The valuation of a mine – values, facts and contested notions of sustainability in the prospecting for new mines

ABSTRACT

With the current technology-based transition strategy, prospecting for new mines has increased, and the extractive damage involved in mining is justified as a means of protecting the climate. The mining permit process involves fundamental trade-offs between values and goals (environmental, social, and economic) relating to global security and local livelihoods, as well as conflicting understandings of sustainability. These value conflicts and dilemmas lie at the heart of sustainable transformation. Drawing on pragmatic sociology and the orders of worth established by Boltanski and Thévenot, this paper illustrates that competing standpoints claim legitimacy by referring to different modes of judging what is good, right, and sustainable. The analysis shows that institutionalized ideals about legitimate forms of proof constrain and limit the possible ways of justifying a position, and this shapes the way nature is valued, as well as how contestation is formulated. When critics adopt legitimate forms of justification, they might win the case, but at the same time, strengthen the dominance of specific ways of ascribing value. The paper concludes that active engagement with diverging ways of ascribing worth, and thus different forms of proof, may enable governance that leads to more just and sustainable futures.

KEYWORDS:

• Valuation
• environmental values
• justification
• mining
• transformation
• orders of worth

Introduction

Currently, there is an increasing demand for new mines, to secure the supply of critical minerals (see e.g. EU’s mineral strategy). The dominant approach to the climate crisis and the path toward fossil-free societies grants a critical role to electrification, and batteries for storing renewable energy are a central part of this. Technical solutions and related infrastructural developments for tackling climate change require extensive material resources. Minerals and metals are vital, and new mines are required to pursue this strategy. Thus, the climate crisis provides an environmental motive for mineral extraction and the opening of new mines. At the same time, mining is an extractive industry involving environmental risks and expansive resource extraction, which fundamentally interferes with other potential land uses (Arboleda 2020). Since mining contributes to local environmental degradation it can also contribute to environmental inequality and injustice (Nachet et al. 2022).

The establishment of extractive industries is often surrounded by deep-seated value conflicts based on people’s diverging relationships to the land (Haikola and Anshelm 2020; Jääskeläinen 2020; Kojola 2019; Wilson and Stammler 2016) and, I shall argue, divergent ways of ascribing value. Permit processes often involve fundamental contestations (Kojola 2019; Malin, Ryder, and Lyra 2019). The fault line between mining proponents and critics concerns how they approach various justifications for a mine, such as jobs, development, and financial benefits, but also their visions of a sustainable future (Anshelm, Haikola, and Wallsten 2018; Olofsson 2020; Poelzer and Ejdemo 2018; Wilson and Stammler 2016). Thus, contestation is rooted in deeply political questions, such as who has the right to natural resources, what is the value of nature, whose benefits should be prioritized, and what timeframe should apply when considering benefits. In other words, mining policy encompasses value conflicts and dilemmas that lie at the heart of sustainable transformation.

Sweden is the largest mining nation in Europe, accounting for 91% of European iron, 40% of lead, 33% of zinc, and substantial shares of other metals (Statistics SGU). The country also has several sites at which critical mineral deposits have been identified. The urgency of the climate crisis has motivated politicians to speed up the environmental permit process for infrastructural and industrial projects, including mining (SOU 2022:56, SOU 2022:33), a trend observed in other countries (Yıldız and Kural 2020). However, many cases meet resistance from local and environmental actors (Anshelm, Haikola, and Wallsten 2018, Lindahl et al. 2018). To democratically govern sustainable transformation, such value conflicts must be foregrounded and reflexively handled by public organizations (Abson et al. 2017, Baber and Bartlett 2021, Berg 2021, Berg and Olsson 2023, Pickering 2018), which involves explicit consideration of how a mine is valued (cf. Jääskeläinen 2020).

The article explores the decision-making process for prospecting and opening new mines in Sweden. The aim is to explore how new mines are justified and contested. It pays particular attention to how the process shapes and constrains how legitimate claims can be made. Identifying and understanding such constraints is the first step towards making such processes more inclusive and reflexive. Five permit processes for new mines in Sweden were analyzed, covering the last six years. The largest body of material consists of decisions and documentation from the Land and Environment Court complemented by interviews with civil servants involved in mining permit processes. The analysis was guided by the following empirical questions: How do contestation and critique play out? What claims and forms of proof are made relevant in the process and what perspectives are delegitimated or ignored?

To uncover the institutional constraints on what is perceived as legitimate claims for and against a mine, I build on pragmatic sociology and Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) theory of justifications. The basic starting point is that societies are upheld by moral orders (Durkheim 1973). Moral orders constitute rationalities for ascribing worth to people, acts, and events. They shape the way we understand a situation, and thus, what responses are legitimate, available, and socially accepted (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006). By identifying the legitimate means of justifying an agreement (a binding decision), we can understand how institutional factors shape and condition a process and its outcomes. Previous research has shown political tensions, sacrifices, and trade-offs involved in mining (for example, Arboleda 2020, Kojola 2019, Lindahl et al. 2018). This paper shows that the permit process limits how authoritative claims can be made, whereby it also constrains how nature, or a mine, is valued.

The next section accounts for the theoretical framework. Thereafter follows a section on the development of mining policy in Sweden, including a description of how the permit process is structured. The subsequent section explains the methods of analysis and accounts for the empirical material. The analytical section accounts for how justification and contestation play out in the permit process and addresses the implications of that structural pattern. In the last section, conclusions are drawn and their implications are discussed.

Societal orders of worth

Societies are upheld by moral orders which constitute rationalities for ascribing worth to people, acts, and events (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, Durkheim 1973). In situations of dispute, actors justify their arguments by (directly or indirectly) referring to moral principles such as efficiency, tradition, or duty. Boltanski and Thévenot (1999, 2006) identify six orders of worth, which provide registers of argument entrenched in societal discourses that actors draw upon to justify their positions: domestic, market, civic, inspired, industrial, and fame. The relative use of the different orders may vary between cultures (cf. Jasanoff 2005), and societal spheres. However, they all constitute socialized rationalities for reasoning available to actors in any dispute.

