Review Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach Alberto Fonseca a, * , Mary Louise McAllister b , Patricia Fitzpatrick c a Department of Environmental Engineering, School of Mines, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Morro do Cruzeiro, Ouro Preto, MG 35400-000, Brazil b Environment and Resource Studies Department, University of Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada c Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E0, Canada article info Article history: Received 14 August 2012 Received in revised form 29 November 2012 Accepted 29 November 2012 Available online xxx Keywords: Sustainability reporting Global reporting initiative (GRI) Mining sustainability Sustainability assessment Corporate accountability Mining and metals abstract The environmental crisis is giving rise to growing public demand for socially responsible and ecologically viable mining practices. Large mining corporations are responding by advancing the idea of a sustainable mining industry. These responses are accompanied by concerted efforts to advertise a company’s relative progress in this direction through the publication of sustainability reports based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework. Many scholars contest the effectiveness of that framework, arguing that GRI- based reports can mislead decision-makers who are concerned with sustainability, or even camouflage unsustainable practices, particularly at the site level. Few scholars, however, have scratched below the surface of criticism in order to consider how to improve the effectiveness of that framework. This article takes a closer look at this problem by answering the following question: What needs to be changed in mining corporations’ GRI-based frameworks for the purpose of promoting more meaningful and reliable sustainability performance information? This article followed a qualitative methodological approach based on literature reviews and 41 semi-structured interviews. The analysis was guided by an evaluation of the extent to which the predominant GRI-based approach to sustainability reporting meets a number of principles of sustainability assessment and reporting, known as the BellagioSTAMP principles. This paper outlines a number of specific changes that should be promoted in mining corporations’ frame- works if their reports are to provide meaningful and accurate information about sustainability progress. Such changes include a more systematic consideration of site-level performance, scenario building, and legacy effects. Overall, this article corroborates the view that meaningful and reliable standardized disclosures of contributions to sustainability are unlikely to emerge any time soon. The geographical dispersion of mining facilities imposes substantial difficulties to the contextualization of sustainability evaluations. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction: the spread of GRI reporting among mining corporations The global mining industry’s adverse socio-environmental impacts are stimulating the emergence of anti-mining campaigns, movies, and civil society protests and reports throughout the world (Ali, 2003; Cameron, 2009; Earthworks, 2012; FOE, 2002; Greenpeace, 2010; Kocsis, 2004; McAller and McElhinney, 2006; MiningWatch, 2004; PRI, 2010; Rotheroe, 2000; WWF, 2007). The resulting publicity inevitably damages the industry’s reputation. Such reputational problems are often associated with large mining corporations, as these entities have become responsible for more than 80% of the world’s non-fuel mineral production (Ericsson, 2008). Partly in reaction to criticism, large publicly-traded mining companies increasingly promote sustainability initiatives, such as the Global Mining Initiative (GMI). The GMI was first championed in 1998 by nine Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) from giant companies (Danielson, 2006). One of the main outcomes of the GMI was the establishment of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) in 2001. The ICMM is a global industry organization that represents many of the world’s largest mining companies in sustainability-related issues. Its main objective is to serve as an agent for change on issues relating to mining and sustainability. ICMM’s programs are implemented by 22 of the world’s largest mining companies and promoted by 34 mining and commodity associations (ICMM, 2012). The Sustainable Development Frame- work (SDF) is one of the Council’s most relevant programs; it * Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ55 31 35591496. E-mail address: albertof@em.ufop.br (A. Fonseca). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e14 Please cite this article in press as: Fonseca, A., et al., Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach, Journal of Cleaner Production (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050