Interim Dissertation Report

On

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF COAL

MINES OF INDIA

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
By
VIVEK KUMAR
Admission No: 14MT000101

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Dr. BISWAJIT PAUL
( Associate Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES, DHANBAD-826004

ACKNOWELDGEMENTS

The research effort presented in this dissertation was made possible through the contribution
of many persons.
I express my gratitude to Prof A.K. SINGH, Head of Department, Dr S. R. SAMADDER,
Assistant Professor & Course Coordinator, Department of Environment Sciences &
Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, for providing me necessary facilities and
cordial support with encouragement during the project period.
I express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Dr BISWAJIT PAUL, Associate Professor,
Department of Environment Sciences & Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad for
suggesting the topic for research work, close guidance and taking interest in all activities in
this regard. His valuable suggestion and inspiration have encouraged me through the course
of investigation.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to other Professors, Librarian and Lab Attendants
of the Department of Environment Sciences & Engineering for helping in improvement of
my study.
Finally, I am extremely grateful to my parents, siblings, classmates and research scholars for
their help and support for carrying out the study.

Date:
VIVEK KUMAR
Place:

Department of Environmental Science & Engineering

Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad
(Declared as Deemed to be University U/S 3 of the UGC Act, 1956
Vide Notification No.F.11-4/67-U3, dated 18.9.1967, of Govt. of India)
Dated: 09.11.2015

C E R T I FI C AT E
This is to certify that the interim dissertation entitled Sustainable Development of Coal
Mines of India is being submitted to Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad by Mr. Vivek
Kumar (Admission No.: 14MT000101) in partial fulfilment of his Master of Technology
degree in Environmental Science and Engineering of the same institution incorporates the
result of his own work, carried out under my supervision and guidance. This dissertation has
not been submitted for any other degree, elsewhere to the best of my knowledge.

Prof. A.K. SINGH

Professor & Head

Dr. BISWAJIT PAUL

Associate Professor
(Guide)

D E C LAR AT I O N
3

I Vivek Kumar student of M.Tech, Environmental Science and Engineering III Semester
hereby declare that the project entitled Sustainable Development of Coal Mines Of India
done under the guidance of Dr. Biswajit Paul, Associate Professor, Department of
Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad is submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of MASTER OF
TECHNOLOGY in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING.

..........................................
Vivek Kumar
(14MT000101)

CONTENT
Page No.

1. Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction of sustainable development..7
1.2 Indias current coal scenario..8
1.3 Sustainable development of coal mining..11
Objectives of study...12
2. Chapter 2: LITREATURE REVIEW
2.0 General
2.1 Sustainable development and its significance......14
2.2 Emerging standards of sustainability reporting..20
3. Chapter3: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK AND
GRI
3.1 Sustainable development framework..23
3.2 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)...........24
3.3 The GRI approach to assessing and reporting sustainability...26
4. Chapter 4: FUTURE WORK32
5. Chapter 5: CONCLUSION....35
6. REFERENCES.......37

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction of sustainable development

The publication of Our Common Future[1] in 1987 gave the most commonly used definition
of sustainable development as that which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This report
prompted numerous actions on both international and national levels, which called on
governments, local authorities, businesses and consumers to define and adopt strategies for
sustainable development. One of the most conspicuous of these activities, instigated as a
direct consequence of the emergence of the concept of sustainable development, was the
Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The Summit, attended by 120 world
leaders and representatives from 150 countries, adopted a comprehensive action plan, known
as Agenda 21[2], for the pursuit of sustainable development.
In response to Agenda 21, many governments and organizations started developing their own
plans of action and setting out strategies for sustainable development. Many of these
concentrate on sustainable development of industry. For instance, in its Declaration on the
`Role of Technology in Environmentally Sustainable Development signed by fourteen
countries world-wide, the Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
points out that achieving sustainable economic development will require changes in industrial
processes, in the type and amount of resources used and in the products which are
manufactured[3]. In particular, it recommends that industry should seek to balance the
efficiency of its operations with its responsibilities for socially compatible environmental
actions. The latter also underpins the UK Strategy for Sustainable Development[ 4] which
encourages industry to take a proactive approach to environmental issues and to identify
more sustainable practices for the future.
Although there is still much confusion and conflict about the exact meaning of sustainable
development, many agree that sustainable development is about satisfying social,
environmental and economic goals. This model implies both spatial and temporal dimensions
as these three goals must be met locally and globally for both present and future generations.
While this concept is generally accepted and relatively easy to comprehend, the difficulties
arise in trying to apply the principles of sustainable development in practice. One of the
difficulties is the need to measure the `level of sustainability of different sections of society,
i.e. local and national governments, industry, local communities and individuals, to determine
which directions of change are towards sustainability. Hence, as endorsed in Chapter 40 of
Agenda 212, it is necessary to develop appropriate indicators of sustainable development
7