The main usage of the framework has been to study how compromises are reached (Demers and Gond 2020, Nyberg and Wright 2013) and how actors use and form justifications in specific public disputes (Thévenot, Moody, and Lafay 2000, Patriotta, Gond, and Schultz 2011). The framework has also been useful for revealing competing and conflicting orders of worth within organizations (Jagd 2011). My use of the framework specifically targets the employment of proof or facts when making or contesting justifications. I seek to capture how the bureaucratic process compels certain values by legitimating certain forms of proof. The framework has been developed as a critique to Bourdieu’s critical sociology by recognizing individuals’ agency in moral domains (Demers and Gond 2020, Jagd 2011). However, I use this theory to identify institutional constraints on moral agency.

Orders of worth and legitimate forms of proof

Orders of worth come to be expressed in evaluative statements, which refer to specific qualifications (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, 141). For example, to justify an act or position, people might refer to something’s cost, a standard scientific measure, a subjective belief influenced by common opinion, an established tradition, an aesthetic sentiment, or a political requirement. All of these are legitimate proofs of something’s value in their respective orders of worth (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, 33). The objects and tools that are central to ascribing worth in one order may have little or no significance in another. ‘Various forms of knowledge support the different ways of evaluating worth. Industrial worth is attested by assessments, while domestic worth can call for reasoning by way of anecdotes in which a certain level of generality is always embodied’ (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, 132). This means that norms or regulations regarding what constitutes legitimate proof have implications for how justifications can be made, what justifications are considered legitimate or authoritative, and, thereby, what kinds of values are safeguarded.

According to the market order of worth value is ascribed based on the competitive position in the market. The price or profitability of something is a means of evaluating its worth. The relevant form of proof of something’s value relates to monetary benefits. This implies that the evaluation of worth has a relatively short-term perspective. In the industrial order, efficiency is the higher principle. The relevant forms of proof are statistics and measurable criteria that may demonstrate the controllability and productivity of a process. Controllability of the environment is a means to increase efficiency and, thereby, worth. In the civic order, the worth of an action or actor depends on whether it favors a moral cause or public interest. Legislation, civic rights, and political goals are key objects that symbolize public interests. The civic order of worth is, of course, fundamental to a public decision-making process, where public organizations are meant to serve the public interest, and legislation and political goals govern the process. However, in complex decisions involving multiple public interests, the civic form of proof is insufficient for an agreement. Other orders of worth come into play when prioritization, trade-offs, and compromises need to be made between different public goods.

The domestic order takes tradition as its higher principle when ascribing and justifying worth. The typical mode of proof on which its justifications are built consists of exemplary anecdotes that capture the tradition and its meaning/wisdom. Through long-term continuity and tradition, skills, know-how, and expertise are gained and disseminated through practice and knowledge transmission. For the inspired order of worth, the relevant forms of proof are emotional or sensory, appealing to such things as the beauty or serenity of a location or embodied experiences of natural settings. Time is not perceived as linear but is rather related to stillness or transitory raptures.

Because of the inability of the existing orders of worth to account for the environment and justify its protection, a seventh order of worth has developed over the last few decades: the green order of worth (Andersen 2017, Centemeri 2022, Lafaye and Thévenot 2017, Thévenot, Moody, and Lafay 2000). However, environmental friendliness is often justified through other orders of worth (Lafaye and Thévenot 2017; Thévenot, Moody, and Lafay 2000). An example is the attempt to place a price tag on ecosystems and their services as a means to value them. The green order faces a challenge in reaching independent authority, which I argue relates to the relevant form of proof. Within the green order, the relevant form of proof is ecological, however, there are different ways of knowing and understanding nature. In modern societies, ecological facts easily transgress into the industrial order and measurability and manageability of nature. However, the green order is not primarily about controlling or managing levels, e.g. of water, pollutants, or other substances. It involves a broader eco-systemic approach, where nature is to be preserved and protected rather than used and managed.

Table 1 builds on selected excerpts from Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) and Lafaye and Thévenot (2017), and has been adapted to highlight the dimensions that are most analytically relevant for this study and this form of dispute. One of the main adaptations of the table relates to the concept of time formation, which has been modified building on Lockie and Wong’s (2018) discussion of time and the temporalities of social and environmental change, which are central concerns of the administrative process studied. The other concerns the inspired order, which has been further developed building on Rosa (2019) and the notion of resonance as an antidote to the acceleration of modern societies. Boltanski and Thévenot argued that innovation is a higher-order principle in the inspired order. I argue that this interpretation limits the scope of the inspired order to the compromise it makes with the market order. I argue that the overarching value of the inspired order of worth (in its pure form) is inspiration, and resonance is an expression or experience of this value that is not explicitly tied to productivity (Rosa 2019). Furthermore, the fame order has been excluded, since it was not found applicable to this type of bureaucratic, legalistic process.

Table 1. Orders of worth and forms of justification.

Orders of worth	Market	Industrial	Civic	Green	Domestic	Inspired
Higher common principal	Competition, (expansion)	Efficiency (speeding up)	Civic duty	Greenness (non-anthropocentric)	Tradition, (continuity)	Inspiration (serenity)
Mode of evaluating worth	Price, profitability	Productivity, efficiency	Collective interest, the verdict of the vote	Ecological sustainability	Trust	Resonance, creativity
Form of relevant proof	Monetary value, prices, benefit, payback	Measurable criteria, statistics	Formal office, assembly, collective opinion	Ecological, eco-systemic, natural habitats, renewability	Oral exemplary anecdotes	Emotional, experience based
Qualified objects	Wealth	Methods, tools, graphs, lists, etc.	Legal forms (rights, legislation, degree)	Wilderness, pristine, healthy environment, natural habitat	Rules of etiquette, habits, customs, tradition	Emotionally invested body (mind, dream, intuition)
Time formation	Short-term, flexibility Feeds acceleration	Linear, planned future, Feeds acceleration		Cyclic, future generations,	Customary path, continuity	Rupture, slow-down

Source: Adapted from Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) and Lafaye and Thévenot (2017), building on Lockie and Wong (2018) and Rosa (2019).

