The article delves into the social acceptance of mining exploration projects, using a case study from an Austrian town to illustrate the challenges and opportunities. It discusses the importance of the mining industry for Europe’s future, particularly in light of the Critical Raw Materials Act. The study focuses on the failed mineral extraction project, examining the main problems encountered and the role of transparency and stakeholder engagement. Through semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, the research identifies key factors such as environmental concerns, job creation, and community perception. The findings highlight the need for greater transparency and effective communication strategies to gain social acceptance for future mining projects, making it a valuable resource for professionals in the field.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
Achieving social acceptance for new exploration projects in the EU has become significantly challenging in recent years. In 2020 a company started a new construction materials project in an Austrian municipality. However, after three years of development, the project failed due to substantial opposition from the local community. This contribution aims to investigate the main reasons for the project’s failure and to analyze the diverse perceptions that emerged during the discussion. To address these objectives, semi-structured interviews were conducted with citizens involved in the debate. The findings were then compared with those from related studies to identify similarities and differences. The analysis shows that transparency is the key success factor for mining projects, while dust, noise, and traffic are the most relevant disruptive factors. The interviewees acknowledged the critical role of mining in strengthening the EU’s independence and economy, while emphasizing the need to enhance public awareness regarding its significance.
Notes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction
1.1 Mining in the EU
The mining industry is essential for Europe’s future, not only for more resource autonomy but also to strengthen the economy. The Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) announced by the EU’s president Von der Leyen in 2022 is designed to ensure a critical raw material supply, which is crucial for strategic sectors including clean technologies, digital, defense, and aerospace industries. The goal of the CRMA is to provide 10% of the EU’s annual demand from primary domestic sources. Moreover, circular economy and a more efficient usage of critical raw materials will be improved by monitoring of the supply chain and increased interactions between the different stakeholders [1]. The ongoing energy transition, as agreed upon in the Green Deal, creates an additional need for raw materials from primary sources [2].
While the CRMA focuses on securing the supply of 34 critical raw materials, it does not cover a large segment of other essential raw materials, such as those used in the construction industry [3]. These materials are fundamental to the economy, supporting sectors ranging from infrastructure to critical applications such as flood protection.
Advertisement
1.2 Social Acceptance of Mining Exploration Projects in Europe
Mining companies are increasingly adopting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives in response to growing interests from investors, communities, and policymakers in monitoring sustainability practices [4]. In recent years, discussions have shifted towards the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the social license to operate (SLO) [4]. Social acceptance is often associated with the concept of SLO, which reflects the ongoing approval, support, and acceptance of a mining project by society and its stakeholders. The term does not have a widely accepted or standardized definition: Some interpret it as a continuous process of stakeholder engagement, while others view it as active participation in the project’s development. The idea encompasses trust-building, transparency, and responsiveness to community concerns, aligning corporate actions with societal expectations [5].
Social acceptance in new exploration projects can be challenging. The Jadar lithium project in Serbia has led to conflicts between local communities, the mineral extraction company, and the government. The main problem stated is the lack of trust between the society and the exploration company [6]. A huge challenge Rio Tinto, the leader of the project, must face is widespread misinformation about the Jadar project, which has to be refuted [7]. This can also be seen in a study conducted in Saxony, Germany, to find out about the local communities’ perception of the extractive industry. People tend to be less critical about mining projects that have been in existence for a long time [8]. The main factors for social acceptance are transparent communication, creation of new jobs, water supply for the community, new nature conservation regions, and a good risk-benefit balance [6]. It is essential for new projects to act earlier than required by law, e.g. with communication processes [8].
1.3 Austria’s Mining Industry
Austria’s economy is facing challenges nowadays, like a 1% decline in the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023 [9]. Extraction companies in Austria mine around 80 mio. t of raw materials each year with operating over 1000 mines for construction materials. While Austria is self-sufficient in sand and gravel, it relies significantly on imports for metals and fossil fuels [10].
