Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Factors driving or impeding the diffusion and adoption of innovation in

mining: A systematic review of the literature
Jan Henrik Gruenhagen *, Rachel Parker
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for METS Business Innovation, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The adoption and implementation of innovation offers the mining sector the opportunity to tackle some of its
Mining most pressing challenges. However, there are a range of stakeholders and barriers which can potentially impede
Innovation and hinder the diffusion of innovation in the mining industry. This paper relies on a systematic literature review
Stakeholders
approach to map and synthesise drivers and barriers to the diffusion and adoption of innovation, and to identify
Innovation diffusion
Innovation adoption
stakeholders impacting on these processes within the specific context of the mining sector. We also synthesise
current knowledge in terms of geographical contexts of prior research, sampling and theoretical foundations. Our
findings and mapping enables researchers and practitioners to identify potential barriers and influential stake­
holders in a given context within the mining sector. We also discuss important knowledge gaps pertaining to the
diffusion of innovation in mining and outline promising opportunities for future research. These are related to
system-level and context-incorporating research, specific operational demands, under-researched stakeholders
such as the workforce, and intangible impediments such as organisational culture.

1. Introduction which are typically difficult to access, often in geographically remote

Innovation is “the multi-stage process whereby organisations trans­
form ideas into new/improved products, services or processes, in order
to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their
marketplace” (Baregheh et al., 2009, p. 1334). Innovations may provide
new solutions to a problem in the form of a product or service; they
occur within a social context, and – importantly – innovation is a process
of creating, adapting, implementing and realising the value from new
ideas (Baregheh et al., 2009). This has led to a core question within the
innovation literature as to what impacts on the successful diffusion and
adoption process of an innovation (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971) and,
further, why some innovations are not being adopted (MacVaugh and
Schiavone, 2010). A vast body of literature from different disciplines,
such as innovation, entrepreneurship, management, marketing or soci­
ology, has attended to this question (cf. Abrahamson, 1991; Agarwal
et al., 2010; MacVaugh and Schiavone, 2010). However, since the
diffusion of innovation is contextual (Bergek et al., 2015; Kimberly and
Evanisko, 1981), there is no one-size-fits-all blueprint.
Innovation offers the mining sector the opportunity to address its
most pressing challenges. For example, the finite nature of minerals and
metals in the bedrock and difficulties with lower-grade new deposits,
regions (Kurkkio et al., 2014), are demanding of new technologies such
as sensors and advanced analytics. There are examples of pockets of
highly innovative activity in the mining sector; for example, equipment
suppliers are argued to be active innovators (Bladier, 2016; Deloitte,
2016). However, the mining sector has long been regarded as having a
conservative culture which is resistant to change, while others focus on
the structural barriers to innovation such as high capital intensity
(Bartos, 2007).
Changing market environments, volatility and disruption challenge
current managerial and operational approaches pressuring mining
companies to re-think their approaches to value creation (Deloitte,
2019). Recent transformative endeavours have led to an incremental
application of innovative technologies and a rising awareness among
decision makers that innovation is essential for the future of the mining
sector. Successful applications of innovative technologies include the
utilisation of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), indus­
trial internet of things (IIoT), virtual reality (VR), drones, and autono­
mous driving (cf. AustralianMining, 2017; Dehran et al., 2018; Deloitte,
2019; Rogers et al., 2019). Application of these technologies has the
capacity to both increase productivity and efficiency and to improve
health and safety conditions in hazardous mining environments.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jan.grunhagen@qut.edu.au (J.H. Gruenhagen), r.parker@qut.edu.au (R. Parker).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101540
Received 31 January 2019; Received in revised form 25 July 2019; Accepted 4 November 2019
Available online 15 November 2019
0301-4207/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker
Several mining companies currently use self-driving haulage trucks
which can contribute to reducing operational costs (Hyder et al., 2019).
Drones can be deployed to accumulate and create aerial footage and 3D
models of mine sites and to carry out inspections for maintenance pur­
poses; mitigating the need for human operators to manoeuvre in risky
and difficult to access environments (Micklethwaite, 2018). Advances in
remote monitoring have facilitated the control of remotely located mine
sites from control centres located in capital cities (Holcombe and Kemp,
2019). Internet of things solutions – spanning connectivity, data and
analytics – have the potential to be applied throughout the entire mine
life cycle and ‘from pit to port’ (Dehran et al., 2018).
Yet, while the technological transformation of the mining sector is
advancing, barriers to the diffusion and adoption of innovation exist.
Some of those are related to industry-specific difficulties in imple­
menting innovations, such as remote locations or the nature of the
competitive environment of global mining operations (Bladier, 2016;
Job and McAree, 2017). Fluctuating commodity prices, firm inertia and
resistance to change associated with high capital intensity and costs
involved in new mining investments, difficulty in attracting and
retaining a specialist skilled workforce, macro-environmental trends
including the increasing importance of managing social and environ­
mental threats and changes to regulatory and reporting requirements,
and – critically important – limited integration across the mining supply
chain all create impediments to the adoption of new technologies
(Scott-Kemmis, 2013).
This prompts important questions as to which factors foster or
impede the diffusion and adoption of innovations in the mining sector.
This is particularly the case given the aforementioned distinctive fea­
tures of the mining context. Moreover, mining is a global and complex
industry, with multiple stakeholders pursuing different goals with
potentially competing demands. For example, mining corporations have
to consider not only economic and productivity-related factors when
implementing innovation and technology but also environmental and
health and safety concerns in order to meet demands for a ‘social licence
to operate’ (cf. Fordham et al., 2017; Prno and Scott Slocombe, 2012). It
is therefore important to understand which stakeholders have an in­
terest in and an impact on innovation diffusion and adoption processes.
The aim of this paper is to synthesise the current knowledge of the
diffusion and adoption of innovation in the mining sector, focusing on
the drivers, barriers and stakeholders involved. In order to map the
current state of knowledge, we relied on a systematic literature review
approach. A systematic search and analysis of previous literature assists
with mapping the evidence base, synthesising knowledge and providing
guidance and insights for researchers and practitioners alike (cf. Tran­
field et al., 2003). To the best of our knowledge, to date there has been
no comprehensive review of the literature on the diffusion and adoption
of innovation within the specific context of the mining sector. Based on a
systematic search process, this paper provides insights into what drives
and impedes the diffusion and adoption of innovation in the mining
industry and outlines which stakeholders have an interest in and ability
to affect the diffusion and adoption process. We also synthesise current
knowledge in terms of geographical contexts of prior research, sampling
and theoretical foundations. Finally, derived from the insights gained
from the review of the literature, we provide suggestions for future
research that we believe would be promising and important. Our study
therefore contributes to a better understanding of relevant factors
contributing to the diffusion and adoption of innovation in the mining
context.