that will enable this assessment. Thus far, a number of different approaches have been
proposed to define the indicators for different parts of the community, including industry [5-7].
However, there is still no standardized methodology with a generic set of indicators to enable
a consistent comparison and identification of more sustainable options.

1.2 Indias current coal scenario

Globally, coal resources have been estimated at over 861 billion tonnes. While India accounts
for 286 billion tonne of coal resources (as on 31 March 2011), other countries with major
chunk of resources are USA, China, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa and Mozambique.
Coal meets around 30.3% of the global primary energy needs and generates 42% of the
worlds electricity. In 2011, coal was one of the fastest growing forms of energy after
renewable sources and its share in the global primary energy consumption increased to
30.3%-highest since 1969.
Coal production in the Asia Pacific region has grown tremendously and accounts for over
67% of the total production globally (2011) as compared to about 27% in 1981 (in terms of
energy equivalent).

(Figure 1)
Last year, around 6.1 billion tonne of hard coal and 1 billion tonne of brown coal were used
worldwide. Since 2000, the global consumption of coal has grown faster than any other fuel.

Currently, the five largest coal users are China, USA, India, Russia and Germany. They
account for 77% of the total global use.
India has the fifth largest coal reserves in the world. Of the total reserves, nearly 88% are
non-coking coal reserves, while tertiary coals reserves account for a meagre 0.5 % and the
balance is coking coal. The Indian coal is characterised by its high ash content (45%) and low
sulphur content. The power sector is the largest consumer of coal followed by the iron and
steel and cement segments.

(Figure 2)
Coal deposits are mainly confined to eastern and south central parts of the country. The states
of Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra account for more than 99% of the total coal reserves in the country. The State of

Jharkhand had the maximum share (26.81%) in the overall reserves of coal in the country as
on 31st March 2014 followed by the State of Odisha (24.94%).

Estimated Reserves of Coal as on 31.03.2014

11%

Proved
42%

Indicated
Inferred

47%

(Figure3; Source: Energy Statistics Report, 2015 by Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation)
The countrys coal production has increased from~431 MT in 2006-07 to ~554 MT in 201112 (an increase of 28.5%). On the other hand, the demand for coal has grown at a CAGR of
more than 7% in the last decade and has reached around 600 MT. The India Energy Book,
2012 pegs the countrys total demand-supply gap (including coking coal) at about 98MT. Out
of this, India imports about 85 million tonne of coal.

10

(Figure 4)

1.3 Sustainable development in coal mining

The mining industry is a major force in the world economy, occupying a primary position at
the start of the resource supply chain. However, its role in contributing to the national
economies of different countries varies greatly and is neither well documented nor well
understood.
The main areas of minings large, direct economic benefits in lowest and middle income
countries are shown in figure below

11

(Figure 5)
Coal mining is a critical contributor to many economies. Coal directly provides more than
seven million jobs worldwide and supports many more millions. Coal production is the key
economic activity in many communities. In 2010 the coal industry invested more than US$7
billion in capital expenditures in developing countries [8].
In India, coal mining plays a significant role in social and economic development of the
county. India has one of the largest coal reserves in the world. As on April 1, 2012, it was
found that India had 293.5 billion metric tons (323.5 billion short tons) of the resource[9].
Coal production was 532.69 million metric tons (587.19 million short tons) in 2010-11. The

12

production of lignite was 37.73 million metric tons (41.59 million short tons) in 2010-11. In
2011, India was ranked 3rd in world coal production [9]. The energy derived from coal in India
is about twice that of energy derived from oil, whereas worldwide, energy derived from coal
is about 30% less than energy derived from oil.
Indias coal demand is expected to increase multifold within the next five to 10 years, due to
the completion of ongoing power projects, and demand from metallurgical and other
industries. This increase in demand is increasing the production of coal, degrading the coal
grade, affecting the social and environmental parameters adversely and there is significant
increase in open cast mining which in turn add on the amount of over burden produced.
Although the Indian government has imposed many rules and norms to be followed by the
mining companies to ensure the sustainable development. But it can be attained truly by
changing the views and perspective of society and industrialist.

