 An essay on mining and the moral obligation not to harm othersDavid Brereton, Sharon Flynn and Deanna Kemp Resources Policy, 2024, vol. 98, issue C Abstract: The terms ‘harm’ and ‘harm avoidance’ are increasingly being utilised in the global mining industry, particularly in relation to occupational health and safety. However, avoidance of harm has not been given the same priority when it comes to dealing with the social impacts of mining. Rather, industry discourse has focused more on ‘mitigating adverse impacts’ (which is a broader concept than ‘harm avoidance’) and leveraging positive outcomes or ‘shared value’ for local communities. Companies should be expected to contribute to local level development, but we argue that avoidance of harm to people must always be the foremost social goal. In this article, we offer a working definition of harm, and make the case for viewing harm avoidance as a moral obligation. We also challenge the proposition that, in the case of mining, it may sometimes be acceptable to expose some communities and groups to harm to derive a broader societal benefit. The evidence that people can be harmed by mining is indisputable. We argue that a priority for the global mining industry should be to ensure that practices that cause harm are no longer tolerated or considered an unavoidable cost of development. Date: 2024 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:98:y:2024:i:c:s0301420724006925 DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105325 Access Statistics for this article Resources Policy is currently edited by R. G. Eggert More articles in Resources Policy from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.