This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, we describe our review
approach, including the process for searching, including and excluding
articles. We also explain our approach to the analysis of the included
papers. Secondly, we present and discuss our findings with a particular
emphasis on drivers, barriers and stakeholders. Finally, we outline some
suggestions for future research.
2
Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540
2. Review approach
2.1. Identification and selection of articles
The identification and selection of articles to be included in our re­
view followed a systematic process in order to compile an unbiased
overview of the current state of knowledge (cf. Tranfield et al., 2003).
This process included specifying a multi-stage procedure for the search,
selection and exclusion of articles (cf. Karakaya and Nuur, 2018; Tran­
field et al., 2003). Based on our research objective, we derived search
terms in order to identify relevant articles. For a list of search terms
please see Table 1. Subsequently, we conducted the article search using
the databases EBSCOhost, ABI/Inform and Scopus, focusing on title,
abstract and keywords. We limited our search to peer-reviewed articles
in academic journals to ensure we captured validated knowledge. The
search process resulted in a list of n ¼ 236 articles after removing any
duplicates. In the next step, abstracts of the articles in our database were
inspected and checked to determine whether they covered the subject
matter. Based on this evaluation, n ¼ 174 turned out to be off-topic and
hence were excluded from the list. The next step involved the full-text
inspection of the remaining n ¼ 62 articles. As with the inspection of
the abstracts, articles were included or excluded based on relevance to
the research question. This led to the exclusion of a further n ¼ 35 ar­
ticles. Accordingly, our final sample of articles included in the review
comprises n ¼ 27 articles that explicitly examine the diffusion of inno­
vation/adoption of technology in the mining sector. For a full list of
articles included please see Appendix A.
2.2. Analysis of articles
The analysis of articles (representing our qualitative data) involved
two main stages. Firstly, descriptive data for each article were extracted
and entered into a spreadsheet. These data included an article’s research
purpose, whether it is empirical or conceptual, which geographical
context (i.e. country) the article focuses on, which theoretical founda­
tions or literature streams the research is based on, the methods used,
the sample in empirical articles and a summary of the article’s main
findings (cf. Terjesen et al., 2016). Secondly, articles were coded for (a)
drivers and (b) barriers as well as (c) which stakeholders were involved
in the diffusion and adoption process. These data were also entered into
our spreadsheet. Finally, the coding of drivers, barriers and stakeholders
across all articles was synthesised and aggregated. Hence, after the
initial coding, patterns emerged that were summarised into a smaller
number of aggregated sets (cf. Miles et al., 1994; Salda~ na, 2015). The
data were then structured and logically organised.
3. Findings and discussion
While the sample of our review is comparatively small, the inspec­
tion of time-based publication data reveals that the topic has recently
taken a considerable upward trend (see Fig. 1). For several years, there
Table 1
Search terms used to identify articles.
Search terms used
“business innovation” AND mining
“technology adoption” AND mining
“technology acceptance” AND mining
“diffusion of innovation” AND mining innovation AND diffusion AND mining
innovation AND acceptance AND mining
innovation AND adoption AND mining
“technology diffusion” AND mining innovation AND driver* AND mining
innovation AND barrier* AND mining
innovation AND foster AND mining
innovation AND hinder AND mining
NOT “data mining”
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540

Fig. 1. Number of articles published on the topic reviewed.

was almost no interest in the academic literature to examine the diffu­

Table 2
sion and adoption of innovation specifically in the mining context.
Contexts, samples and theories extracted from articles reviewed.
However, just recently the number of publications has surged – notably
in 2018. This suggests that there is an increasing interest among aca­ Count
demics, implying a growing relevance of the topic not only in practice Context
but also in theory. One may expect this trend to continue, given the Brazil 5
growing recognition of the need to innovate across the mining industry Chile 4
Canada, Peru, South Africa 2 each
(Deloitte, 2017). Australia, China, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Mali, 1 each
The following sub-sections present insights from the analysis of the Philippines, Russia, Sweden, the United States
articles included in our review. Firstly, we elaborate on contexts, sam­
ples and theoretical foundations in our article base. We then discuss the Sample
Mining firms/Mines/Miners 15
insights these articles provide in terms of drivers and barriers to the
Mining suppliers 5
diffusion of innovation and the stakeholders involved in these processes. Industry experts 4
Government/Policy makers 4
Academics 3
3.1. Context Communities 2
Customers 2
Associations, competitors, employees, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, 1 each
Our descriptive categorisation of the articles included in the review healthcare workers, informants, merchants, technical professionals,
reveals that research on the diffusion of innovation in the mining sector transporters
has a strong geographical focus on Latin America (see Table 2). Around
40% of the articles focus on Latin America, with Brazil and Chile being Theoretical foundation/Literature stream
Diffusion of innovation theory/technological diffusion 5
the most frequently studied countries. While Latin America has become
Innovation literature 5
an important target for global investments into extractive industries and Global value chains 2
the value of exports of natural resources account for a considerable share Technological capabilities 2
of some Latin American countries’ economic activities (Dougherty, Technological upgrading 2
2016; Rees, 2017), other geographical areas are underrepresented or Cluster theory, entrepreneurship theory, mental models, regional 1 each
development/innovation systems, rent-seeking literature, staples theory,
neglected. This includes countries such as China, Australia, the United sustainability, technological paradigm, technology acceptance model,
States, Russia, Canada and India (cf. UNIDO, 2018). China, the United technology–organisation–environment framework, theory of inventive
States and India were the largest coal producers in 2018 (IBISWorld, problem solving
2018a). The main iron ore exporter in 2018 was Australia, followed by
Brazil, South Africa and Canada (IBISWorld, 2018b). In the early 2000s,
and Silva Neto, 2014a). While mining is a global industry with a rela­
North America and Australasia accounted for a full 25% of worldwide
tively small number of major companies having a significant impact on
flows of mining investment (Bridge, 2004). This shows that, even though
the industry worldwide (Hogan et al., 2002; Humphreys, 2015), regional
Latin America is an important context in which to investigate innovation
differences are expected to have an impact on the diffusion of innovation
and technology adoption in the mining sector, there is a lack of
and its adoption at the mine site. This may originate from differences in
knowledge pertaining to other major geographical areas.
country-specific institutional environments, such as regulatory frame­
Interestingly, much of the research has empirically focused on
works and requirements (cf. O’Callaghan and Vivoda, 2015), and
emerging economies. Large multinational companies registered in
different cultural values impacting on normative and cognitive pro­
industrialised countries regularly execute mining operations in less
cesses concerning the diffusion and adoption of technology (cf. Waarts
developed regions (Karakaya and Nuur, 2018); the adoption of inno­
and Van Everdingen, 2005). This is of particular relevance when
vation is then observed at the mine site in the country of operation.
considering the diffusion of innovation from more to less developed
Additionally, some of the research has investigated small-scale mining
economies where they are supposed to be adopted at the mine site. The
which predominantly occurs in less developed economies (e.g.
nature and structure of innovation processes across the mining sector
Køster-Rasmussen et al., 2016; Massaro and de Theije, 2018; Silvestre

3
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker
would therefore benefit from more cross-cultural research, extending
the prior focus on single-country studies.