1.4 Objectives of study

1. Studying all the parameters which are affecting the environmental and socioeconomic
issues related to the coal mines.
2. Identifying the key parameters (sustainable indicators) and their importance in
affecting the issues related to coal mines.
3. Studying the effect of environmental parameter and its reporting.
4. Preparing significant plans based on the interpretation of the result for the sustainable
development of coal mining industries.

13

CHAPTER-2

LITREATURE REVIEW

14

2.0 General
This chapter presents the important findings regarding the objectives of the study. To present
these findings in a clear and understandable manner this chapter will focus on Sustainability
Reporting, sustainable development, its importance in mining areas and scenario of
sustainability as per GRI Guidelines.

2.1 Sustainable Development and its significance

Although the origins of Sustainable Development (SD) can be traced to the seventies, is in
the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (WCED or Brundtland
Commission)[1] that the term is coined and also defined as development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (Le Blanc, D., et al. 2012:1)[10]. One of the defining moments for SD was the UNCED,
known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 with the agreement by member
States to launch a process to develop a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) that
could be a useful tool for pursuing focused and coherent action on sustainable development
(United Nations 2012:15[11]; Le Blanc, D., et al. 2012:17[10]).
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is the cornerstone of Sustainable
Development, a set of 27 principles promoted concepts such as the centrality of human
beings to the concerns of sustainable development (Principle 1); the primacy of poverty
eradication (Principle 5); the importance of the environment for current and future
generations and its equal footing with development (Principles 3 and 4); the special
consideration given to developing countries (Principle 6); the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities (CBDR, Principle 7). It also enshrined the two critical
economic principles of polluter pays (Principle 16) and the precautionary approach (Principle
15). It introduced principles relating to participation and the importance of specific groups for
sustainable development (Principles 10, 20, 21, 22) (Le Blanc, D., et al. 2012:1)[10].
Twenty years later was celebrated the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20), held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, was the agreement by member
States to launch a process to develop a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) that
could be a useful tool for pursuing focused and coherent action on sustainable development.
Other frameworks like the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a clear demonstration
that world leaders can come together to address the major challenges of our time not only
15

war and financial crisis, but also poverty (UNRISD 2010:3[12]; Le Blanc, D., et al.
2012:16[10]).
A difference between the MDGs and the SDGs is the degree of agreement that exists among
countries on the broad underlying objectives, as well between the contexts of the MDGs and
the SDGs is the prevalence of collective action problems at the heart of sustainable
development, and the frequent failure of countries at solving those problems (Le Blanc, D., et
al. 2012:17-20) [10].
High-level Panel on Global Sustainability of UN in 2012, establish the most uniform and
consistent review of principles related with any framework related with SD:

It should be universal in character, covering challenges to all countries rather than just

developing nations.
It should express a broadly agreed global strategy for sustainable development.
It should incorporate a range of key areas that were not fully covered in the MDGs
It should be comprehensive, reflecting three dimensions of SD
It should incorporate near-term benchmarks while being long-term in scope, looking

ahead to a deadline of perhaps 2030.

It should engage all stakeholders in the implementation and mobilization of resources
It should provide scope for the review of these goals in view of evolving scientific
evidence.

In the other hand, during the present research the task to identify a set of measurable
indicators was difficult. Because indicators are elaborated starting from the dimensions of
sustainable development I found out that there is no uniform criterion among organizations of
the number and types of dimensions.
In Agenda 21, article 8.6 states that countries could develop systems for monitoring and
evaluation of progress towards achieving sustainable development by adopting indicators that
measure changes across economic, social and environmental dimensions (United Nations
1992:Art. 8.6)[13], ironically in further documents UN considers institucionality like a fourth
dimension (United Nations 2007:39-40)[14].
UNESCO considers three dimensions of sustainable development named before and also
political dimension (democracy, politics, decision making).
Jon Hawkes in his book The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture's essential role in public
planning, contributes with Cultural dimension for SD, states if a societys culture
16

disintegrates, so will everything else. Cultural action is required in order to lay the
groundwork for a sustainable future.
A review of literature on sustainability suggests that sustainability can be described in terms
of social, economic and environmental states that are required in order for overall
sustainability to be achieved. The World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of
Implementation provides range of sustainable development objectives that should be aimed in
order to achieve sustainability.
Environmental Sustainable Development Objectives:

Water: Ensure that development manages extraction, consumption and disposal of

water in order not to adversely affect the biophysical environment.

