- LATEST BLOG POST
- echo $post_date ?>
- How to bounce back from the Responsible Mining Foundation grim report with sustainable actions is a response to their statement:…
- Read More
At Riskope we champion the idea that Risk assessment, Social License to Operate (SLO) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are strongly intertwined. It is part of our silo-breaking philosophy. Riskope’s builds risk assessments considering multidimensional consequences. These include “people” consequences, such as loss of quality of life. At the end of the day SLO and CSR are supported by enhanced transparency, clearer vision and distance themselves from a mere PR act, as people will identify more with the prospective realities.
We recently read a very interesting paper on Corporate social responsibility, risk management and development in the mining industry.
The paper states that CSR approaches have inherent limitations. This include, after re-wording to comply with a consistent risk technical glossary:
These limitations hinder proper consideration for those living nearby a mining operations even if CSR activities are a corporate priority.
This second section’s title is very similar to the prior one, but hides a “conceptual revolution”.
A modern risk assessment should deliver corporate management data necessary to support CSR and foster SLO and not vice-versa. Thus the chance of the CSR to be a PR exercise will be significantly reduced. Also the risk assessment will guide the mitigative actions towards protecting both operations and people.
Going back in time, in 2013 (Oboni, F., Oboni, C., Zabolotniuk, S., Can We Stop Misrepresenting Reality to the Public?, CIM 2013, Toronto ) we stated that: “Especially for very large projects, risk assessments generally consider too simplistic consequences and ignore “indirect/life-changing” effects on population and other social aspects that can be grasped in ORE using simplified method and considering the wide uncertainties that surrounds the driving parameters. Among these:
Similarly other recommended consequence models should include:
Then, in a white paper we identified again the need for holistic consequence functions. These consider various types of consequences and their combination. For example, if we consider the Mont Blanc highway tunnel accident, consequences were tragic and complex:
Finally we wrote a paper in 2014 (Oboni,C, Oboni. F, Aspects of Risk Tolerability, Manageable vs. Unmanageable Risks in Relation to Governance and Effective Leadership, International Symposium on Business and Management, Nagoya, Aichi-ken, Japan, April 2014 ) which highlighted that: “A recent decision bearing on a highly debated “perpetuity” environmental rehabilitation required by very large toxic material dumps in Canada (Reviewboard, 2012) defined what a modern risk assessment should include, based on public hearings results. Based on the above it becomes clear that including partial components of the consequences such as:
is a better way which brings credibility and adds transparency to a risk assessment, i.e. a way to reduce public distrust toward risk assessments.”