3.2. Sample
Content analysis of the articles included in our review shows that, to
date, empirical research has predominantly utilised samples of mining
firms, mines and miners to examine the diffusion and adoption of
innovation and technology. This is unsurprising, considering that most
of the adoption processes would occur further downstream in the supply
chain, at the mine site which is operated by a mining firm. However, to
fully understand diffusion and adoption processes, their potential de­
terminants – and hence a broader set of participants – need to be
observed. Some articles included in our review achieve this, for
example, by collecting data from mining suppliers. Suppliers and
equipment manufacturers are often considered to be drivers of innova­
tion in the mining industry in that they develop new technological so­
lutions and offer these to mining companies (Bartos, 2007). Only a few
research studies have sampled industry experts, policy makers or re­
searchers. These groups could give further insights, for example, into the
current state of knowledge, regulatory demands and requirements, or
innovation trends anticipated for the near future relevant to the mining
sector (cf. Nasirov and Agostini, 2018; Pietrobelli et al., 2018). Other
important groups are underrepresented, such as the workforce (those
who will be using new technology), communities (within which oper­
ations occur), entrepreneurs (those who may foster innovative ideas and
new solutions) and competitors (those who may market competing
technologies and have an incentive to block other technologies). The
neglect of communities is particularly surprising given the recent in­
terest in the concept of ‘social licence to operate’, which naturally in­
volves regional communities (cf. Prno and Scott Slocombe, 2012).
Innovation in the mining industry does not only have the potential to
increase safety and productivity but also to reduce the environmental
footprint (cf. Silvestre and Silva Neto, 2014a). Smart mining, in which
operations are underpinned by advanced technologies, creates the po­
tential for sustainable economic growth for local supply industries and
the opportunity to shift regional economies towards
knowledge-intensive economic activities (Arias et al., 2013; Phelps
et al., 2015).
3.3. Theoretical foundations
More than a third of the articles in our review ground their research
in the innovation literature. Some base their research upon more specific
theories, such as diffusion of innovation or technological diffusion
models (e.g. Køster-Rasmussen et al., 2016; Silvestre and Silva Neto,
2014b; Xu et al., 2018). Other studies are based on literature streams on
global value chains (e.g. Molina, 2018), or technological capabilities and
technological upgrading (e.g. Nuur et al., 2018). Other, perhaps rather
unexpected yet potentially promising, approaches remain the exception.
This includes enquiries based upon perspectives on clusters (Silvestre
and Silva Neto, 2014b) or regional innovation systems (Hall, 2017), thus
adding a geographical scope to the investigation. Another example in­
cludes the use of mental models research to examine judgements about
issues such as the adoption of technology (Stewart and Malatji, 2018).
Overall, system-level perspectives such as those focusing on ecosys­
tems, clusters or technological innovation systems are largely absent
from previous research. Such foci, however, could shed more light on
the diffusion of innovation in the mining sector. In functional innovation
ecosystems companies have the capacity to create more value than a
company could by itself; however, this requires the successful adoption
of innovation throughout the value chain (Adner, 2006). This arguably
applies to the value chain of mining operations. Such research ap­
proaches require investigation of the entire innovation ecosystem with
all its actors, rather than an isolated investigation (cf. Hekkert et al.,
2007). In mining, a few large mining companies dominate global
4
Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540
operations which may result in a comparatively ‘sealed’ ecosystem
(Hogan et al., 2002; Humphreys, 2015). Entry barriers are high and it
may be difficult for innovative and entrepreneurial firms to become a
part of the ecosystem. While a closed and dense network structure can
facilitate the exchange of information and higher levels of trust within
the network (Burt, 2001), there may be barriers to information about
and access to external resources (Lin, 2001). However, knowledge
sharing between organisations can have a positive effect on their inno­
vation performance (Ritala et al., 2015).
It should be noted that some of the articles utilise more than one
theoretical lens; allowing the subject matter to be investigated from
multiple perspectives. On the contrary, almost half of the articles
(n ¼ 13) in our review do not base their research upon a theoretical
foundation. This demonstrates that a considerable share of the published
studies emphasise the empirical investigation without necessarily
enhancing theoretical knowledge of the subject matter.
3.4. Drivers and barriers
Content analysis of the articles is depicted in Table 3, organised by
different levels and thematic areas. For example, some drivers and
barriers are related to the competitive environment within which the
mining industry operates (system level), others relate to managerial or
operational issues on the firm level. Thereby, the synthesis illustrates
multiple levels that have the potential to affect the diffusion of inno­
vation – from the institutional and system level down to the organisa­
tional level. Several of the factors identified can be both barriers and
drivers, depending on their absence or presence. For example, exchange
of ideas and knowledge spill-overs between different stakeholders can
foster the diffusion of innovation (cf. Brackenborough et al., 2001),
while a lack of knowledge transmission and information asymmetry can
present a barrier to innovation (cf. Brackenborough et al., 2001). Our
synthesis includes ‘tangible’ factors, such as those related to costs,
profitability or operational requirements, as well as ‘intangible’ factors,
such as innovation culture, entrepreneurial orientation or managers’
cognitive impediments. Improving the latter requires changes in man­
agers’ and employees’ mindsets which can be challenging to achieve
(Kratzer et al., 2017) – potentially more challenging than to allocate
larger financial resources to innovation activities.
A range of the drivers and barriers attended to in previous research
are not mining industry-specific and are also relevant to other industries
and sectors. Generally, this includes the nature of government policies
and regulations, investment costs, or relative R&D spending. These
factors are not unique to the mining sector but are of concern to almost
all industries and can hinder or facilitate innovation and its diffusion.