Contestation and critique

In situations where one order of worth predominates, the way things, people, and situations are valued seems self-evident; it is just a matter of gathering proof. However, when there are different ways of valuing a situation, disputes arise. Judgments are critiqued, and the justifications are put to the test.

There are different levels of critique. The testing of a justification can bear upon the factual nature of the elements that have been invoked to establish worth e.g. by critiquing the validity of the profitability analysis. It involves distinguishing between facts that can legitimately be considered ‘proof’ and contingent, unreliable, or irrelevant circumstances (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, 133–35). Such critique may involve challenging the tools used for evaluating things, beings, places, and so on (Centemeri 2022). This form of critique operates within a certain order of worth. When critique is raised against the validity of a technical risk assessment, the critique still affirms the overarching principle of controllability and efficiency, affirming that specific order. Thus, this form of critique may be productive for winning a case but counterproductive for challenging the dominant order.

A more radical form of critique is the contestation of the higher principle, that is, the value that is central to the reality test, rather than the tools or proof of the evaluation (Boltanski and Thévenot 1999, 373–4). When contesting what form of proof provides a legitimate justification, the appropriate order of worth is under negotiation. This means that when analyzing arguments and counterarguments, (e)valuative propositions and the form of proof they build upon are central elements for analysis, both for identifying the order of worth induced by the argument and for identifying on what level contestations play out.

Mining in Sweden: on the fault line of essential values

Mining has been a Swedish national interest and an object of state governance for the last century; most of that time, the state received 50% of all mining revenues (by holding a 50% share in the companies). However, in the 1990s, a dramatic change in the mining policy occurred. The mineral law (1991) and related legislation governing mining were amended during a period that was ideologically dominated by deregulation. With the new legislation, the role of the state shifted dramatically. The interests of the mining industries were given stronger protection, and the role of the state shifted to attracting and supporting companies, making Sweden an attractive location for mining activities. The 50% share policy was changed to a 0.05% fee, which is one of the world’s lowest taxes on mineral extraction (Haikola and Anshelm 2020, 3).

The amendment represented more than just an altered understanding of the roles of the state and market. A few years into the 21^st century, the attitude toward mining had transformed. From having been viewed as an issue entailing deep ideological rifts, it was now seen as characterized by extensive consensus, well-suited for techno-economic managerialism (Anshelm and Haikola 2018a, 569). The political discourse that shaped the legislation of the mining permit process had a focus on promoting economic growth through exports. ‘Economic growth, international competition, and a rationalized and intensified extractive industry were all identified as common, national goals that were in the interest of all parties’ (Anshelm and Haikola 2018a, 571). The mining policy was built on the conviction that potential conflicts are conflicts of interest are manageable through dialogue (Anshelm and Haikola 2018a; cf. Isacs et al. 2022).

Over the last decade, the political dimension of mining has regained prominence. This is related to the current call for new mines to meet the demands of electrification and other technical solutions to climate change, in combination with ongoing local conflicts around different mining sites (Lawrence and Larsen 2017, Lindahl et al. 2018, Poelzer and Ejdemo 2018, Raitio, Allard, and Lawrence 2020). Expert authorities and the judicial system play central roles, as they constitute the institutional contexts for claiming, judging, and justifying the benefits and risks of a mine. Tensions and contestation become part of bureaucratic processes and are filtered through them. Understanding the ways in which bureaucratic processes manage, shape, and put strain on such justifications and critiques is therefore essential for understanding the democratic governance of a green transformation.

The structure of the Swedish mining permit process

The mining permit process consists of three main steps. The Mineral Act, which guides the first two steps of the process, is exploitation-friendly. It aims to encourage industries to prospect and invest in Sweden. The process is governed by the Mineral Act, Mineral Ordinance, and Swedish Environmental Code. The process is structured in such a way that the applicant is informed about competing interests and other concerns, and is thereby enabled to address all queries, adapt its plans, and receive a permit. However, while this is the aim of the process (in terms of its structure and legislation), there are still cases where the co-existence of different interests and uses of land is impossible, or where the risks are deemed to be too high.

The first step is an exploration permit, which allows a company to search for minerals. These permits are relatively easy to acquire. The permit is issued by the Mining Inspectorate of Sweden. An exploration permit can be sold and traded. The next major step is the exploitation concession, by which the mining inspectorate grants the company the right to extract minerals. In both these stages, the county administrative board, which represents the state on the regional level, participates in identifying whether there are any competing national interests relating to the usage of the land. To be granted an exploitation concession, the company must account for the quality of the ore and demonstrate the profitability of a potential mine, including how long it will be profitable. This ore reserve estimate is the main basis for an exploitation concession. In cases where the mining inspectorate and the county administrative board do not agree, the decision can be relegated to the government. The third step is the environmental permit, which involves effects on humans, other species, water, potential toxic spills, and so on. This is the part of the process where the most contestations arise. Environmental permits are issued by the land and environment courts, and the first step in the decision is to accept the environmental impact assessment (EIA) provided by the company. This means that a substantial part of the (con)testing of mines targets the justifications made in the EIA. At this stage, a potential permit is generally accompanied by multiple permit conditions.

Methods and materials

The study is based on a qualitative analysis of legal cases regarding the opening of new mines. Legal judgments are appropriate documents for analysis because they include the statements, concerns, and arguments of a broad set of actors, including municipalities, county boards, civil organizations, and local residents. The documents also include applicants’ responses to statements and a reasoned judgment of the court. Through interpretive analysis of the documents, lines of argument and counterarguments can be identified (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2013, Hajer 2002). The court material includes the justifications made, for and against a mine, referring to different forms of proof. As underlined in the theory section, the way that proofs are used differs between the varying orders of worth and the different forms of critique. Thus, identifying the forms of proof that justifications and contestation build upon is central to the analysis.

