IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirpro/2024rp-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Obstacles et incitatifs à l’adoption des technologies innovantes dans le secteur minier québécois

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin
  • François Vaillancourt
  • Ingrid Peignier
  • Molivann Panot
  • Thomas Gleize
  • Simon Losier

Abstract

The aim of this research report is to identify and better understand the barriers and incentives to the adoption of innovative technologies in the Quebec mining sector in the operational phase, while examining the potential impact of ESG (environmental, social and governance) criteria on this adoption. The initial finding, based on the most recent data published by Statistics Canada (2017-2019 period), highlighted a certain lag in innovation in the Quebec mining sector compared to other industrial sectors, as well as a certain lag in terms of organizational innovations compared to Ontario mining companies. This project aims to update these findings, particularly in view of the economic changes of the past five years. In fact, mining investment in Quebec increased in 2022 compared to the previous five years. The first part of the project is based on an in-depth review of the literature on mining innovation and sustainable finance, establishing a solid knowledge base. The second part of the project aims to update the findings of the literature and to validate, invalidate or qualify them by applying them specifically to the Quebec context. This phase involved interviews with 30 key industry players, complemented by over 50 informal meetings at industry events. Innovation in the mining sector is seen as a key driver of competitive advantage, generating cost savings, improved efficiency and productivity, while offering more difficult-to-quantify benefits such as reduced health & safety, environmental and reputational risks. However, the adoption of innovations in the mining sector is influenced by three categories of factors: the sector's inherent economic characteristics, particularly the capital intensity and cyclical nature of the mining industry; the sector's complex organizational context, focused on risk management and marked by loss aversion; the sector's specific ecosystem in Quebec, characterized by stakeholders with sometimes divergent interests, which sometimes makes data governance complex, especially as the industry's digital transformation intensifies. The rise of ESG criteria in the mining sector is creating new challenges. The growing demand for transparency on the part of investors can have an impact on companies, particularly mining companies, where maintaining the social license to operate remains crucial. Beyond GHG emissions, greater transparency regarding social and environmental impacts is becoming essential. Although there is currently no consensus on the link between ESG and financial performance, poor ESG practices are perceived as detrimental. Accurate monitoring of ESG data and transparency based on common standards will be useful in anticipating future regulations. In conclusion, it is essential to direct investments towards sustainable technologies, promote collaboration with all industry stakeholders and prepare for increased transparency on ESG criteria, harmonized on an industry scale. Le présent rapport de recherche vise à identifier et à mieux comprendre les obstacles et les incitatifs à l'adoption de technologies innovantes dans le secteur minier québécois en phase d'exploitation, tout en examinant l'impact potentiel des critères ESG (environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance) sur cette adoption. Le constat initial, en se basant sur les plus récentes données publiées par Statistique Canada (période 2017-2019), soulignait un certain retard du secteur minier québécois en matière d'innovation par rapport à d'autres secteurs industriels ainsi qu’un certain retard en termes d’innovations organisationnelles par rapport aux compagnies minières ontariennes. Ce projet vise à mettre à jour ces constats, en particulier à la lumière des changements économiques des cinq dernières années. L'investissement minier au Québec a d’ailleurs connu une augmentation en 2022 par rapport aux cinq années précédentes. Le premier volet du projet repose sur une revue approfondie de la littérature concernant l'innovation minière et la finance durable, établissant ainsi une base solide de connaissances. Le deuxième volet du projet vise à actualiser les constats émanant de la littérature et à les valider, infirmer ou nuancer en les appliquant spécifiquement au contexte québécois. Cette phase a impliqué des entretiens avec 30 acteurs clés du secteur, complétés par plus de 50 rencontres informelles lors d'événements sectoriels. L'innovation au sein du secteur minier est considérée comme un levier créateur d'avantages compétitifs, engendrant des économies de coûts, une amélioration de l'efficacité et de la productivité, tout en offrant des avantages plus difficilement quantifiables, tels que la réduction des risques en matière de santé/sécurité, d'environnement, et de réputation. Toutefois, l'adoption des innovations dans le secteur minier est influencée par trois catégories de facteurs : les caractéristiques économiques inhérentes au secteur, notamment l’intensité en capital et l’aspect cyclique de l’industrie minière ; le contexte organisationnel complexe du secteur, axé sur la gestion des risques et marqué par une aversion aux pertes ; l'écosystème spécifique du secteur au Québec, caractérisé par des acteurs aux intérêts parfois divergents, qui rend parfois complexe la gouvernance des données, surtout dans un contexte d'intensification de la transformation numérique de l'industrie. L’essor des critères ESG dans le secteur minier crée de nouveaux défis. La demande croissante de transparence de la part des investisseurs peut impacter les entreprises, en particulier les sociétés minières, où le maintien de la licence sociale d'exploitation demeure crucial. Au-delà des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, une transparence accrue concernant les impacts sociaux et environnementaux devient essentielle. Bien que le lien entre la performance ESG et financière ne fasse pas l'objet d'un consensus actuellement, des pratiques ESG déficientes sont perçues comme préjudiciables. Le suivi précis des données ESG et une transparence reposant sur des cadres communs seront utiles pour anticiper d'éventuelles réglementations à venir. En conclusion, il est essentiel d'orienter les investissements vers des technologies durables, de promouvoir la collaboration avec tous les intervenants de l'industrie et de se préparer à une transparence accrue sur les critères ESG, harmonisée à l'échelle industrielle.