That said, this does not diminish their criticality for the mining sector
and its innovation diffusion processes. However, other factors identified
are more specific to the mining sector and may have a greater relevance
relative to other industries. This includes drivers and barriers related to
operations management and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Mining is a capital-intensive industry prone to lock-in effects, in
which existing operational procedures become entrenched, and it may
be complex to implement new technologies when they involve disrup­
tion to existing operational routines (Nanda & Kumar, 2013; Nuur et al.,
2018). In addition, to a greater extent than in other industries, mining
operations are often undertaken in geographically remote and isolated
areas, adding further challenges (cf. Hall, 2017). Furthermore, mining
operations have a considerable direct and indirect impact on commu­
nities and the environment, posing specific demands in terms of their
operations and their approach to CSR matters (Fordham et al., 2017;
So€derholm and Svahn, 2015). This is also reflected in the emergence of
the concept of ‘social licence to operate’, describing the requirement for
the acceptance and approval of mining projects by civil society (Prno
and Scott Slocombe, 2012).
The more mining-specific drivers and barriers of innovation suggest
that archetypes, or typical examples of value-creating innovations, will
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540

Table 3 can present both drivers and barriers to the diffusion and adoption of
Synthesis of drivers and barriers to innovation identified in the articles innovation. For example, if a technology previously used becomes
reviewed. obsolete or local conditions require particular solutions, this may be a
Drivers Barriers push factor for the adoption of innovation (cf. Amadi-Echendu et al.,
Institutional/system Regulatory requirements Regulatory uncertainties
2011; Pietrobelli et al., 2018). On the other hand, the complexity
level involved in implementing an innovation at a potentially remote mine
Government investment Lack of governmental site may result in considerable barriers to its adoption (cf. Nanda &
incentives Kumar, 2013). In general, CSR issues appear to foster the implementa­
Political uncertainties
tion of innovation due to the imperative mining companies face to create
Regulations discouraging
innovation benefits in terms of safety, sustainability or reduced emissions (cf.
Social systems Nasirov and Agostini, 2018; Nikulin et al., 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2016).
Across the published articles examined for our review, the drivers
Competitive Customer commitment Uncertainty and barriers extracted have been addressed to a varying extent –
environment
Market pressure Market size
depending on their relative importance for the given context. However,
Entrants with new Dominant design some drivers and barriers have been given particular emphasis across
technology the group of articles which might suggest that some barriers may be
more relevant for the mining context than others. In terms of drivers,
Archetypes Demonstration projects Lack of testing
health and safety has been most frequently listed (n ¼ 10). This includes
Technology champions
Site champions the pursuit of safety goals, health concerns, and striving for health and
safety improvements, all of which may drive the adoption of innovations
Stakeholder Knowledge spill-overs Lack of knowledge that have the potential to improve organisational health and safety
interactions transmission standards. The second most common driver attended to in the articles is
Exchange of ideas Information asymmetry
the aim to increase productivity (n ¼ 8). An anticipated productivity
Collaboration Short-term relationships
Promotion of adoption Lack of promotion of diffusion improvement triggered by the adoption of a new technology is suggested
Lack of coordination & to be an important motivator. Thirdly, sustainability (n ¼ 7) – mainly
networks characterised by environmental concerns – has the potential to drive the
Lack of trust
adoption of innovation in the mining sector. Other frequently noted
Firm Capabilities Lack of capabilities drivers include increasing efficiency (n ¼ 6), the availability of human
Incumbency Liability of newness capital (n ¼ 6), cost reductions (n ¼ 5), collaboration (n ¼ 4), and market
Human capital Lack of skilled labour pressure (n ¼ 4).
Innovation culture Lack of culture of innovation Moving to the ranking of barriers based on their examination in the
Openness to change Resistance to change
articles in our review, investment costs/lack of financial resources (n ¼ 6) is
Entrepreneurial Reactive approach
orientation the most frequently mentioned barrier to the adoption of innovation and
R&D investment new technology. If investment costs are high, and/or a mining company
Market experience lacks the necessary financial resources, it prevents an innovation from
Workforce/union resistance
being adopted. The second most noted barrier in our sample is workforce
Administrative hurdles
and union resistance (n ¼ 5). Mining employees and their representatives
Economic Reduction of costs (incl. Investment costs/lack of may object an innovation or new technology for various reasons, such as
labour) financial resources disrupting accustomed routines, the fear that automation makes jobs
Increase in productivity redundant, or privacy concerns. Another barrier is administrative hurdles
Increase in efficiency
(n ¼ 4) including bureaucracy and centralisation of processes. For
Profitability Low return expectations
Minimisation of risks Risk of failure/investment example, centralised, complex, and long-lasting procurement processes
in a mining company’s head office can be a considerable barrier to
Managerial Facilitators of innovation Cognitive impediments proactive innovative attempts at a mine site. Also a lack of coordination
Management orientation Short-term mindset
and networks (n ¼ 4) has often been referred to as an impediment to
Communication & Focus on risk avoidance
engagement
innovation adoption. Other repeatedly noted barriers are risk of failure
Lack of priority (n ¼ 3), lack of governmental incentives (n ¼ 3), lack of skilled labour
(n ¼ 3), a short-term mindset (n ¼ 3), and a lack of a culture of innovation
Corporate social Health & safety (n ¼ 3).
responsibility
The relatively extensive inventory of drivers and barriers extracted
Reduction in emissions
Sustainability from the literature demonstrates that diffusion and adoption processes
Business ethics in the mining sector can be a challenging journey. Not only do mining
Company reputation companies, mining suppliers and other stakeholders need to consider
typical economic and financial requirements, but they must also
Operational Technology Technological challenges
obsolescence
consider a comprehensive range of other, less tangible, factors that can
Improving resource Production pressures foster or impede the diffusion of innovation. To add more complexity,
accessibility the relative importance of each driver and barrier will vary depending
Changing local Complexity of implementation on the nature of the innovation and the context. For example, for one
conditions
type of innovation, such as wearable technologies, the investment costs
Geographic isolation
may pose only a small barrier to their adoption, while cognitive im­
pediments, such as fear of personal monitoring causing workforce
play an important role in the diffusion of innovation. Successful resistance, may be a significant barrier. For another type of innovation,
demonstration projects help to make benefits of an innovation visible the relative importance of different barriers and drivers may look
and tangible which can positively affect its diffusion (cf. Stewart and completely different. For practitioners and researchers alike, an evalu­
Malatji, 2018). This is significant given the large investment costs ation of all potential drivers and barriers and an assessment of their
associated with mining operations. Furthermore, operational demands relative importance would be deemed necessary to develop measures for

5
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker
the diffusion and adoption of a given innovation or technology. This has
the potential to discover impediments as well as to make use of driving
forces.
3.5. Stakeholders
Finally, coding and analysis of the articles included in our review has
facilitated the compilation of an inventory of stakeholders relevant to
innovation diffusion and technology adoption processes in the mining
sector. This synthesis goes beyond the mere list of participants sampled
for the empirical articles (see section 3.2). Rather, we extracted stake­
holders who have been identified, analysed and/or investigated in the
articles reviewed and who are suggested to influence and be involved in
the process. A synthesis of potentially relevant stakeholders is presented
in Fig. 2.
