At the invitation of Accenture's Global Mining Executive Council in London, I recently had a discussion with those at the head of some of the world's largest mining companies. Our topic of conversation was the difficult relationship between the mining industry and social media, a somewhat forced relationship brought about by increased stakeholder pressure through these channels. Due to the very real and growing threat that such pressure poses to mining projects, social media is now an unavoidable terrain in which the industry must engage to defend the value and benefits of its projects to the public.
Around the world, mobilization against mining projects is on the rise. In mining areas where online media are widely used, such as North America, Australia/New Zealand, and Europe, this mobilization achieves an impressive scale when amplified through social networks. Having studied the movements opposing the Rosia Montana project in Romania and those around the Skouries region in Greece, I mapped social media buzz generated by opponents equivalent to volumes otherwise seen only around celebrity scoops or major disasters. In countries like India, where smartphone adoption rates are exploding, we can soon expect to see even larger volumes. Even in areas like remote South America and Africa, where text messages and email are the only services currently within reach, local protest movements are able to bring their cause to global NGOs, who can propel accounts and calls to action through their massive online networks.
The synergy online media gives to protest movements has everything to do with augmented networks. These networks confer the ability to share and compare information on global mining projects and their impacts, to learn from the successes of other opposing groups and finally, to amplify local actions by posting photos, videos and eyewitness accounts to global audiences.
The intensity of all this opposition has caught the mining industry off guard and it is understandable that their first reactions have not been successful for several reasons. For one thing, most mining decision makers have an engineering background and are therefore used to defending their projects on a purely rational level, with facts on risk factors and economic benefits. Meanwhile, the public and advocates are communicating on an emotional level (a more compelling level) about fears and dangers the projects pose to the public's well being. Second, mining companies are often ill-advised by PR companies, who honestly have no idea how to successfully engage with opponents. Thus counseled, mining companies choose to remain quiet for much too long or worse, attack opponents publicly and engage in defensive debunking. All of this adds fuel to the fire as it does not acknowledge the public's basic right to have concerns and expectations.
There is, of course, a right way to go about it if mining companies wish to enter the conversation initiated by advocates and make some headway. In a nutshell, successful approaches include letting stakeholders lead the discussion with their questions and concerns, acknowledging and expressing appreciation for such concerns and finally, addressing concerns with answers that are as concrete as possible. Sometimes, the answers might not be there right away, but a promise to research and follow up is an appreciated courtesy. Simply opening up, listening and being humble does wonders to unlock polarized standoffs!
Getting good at online dialogue requires new structures and methodologies and implies breaking many old habits. It's enough to make some in the industy believe that mining companies will never pull this off successfully. Luckily, there are several live examples in the resource and mining sector, with proven ROI, that demonstrate the possibility of productive exchange between industry and stakeholders and show that it is well worth the effort!
For a closer look at these case studies, and a full view of my Accenture GMEC presentation, click here.