The lines of argument and justifications made in the legal process do not necessarily fully represent the views of the respondents. They are shaped by the process and its legal character. Analyzing patterns in the modes of justification can therefore enable institutional contingencies to be traced (de Graaf et al. 2022).

Case selection and materials

Focusing on new mines, excluding the expansion of existing mines, offers more similar cases and avoids potentially path-dependent decision-making. It also allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of recent cases. The cases that had been subject to decisions in the Land and environment courts during the preceding five years (before September 2022) were selected for analysis (three cases). Securing all permits required to open a mine takes a long time, possibly a decade or longer (depending on the complexity of the case, the quality of the initial application, and the number of appeals). This means that the exploitation permits relating to these prospected mines are older, wherefore two additional cases have been included that are currently at the stages of exploration and exploitation permits, but where conflicting values have already gained substantial attention in the process. In total five cases have been analyzed. Table 2 lists the cases and the related material. The legal case numbers in the first column allow the reader to trace the material, referenced with page numbers in the analysis.

Table 2. Documentary materials.

Mine and legal case number	Part of the process	Decisions	Number of pages
Case 1: Brickagruvan, M37–17	Exploitation permit	approved (2010)	7 pages
	Environmental permit	approved (2017)	282 pages
Case 2: Billinge, M1180–14	Exploitation permit	approved (1998)	8 pages
	Environmental permit	denied (2022)	122 pages
Case 3: Fäboliden, M1950–18	Exploitation permit	approved (2004)	11 pages
	Environmental permit	denied (2022)	138 pages
Case 4: Kallak, N2017/04553	Exploitation permit	approved by gov. (2022)	33 pages
Case 5: Taberg, M5435–18	Exploration appeal	dismissed (2019)	20 pages

To complement the material and inform the analysis, interviews were conducted with civil servants from the mining inspectorate (the authority responsible for the first two steps of the process), and the county administrative boards (which represent the state authority and are responsible for the implementation of national goals on regional level), whose role in all three steps is to account for, prioritize, and protect competing public interests and usages of the land. The county administrative boards also engage in dialogue with mining companies during the process and serve as the inspection authority for mining activities. The informants (seven in total) were asked about their role in the process, what conflicting values and interests emerge in the process, and how they are accounted for.

Analytical steps and coding

The court cases were first analyzed one by one to 1) single out the justifications for and against the mine and, 2) what different orders of worth the claims represent by identifying forms of proof, modes of evaluation, and qualified objects (see Table 1). To maintain context sensitivity was important to understand the centrality of different claims. This was done by looking at how arguments and counterarguments are restating, referring, or contesting each other. The frequency and resonance of different forms of claims and proofs, or their isolation, indicate their centrality and influence in the process, as does how the different claims were approached in the ruling statements of the court. Another means for addressing the impact of different orders of worth was to look at how critique was formulated based on the different levels of critique, specified in the analytical framework.

In the next step, an analysis was made across cases focusing on the prevalent patterns of justification, and the interaction and balance between the different orders of worth (see Table 3). In this second step, material from the interviews as well as policy documents (legal documents and official reports from the government) were used to validate and complement the analysis (Bowen 2009, Creswell and Creswell 2018).

Table 3. Analytical steps.

Modes of justification in the mining permit process: analytical findings

The different orders of worth are accounted for in turn. After an account of the dominant orders, the competing orders are presented. The two orders of worth that have a central position in the process are the market and the industrial order. Their strength is reinforced by the legislation governing the process and the means for conducting EIAs. A vast majority of justifications and critiques represent the market-industrial nexus. Justifications based on the industrial order are the claims most commonly critiqued or referred to by other parties, indicating their central role in the process.

The market order of worth

The most fundamental justification for a mine, its profitability, builds on the market order of worth. The fundamental role of the market order derives from the structure and legislation of the process. The ore reserve estimate which demonstrates the profitability of extracting metals or minerals, plays a central role in the decision to grant an exploitation concession to a business. In theory, an estimate can be contested regarding the quality of the ore, or its assumed profitability. Since it depends on market prices, which can fluctuate it unavoidably involves uncertainty. However, there is relatively little debate and contestation at the exploitation concession stage. One reason is that the ore reserve estimate is confidential for reasons of industrial secrecy. This confidentiality serves to safeguard the highest value of the market order, namely competition. It implies that the basic justification for establishing a mine cannot be publicly scrutinized or tested, and very few people have full insight into the calculations that justify profitability. One of the interviewees calls it the black box of the process (Interview 3). The mining inspectorate describes its judgment of the profitability analysis as a rough assessment that aims to avoid granting concessions to projects that should definitely not be realized (interview 2).

Another recurring justification based on the market order concerns the socio-economic benefits of a mine, in terms of job opportunities and their associated tax incomes (cf. Malin, Ryder, and Lyra 2019). In the permit processes the socioeconomic benefits of the mine are weighed against the environmental consequences, potential risks, and competing usages of the land. In the controversial case concerning an iron mine in Kallak, the government concluded that reindeer husbandry and mineral extraction can’t exist alongside each other (Case 4, p. 30). Weighing the interests, the government argued:

From a long-term perspective, the mining activity that the application for exploitation concession concerns involves an intrusion for a limited time into land areas used for reindeer husbandry, within a relatively small area, with the potential to generate significant positive socio-economic effects, which is to be regarded as good management of the area’s resources. (Case 4, p. 31)

The government granted an exploitation concession based on the socio-economic effects. The number of job opportunities and associated (temporary) tax revenues are the forms of proof, which justify the value of a mine and represent good management of natural resources. The company even argues that the difficulties that the mine will cause for reindeer herding are beneficial since they will create more jobs (i.e. more work for the Sámis) (pp. 11–2). Little recognition is given to the (non-economic) value of the Sámi herders’ traditional way of life, which is constrained by the cumulative effects of hydroelectric and wind energy plants, forestry, and mining. The quote also illustrates that the time perspective shifts when different values are considered (cf. Adam 1998). Concerning the negative effects that the mine will have on reindeer herding and the traditional Sámi means of livelihood, the effects are described as limited in time (despite that the environmental impacts will persist, even after the mine’s period of operation), while the socio-economic benefits are not depicted as short-term.