In our aggregation of stakeholders, we positioned mining firms into
the central location. They play a dominant role for the diffusion of
innovation since they may or may not be the adopters of an innovative
technology, may be involved in developing an innovation, and/or may
initiate the search for an innovative solution provided by an external
supplier (cf. Atienza et al., 2016; Molina, 2018). The central position
also reflects the relative power large mining corporations possess in
terms of innovation diffusion and technology adoption. Around these
central players – often multinational corporations – is positioned an
array of other stakeholders. These stakeholders are settled on different
levels, have different functions and varying impacts on innovation
diffusion processes. For example, policy makers and regulators deter­
mine legal requirements and demands for innovation, such as the
reduction of emissions (Braun et al., 2017). Investors provide financial
resources for the development and implementation of innovation (cf.
Warhurst and Bridge, 1997). Researchers and entrepreneurs develop
and commercialise innovative solutions, while industry associations
promote potentially viable innovations (cf. Hall, 2017). Likewise, sup­
pliers play an important role for innovation processes; for example,
when mining companies outsource specialised production or services
(Molina, 2018). Local communities and environmentalists may demand
changes or oppose potentially unfavourable developments (cf. Silvestre
and Silva Neto, 2014a; Warhurst and Bridge, 1997). Similarly, the
workforce or unions can push for innovation processes (e.g. to increase
safety) or can counteract innovation they evaluate as disadvantageous to
them (cf. Link and Siegel, 2002; Stewart and Malatji, 2018).
While our aggregation presents a useful synthesis of stakeholders
involved in innovation processes in the mining sector, their involvement
and relative importance will differ depending on the context. Context, in
Fig. 2. Aggregation of stakeholders identified in the articles reviewed.
6
Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540
this case, needs to be understood in a broad sense and includes the na­
ture of innovation, spatial structures and institutional arrangements.
Taking into account such contextual characteristics, stakeholders need
to be identified and their potential impact needs to be evaluated. This
includes relationship attributes such as stakeholders’ power, legitimacy
and urgency (cf. Mitchell et al., 1997). For example, government
agencies possess coercive power in terms of demanding compliance to
regulations, such as environmental standards. Investors possess material
power because they control financial resources. Industry associations
can create legitimacy for an innovation through training and providing
guidelines on the use of new technological opportunities, such as arti­
ficial intelligence in mining. Workforce and unions may use coercive
power to demand or oppose the implementation of an innovation, for
example wearable technologies. The absence or presence of power and
legitimacy among different stakeholders is more variable than steady
(Mitchell et al., 1997) – again emphasising the importance of consid­
ering the specific context of an innovation process.
The articles in our sample represent a range of different contexts
within which different stakeholders have varying power and interests to
impact on the diffusion and adoption of new technology – examples
include: Targets for the reduction of energy consumption and emissions
set by policy makers and legislators may drive the use of more energy-
efficient continuous conveyor belts replacing dump trucks (Braun
et al., 2017). The implementation of automation may result in resistance
from workforce and unions due to the fear that employees with lower
skill sets may be made redundant at the ‘mine of the future’ (Chay­
kowski, 2002; Jacobs and Webber-Youngman, 2017; Nanda & Kumar,
2013). Mining managers may oppose the adoption of alternative energy
sources to meet operational energy demands due to their general resis­
tance to change; while policy makers may have a similarly negative
impact due to not offering incentives for the use of renewable energies
for mining operations (Nasirov and Agostini, 2018).
The insights gained demonstrate that processes of innovation diffu­
sion and technology adoption in the mining sector are subject to a
complex and convoluted structure of stakeholder involvement and
engagement. As elaborated and discussed in the management and
innovation literature, it is crucial not only to identify who the stake­
holders are but also what interests and types of power they possess in
order to determine stakeholder salience and approaches to manage
those stakeholders (cf. Hekkert et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 1997). This
synthesis of stakeholders relevant to innovation processes in the mining
sector, as illustrated based on the review of previous literature, may
serve as a guide for practitioners and future research alike.
4. Suggestions for future research
Our systematic review of the literature demonstrates that research on
the diffusion of innovation and technology adoption in the mining sector
is a comparatively small, yet growing, research field. The analysis of
previous literature suggests that there are ample opportunities for future
research to contribute to this stream of literature and to shed further
light on the topic.
Firstly, we believe that future studies can move the research forward
by applying a contextual and system-level lens on innovation and
adoption processes in the mining sector. Innovation diffusion and
adoption processes occur within a specific context and within an
ecosystem (cf. Hekkert et al., 2007). This shapes the framework for
structures and processes and also for interactions between stakeholders
(Bergek et al., 2015). A ‘mining innovation ecosystem’ is made up of
relatively few large mining corporations that operate globally (cf. Hogan
et al., 2002; Humphreys, 2015). The status and power of incumbent
firms and long-existing closed network structures may create barriers
and make it challenging for new entrants and innovative entrepreneurial
firms to enter this ecosystem. Such ecosystems require further attention
in future research: Who are the key actors within a given system? How
do institutional, regulatory and other system-level characteristics
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker
impact on innovation processes? How can the ecosystem become more
entrepreneurial? What processes are needed to make network structures
more permeable, allowing entrepreneurial actors to join? An attempt to
answer these and related questions could help to map a given ecosystem
and assist with designing blueprints for innovation diffusion processes in
the mining sector. Considering the importance of multinational mining
corporations and the transfer of knowledge and innovation from one
context (country) to another, cross-cultural studies could further add to
the knowledge base. While an innovation may be relatively easy to
implement and be accepted in one cultural context, norms and values
prevailing in another culture may pose barriers (cf. Taylor and Wilson,
2012). For example, the cultural value of uncertainty avoidance has
been found to impact on rates of innovation (Shane, 1993).
Secondly, we believe that some stakeholders within a mining inno­
vation ecosystem require more attention than they have been given in
previous research. This includes local communities, environmentalists
and labour unions. In many cases, these groups may not be directly
involved in innovation diffusion and adoption processes – yet they may
have a strong interest in the subject matter for various reasons.
Depending on the context, they can have the power to impede tech­
nology adoption or they can have the power to support an innovation
and assist with creating legitimacy (cf. Link and Siegel, 2002; Stewart
and Malatji, 2018; Warhurst and Bridge, 1997). This is reflected in the
concept of ‘social licence to operate’, which acknowledges the need to
take notice of local communities and environmental concerns (cf. Prno
and Scott Slocombe, 2012). Questions emerge such as: What impact does
a technology have on the workforce? How does the adoption of an
innovation affect communities and the environment? What are the re­
quirements of these stakeholders to support an innovation? How can
resistance to technology adoption among these stakeholders be over­
come? While communities, environmentalists and unions may not have
the material or regulatory power to influence the adoption of an inno­
vation, they may well have considerable symbolic power. This also ex­
tends to the workforce itself; to date, little research has studied
workforce resistance or support at the individual level.