Resource extraction and processing: Ensure that development minimizes the use of

support of environmentally damaging resource extraction and processing practices.

Energy: Ensure that development manages the extraction and consumption of

resources in order not to adversely affect natural systems (Gibbert, 2005)[15].

Waste and pollution: Ensure that development manages the production of waste to

ensure that this does not cause environmental damage

Resource management: Ensure that development supports the management of the

biophysical environment.
Size, productivity and biodiversity: Ensure that development conserves or increased
the size, biodiversity and productivity of the biophysical environment.

Economic Sustainable Development Objectives:

An enabling environment: Develop an enabling environment for sustainable

development including the development of transparent, equitable, supportive policies,

processes and forward planning.

Small-scale, local and diverse economies: Ensure that development supports

development of small-scale, local and diverse economies, (Gibbert, 2005)[15].

Employment and self-employment: Ensure that development supports increased
access to employment and supports self-employment and the development of small

enterprises.
Efficiency and effectiveness: Ensure that development (including technology
specified) is designed and managed to be highly efficient and effective, achieving

high productivity level with few resources and limited waste and pollution.
Indigenous knowledge and technology: Ensure that development takes into account
and draws on, where appropriate, indigenous knowledge and technology.
17

Sustainable accounting: Ensure that development is based on a scientific approach

that takes in to account, and is formed by, social, environmental and economic
impacts.

Social Sustainable Development Objectives:

Access: Ensures that development supports increased access to land, adequate shelter,
finance, information, public service, technology and communications where this is

needed.
Education: Ensure that development improves levels of education and awareness,

including awareness of sustainable development.

Inclusive: Ensure that development processes, and benefits, are inclusive.
Health, Safety and Security: Ensure that development considers human rights and

supports improved health, safety and security.

Participation: Ensure that development supports interaction, partnerships and involves
and is influenced by the people that it affects.

Today, a lot of industries, in order to support sustainable development need some extensive
reforms, especially with aim to stay/become competitive. Mining industry for itself is facing
a lot of challenges on the road towards sustainability, which can be divided, as follows:
Environmental challenges:

Erosion, landslides, soil instability,

Remediation of old sites,
Storage of different waste types,
Mine waste waters,
Chemical safety at operations,
Use of ozone depleting substances,
Energy (in)efficiency,
Protection of bio and geodiversity (Portfolio committee meeting presentation,
School of Mining Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, 2000)[16]

Social and economic challenges:

Small scale mining

Poverty and jobs
Training and education
Technological achievements and innovations
Gender issues in mining
Community participation in decision making
Mineral ownership and evaluation
18

Post mine closure

Employment
Resettlement
Corporate responsibility. (Portfolio committee meeting presentation, School of
Mining Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, 2000) [16].

All these challenges need to be mitigated and facilitated effectively, where one way is
through development, translation and application of the principles of Sustainable
Development (SD) into principles of Sustainable Technology Management & Development
(STMD). But first, we can take a look on similar work with regard to the use of sustainable
development principles in the context of mining and we can see that there are still some
initiatives in progress. Of particular note are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards.
Recently there have been developed Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Mining and
Metals Sector Supplement (2009). The guidelines propose the identification of different:
1) Economic Performance Indicators
2) Environmental Performance Indicators
3) Social Performance Indicators:
- Labor Practices and Decent Work;
- Human Rights;
- Society;
- Product Responsibility;

which can serve as an orienteer for decision makers in organization and lead to an improved
refocusing of organization towards sustainability and higher environmental performance. A
special attention is given to report process since some researches show that while there is
evidence of increasing sophistication in the development of social and environmental
disclosure in the biggest world mining companies, there is considerable variation in the
maturity of reporting content and styles of these companies (Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006)
[17]