In October 2021, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and Tourism published the “Masterplan Rohstoffe 2030” presenting a strategy for Austria’s future raw materials supply. The main goals are to advance the economical and technological progress and to maintain prosperity. Austria depends on imports, especially for hydrocarbons and metals, due to the geological conditions. The mining industry represents 25% of the GDP and creates around one million jobs [11].
Advertisement
The Austrian mining law, the “Mineralrohstoffgesetz,” classifies raw materials into land-owned, federal-owned, and mountain-free categories. Construction raw materials are mainly land-owned raw materials. Companies can search for possible deposits, just by reporting the search to the district administrative authority. Should they discover that the land is exploitable for mining, they must engage with the landowners to make up mining agreements. The operating company must design a mining operation plan, in which they refer to the planning period, decommissioning and dismantling planning, safety actions, transportation, information on expected emissions, and numerous other factors. To start operations, the district authority must control and approve the mining operation plan [12].
1.4 Details About the Exploration Project
The area looked at in the study is a municipality in Lower Austria with around 1900 inhabitants and a compact town center. The geology is defined by carbonated strong and weak metamorphic rocks, with a typical occurrence of gneiss and mica schist. The landscape around the municipality’s center includes forests and hills [13].
A family-owned company from the neighboring municipality explored the land for aggregates. A new potential place for limestone extraction, with the possibility of 50,000 t with three blasts a year and an operating size of 32,000 m2, was found. The plan involved the extraction of the material in a funnel-shaped manner, designed to be inconspicuous from the outside and located approximately 500 m from the municipality’s center. Previously, the company had to transport construction materials from a site three hours away. The new project aimed to address this issue by providing locally sourced materials.
The project began with the closure of the company’s old quarry within the municipality, which had reached resource depletion, and the exploration of a new site. The test drillings drew public awareness, prompting community flyers and company presentations. Protests intensified mid-project, led by a small group of local people. The growing opposition forced the company to reject the project and to relocate operations to the neighboring municipality. A more detailed description of the project’s timeline can be seen in Fig. 1.
Implementing new mining projects in the EU can be challenging. The affected community’s perception and possible solutions should be evaluated [6, 8]. This contribution examines the local perceptions of the planned mineral extraction project. It addresses the central research questions: What were the main problems with the new mining project? How should stakeholders have engaged with the local community? What should be taken under consideration for future similar projects?
2 Methods
2.1 Context of the Study
This study was conducted by the first author as part of a Bachelor’s thesis leading to the Bachelor’s degree in raw materials engineering.
2.2 Interviews
This study is based on face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the discussion. The interviews were conducted between August and October 2024 in German, recorded and translated into English for the analysis. Age, gender, occupation, and role in the discussion were taken into consideration during the stakeholder selection process, in order to acquire broad and diverse perceptions. This can be seen in Table 1. The local population helped by contacting potential participants in advance and establishing contact. The study included eight interview partners: The majority were or are politically active. The interviews were conducted three years after the project ended. The selected participants provide a snapshot of perspectives three years after the project’s failure, without aiming for a broader generalization.
TABLE 1
Listing of interview partners by number, gender, age, occupation, political activities, and education
Number
Gender
Age
Occupation
Opinion
Political activities
Role in the discussion
R1
Male
60–70
Self-employed
Pro
N
Business owner of the exploration project
R2
Male
50–60
Public official
Neutral
Y
Community representative
R3
Female
40–50
Public official, farmer
Neutral
Y
Community representative
R4
Male
50–60
Self-employed
Pro
Y
Community representative
R5
Female
20–30
Student
Contra
Y
Citizen
R6
Male
50–60
Teacher
Contra
N
Citizen
R7
Male
60–70
Retiree
Neutral
N
Citizen
R8
Male
50–60
Self-employed
Contra
Y
Community representative
2.2.1 Semi-Structured Interview
Semi-structured interviews are part of a qualitative empirical social research. It contains fixed and variable questions, so every interview partner can focus slightly on different aspects. In general, the procedure is not that strict, and answers can be more open and broader [14]. The advantage of this qualitative research method over quantitative is that the interviewer can dive deeper in the participants’ thoughts and feelings [15].