Another form of market-based justification that is prevalent in most cases is to use current market demand and existing transactions as forms of proof. This means that extraction as such is not questioned, and instead, it is portrayed as a necessary consequence of development and market demand. A recurring argument for opening mines is that metal and mineral resources located in Sweden/EU should be used to reduce reliance on imports from other countries (currently, approximately 84% are imported to the EU from China). This basic assumption builds on demand, buyers and sellers, and competitive advantage. Brickagruvan’s application can serve as an example (see also case 3, p. 49, case 2, p. 51, 65):

Currently, China and Russia account for approximately 75% of the global production of vanadium. South Africa, Brazil, and other parts of the world account for 21% and 4%, respectively. There is no production in Europe. Therefore, there is an urgent need to create opportunities to produce vanadium in Europe. (Case 1, p. 232)

Another sign of the strong position of the market order is that claims building on demand, existing transactions, and profitability are rarely contested, they are authoritative (cf. Rinkinen, Shove, and Marsden 2020). This is highlighted by one of the interviewees who emphasizes that it is far from certain that the metals or minerals will be sold within the EU. Some exploitation companies, for example, are not European-owned. It is not certain either that extraction in Sweden will reduce environmentally polluting mining in other countries. An increase in supply may lead to higher demand or lower prices. Nevertheless, such claims are never contested with the permit process (interview 3).

However, some forms of justification based on the market order of worth receive contestation. The claim that the mine provides socio-economic benefits to the region and country is contested by the counterargument that the tourism sector provides more sustainable and long-term economic opportunities. For example, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation maintains that tourism in Västerbotten (the region) has a turnover of nine billion SEK and provides jobs for 5,500 people. A healthy and unexploited environment is argued to be important not only for the expanding tourism industry but also for public health and belief in the future (Case 3, p. 96, see also Case 2, pp. 57–8). In another case, the forest owner’s organization argued that:

The long-term significance of forestry for both renewable raw materials and jobs far exceeds the value of a mine in Bricka. According to the Company’s own information, the mine could operate for 18 years. When the mine is decommissioned, people will be left unemployed, and large areas of forest will be forever destroyed for forestry. (Case 1, pp. 127–8)

This critique touches on the relatively short-term perspective of the socioeconomic benefits of a mine and upholds more sustainable means of generating income in which nature is not an asset for exploitation. While such critiques rarely have any effect on the arguments of others including the court, it underlines the short-term prerogative of the market order.

The industrial order of worth

The industrial order is most evident in the environmental permit process when the manageability of environmental risks is justified and contested. The industrial order of worth is most frequent since its logic makes up the framework within which the tests are conducted (concerning how environmental risks and consequences can be managed), which authorizes its forms of proof. The extensive EIAs that are a necessary part of the application are based on measurements, statistics, and models, in which experts and specialists are foregrounded actors. The EIA calculates the risks and illustrates their measurability and controllability. While assessing environmental friendliness, the main focus is on the (efficient) manageability of environmental risks. These technical exercises, and especially the interpretations and risk assessments based on them, are also subject to the greatest amount of contestation.

The main form of contestation is based on critiquing the facts and models, and their interpretations. Thus it is a critique within the industrial order, rather than of the industrial order (see Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, ch. 7). The data and models can be criticized for their validity and reliability or their transparency (e.g. Case 1, p. 99, 100, 107, 118) and the analytical assumptions for lack of certainty (e.g. Case 1, pp. 103–7, 118) or accuracy (e.g. Case 3, p. 90). Criticism can target a lack of investigations and critical measures, and thereby question the knowledge/data (e.g. Case 1, p. 92, 118). Mining companies generally respond to critiques by explaining and justifying their judgments and data, as well as by adding complementary data at a later stage. In doing so, they emphasize the accuracy and strength of their models and explain them yet again. Objections are thereby depicted as misunderstandings that can be dismissed (e.g. Case 1, p. 157, 172). Through their responses, the companies maintain that their plans can withstand the test of the industrial order. This means that this process of critique serves to strengthen the industrial order.

Since the permit process is structured to promote the opening of mines, the manageability of the risks is a central question. For the different actors that oppose a mine, the likelihood of risks is important; however, even more important are the values that are threatened, e.g. clean water, experiences of nature, and eco-systems, as well as their benefits. Thus, although the sizes of risks are contested, there is also a discrepancy in how risk itself is interpreted: as something that should be calculated and managed (the industrial order) or as something that can disqualify a mine altogether. In other words, the nature, manageability, measurability, and size of risks are set against the nature and values that are at risk (Beck 1995, Lidskog et al. 2013). This difference in how risk is viewed is a fundamental divide that exists across cases. The following statement by a municipality provides an example of the emphasis on what is at risk: ‘Svenska Vanadin has not shown that the mine can operate without unacceptable risks for the local environment and by extension Svågan and Dellensjöarna. In addition, a dam failure/collapse would entail catastrophic consequences for downstream water resources’ (Case 1, pp. 97–98, author’s italics). However, critiques that go beyond the level of risk and base their justification on other orders of worth (see below) are generally dismissed as not factual, i.e. the form of proof that their arguments rely on is not authorized.

Another way of contesting justifications that are based on the industrial order yet remain within it is to question the knowledge foundation on which assessments build or the competence and professional conduct of the experts. For example, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation refers to recent research showing that metal pollution in aquatic environments can affect birds that eat insects, arguing that this new finding illustrates that the current knowledge about extended risks is limited (Case 3, p. 97). Meanwhile, the below statement from a Sámi village attempts to question the legitimacy of the company by highlighting their ignorance of research and new knowledge:

The analyses, investigations, and proposals for protection and compensation measures have, according to the Sámi village, significant shortcomings, which must be emphasized in this context. Research results and new knowledge do not appear to be included in the company’s assessments, which, according to the Sámi village, is worrying. The company’s assessments bear the stamp of being heavily underestimated. (Case 3, p. 94)

A struggle is generally engaged in by both sides, with each trying to delegitimize their opponents by questioning or downplaying their expertise (see e.g. Case 1, p. 186).