Another tool that should be also emphasized is the application of ISO 14031 standards. It
brings into focus central aspects related to the construction and use of environmental
19

performance indicators (EPIs) and their application in industrial companies. EPIs may be
used on a macro level by external stakeholders for regulatory, control, influence and risk
minimization purposes. They may also be used on a micro level inside the company for goal
setting, control and surveillance of product performance and performance of manufacturing
and administrative processes, as well as for benchmarking purposes by comparing own
performance vs. competitors' performance or vs. branch average process and product
performance (Thoresen, 1999) [18].
Transitional process brings to industries a lot of challenges, in every sector, and as already
emphasized they have environmental, social and economic aspects. In order to mitigate
efficiently recognized challenges we need to formulate objectives of reform process, since
they specify the directions for improvement. It is essential, in the process of determining
which operative measures we must apply to accomplish reform goals.
Environment: Challenges Reform Objectives Performance Indicators
Society: Challenges Reform Objectives Performance Indicators
Economy: Challenges Reform Objectives Performance Indicators
These approaches can be integrated and serve for development of methodology, where is
implied identification of suitable indicators (on the merit of defined objectives) that
quantitatively and qualitatively can help in estimation of our progress towards sustainability.

2.2 Emerging Standards for Sustainability Reporting

Recent heightened awareness of environmental, social and governance or sustainability issues
among corporate executives, investors, consumers and the general public has spawned
widespread corporate sustainability initiatives and public communication of ESG information
in the marketplace. ESG information typically includes annual sustainability reports as well
as other corporate communications such as press releases, conference presentations,
legislative testimony, social media postings and much more (hereinafter collectively referred
to as ESG statements). As different stakeholder groups begin to make decisions or take
20

action on the basis of ESG statements, companies increasingly face critical questions and
legal risks regarding the scope and content of their sustainability reporting, as well as a need
to ensure companywide consistency and accuracy of their ESG statements.
A range of voluntary and mandatory reporting standards have emerged over the past 15 plus
years to help guide companies ESG reporting to meet different stakeholder needs.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), formed in 1997, has developed a voluntary reporting
standard that promotes broad ESG disclosure. For example, disclosure of over 100 ESG
indicators is required to meet the highest level of GRIs standard. GRIs breadth of disclosure
therefore accommodates the diverse ESG interests of a wide range of stakeholders. GRI has
become the leading standard globally for companies issuing standalone sustainability reports,
likely as a result of the maturity of the framework (over 15 years old) and the flexibility it
provides companies to communicate to a broad base of stakeholders with one reporting
platform. GRI has released its fourth generation of standards, G4, which is required for all
reports issued after Jan. 1, 2015. [19]
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), formed in 2011, has developed an
alternative voluntary reporting approach for U.S. publicly listed companies modelled after the
Financial Accounting Standards Board, which establishes financial reporting standards and
disclosure requirements. The SASB approach encourages companies to identify ESG issues
that are financially material to their business and include discussion of their performance and
management of these issues in their financial reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. With its focus on linking ESG issues and business performance, the SASB
model may be more aligned with the needs of those investors seeking to factor sustainability
performance into their investment decisions. The SASB is in the process of developing
guidance for disclosing material sustainability issues and sustainability metrics at an industry
level, with all industry sector guidance documents expected to be completed in 2015.[20]
A third voluntary reporting movement gaining momentum is integrated reporting. The
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) defines integrated reporting as a process
founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization
about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value
creation.[21] The IIRC released its International Integrated Reporting Framework in

21

December 2013 and over 100 organizations from multinational companies to public sector
bodies participated in a recently concluded pilot program to further develop the framework.
In addition to these voluntary reporting schemes, there are a growing number of mandatory
sustainability reporting requirements for publicly traded companies. The EU, for example,
adopted a directive in September 2014 that will require disclosure of ESG information by
certain large companies.[22] This new legislation, once incorporated into national law (member
states will have two years to comply), will require large listed companies in the EU to report
on their environmental and social impacts, including human rights, anti-corruption and
bribery issues, and diversity of board of directors. Stock exchanges, particularly in emerging
markets, have also implemented initiatives requiring increased disclosure of ESG-related
performance. For example, the Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchanges and the
Johannesburg Stock Exchange have issued guidelines and listing requirements to enhance
disclosure of ESG information.