2.2.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire, whose structure is shown in Fig. 2, included four general questions about mining in Austria, five about the timeline and eight about the outcome of the project. Some questions varied depending on the responses given by the interviewee, their job and role in the discussion. Moreover, it was voluntary and anonymous, with neutrally formulated questions to guarantee unbiased responses. This ensured that the interviewee could speak without restrictions. The sample questionnaire can be found in Table 4.
For the qualitative data analysis, the responses from each interview were documented in a Microsoft Excel file, followed by coding and organizing them into themes. The interview partners’ perceptions were categorized in key and sub themes, which can be seen in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Description of key and sub themes
Key theme
Sub theme
More general: mining in Austria
More independence in mining
Future of mining
Transparency of existing exploration campaigns
Reasons for the outcome of the project
Responsible disruptive factors
Pro and contra movement description
Percentage distribution of pro and contra votes
Fact-based discussion, seek new information
Transparency
Mood in the discussion, process of the discussion
Similar projects developed in the municipality
Future of the project
3.1 More General: Mining in Austria
The interview partners gave in-depth responses regarding the importance of mining for Austria’s independence. They mentioned that mining is crucial for greater autonomy, with R3 and R8 referring to the war in Ukraine and the Corona crisis as a moment when they became more aware of this.
R7: “We hand ourselves over to these states on the one hand or to the concerns (…) and on the other hand, we don’t do it here because of environmental pollution and there with much less restrictions and possibly with child labor we do it, so I think nothing about it”
R3: “I hope that it develops positively and that we can reduce dependencies.”
These two quotes are an example that the general debate surrounding the importance of mining for Austria is shaped by ethical, environmental, and geopolitical considerations. First, R7 highlights the ethical dilemmas tied to resource extraction with lower standards, emphasizing the risks of environmental harm and exploitative practices such as child labor. Conversely, R3 reflects a hopeful perspective on reducing dependencies.
Six out of eight interviewees had no concerns about environmental protection with existing exploration projects in Austria provided the law is observed. About how to start new explorations in the future, R8 stated:
R8: “It will become more and more difficult (…) Renunciation yes but that is difficult for a democracy.”
Regarding the question about how the opinion of opponents to the exploration project would change, R1 and R6 stated the following:
R1: “A catastrophe would change that. If we then said, now we only have to go there.” Referring to extreme situations, the demand for raw materials from mining can then lead to an acceptance among the contra movement. “And we can bring you the stones now, as is the case with floods, you have to react quickly.”
R6: “You simply have to present such possible mining sites transparently to the population and make sure that, on the one hand, there is as little interference with nature as possible, and that there is simply no real damage which is sustainable.”
Four other interview partners had the same opinion as R1, that catastrophic accidents could have changed the outcome of this failed exploration project. R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 stated that transparent communication is necessary for the development of future projects, also highlighting the need for greater effort and preparation to achieve positive results. Despite these observations, seven out of eight interviewees agreed on the need to raise awareness about the role of mining.
3.2 Analysis of the Project
Table 3 provides key statements about these themes: responsible disruptive factors, pro and contra movement descriptions, percentage distribution of pro and contra movements, the role of transparency and the atmosphere in the discussion. These factors are the most meaningful because many stakeholders had a clear opinion about them.
TABLE 3
Quotes from interviewees organized in themes
Theme
Respondent
Quote
Responsible disruptive factors
R2
“For the population itself I believe that there would be no advantages at all.”
R6
“The mountain would have been gone.” “The church could shake.”
R1
“Envy is also a very big loss.” This was said about the operating company that citizens were also envious of them
Pro and contra movement supporters description from respondents
R6
Pro: “The only ones who were really in favor of it were those who saw a benefit from it.”