The civic order of worth

The civic order of worth is fundamental to public decision-making processes, governed by legislation and political goals. However, due to the complexity of these cases, they do not involve any single collective interest or moral cause, wherefore a reference to a political goal or public interest is not enough to justify a claim. Indeed, a fundamental aspect of these processes is to weigh different public goods against each other. The bureaucratic process is designed to account for and protect different values. The Mineral Law is designed to be exploitation-friendly to attract investments, whereas the Environmental Code is designed to protect environmental values and sustainability. On the regional scale, there is a system of assigning specific national interests to distinct geographic areas, to ensure that these interests are accounted for in public planning. The county administration is responsible for protecting the assigned public interests and for identifying when there are competing national interests that are affected.

A basic justificatory claim used by the mining companies is that the area is an appointed national interest based on its mineral deposits. This is used as a motivation for extracting the minerals, suggesting that the official decision proves that the extraction is in the public interest. A local in one of the cases expresses a frustration with the power of this claim:

As long as we in society, wrong it may be, use words such as ‘national interest’ in relation to mining establishment, we will continue to see the same things repeating themselves with direct or indirect negative effects for those who live or uphold themselves close to the mine. (Case 3, p. 10)

Indeed, the national interest of extraction is a diffuse matter, since the nation (nor the locals) does not necessarily profit through access to the extracted minerals, beyond being part of a global economy with greater access to minerals. Furthermore, it might be of greater national interest to save the mineral deposits for the future. However, the EU’s mineral strategy involving the idea of self-sufficiency of minerals in Europe provides a strong civic claim for extraction.

The public interests that conflict with a mine are generally more local in character. Common issues across cases are noise and safety relating to traffic and the mining operation, effects on recreational areas and risks of damaging local environmental goods, and in some cases negative effects on reindeer husbandry. Thus, the civic claims range from global issues such as global security and trade, to local issues such as road safety in a rural area. Since the permit process is aiming for co-existence, compensatory measures are generally the initial suggestion. However, the losses and the compensation are often valued in very different ways. A mine is rejected when co-existence is not deemed possible and the gains cannot motivate the losses, or when the company is unwilling to provide compensatory measures or accept limitations (e.g. to only operate parts of the year [case 3]).

Competing orders of worth seeking legitimacy

There are forms of justifications that compete with the dominant orders of worth. These forms of justifications have difficulties gaining traction on their terms since their forms of proof have less authority in the process. The green and civic order therefore lean towards the dominant forms of proof, while the inspired order, which will be treated last, is most explicitly used to critique the dominant ways of justifying a mine, and highlights ways of valuing that are excluded in the permit processes.

The green order of worth

I have argued that the green order has a particular challenge in distinguishing its form of proof. However, there are still marks of the green order. A critical aspect of the green order that appears in some justifications concerns the long-term perspective, such as when the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation emphasizes the risk of water pollution and negative ecosystem effects for a long time to come (M 1950–18, p. 96). For the green order, potentially irreversible damage to ecosystems cannot be justified by resource utilization and financial gain lasting but one or two decades. The green order of worth and the market order of worth are starkly conflicting in terms of temporal perspective. This difference has a bearing on the divergent risk assessments discussed above. Furthermore, an eco-systemic view generally considers a larger geographic area to be interconnected, for example through groundwater and soil composition, the food chain, or impacts on the eco-systemic balance of large ecosystems. This approach includes a greater complexity, which implies greater difficulties in reliably modeling comprehensive scenarios, and thus a greater acknowledgment of uncertainty, which affects the attitude toward risks. However, when expressed this form of critique tends to operate within the industrial order in terms of model reliability.

Another recurring way of justifying the protection of green values is to align with the civic order, such as species protection. The detection and mapping of species and livelihoods within the prospected areas is a critical part of the environmental permission process. The presence of an endangered species might stop a mine. However, if possible, protected species can be moved, or the company could obtain a species-protection exemption combined with compensatory measures. The loss of an endangered species can be an important indicator of an imbalance in the ecosystem and of biodiversity loss. However, justificatory claims drawing on the civic order underscore the legal obligations relating to the identification of species or its habitat, rather than the eco-systemic value that the existence of the species signals. Legal changes have now been initiated in Sweden to prevent such decisions. Indeed from the predominant market-industrial perspective, it does not make sense to let individuals of a single species stop an entire mine.

There are also green justifications for a mine. One such justification cites the electrification strategies meant to combat climate change. The renewable energy transition is a prioritized interest that sidelines other concerns. The following statement led the court to conclude that the public benefits of the mine would exceed the costs and potential harm and inconvenience that the enterprise might cause:

The company has explained the need for vanadium and applicable areas of use. The metal is primarily used as an alloying metal in the steel industry, but also as a component of flow batteries, which can be used to store large amounts of energy, such as solar and wind power. Other areas of use include the electronics, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. The EU Commission’s list of ‘critical raw materials’ describes vanadium as a strategic and critical raw material. The Land and Environment Court makes the general assessment that there is currently a significant demand for vanadium, and that vanadium can play a role in the ‘green transition’ that society and Sweden are facing, with an increased need for energy storage in batteries, among other things (Case 1, p. 232)

This argument is also apparent in court decisions rejecting a mine, where the court argued that gold is not a critical mineral for the transition, wherefore the encroachment on reindeer herding cannot be motivated, while the court had previously permitted windmills in the same area since they are essential for the green transition (case 3). The energy transition and technological solutions to climate change have led to the possibility of holding different green values against each other. Opening a mine and interfering with or harming nature locally can be justified, as metals are needed for the energy transition which is the dominant response to the climate crises.

