The minerals industry, as many other industries, has a wealth of indicators and a thriving 'industry' in their development, measurement and reporting. It is natural for this to occur for a new endeavour. However, perhaps it is time for the community concerned with minerals industry indicators to ask whether we have achieved a certain maturation whereby proliferation of indicators may be replaced by a more disciplined and constrained approach. In many natural and engineered systems, thermodynamics provides well-understood and tested constraints. Indicators that are uninterpretable in this framework are not considered acceptable. This paper provides initial evidence that such a formalism may be possible for mine sustainability. The formalism developed does not claim to have the rigour of thermodynamics. However, it does provide a first step towards formalising selection of indicators on the basis of their true comprehensibility. A set of simple equations is developed that represent the conventional five capitals (actually we use six because we separate renewable and non-renewable natural capital) and how they are linked. This is coded into a simulation model. The base equations are then used to develop a system level indicator of sustainability performance, which is asserted to be a reflection of the mine's reputation. We define a least sustainable state, termed 'maximum revenue mining (MRM)' in the system and define the degree of system sustainability as how far the system is from the MRM. We then introduce a simple mechanism whereby different actors can express differing views on the emphasis for the distance from MRM. Sustainability thereby becomes a non-unique thing that is defined by a distance from MRM and a set of preferences across the capitals.
展开▼