R5
Contra: “Rather different people.”
R4
Pro: “I believe that older societies are more relaxed: Where there is planning, chips fall.” (“wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne”)
Distribution of pro and contra votes
R7
“Once again we had the silent majority, who were neutral but silent and the loudest shouters prevailed.”
R8
“An ordinary citizen has no use for it, I estimate that 90% would have been against it.”
R4
“A third of them said OK, that’s not bad because if I need stones they have to come from somewhere, (…) the one third full against it and a third didn’t care.”
Transparency
R3
“To what extent that would have happened, whether anyone would have really noticed whether there would have been three more trucks driving or not, we don’t know.”
R8
“It will be necessary as soon as there is resistance.”
R2
“If he keeps seeking everyone’s input, he might as well shut down his company, that doesn’t work.”
Fact-based or subjective discussion
R5
“You’re more likely to come across things that support your own opinion.”
R3
“The negative voices tend to be louder than the positive ones, much louder.” “There are many more platforms where you can voice your opinion.”
R7
“By the company and from the licesing authority there were valid facts, but the opponents’ statements were not always factual and comprehensible.”
When asked about the disruptive factors in mining projects, all participants identified noise, dust, and traffic as the most significant. R2 saw no direct benefits for the municipality itself, only for the broader region. (R2: “for everyone in the surrounding area and for the region, it may have been an advantage”) R6 mentioned that the location of the exploration was the main issue: If it had been further away from the town center, he would not have had a problem with it.
R4 answered about the contra-movement description with this statement: “You have to be able to imagine it”, which underlines the necessity of easily comprehensible communication that non-experts could understand. R7 gives a sarcastic example for that: “Yes, of course 50,000 tons, if I dump it over there it’s a huge pile.”, indicating that the amount of extracted raw materials spread over a year would not have had a significant impact on the municipality.
Based on the results of the interviews, it is difficult to say what the pro and contra distribution was on this topic as many interview partners had differing opinions. It was generally noticed by R1, R3, R5, and R7 that anti-votes tended to be more present and louder than pro-votes.
R3’s response regarding transparency (“To what extent that would have happened, whether anyone would have really noticed if there would have been three more trucks driving or not, we don’t know”) highlights the uncertainty surrounding the potential impact. This perception could stem from a lack of transparency or insufficient clear communication about the consequences of the project.
Everybody answered that transparency is becoming more complicated. For R2 it is difficult to find out when to be transparent, about what and to whom. R7: “In my opinion it didn’t really match, but the problem is when does it match? How do you do it? We have modern media today.” R7 referred to social media, which influences and hinders such processes. Five out of eight respondents stated that more transparency would have been needed. However, when they were asked whether this could have changed the outcome into the acceptance of the project, they denied it.
The atmosphere of the discussion was described in various ways. For most participants, it was diverse, with some being more emotional while others focused on facts. It was noted that each person brought a unique approach and style to the conversation. R8 shared that he always tried to stick to the facts and avoided being influenced by emotions. Moreover, R7 and R8 stated that this is in general a problem in Austria’s society that people tend to be more emotional in discussions. As R1 and R3 also pointed out, envy of the company’s leader played a role, contributing to a more emotional tone in the conversation.
4 Discussion
This study investigated the different perceptions of mining in a municipality in Austria, connected to a failed mineral extraction project. Qualitative research provided an opportunity to explore various aspects in greater depth, revealing that perspectives on a project are not strictly for or against.
One outcome of the study is the clear recognition of the reliance on raw material imports from non-European countries. As pointed out in [16], the raw materials autonomy is a key factor to secure justice, a principle emphasized in the Green Deal. However, the question arises: How can this goal be achieved when awareness is evident, yet projects are being canceled?