It can be questioned, however, to what extent this is a green justification. The energy transition is not necessarily promoted to protect the environment but may rather serve to secure the stability of Western societies and economies and continue (or even accelerate) the developmental trajectory of modernity, which has given rise to the environmental crisis (Beck 1995). While the sustainability and practicality of such a growth-based energy transition is contested in scientific debates (Scoones, Leach, and Newell 2015, Stevenson 2021), such justifications are not questioned nor scrutinized in the mining permit process.

Environmental claims for a mine tend to refer to global rather than local environmental effects. For example, one company argued that the planned mine will have a positive climate impact if it sells its products to customers in Sweden and Europe. Transports will decrease since these countries currently import the product from producers on other continents. Moreover, since the process they use is simpler, it will require less energy and chemicals (Case 1, p. 59, see also Case 2, p. 20). Thus, the argument for the mine’s environmental friendliness is framed in efficiency terms. The municipality, on the other hand, lends proof from the civic order and argues:

Under the Paris Agreement, nations that have ratified the agreement shall ensure that the global temperature increase is kept below 2°C, which means that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. This raises the question of a new business in the municipality that requires transportation. (Case 1, p. 112)

The municipality adopts a local or national perspective and considers the added emissions from transportation. The company, on the other hand, takes a global perspective, and its claim assumes that global consumption and the number of transports will be stable and that the efficiency gains will therefore lead to decreased emissions. Although environmental claims for a mine may have a legitimating role, such claims are seldom (con)tested, nor evidenced.

The domestic order of worth

The domestic order of worth is represented in the following reasons for resisting the opening of a mine:

the proposed protective measures,/ … /are not specific enough to ensure that the affected Sámi village can continue practicing traditional reindeer husbandry based on natural grazing, as the consequences will be great./ … /[I]f the practice of reindeer husbandry is forced to adapt, due to an activity or measure that requires the enclosure/fencing of reindeer or supplementary feeding, reindeer husbandry will be significantly impeded, because it can no longer be conducted in traditional ways. There are no relevant measures to reduce damage or compensate for the lost land. Communication [dialogue between the company and the Sámi people] cannot be considered a protective measure. (Case 3, p. 87)

The kind of proof that is customarily used within this order of worth, drawing on tradition and its accumulated and experiential knowledge, is not generally granted the same epistemic authority in knowledge assessments and decision-making processes as data measurements and models (Löfmarck and Lidskog 2017, Malin, Ryder, and Lyra 2019). However, the professional knowledge and judgment of reindeer herders are reinforced when they argue based on scientific expertise (cf. Jääskeläinen 2020, Kojola 2019), or when they draw on the civic order by referring to international law and the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination (CERD), who have called upon Sweden to respect and guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent.

The Sámi village also refers to the economic aspects of reindeer herding – though not to its competitiveness and profitability (market order), but rather to its economic sustainability (sufficiency rather than efficiency, Princen 2005). Their traditional way of sustaining a living in balance with nature is threatened by the cumulative effects of the industrial projects on the land (Case 3, p. 118). These claims are not gaining echo in the process. Nevertheless, such critiques can highlight weak points in other orders of worth, such as the unsustainability of the efficiency paradigm represented by the market order of worth, as well as the problem of trust(worthiness) in a global capitalistic market economy.

The domestic order of worth is also represented by arguments where the trustworthiness of the company is questioned in various ways. In one case, a civilian argues that the audit of the company is flawed, that misconduct has been reported to the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, and that the Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors has issued a warning to an accountant. The argument serves to question the ethics of the company, suggesting that the company “takes shortcuts, not only in the application for an environmental permit’ (Case 1, p. 145). However, the argument was dismissed by the court as irrelevant. Other arguments addressing the conduct and ethics of the company concern their shortcomings in communication and holding dialogues (see e.g. Case 2, p. 79–80, 84, 86). Justifications based purely on the domestic order of worth are generally discounted by the court. However, in one case the court repeatedly indicated that the company seemed reluctant to improve its measurements and provided complemented information only at the very last minute, which made the court’s assessment difficult. While the tone in the company’s statements stands out as more reluctant, it remains unclear to what extent such conduct affected the ruling.

The inspired order of worth

In protests against infrastructure or development projects, environmental concern is often linked to the inspired order of worth (Lafaye and Thévenot 2017). The inspired worldview is hard to reconcile with the industrial worldview because their forms of evaluation and proof of value stand in stark contrast to each other, as illustrated by the following statement made by a local resident: ‘If, at least during some part of the day, week and year, I might have the feeling that I live in an amazing village, and not in a mine operated by a mining company’ (Case 3, p. 104). The contrasting views on what constitutes relevant proof and a legitimate argument, entail that aesthetic and sensory values (of nature) can only be defended by contesting the legitimacy of the test itself. A local fishing association argues that their experience of nature is being ruined while contesting the company’s justification and proof in terms of general benchmarks for acceptable noise levels:

We have already experienced what it is like to fish when DMS transports thunder past the lake during the test mining that has been conducted and which will continue. We consider it problematic that DMS make reference to applicable limit values for noise, as noise really affects the experiential value of fishing and nature. We can no longer listen to the silence, hear the flap of the birds or the jumping of fish./ … /We want to enter a reservation that we may further explain our reasoning around this in a formal hearing. We do not share DMS’s assessment in the EIA that the mine’s operations have a minor impact on outdoor life and fishing. (Case 3, p. 100)

They contest the proof that the company refers to (based on the industrial order of worth) and use other forms of proof (from the inspired worldview) such as appealing to such things as the beauty or serenity of a location, or embodied experiences of natural settings. Since they use other means of valuation, they do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the company. It makes sense that the association expresses a wish, in the quote, to plead their case in a hearing, given that their argument does not build on customary forms of proof, but is of another kind, more suitable for an oral account. It builds its legitimacy on intersubjective understanding.

Another example where the nature of the test is rejected comes from a collective statement made by local residents. Rather than contesting facts, they contest what is valued.