22

CHAPTER-3

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK AND GRI

23

3.1 Sustainable development framework

The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the global leadership body for the
mining industry, developed its Sustainable Development Framework Principles in 2003 based
on the issues identified in the Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development (MMSD)
project outcome document, Breaking New Grounds: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable
Development and various other voluntary principles and standards developed by other
international and business organizations. Following this example there has been a move in the
government circles in India to develop a framework for sustainable development tailored to
the countrys mining environment.
It was the Planning Commissions High-Power (Hoda) committee which first recommended
setting up of a government working group for the preparation of an Indian Sustainable
Development Framework (SDF) comprising principles, reporting initiatives and good
practice guidelines that can be made applicable to mining operations in India... It also
suggested a separate (administrative) structure, comprising personnel from the central
government mining and environment organizations to be set up to ensure adherence to such
framework, somewhat oblivious of the fact that sustainability framework is closely
connected with sustainability reporting (by mining enterprises) for providing disclosures on
issues of importance to external stakeholders.
In India, the apex mining industry body, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) has,
following the ICMM principles, started the Sustainable Mining Initiative and instituted
annual environmental and social awareness awards in order to increase the awareness of its
members of sustainability issues and improve compliance to the requirements for promoting
sustainable development. The fact that in the recent past the mining sector in India has drawn
considerable criticism for the adoption of unethical practices and flagrant environmental
violations through illegal mining and associated practices shows that the self-regulation
mechanism is not functioning properly and requires serious introspection leading to
correction of course and behaviour on the part of the industry. However, it also does not mean
that proliferating government powers and regulations is the solution as the account of illegal
mining in the states has shown that government agencies were also complicit with mining
enterprises in illegal and unethical operations. Also, increase in regulatory and discretionary
powers of government agencies is often counterproductive as in India this leads to more
bureaucracy and corruption. Therefore, the more potent solution is to subject the mining
24

industrys action and behaviour to intense societal scrutiny through media exposure,
community agitation, resistance and litigation. The government should encourage this process
and also, through continuous dialogue and pressure, persuade the industry to improve its
ethical performance and ensure its compliance to the provisions of the relevant laws.
It has earlier been mentioned that there are two main pre-conditions for achieving
sustainability in mining good governance in the mineral sector and prevalence of attitudes
and values that make for ethical business practices and self-regulation and bring in
sustainability considerations to all operational decisions concerning mining. Unfortunately on
both fronts, the track record (in India) has been disappointing and needs considerable
improvement. In the absence of such improvement, it would be impossible to attain
sustainable mineral development even if a well-structured sustainable development
framework is there on paper. Assuming, however, that the intended improvement will come
about sooner than later, it is possible to outline the major elements of a sustainable
development framework appropriate for the Indian conditions.
On the basis of initial formulation of the concept of sustainability in mining and the
discussion on the challenges faced by the mining industry in India, it would appear that the
following major elements best capture/may define the essence of a suitable sustainable
development framework (SDF) for the countrys mineral sector:
(i)
(ii)

Scientific mining;
Environment protection and mitigation including minimization of the impacts of

(iii)

mining practices on biodiversity;

Community stakeholder engagement;

(iv)

Local socio-economic development in mining project areas; and

(v)

Transparency and accountability

3.2 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

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 companys 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
25

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.

International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM)s programs are implemented by 23 of

the worlds largest mining companies and promoted by 35 mining and commodity
associations

[23]

. The Sustainable Development Framework (SDF) is one of the Councils

most relevant programs; it consists of a set of ten principles, sustainability reporting, and
external third-party assurance. All member companies are expected to implement the SDF
and thus publish independently verified reports on their sustainability performance. At the
core of the framework is a requirement to use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
framework

[24]

and its Mining and Metals Sector Supplement (MMSS)

[25]

. GRI is a multi-

stakeholder non-profit Amsterdam-based organization providing global standards in

sustainability reporting. Its reporting framework, first piloted in the late 1990s and now in its
third version, known as GRI G3, has become the de facto standard across many industrial
sectors, including mining [26].
Driven by ICMM and a global corporate trend, mining corporations increasingly publish
GRI-based sustainability reports. According to the Global Mining Reporting Survey

[27]