Transparency, which has been addressed as too little for this project, could be the changing point. To foster trust and cooperation between decision-makers and the affected society, companies and governmental organizations must make significantly greater investments in cultivating an open and fact-based communication. Achieving social acceptance requires complete transparency throughout the supply chain [17]. To support this, it may be beneficial to establish detailed standards for the Social License to Operate (SLO), implement public accessible monitoring systems, or organize engagement events [6].
The disruptive factors impacting this project included a lack of transparency as well as fears that mining will lead to more dust, noise, and traffic. As noted in [8], creating jobs can positively influence public perception of such projects. However, this was not the case here, as it would have resulted in only three direct new jobs. What was interesting is that some interviewees did not find advantages of the project for the municipality itself, only for the region. The image of the company in this study was rarely an issue unlike in the Jadar project [18]. In general about Austria’s mining industry, the interviewees did not perceive any concerns with significant environmental impacts.
The level of acceptance for exploration projects has shifted over the last 20 years. In the past, fewer mining projects faced issues with social approval. Today the discussion has become more polarized and attracts greater attention [5]. The study revealed that opposing voices often stand out more prominently, and participants perceived the discussions as being driven more by emotions than by facts. For future projects it is important to persuade neutral voices to express their opinion publicly because this can be a shift when contra voices see that they are not so many as expected.
Shifting greater attention to the mining sector could stimulate economic growth in Austria [9, 19, 20]. This requires the establishment of supportive political frameworks and an increased commitment from operating companies to enhance transparency. The responses from the interviewees indicate a clear awareness of the need for further mining operations in Europe, with a generally positive outlook on their development.
This study used face-to-face interviews with eight participants to explore aspects of the failed mining project. This method encouraged open, detailed responses. While a survey with more participants could have offered broader perspectives, the in-depth insights from the selected group sufficiently addressed the study’s focus.
Another key point is that some interviewees forgot certain details of the discussion due to the project’s ending three years previously. This can also be seen as an advantage as any emotional bias had likely dissipated. Further research could offer insights into how to effectively engage with different stakeholders and show transparency.
5 Conclusion
The aim of the study was to identify the key factors contributing to the failure of the exploration project in the study area. The primary reasons for the project’s failure include concerns that it could impact the daily lives of local communities, particularly due to dust emissions, pollution, and increased traffic. Moreover, for some it was unclear how significant the impact could have been, or they were confident that it would have gone unnoticed. Transparency with the help of easily understandable and accessible information is crucial for future exploration projects. Moreover, the difficulty that mining companies face in achieving social acceptance can also drive them to explore new approaches, placing greater emphasis on sustainability and transparency [21].
New mining projects in Austria will be critical for sustaining prosperity and ensuring security. Therefore, research into effective transparency practices must be initiated, and further studies on the adequate social engagement approach should be conducted. Both political decision-makers and companies need to raise awareness of the importance of securing an independent raw materials supply. Moreover, society must be involved in all aspects of their operations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank everyone who made themselves available for interviews and contributed to the completion of the study. Special thanks are also extended to those who helped identify and connect with suitable interview partners.
Conflict of interest
M. Eckl, M. Mavroudi and M. Tost declare that they have no competing interests.
Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Are you concerned about safeguarding the environment during mining activities?
What do you think about long-term imports of raw materials?
About the timeline of the project
Did you know before the project’s start that there was a deposit in this area?
When did you first learn about the project, how, and what was your initial reaction?
How and when were citizens first informed, and how did they express their opinions?
How did the process continue?
Were there any information events/discussion rounds? How did they go?
Reasons for the outcome of the project
What is your opinion of this project?
What were the different opinions among the population? In percentage terms: What were the different perceptions among the population? Is the operating company transparent enough? Can you describe the pro and contra groups?
Why did it ultimately fail?
What should the company have done differently?
Did you get help, knowledge or support?
Do you think that this project will be implemented in the future?
What does the future of mining in Austria look like?
How important will be the issue of social acceptance in the future?