They [the locals] will not attempt to assess ml and mm regarding this or that, but will try to show that you simply do not put such a dirty business operation into such a scenic, densely populated cultural landscape. The societal benefit that the mine would create for Sweden is negligible compared with the societal benefit that the location in its current form has for Sweden and parts of northern Europe. (Case 2, p. 81)

It is difficult for justifications based on the inspired order of worth to withstand the tests that the permit processes demand. This makes it difficult for local people to defend their ways of valuing the place and natural setting where they live. At the same time, the inspired order of worth stands for the clearest and most explicit critique of the process’s predominant way of ascribing value.

Concluding discussion

The main point and contribution of this paper have been to establish the link between the forms of proof that are authoritative in a dispute and the values that are promoted or excluded. A consequence of this point is that bureaucratic decision-making processes authorize certain claims, as they set rules and norms regarding what kinds of proofs are considered legitimate (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) while dismissing others. Thereby they condition how disputes are handled. Much of the contestation around the energy transition – the path most Western countries have embraced as a solution to climate change – surfaces in relation to the infrastructural and industrial projects that it requires, and the permit process is the stage for such contestation. This means that most public debates on the fundamental topic emerge in the permit processes, where the systemic questions are concretized and locally manifested, and where resistance or contestation is consequently mobilized (cf. Kojola 2019). This means that public debates are shaped and constrained by the dominant governing rationalities of the processes, such as technical rationality (Fischer 2009) and associated civic epistemologies (Jasanoff 2005).

Mining is an industry that evokes incommensurable disputes and conflicts of interest (from local to global scale) and reveals divergent understandings of sustainability (Arboleda 2020, Jääskeläinen 2020, Lindahl et al. 2018). This is apparent also in this study. The justifications for or against a mine involve fundamental political questions relating to the energy transition and industrial development, job opportunities, recreational values, local environment, and access to nature. They reveal different perspectives on what sustainable development entails. Raising and dealing with these questions is crucial to govern transformative change (Pickering 2018). However, these questions are not fore-fronted in the process. They are in the background, despite that a crucial aspect of the process is to identify and balance different competing interests. The reason for this, I argue, is the way that justification and critique can legitimately be formulated in the process. A narrow understanding of what counts as legitimate claims constrains the debate.

The forms of proof that are authorized by the mining permit process, are profitability estimates, as well as measurable and quantifiable components of nature which serve to calculate environmental impact. While the profitability estimate is essential it is not public and mainly serves to exclude projects that lack a reliable financial plan. As a consequence, critique and contestation are generally centered around the EIA and the validity and reliability of the data, models, and assessments. However, providing or demanding more facts in terms of data serves the same order of worth. Contestation comes to revolve around the manageability of risk. Thus, the main critique remains within the industrial order, legitimating arguments and leading to decisions that prioritize the market-industrial nexus and its perspective on development and sustainability (cf. Jääskeläinen 2020, 49).

Due to the character of the process and (the practice of) its legislation, actors with alternative ways of valuing nature or the local environment are inclined to use the forms of proof considered legitimate in the industrial order. It allows proponents of other core values (e.g. greenness, tradition, or serenity) to express their contestation and justify their cause in an authorized way. However, while contesting the risk assessment or identifying an endangered species may help win the case, it does not challenge the dominance of certain forms of proof and thereby dominant ways of valuing (i.e. ascribing and proving value). I argue that dominant ways of valuing have an impact that goes beyond specific decisions. It shapes (read maintains) the way a sustainable transformation is formalized and can be debated.

To ensure a mutually beneficial future it is considered essential that stakeholders work together for the common good (Stammler and Wilson 2006, 8). However, this analysis has shown that disagreements can be grounded in diverging understandings of what the common good is. The points of contestation that emerge in these cases are rarely resolved but accompany the process and prolong it through appeals. A reason for this is that the underlying conflicts are not explicitly dealt with, and the contestation and critique are modified to suit the process rather than debate the prerequisites of its claims. Within the political sphere, the dominant problem description is that the permit process slows down development, whereby the remedy is increased efficiency and greater clarity of the requirements for EIAs (e.g. SOU 2022:33). This clearly contradicts the analysis presented here. Indeed, before assessing the relevance of proofs and propositions, there must be agreement on how the situation should be valued and evaluated (Boltanski and Thévenot 1999, 361). This is what the unresolved contestation signifies.

A more fundamental critique can be articulated based on the competing orders, since such a critique may contest the dominant ways of valuing a mine. In this form of bureaucratic process, it is difficult for justifications based on alternative orders to be heard, as illustrated by the example of the locals drawing on the inspired order. Traditional ways of life, de-acceleration, and the prioritization of future generations have less potential for impacting the permit process, since the forms of proof that best substantiate such justifications are disfavored. Nevertheless, such justifications and critiques are essential for a transformative process (Boström et al. 2018). The different ways of assessing value and justifying a claim should thereby be considered assets.

For the permit process to be better equipped to deal with these questions it needs to be less rationality-oriented, in terms of targeting the efficiency of means to an end, the manageability of risks, and the formal correctness of reasoning (von Wright 1993). Instead, it should aim for reasonableness, being concerned with how to live, and how to approach the common good (von Wright 1993). A way to manage value conflicts while remaining open to different ways of valuing would be to adapt the process so that it explicitly acknowledges and deals with conflicting ways of ascribing worth; to systematically acknowledge and address different justificatory claims, test their inherent validity (based on their respective form of proof) and assess their appropriateness for the decision at hand. Such a process would not be fast or efficient, but it would harness the transformative potential that the value tensions harbor within them. It would embrace the complex and multifaceted character of the decisions, rather than seeking to tame the problem. A sustainable future should be able to stand the test of, and be motivated based on different forms of proof and different modes of valuation.

Ethics Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements (according to Swedish legislation, ethical review is only demanded for studies involving personal sensitive information. This interview study concerns informant interviews with professions (public officials) and does not cover any personal sensitive information). Oral informed consent for participation and recording was acquired, in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas.

Notes on contributors

Monika Berg

Monika Berg is associate professor in sociology and research leader of the Environmental Sociology Section at Örebro University Sweden. Her research examines the interrelationship between science and policy, values and facts, and explores its relation to democratic values and green transformation.