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & François Vaillancourt & Ingrid Peignier & Molivann Panot & Thomas Gleize & Simon Losier, 2024. "Obstacles et incitatifs à l’adoption des technologies innovantes dans le secteur minier québécois," CIRANO Project Reports 2024rp-01, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2024rp-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2024RP-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    2. Bellamy, Drew & Pravica, Luka, 2011. "Assessing the impact of driverless haul trucks in Australian surface mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 149-158, June.
    3. Giulia Valacchi & Julio Raffo & Alica Daly & David Humphreys, 2019. "Innovation in the Mining Sector and Cycles in Commodity Prices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 55, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    4. Rafaela Gjergji & Luigi Vena & Salvatore Sciascia & Alessandro Cortesi, 2021. "The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosure on the cost of capital in small and medium enterprises: The role of family business status," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 683-693, January.
    5. Bjorg Jonsdottir & Throstur Olaf Sigurjonsson & Lara Johannsdottir & Stefan Wendt, 2022. "Barriers to Using ESG Data for Investment Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Ng, Anthony C. & Rezaee, Zabihollah, 2015. "Business sustainability performance and cost of equity capital," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 128-149.
    7. Annie Royer & Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier & Thierry Warin & Molivann Panot & Christophe Mondin, 2020. "Les enjeux du numérique dans le secteur agricole - Défis et opportunités," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-12, CIRANO.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paola Fandella & Bruno S. Sergi & Emiliano Sironi, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility performance and the cost of capital in BRICS countries. The problem of selectivity using environmental, social and governance scores," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1712-1722, July.
    2. Benkraiem, Ramzi & Boubaker, Sabri & Brinette, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2021. "Board feminization and innovation through corporate venture capital investments: The moderating effects of independence and management skills," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    4. Martin Carree & Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos, 2011. "A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 263-269, June.
    5. Hou, Jun & Mohnen, Pierre, 2013. "Complementarity between internal knowledge creation and external knowledge sourcing in developing countries," MERIT Working Papers 2013-010, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Jiang, Zhiqian & Xu, Yue & Fang, Mei & Tang, Ziling & Tao, Chunhua, 2023. "How does the bond market price corporate ESG engagement? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1406-1423.
    7. López, Alberto, 2012. "Productivity effects of ICTs and organizational change: A test of the complementarity hypothesis in Spain," MPRA Paper 40400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Valerija Botrić & Ljiljana Božić, 2018. "Human Capital as Barrier to Innovation: Post-Transition Experience," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Mario Vaupel & David Bendig & Denise Fischer-Kreer & Malte Brettel, 2023. "The Role of Share Repurchases for Firms’ Social and Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 401-428, March.
    10. Basse, Tobias & Karmani, Majdi & Rjiba, Hatem & Wegener, Christoph, 2023. "Does adhering to the principles of green finance matter for stock valuation? Evidence from testing for (co-)explosiveness," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    11. Simona Iammarino & Francesca Sanna-Randaccio & Maria Savona, 2007. "The perception of obstacles to innovation. Multinational and domestic firms in Italy," Working Papers of BETA 2007-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Antonelli Cristiano & Gehringer Agnieszka, 2013. "Demand pull and technological flows within innovation systems: the intra-European evidence," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201303, University of Turin.
    13. Cappelen, Ådne & Raknerud, Arvid & Rybalka, Marina, 2012. "The effects of R&D tax credits on patenting and innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 334-345.
    14. Caroline Danièle Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2017. "Persistent openness and environmental innovation: An empirical analysis of French manufacturing firms," Post-Print hal-01609129, HAL.
    15. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    16. Junnan Hu & Shujing Wang & Feixue Xie, 2018. "Environmental responsibility, market valuation, and firm characteristics: Evidence from China," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1376-1387, November.
    17. Zhang, Dongyang, 2023. "Does green finance really inhibit extreme hypocritical ESG risk? A greenwashing perspective exploration," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    18. Rahman Ashiqur & Belas Jaroslav & Rahman M. Twyeafur, 2017. "Determinants of SME Finance: Evidence from Three Central European Countries," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 17(3), pages 263-285, September.
    19. Zahler, Andrés & Goya, Daniel & Caamaño, Matías, 2022. "The primacy of demand and financial obstacles in hindering innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    20. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2024rp-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.