, 40

out of the worlds 44 major global mining companies produce annual sustainability reports.
According to the GRI database, in 2011, 102 mining companies published reports, 95% of
which based on the GRI framework

[28]

. The output of annual GRI reports, however, is likely

to be larger, since many companies do not list their reports on the GRI database.
The Global Reporting Initiative (known as GRI) is an international independent standards
organization that helps businesses, governments and other organizations understand and
communicate their impacts on issues such as climate change, human rights and corruption.
Founded in 1997, GRI is a non-profit organization with its Secretariat in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. GRI produces one of the world's most widely used standards for sustainability
reporting;

also

known

as ecological

footprint reporting, environmental

social

governance (ESG) reporting, triple bottom line (TBL) reporting, and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) reporting.

26

As of 2015, 7,500 organizations used GRI Guidelines for the sustainability reports. GRI
Guidelines apply to multinational organizations, public agencies, smaller and medium
enterprises, NGOs, industry groups and others.
The GRI is an example of an organization that acts outside of the top-down power command
structures associated with government (e.g., quasi-autonomous bodies and regulators).
Environmental governance is the multifaceted and multi-layered nature of "governing" the
borderless and state-indiscriminate natural environment.[29] Unlike major protected policy
areas such as finance or defence, the environment requires sovereign states to sign up to
treaties and multilateral agreements in order to coordinate action. Sustainability reporting is a
more recent concept that encourages businesses and institutions to report on their
environmental performance. [30]

3.3 The GRI approach to assessing and reporting sustainability

Unlike the sustainable development concept, whose genesis can be directly associated with
the 1987 Brundtland Commission report [1], the term sustainability reporting was brought to
life during years of evolution in the field of social and environmental accountability

[31]

. The

Global Reporting Initiative provides one of the most influential definitions of sustainability
reporting: Sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being
accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the
goal of sustainable development

[28]

. GRIs sustainability reporting framework is in its third

version, known as GRI G3.

27

(Figure 6; SOURCE: GRI(2006a,b))

Reporting guidelines: The guidelines are the cornerstone of the GRI G3. They set quality and
content principles, as well as managerial and performance indicators. The principles for
defining content include materiality, stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainability context, and
completeness. The indicators (about 130) cover several thematic categories, including
organizational, managerial, economic, environmental, social, human rights, society, and
product responsibility issues;
Sector supplements: The supplements provide additional guidance and indicators for sector
specific issues. One of the supplements is the aforementioned Mining and Metals Sector
Supplement; and
Indicator protocols: The protocols provide definitions and technical and methodological
guidance on each of the performance indicators of the guidelines

28

LIST OF GRI 3.1 INDICATORS (Source GRI,2010):

29

30

31

32

CHAPTER-4

FUTURE WORK

33

After through study of all aspects and domain of GRI 3.1 Guidelines for preparation of
Sustainability Report, the key performance indicators of a coal mining industry were
identified. They are as follows:

EN3: Direct energy consumption by primary energy source

EN6: Initiatives to provide energy efficient or renewable energy based products and

services, and reduction in energy requirements

EN7: Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption by primary source
EN8: Total water withdrawal by source
EN12: Description of significant impacts of activities, products and services on
biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected

areas
EN20: NOx, SOx and other significant air emissions by type and weight
EN21: Total water discharge by quality and destination

The raw data and information regarding the identified performance indicators are required for
the preparation of sustainability report for a specific area/industry is under process.

Work to be done:
Considering all the above mentioned environmental indicator and coal industry and the
sectors which used coal, fly ash is the very important potential hazardous end product. Now
the work will be based on the role of fly ash in affecting these indicators and mitigations that
can be taken for sustainable development.

Work Schedule

34

December

January

Literature survey

Collection of data

Analysis of data

Preparation of report

Analysis and submission

of report

35

February

March

April

May

CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

36

Although environmental sustainability is needed by humans and originated because of social