Thirdly, a stronger focus on the specific operational requirements
within the mining sector could be a promising avenue for future
research. Different to many other industries that are technology-
intensive, mining operations frequently occur in remote areas,
imposing additional demands for adoption processes (cf. Nanda and
Kumar, 2013). Moreover, investment costs are usually high and can be
risky (Costa Lima and Suslick, 2006), and some technology needs to be
implemented at the very early stages of setting up a new mining oper­
ation. Therefore, the implementation of innovation and new technology
in the mining sector may be more challenging than in other industries.
This would require additional research emphasis, such as examining the
specific operational barriers to technology adoption as well as com­
parisons to other industries. Operational, financial and logistic hurdles
may also be a serious impediment to the adoption of new technology.
Fourthly, intangible factors are largely under-researched. This in­
cludes organisational culture and climate, and management orientation.
Appendix A. Articles included, subject classifications and journal quality indicators
Author(s) Journal
Adrian and Dhewanto (2015) Advanced Science Letters
Amadi-Echendu et al. (2011) Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management
Astakhov et al. (1990) Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Atienza et al. (2016) Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy
Brackenborough et al. (2001) British Accounting Review
Braun et al. (2017) Journal of Sustainable Mining
Chaykowski (2002) Journal of Labor Research
Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540
There may be intangible barriers to innovation within mining corpora­
tions due to rather conservative and traditional management orienta­
tions. The organisational culture may lack openness to change,
entrepreneurial orientation and a general culture of innovation (Molina,
2018; Stewart and Malatji, 2018; Wang and Zhang, 2018). These can be
inherent and difficult-to-tackle impediments to the adoption of inno­
vative technological approaches; it is challenging to change organisa­
tional culture (Ogbonna, 1992). Besides a resistance to change and
cognitive impediments, a reactive approach may be prevailing – as
opposed to a more proactive stance. Future research could apply per­
spectives from strategic and corporate entrepreneurship in order to
investigate how management and organisations in the mining sector can
be more proactive and innovative, and how they can utilise an organi­
sation’s resources to facilitate change and to be more
opportunity-seeking (cf. Ireland et al., 2003; Kuratko et al., 2014).
5. Conclusion
Based on a systematic search process, we have identified and mapped
the current state of scholarly knowledge of the diffusion and adoption of
innovation and technology in the mining sector. Our review shows that
academic enquiry into the topic is still relatively scant, yet – just recently
– there has been a surge in studies published. This suggests a growing
interest in and attention to the topic, and likewise extensive opportu­
nities exist for future research to enhance our knowledge of diffusion
and adoption processes in mining. Our analysis of the articles included
in the review has unpacked and synthesised drivers and barriers to
innovation and has outlined the stakeholders involved in diffusion and
adoption processes. Our synthesis shows that there is a range of drivers
and barriers which appear to be specifically relevant to the mining
context. This includes impediments due to operational challenges and
demands originating in health, safety and environmental concerns. In
combination with our aggregation of stakeholders, the synthesis of
drivers and barriers presents a useful and effective checklist for both
practitioners and researchers to identify potential barriers and relevant
stakeholders in a given context. We also present suggestions for future
research to progress enquiry into the topic. We believe that the most
promising questions to approach are related to: system-level and
context-incorporating research; the specific operational demands of
mining operations; under-researched stakeholders, such as workforce
and environmentalists; and intangible factors, such as organisational
culture. Such research attempts may be well-suited to enhance our
knowledge of diffusion and adoption processes, and may eventually
develop useful directions as to how to overcome barriers to innovation
in the mining sector.
Funding information
This research was undertaken with the support of the Queensland
Government Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infra­
structure and Planning, and Mining3.
Subject classification SJRa AJGb ABDCc
Sciences Q4 – –
Business and Economics; Engineering Q1 2 B
Sociology; Technology Q1 3 A
Political Science; Geography Q1 3 B
Business and Economics Q1 3 A
Mines and Mining Industry – – –
Business and Economics; Labour Unions Q3 – B
(continued on next page)
7
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540

(continued )
Author(s) Journal Subject classification SJRa AJGb ABDCc

Hall (2017) Northern Review Humanities; Social Sciences – – –

Jacobs and Webber-Youngman Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining Mines and Mining Industry; Metallurgy Q3 – –
(2017) and Metallurgy
Køster-Rasmussen et al. (2016) New Solutions Environmental Studies; Occupational Health and Safety; Public Q3 – –
Health and Safety
Kuan et al. (2015) Extractive Industries and Society Mines and Mining Industry; Petroleum and Gas Q1 – –
Link and Siegel (2002) Journal of Labor Research Business and Economics; Labour Unions Q3 – B
Massaro and de Theije (2018) Journal of Cleaner Production Engineering; Business and Economics Q1 2 –
Molina (2018) Resources Policy Environmental Studies, Mines and Mining Industry; Energy Q1 2 B
Nanda and Kumar (2013) Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels Metallurgy; Mines and Mining Industry Q4 – –
Nasirov and Agostini (2018) Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Energy Q1 – –
Nikulin et al. (2013) Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science Engineering Q3 – –
Nuur et al. (2018) Innovation and Development Social Sciences Q1 – –
Parker and Cox (2018) Resources Policy Environmental Studies, Mines and Mining Industry; Energy Q1 2 B
Pietrobelli et al. (2018) Resources Policy Environmental Studies, Mines and Mining Industry; Energy Q1 2 B
Ribeiro et al. (2016) Revista Escola de Minas Mines and Mining Industry; Engineering Q4 – –
Silvestre and Silva Neto (2014a) Journal of Cleaner Production Engineering; Business and Economics Q1 2 –
Silvestre and Silva Neto (2014b) Technovation Technology Q1 3 A
Stewart and Malatji (2018) Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining Mines and Mining Industry; Metallurgy Q3 – –
and Metallurgy
Wang and Zhang (2018) Resources Policy Environmental Studies, Mines and Mining Industry; Energy Q1 2 B
Warhurst and Bridge (1997) Natural Resources Forum Energy; Conservation; Geography Q2 – –
Xu et al. (2018) Energy Environmental Studies; Energy Q1 – –
a
SCImago Journal Rank Indicator 2017: Q1 to Q4 (highest to lowest).
b
Association of Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Guide 2018: 4* to 1 (highest to lowest).
c
Australian Business Deans Council Journal Quality List 2018: A* to C (highest to lowest).

