to do at a base-
line level. Companies are relying on consultants, organiza-
tions, and their own knowledge to determine whether their
monitoring and risk-solving are being done properly. It is
difficult to navigate and follow rules that provide a lot of
gray areas and require the guidance of others since inter-
pretation can lead to variations on what companies believe
they need to do and their actions.
Overall, the interviewees believe that stricter ESG is
necessary to help companies understand what is expected
of them and to know all the responsibilities they have while
not seeming too concerned about the effect on copper
production. Although ESG will create an expensive short-
term cost, it will provide a long-term disciplined solution
to mining minerals while considering prevalent and future
environmental, social, and governance issues.
CURRENT ESG RISK ANALYSIS AND
MANAGEMENT
In order to ensure the effectiveness of an ESG framework, a
diverse set of factors must be developed and function inter-
dependently. Two important factors to consider in order to
ensure ESG compliance are competent and well-rounded
risk analysis and management systems. The risk manage-
ment program serves as a five-step process that allows com-
panies to prepare and plan for identified project risks and
take preventative actions in order to mitigate them. The
risk management system is made up of the following stages:
Identification
Detecting, describing, and recognizing potential project
risks, in each of the copper supply chain stages, which can
negatively affect the company’s ability to operate efficiently,
safely, and economically. The risks identified can be associ-
ated with the following damages:
• Inadequate working conditions
• Worker’s exposure to contaminants, chemicals, and
fatal tasks
• Irreversible water, soil, and land impacts
• Over-emissions of GHG
• Money, time, and resource loss
• Low copper recovery
• Low income
• Negative reputation
• Mine or ground failure
• Exploitation of human rights
• Not meeting production targets, etc.
Assessment
Estimating and determining the potential hazards or con-
sequences associated with the occurrence of the identified
risk. In this stage, risk analysis models are used to evaluate
the likelihood of a risk occurring and the negative ramifi-
cations that will follow. A risk analysis model requires the
assigning of the probability of occurrence [range: 1 (rare)
to 5 (definitely)] and consequence [range: 1 (insignificant)
to 5 (severe)] such that the two scores will intersect in
the center and estimate the urgency and grade of the risk
[range: 1 (very low to 25 (extreme)]. The assigning of scores
is based on the risk’s exposure and effect on workers, the
company and its components, stakeholders, nearby com-
munities, etc.
Mitigation
Planning and developing detailed processes or solutions to
reduce or prevent the project risk from worsening or occur-
ring. With the help of the information collected in the
previous two steps, multiple plans are formulated with the
help of a diverse team to determine the best possible miti-
gation solution. This “best plan” is then put into action.
Monitoring
Observing, reviewing, and altering risk mitigation solu-
tions to ensure the maximum minimization of the risk and
its consequences. This step deals with the collection of real-
time data and results from the implemented solution to
determine its effectiveness and is often completed with the
help of software, sampling, surveying, etc.