concerns, environmental sustainability itself seeks to improve human welfare by protecting
national capital. As contrasted with economic capital, national capital consists of water, land,
air, minerals and ecosystem services, hence much is converted to manufactured or economic
capital. Environment includes the sources of raw materials used for human needs, and
ensuring that sink capacities recycling human wastes are not exceeded, in order to prevent
harm to humans.
Technology can promote or demote environmental sustainability. Non-renewables cannot be
made sustainable, but quasi-ES can be approached for non-renewables by holding their
depletion rates equal to the rate at which renewable substitutes are created. There are no
substitutes for most environmental services, and there is much irreversibility if they are
damaged.
To help us with these, GRI presents a complete guidance by providing us indicators and
content for the reporting of sustainability of any organization. It also reflects how the
organization has contributed to sustainable development in the region.
Dumping of fly ash is one of the major concern of the coal using industries and its also a
challenge of coal industries to minimize the fly ash content in the coal they are providing to
different sectors based on coal industry. New techniques and methods should be developed to
proper utilization of fly ash and its dumping. The potential threat of the fly ash should also be
considered while deciding the mitigating measure and environmental sustainability should be
kept in mind as fly ash effects many of the environmental indicators as mentioned in this
report earlier.

37

References: 1. The Brundtland Commission, 1987, Our Common Future, The Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
2. UNCED, 1992, Agenda 21, United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992.
3. Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), 1996,
The Role of Technology in Environmentally Sustainable Development, 16 (The Royal
Academy of Engineering, London).
4. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, May 1999, A Better
Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom
(TSO, London).
5. Moldan, B., Billharz, S. and Matravers, R. (eds.), 1997, Sustainability Indicators: A
Report on the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, 415 (John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester).
6. Auty, R. M. and Brown, K. (eds.), 1997, Approaches to Sustainable Development,
313 (Pinter, London).
7. Clayton, M. H. and Radcliffe, N. J., 1996, SustainabilityA System Approach, 258
(Earthscan Publications Ltd., London).
8. http://www.worldcoal.org/
9. http://www.coal.nic.in/ - ministry of coal
10. Le Blanc, D., et al. 2012. Development cooperation in the light of sustainable
development and the SDGs: Preliminary exploration of the issues, UNDESA: Rio+20
working papers
11. United Nations 2012. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
Outcome Document: The future we want. A/CONF.216/L.1 of 19
12. UNRISD 2010. Combating poverty and inequality: Structural Change, Social Policy
and Politics
13. United Nations 1992. Agenda 21, United Nations Conference on Environment &
Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992
14. United Nations 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and
Methodologies
15. Gibberd J. T., (2005). Developing a Sustainable Development Approach for Buildings
and Construction Processes Smart & Sustainable Built Environments. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. Chapter 27. (pp 300-310).
16. Portfolio committee meeting presentation, School of Mining Engineering, University
of

the

Witwatersrand.

Development

in

the

(2000)
Mining

Environmental

Management

and

Sector.

http://www.natural-resources.org/minerals/
38

Minerals

&

[Online]

Sustainable
Available:

17. Jenkins, H., Yakovleva, N.. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the mining
industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 14, Issues 3-4.
18. Thoresen J. (1999). Environmental performance evaluation a tool for industrial
improvement, Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 7, Issue 5
19. Global Reporting Initiative, G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, available at
https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx
20. PwC, Sustainability Reporting: Is It Time for US Companies to Consider this
Growing

Trend

June

2014,

available

http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/cfodirect/assets/pdf/point-of-view
sustainabilityreporting.pdf.
21. International Integrated Reporting Council, What Is Integrated Reporting, available at
http://www.theiirc.org/the-iirc/about/.

An

integrated

report

is

concise

communication about how an organizations strategy, governance, performance, and

prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value in
the short, medium and long term. Id.
22. Directive 2014/95/EU
23. ICMM, 2012. ICMM Members [Online]. Available: http://www.icmm.com/members
24. GRI, 2006b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative,
Amsterdam.
25. GRI, 2010. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Mining and Metals Sector
Supplement. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam
26. Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F., 2009. Development of an evaluation
methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on
reporting. Environmental Management 44, 298e311
27. KPMG, 2006. Global Mining Reporting Survey 2006. KPMG
28. GRI, 2012b. GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database [Online]. Available: http://
database.globalreporting.org/search
29. United Nations Environment Programme. "Actors". Retrieved 2011-08-08.
30. Herzig, Christian (2006). Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Overview. pp. 301
324.
31. UNEP and KPMG, 2006. Carrots and Sticks for Starters: Current Trends and
Approaches in Voluntary and Mandatory Standards for Sustainability Reporting.
UNEP and KMPG, Paris

39

40