References Costa Lima, G.A., Suslick, S.B., 2006. Estimating the volatility of mining projects
considering price and operating cost uncertainties. Resour. Policy 31 (2), 86–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.07.002.
Abrahamson, E., 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of
Dehran, S., Agrawal, P., Midha, P., 2018. Digital applications in metals and mining
innovations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16 (3), 586–612.
industry. Am. J. Oper. Manag. Inf. Syst. 3 (1), 33.
Adner, R., 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv.
Deloitte, 2016. Innovation mining Australia 2016. Retrieved from. https://www2.deloi
Bus. Rev. 84 (4), 98.
tte.com/au/en/pages/energy-and-resources/articles/innovation-mining.html.
Adrian, D., Dhewanto, W., 2015. Diffusion model of value-added technology in
Deloitte, 2017. Mining and METS: engines of economic growth and prosperity for
Indonesian coal mining firm. Adv. Sci. Lett. 21 (6), 2038–2041. https://doi.org/
Australians. Retrieved from. https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/a
10.1166/asl.2015.6197.
rticles/mining-mets-economic-growth-prosperity-engines.html.
Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., Sarkar, M., 2010. Knowledge spillovers and strategic
Deloitte, 2019. Tracking the Trends 2019: the Top 10 Issues Transforming the Future of
entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 4 (4), 271–283.
Mining (Retrieved from).
Amadi-Echendu, J., Lephauphau, O., Maswanganyi, M., Mkhize, M., 2011. Case studies
Dougherty, M.L., 2016. From global peripheries to the earth’s core: the new extraction in
of technology roadmapping in mining. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 28 (1/2), 23.
Latin America. In: Deonandan, K., Dougherty, M.L. (Eds.), Mining in Latin America
Arias, M., Atienza, M., Cademartori, J., 2013. Large mining enterprises and regional
Critical Approaches to the New Extraction. Routledge, London.
development in Chile: between the enclave and cluster. J. Econ. Geogr. 14 (1),
Fordham, A.E., Robinson, G.M., Blackwell, B.D., 2017. Corporate social responsibility in
73–95.
resource companies – opportunities for developing positive benefits and lasting
Astakhov, A., Grübler, A., Mookhin, A., 1990. Technology diffusion in the coal-mining
legacies. Resour. Policy 52, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
industry of the USSR. An interim assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc.Chang. 38 (3),
resourpol.2017.04.009.
223–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(90)90071-3.
Hall, H., 2017. Exploring innovation in Northern Canada with insights from the mining
Atienza, M., Aroca, P., Stimson, R., Stough, R., 2016. Are vertical linkages promoting the
innovation system in greater sudbury, Ontario. North. Rev. (45), 33–56. https://doi.
creation of a mining cluster in Chile? An analysis of the SMEs’ practices along the
org/10.22584/nr45.2017.003.
supply chain. Environ. Plan. C Govern. Policy 34 (1), 171–187. https://doi.org/
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2007.
10.1177/0263774X15614708.
Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological
AustralianMining, 2017. What are mining’s standout innovations? Aust. Min. Retrieved
change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74 (4), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
from https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/minings-standout-innovat
techfore.2006.03.002.
ions/.
Hogan, L., Harman, J., Maritz, A., Thorpe, S., Simms, A., Berry, P., Copeland, A., 2002.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
Mineral exploration in Australia: trends, economic impacts and policy issues. Aust.
innovation. Manag. Decis. 47 (8), 1323–1339.
Commod.: Forecasts and Issues 9 (4), 601.
Bartos, P.J., 2007. Is mining a high-tech industry?: investigations into innovation and
Holcombe, S., Kemp, D., 2019. Indigenous peoples and mine automation: an issues
productivity advance. Resour. Policy 32 (4), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paper. Resour. Policy 63, 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2007.07.001.
resourpol.2019.101420.
Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sand�en, B., Truffer, B., 2015.
Humphreys, D., 2015. The Remaking of the Mining Industry. Palgrave Macmillan UK,
Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures
London.
and interaction dynamics. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 16, 51–64. https://doi.org/
Hyder, Z., Siau, K., Nah, F., 2019. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and
10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003.
autonomous technologies in mining industry. J. Database Manag. 30 (2), 67–79.
Bladier, R., 2016. Innovation and Technology Policy. Queensland Resources Council.
IBISWorld, 2018. Global coal mining. Retrieved from. http://www.ibisworld.com.
Brackenborough, S., McLean, T., Oldroyd, D., 2001. The emergence of discounted cash
IBISWorld, 2018. Global iron ore mining. Retrieved from. http://www.ibisworld.com.
flow analysis in the tyneside coal industry. Br. Account. Rev. 33 (2), 137–155.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Sirmon, D.G., 2003. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the
https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0158.
construct and its dimensions. J. Manag. 29 (6), 963–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Braun, T., Hennig, A., Lottermoser, B.G., 2017. The need for sustainable technology
S0149-2063(03)00086-2.
diffusion in mining: achieving the use of belt conveyor systems in the German hard-
Jacobs, J., Webber-Youngman, R.C.W., 2017. A technology map to facilitate the process
rock quarrying industry. J. Sustain. Mining 16 (1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
of mine modernization throughout the mining cycle. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall 117
j.jsm.2017.06.003.
(7), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/2017/v117n7a5.
Bridge, G., 2004. Mapping the bonanza: geographies of mining investment in an era of
Job, A., McAree, P.R., 2017. Three Case Studies on the Implementation of New
neoliberal reform. Prof. Geogr. 56 (3), 406–421.
Technology in the Mining Industry (Paper presented at the Iron Ore Conference,
Burt, R.S., 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin, N.,
Perth, Australia).
Cook, K., Burt, R.S. (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research. Transaction
Karakaya, E., Nuur, C., 2018. Social sciences and the mining sector: some insights into
Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 31–56.
recent research trends. Resour. Policy 58, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chaykowski, R.P., 2002. Re-inventing production systems and industrial relations:
resourpol.2018.05.014.
technology-driven transformation in the Canadian metal-mining industry. J. Labor
Res. 23 (4), 591–613.

8
J.H. Gruenhagen and R. Parker
Kimberly, J.R., Evanisko, M.J., 1981. Organizational innovation: the influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of
technological and administrative innovations. Acad. Manag. J. 24 (4), 689–713.
Køster-Rasmussen, R., Westergaard, M.L., Brasholt, M., Gutierrez, R., Jørs, E.,
Thomsen, J.F., 2016. Mercury pollution from small-scale gold mining can be stopped
by implementing the gravity-borax method – a two-year follow-up study from two
mining communities in the Philippines. New Solut. 25 (4), 567–587. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1048291115607929.
