3
Then, the proposed model carries a new option of
understanding the business of mining obtained as the ESG
criterion that mediates between the university and the
mining industry, especially the management of knowledge
from one generation to another. This allows for a better
understanding of the performance of the mining industry
in a time of transition from little technological use to the
wide variety of alternative technologies used in mining.
Likewise, supported by academic constructs, that would
serve as foundations for appropriate operational manage-
ment in the mining industry. The proposal model is a quali-
tative approach to research. This approach contributes to a
new alternative that replaces the traditional single criterion.
CONCLUSIONS
The present research work assists as a new input in knowl-
edge management of in the extractivismo. The ESG criteria
appear as a factor that improves business performance. The
relationship among Academy, Industry, and community are
feasible and contributes the harmony humanity-nature.
The ESG criterion appears after the design of tradi-
tional business models, so its definition and application are
summited to rapid adaptation into the industry. It demands
new profile of mining engineering for a better society and
conflict-free mining in the future.
REFERENCES
Bason, C., &Austin, R. D. (2019). The right way to lead
design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 97(2),
82–91.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business
review, 86(6), 84.
Carson, R. (2009). Silent spring. 1962.
Gil, C. G. (2018). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
(ODS): una revisión crítica. Papeles de relaciones eco-
sociales y cambio global, 140(1), 107–118.
Gonen, E., Tim Brown (2020). Change by design:
how design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation (2009). Markets, Globalization &
Development Review, 4(2).
Javier, M. (2019). Mining in the future: Mind matters.
Javier, M. (2018). Mining in the future: Academic mining
2050.
Kemp, D., &Owen, J. R. (2020). Corporate affairs and
the conquest of social performance in mining. The
Extractive Industries and Society, 7(3), 835–837.
Lozano, R. (2020). Analysing the use of tools, initia-
tives, and approaches to promote sustainability in
corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 27(2), 982–998.
Ong, T., &Djajadikerta, H. G. (2020). Corporate gov-
ernance and sustainability reporting in the Australian
resources industry: An empirical analysis. Social
Responsibility Journal, 16(1), 1–14.
Rau, P. R., &Yu, T. (2023). A survey on ESG: inves-
tors, institutions and firms. China Finance Review
International, (ahead-of-print).
Santamaria, R., Paolone, F., Cucari, N., &Dezi, L.
(2021). Non‐financial strategy disclosure and envi-
ronmental, social and governance score: Insight from
a configurational approach. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(4), 1993–2007.
Zu Ermgassen, S. O., Howard, M., Bennun, L., Addison,
P. F., Bull, J. W., Loveridge, R., &Starkey, M. (2022).
Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent
with delivering ‘nature-positive’outcomes? A review
of ‘nature-positive’definitions, company progress and
challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134798.
Then, the proposed model carries a new option of
understanding the business of mining obtained as the ESG
criterion that mediates between the university and the
mining industry, especially the management of knowledge
from one generation to another. This allows for a better
understanding of the performance of the mining industry
in a time of transition from little technological use to the
wide variety of alternative technologies used in mining.
Likewise, supported by academic constructs, that would
serve as foundations for appropriate operational manage-
ment in the mining industry. The proposal model is a quali-
tative approach to research. This approach contributes to a
new alternative that replaces the traditional single criterion.
CONCLUSIONS
The present research work assists as a new input in knowl-
edge management of in the extractivismo. The ESG criteria
appear as a factor that improves business performance. The
relationship among Academy, Industry, and community are
feasible and contributes the harmony humanity-nature.
The ESG criterion appears after the design of tradi-
tional business models, so its definition and application are
summited to rapid adaptation into the industry. It demands
new profile of mining engineering for a better society and
conflict-free mining in the future.
REFERENCES
Bason, C., &Austin, R. D. (2019). The right way to lead
design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 97(2),
82–91.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business
review, 86(6), 84.
Carson, R. (2009). Silent spring. 1962.
Gil, C. G. (2018). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
(ODS): una revisión crítica. Papeles de relaciones eco-
sociales y cambio global, 140(1), 107–118.
Gonen, E., Tim Brown (2020). Change by design:
how design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation (2009). Markets, Globalization &
Development Review, 4(2).
Javier, M. (2019). Mining in the future: Mind matters.
Javier, M. (2018). Mining in the future: Academic mining
2050.
Kemp, D., &Owen, J. R. (2020). Corporate affairs and
the conquest of social performance in mining. The
Extractive Industries and Society, 7(3), 835–837.
Lozano, R. (2020). Analysing the use of tools, initia-
tives, and approaches to promote sustainability in
corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 27(2), 982–998.
Ong, T., &Djajadikerta, H. G. (2020). Corporate gov-
ernance and sustainability reporting in the Australian
resources industry: An empirical analysis. Social
Responsibility Journal, 16(1), 1–14.
Rau, P. R., &Yu, T. (2023). A survey on ESG: inves-
tors, institutions and firms. China Finance Review
International, (ahead-of-print).
Santamaria, R., Paolone, F., Cucari, N., &Dezi, L.
(2021). Non‐financial strategy disclosure and envi-
ronmental, social and governance score: Insight from
a configurational approach. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(4), 1993–2007.
Zu Ermgassen, S. O., Howard, M., Bennun, L., Addison,
P. F., Bull, J. W., Loveridge, R., &Starkey, M. (2022).
Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent
with delivering ‘nature-positive’outcomes? A review
of ‘nature-positive’definitions, company progress and
challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134798.