The construction and assessment of social risk: perspectives from Australian coal mining project teams

Abstract

The term ‘social risk’ is gaining traction in coal industry discourse. It is used in policy documents and standards, and is incorporated into project risk assessment workshops. Coal mining can dramatically change the environmental and social landscape. There is a substantial literature about the adverse social risks and impacts of large-scale mining projects, with some scholars describing the activity as one of the most socially disruptive interventions possible. In Australia, there is a growing body of work on the social impacts of coal mining; however, little research has examined how mining proponents make risk decisions when evaluating the potential impacts of these projects. This thesis examines how social risk is constructed and assessed by team members of Australian coal mining projects. A risk governance framework, based on the principles of multidisciplinarity, inclusiveness and multidimensionality, provides the basis of analysis.Two data generation methods are employed: an exploratory review and case research. The exploratory review provides a broad overview of the construction and assessment of social risk across the Australian coal industry, while the case research enables a deeper evaluation of a specific project and for research participants’ experiences of the same project to be compared.The research finds that there is no consensus on the meaning of social risk among research participants; however, constructions of social risk can be categorised according to who or what is at risk; that is, risk to people, risk to project, or risk to both people and project. ‘Dual orientation of social risk’ is coined to describe risk to people and project. When the priority social risks of external actors conflict with the proponent’s business imperatives, risk to project prevails. The research also finds that professional background is not a reliable indicator of how project team members orient their constructions of social risk; conceptualisations of social risk tend to be place-based rather than distributed; and that discussions of social risk focus on physical rather than non-physical risks.The way team members of Australian coal mining projects assess social risk can be mapped against two models – the mechanistic and integrated models. In the mechanistic model, social risk and social impact assessments are undertaken independently of each other by different groups of assessors. Because the data are not integrated, it is difficult for team members to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the social risks generated by the project and to make risk decisions. This lack of integration can affect the accuracy of the project’s risk profile. An example of integrated social risk assessment practice is evaluated in the case research. The case illustrates that coal mining proponents in Australia can deliver projects that a give a high priority to avoiding or mitigating risks to potentially affected people. The ability of proponents to do so, however, requires a shift in thinking from short-term, narrow self-interest to longer-term, enlightened self-interest, and a willingness to accept responsibility for the social risks generated by their projects.