Kratzer, J., Meissner, D., Roud, V., 2017. Open innovation and company culture: internal
openness makes the difference. Technol. Forecast. Soc.Chang. 119, 128–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.022.
Kuan, J., Rombe-Shulman, S., Shittu, E., 2015. The political economy of technology
adoption: the case of Saharan salt mining. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2 (2), 328–338. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.01.012.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Covin, J.G., 2014. Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment
for corporate entrepreneurship. Bus. Horiz. 57 (1), 37–47.
Kurkkio, M., Frishammar, J., S€ oderholm, P., Ejdemo, T., 2014. Mapping the Nordic
Mining and Metal Industry: for the Purpose of Enhancing and Developing its
Innovative Capability. Luleå tekniska universitet.
Lin, N., 2001. Building a network theory of social capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R.S.
(Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
NJ, pp. 3–28.
Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., 2002. Unions and technology adoption: a qualitative analysis of
the use of real-time control systems in U.S. coal firms. J. Labor Res. 23 (4), 615–630.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-002-1031-5.
MacVaugh, J., Schiavone, F., 2010. Limits to the diffusion of innovation: a literature
review and integrative model. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 13 (2), 197–221.
Massaro, L., de Theije, M., 2018. Understanding small-scale gold mining practices: an
anthropological study on technological innovation in the Vale do Rio Peixoto (Mato
Grosso, Brazil). J. Clean. Prod. 204, 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.08.153.
Micklethwaite, S., 2018. Drones in mining-the new possible. AusIMM Bull. (Australas.
Inst. Min. Metall.) 32. Oct 2018.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Huberman, M.A., Huberman, M., 1994. Qualitative Data
Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.
Molina, O., 2018. Innovation in an unfavorable context: local mining suppliers in Peru.
Resour. Policy 58, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.10.011.
Nanda, N.K., Kumar, S., 2013. Developments in mining machinery and systems, both
surface and underground, for meeting the future challenges. J. Mines Met. Fuels 61
(7–8), 163–169.
Nasirov, S., Agostini, C.A., 2018. Mining experts’ perspectives on the determinants of
solar technologies adoption in the Chilean mining industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 95, 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.038.
Nikulin, C., Graziosi, S., Cascini, G., Stegmaier, R., 2013. Integrated model for
technology assessment and expected evolution: a case study in the chilean mining
industry. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 17 (4), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.3233/jid-
2013-0013.
Nuur, C., Gustavsson, L., Laestadius, S., 2018. Capability creation in the natural resource-
based sector: experiences from Swedish mining. Innov. Dev. 8 (1), 103–123. https://
doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2017.1314813.
O’Callaghan, T., Vivoda, V., 2015. Problems of regulatory governance in the mining
sector in Asia. Transnatl. Corp. 22 (1), 31–57.
Ogbonna, E., 1992. Managing organisational culture: fantasy or reality? Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 3 (2), 42–54.
Parker, R., Cox, S., 2018. How the globalisation and financialisation of mining Majors
affects linkage development with local engineering and technology suppliers in the
Queensland resources industry. Resour. Policy 58, 125–130. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.002.
Phelps, N.A., Atienza, M., Arias, M., 2015. Encore for the enclave: the changing nature of
the industry enclave with illustrations from the mining industry in Chile. Econ.
Geogr. 91 (2), 119–146.
Resources Policy 65 (2020) 101540
Pietrobelli, C., Marin, A., Olivari, J., 2018. Innovation in mining value chains: new
evidence from Latin America. Resour. Policy 58, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2018.05.010.
Prno, J., Scott Slocombe, D., 2012. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in
the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour.
Policy 37 (3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002.
Rees, J., 2017. Natural Resources : Allocation, Economics and Policy. Routledge, London,
UNITED KINGDOM.
Ribeiro, B.G.C., de Sousa, W.T., da Luz, J.A.M., 2016. Feasibility project for
implementation of conveyor belts in an iron ore mine. Study case: fabrica Mine in
Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Revista Escola de Minas 69 (1), 79–83. https://doi.org/
10.1590/0370-44672013690021.
Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., Husted, K., 2015. Knowledge sharing, knowledge
leaking and relative innovation performance: an empirical study. Technovation 35,
22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.011.
Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, F.F., 1971. Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural
Approach. Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, W.P., Kahraman, M.M., Drews, F.A., Powell, K., Haight, J.M., Wang, Y.,
Sobalkar, M., 2019. Automation in the Mining Industry: Review of Technology,
Systems, Human Factors, and Political Risk. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0094-2.
Salda~na, J., 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Scott-Kemmis, D., 2013. How about Those METS. Leveraging Australia’s Mining Equipment,
Technology and Services Sector. Minerals Council of Australia, Sydney.
Shane, S., 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. J. Bus. Ventur. 8 (1),
59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90011-S.
Silvestre, B.S., Silva Neto, R.E., 2014. Are cleaner production innovations the solution for
small mining operations in poor regions? the case of Padua in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod.
84 (1), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.097.
Silvestre, B.S., Silva Neto, R.E., 2014. Capability accumulation, innovation, and
technology diffusion: lessons from a Base of the Pyramid cluster. Technovation 34
(5–6), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.007.
S€
oderholm, P., Svahn, N., 2015. Mining, regional development and benefit-sharing in
developed countries. Resour. Policy 45, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2015.03.003.
Stewart, J.M., Malatji, S.M., 2018. Development of the MOSH leading practice adoption
system — a science-based system for managing behaviour change. J. S. Afr. Inst.
Min. Metall 118 (3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/2018/
v118n3a9.
Taylor, M.Z., Wilson, S., 2012. Does culture still matter?: the effects of individualism on
national innovation rates. J. Bus. Ventur. 27 (2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusvent.2010.10.001.
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., Li, D., 2016. Comparative international entrepreneurship: a
review and research agenda. J. Manag. 42 (1), 299–344.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
UNIDO, 2018. World Statistics on Mining and Utilities 2018. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
UK.
Waarts, E., Van Everdingen, Y., 2005. The influence of national culture on the adoption
status of innovations:: an empirical study of firms across Europe. Eur. Manag. J. 23
(6), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.007.
Wang, W., Zhang, C., 2018. Evaluation of relative technological innovation capability:
model and case study for China’s coal mine. Resour. Policy 58, 144–149. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.008.
Warhurst, A., Bridge, G., 1997. Economic liberalisation, innovation, and technology
transfer: opportunities for cleaner production in the minerals industry. Nat. Resour.
Forum 21 (1), 1–12.
Xu, J., Gao, W., Xie, H., Dai, J., Lv, C., Li, M., 2018. Integrated tech-paradigm based
innovative approach towards ecological coal mining. Energy 151, 297–308. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.090.