DBL Chapters One to Three: A Conceptual Business Incubator Framework for Junior Mineral Exploration and Development: A Southern African Perspective.

A Conceptual Business Incubator Framework for Junior Mineral Exploration and Development: A Southern African Perspective.
Chapters One to Three: Proposal, Literature Review, Research Methodology.
November 2025

1. A Conceptual Business Incubator Framework for
Junior Mineral Exploration and Development: A
Southern African Perspective

James Andrew Hartley Campbell
17963



Research proposal for the degree of
Doctor of Business Leadership
at the Da Vinci Institute for Technology Management
Academic Supervisor: Dr Greg Tosen D.MTI

Submission Date: xx Month 20xx

2. DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY

I declare that the research proposal is my own work and that each source of
information used has been acknowledged using a complete reference. This proposal
has not been submitted before for any other research project, degree or examination
at any university.
I acknowledge that by submitting this assignment electronically, I have de facto signed
the declaration that the work is my own unless otherwise stated.


Signature: _______________________ Date: _________________

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Context ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Research Philosophy ................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Personal Philosophical Framework ....................................................... 6
1.3.2 Ontology ............................................................................................... 8
1.3.3 Epistemology ........................................................................................ 8
1.3.4 Axiology ................................................................................................ 8
1.3.5 TIPS Managerial Leadership Framework .............................................. 9
1.3.6 Approach to Theory Development ...................................................... 10
1.4 Preliminary Literature Review .................................................................... 10
1.5 Problem Statement .................................................................................... 13
1.6 Research Aim and Objectives .................................................................... 14
1.6.1 Aim...................................................................................................... 14
1.6.2 Objectives ........................................................................................... 14
1.7 Research Questions .................................................................................. 15
1.8 Research Design and Methodology ........................................................... 16
1.8.1 Research Design ................................................................................ 16
1.8.2 Research Methodology ....................................................................... 17
1.9 Population and Sampling ........................................................................... 19
1.10 Data Collection ........................................................................................... 20
1.11 Data Analysis and Integrity Process .......................................................... 21

5. 1.12 Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 21
1.13 Delimitations of the Study .......................................................................... 22
1.14 Demarcation of Study Chapters ................................................................. 22
1.15 Project Plan and Budget ............................................................................ 24
1.16 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 24
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................ 26
2.1 Integrative Roadmap .................................................................................. 26
2.2 Introduction ................................................................................................ 26
2.3 The Theory of Business Incubation ............................................................ 28
2.4 Evolution and Generations of Business Incubation .................................... 29
2.5 Types and Models of Incubators ................................................................ 30
2.6 Ecosystems for Entrepreneurs ................................................................... 33
2.7 Network Theory .......................................................................................... 35
2.8 Resource-Based View (RBV) of the Company ........................................... 35
2.9 Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities .......................................................... 37
2.10 Organisational Learning Theory ................................................................. 39
2.11 Effectuation and Bricolage under Uncertainty ............................................ 39
2.12 SLO and ESG Governance ........................................................................ 41
2.12.1 Community Acceptance Mechanisms (SLO) ...................................... 41
2.12.2 ESG Reporting and Assurance ........................................................... 42
2.13 Leadership and Organisational Capability in Juniors ................................. 44
2.14 Discovery and Development Practices within Juniors ................................ 47
2.15 Categories of Mining Business Incubators ................................................. 52
2.16 Mining Incubator Benefits .......................................................................... 55
2.17 Limitations of Mining Incubators ................................................................. 57

6. 2.18 Integrated Mining Incubators...................................................................... 60
2.18.1 Hunter Dickinson Inc ........................................................................... 60
2.18.2 Lundin Group ...................................................................................... 62
2.18.3 162 Group ........................................................................................... 64
2.18.4 Shortcomings of the Integrated Mining Incubators .............................. 67
2.18.5 Summary of the three Integrated Mining Incubators ........................... 68
2.19 Southern African Mining Incubators ........................................................... 71
2.20 Comparative Performance of Integrated Mining Incubators versus Stand-
Alone Juniors ........................................................................................................ 72
2.21 Synthesis: Toward a Conceptual Framework............................................. 74
2.22 Research Gaps and Shortcomings ............................................................ 82
2.23 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 85
3 Chapter 3: Research Methodology.................................................................... 86
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 86
3.2 Research Design ....................................................................................... 86
3.3 Research Methodology .............................................................................. 88
3.3.1 Primary Data: Semi-Structured Questioning of Mining Entrepreneurs 89
3.3.2 Secondary Data: Historical Analysis of Junior Mining Successes ....... 89
3.3.3 Secondary Data: Evaluation of Integrated Mining Business Incubators
90
3.4 Population and Sampling ........................................................................... 91
3.5 Data Collection ........................................................................................... 92
3.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 98
3.7 Data Validity ............................................................................................. 100
3.8 Data Reliability ......................................................................................... 101

7. 3.9 Data Trustworthiness ............................................................................... 101
3.10 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................. 102
3.11 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 103
4 References ...................................................................................................... 104

8. LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Research Questions (“RQ”)..................................................................... 15
Table 2-1: Comparative analysis of key integrated mining incubator dimensions .... 69
Table 2-2: Mapping of Theoretical Constructs to Framework Layers ....................... 78
Table 2-3: Comparative summary of incubation frameworks ................................... 81
Table 3-1: Approach to data collection ..................................................................... 93
Table 3-2: An example of key factors that will be included in the data collection process
(Bridge, 2019) .......................................................................................................... 94
Table 3-3: Abridged example of the semi-structured questions ............................... 96
Table 3-4: Data collection and analysis .................................................................... 99

9. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Mineral demand for clean energy technologies by scenario (Deloitte, 2024)
................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-2: Budgets and active explorers from 1997 to 2023 (S&P Global, 2024) ..... 2
Figure 1-3: Share of mineral discoveries by company type (Visualcapitalist, 2024) ... 3
Figure 1-4: Funds raised by mining and exploration companies on the TSX and TSX-
V (PDAC, 2024) ......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1-5: Africa's share of global mined production 2024 (ISS Africa, 2025) .......... 5
Figure 1-6: Research roadmap which the researcher will follow in this study .......... 24
Figure 1-7: High-level project plan ........................................................................... 24
Figure 2-1: Mining Lifecycle (Andrade et al. 2024) ................................................... 47
Figure 2-2: The Lassonde Curve: the lifecycle of a mine (Holmes, 2023) ................ 49
Figure 2-3: Junior mining success rate (Singh and Mulaba-Bafubiandi, 2019) ........ 50
Figure 2-4: TIPS-aligned Conceptual Integrated Business Incubation Framework for
Junior Mining ............................................................................................................ 80

10. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

4IR. Fourth Industrial Revolution.
BBBEE. Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment.
DC. Dynamic Capabilities (sensing, seizing, reconfiguring routines).
DFI. Development Finance Institution.
EE. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.
ESG. Environmental, Social, and Governance.
FPIC. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (Indigenous/community engagement
standard).
IFC (PS). International Finance Corporation Performance Standards.
IT. Information Technology
JSE AltX. Johannesburg Stock Exchange Alternative Exchange (South Africa).
JV. Joint Venture.
PEA / PFS / BFS. Preliminary Economic Assessment / Pre-Feasibility Study /
Bankable Feasibility Study.
QA/QC. Quality Assurance / Quality Control
RASCI. Responsible, Accountable, Supportive, Consulted, and Informed.
RBV. Resource-Based View (firm resources and capabilities as sources of
advantage).
SLO. Social Licence to Operate.
TSX-V. TSX Venture Exchange (Canada).
VRIN. Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, Non-substitutable (attributes of strategic
resources).

11. ABSTRACT

12. 1 | P a g e

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
Mining is required to meet sustainable development scenarios (Wang Z., Xiang, Wu,
Wang L and Gu, 2025), and is a significant economic contributor, particularly in
Southern Africa. For mines to exist, there needs to be mineral exploration. Over 50%
of commercial discoveries are made by so-called juniors or mining entrepreneurs
(Visualcapitalist, 2024) in a seemingly ad hoc business approach. This equates to 40-
60% by economic value (Schodde, 2020). This is primarily because major (or
corporate) miners allocate a relatively small and decreasing portion of their revenues
to exploration spending, due to increasing risk aversion associated with exploration
(Mills, 2024). There are very few fully integrated mining incubators in the world, with
none in Africa. Where they exist, they de-risk, stimulate, and fast-track the mineral
exploration and mine development process (Jaroudi and Müller, 2025). This research
proposes a conceptual framework for a business incubator to support junior mineral
exploration and development in Southern Africa.
1.2 Research Context
To achieve most sustainable development scenarios and drive global growth,
significantly more minerals will need to be mined, including lithium, graphite, cobalt,
nickel, copper, and rare earth elements (Deloitte, 2024). For example, forty-two times
more lithium will have to be mined, twenty-five times more graphite, and twenty-one
times more cobalt (refer to Figure 1-1: Mineral demand for clean energy technologies
by scenario).

13. 2 | P a g e


Figure 1-1: Mineral demand for clean energy technologies by scenario
(Deloitte, 2024)
Current exploration expenditure (and thus discoveries) is considerably below even the
most modest of these sustainable development or growth scenarios (S&P Global,
2024), a situation that similarly applies to South Africa (ISS, 2024). Exploration
expenditure is also well below its highs of 2011 and 2012 (S&P Global, 2024), see
Figure 1-2: Budgets and active explorers from 1997 to 2023.

Figure 1-2: Budgets and active explorers from 1997 to 2023 (S&P Global, 2024)
Likewise, the PwC (2022) report states that mine capital expenditure has increased by
only 18% and the market capitalisation of mining companies by 7%, indicating that

14. 3 | P a g e

funding for new project development remains severely constrained. Mineral
substitution or technical innovation could partly address this issue (Calas, 2017),
alongside conducting more thorough exploration and accelerating exploration
throughout the mine lifecycle (Sykes and Trench, 2017), or by combining all these
strategies.
Approximately 50% of mine discoveries are made by juniors (i.e., mining
entrepreneurs), with the balance attributed to major mining houses (Visualcapitalist,
2024), see Figure 1-3: Share of mineral discoveries by company type.

Figure 1-3: Share of mineral discoveries by company type (Visualcapitalist,
2024)
A junior company is a smaller, early-stage company that focuses on exploring for and
developing new mineral projects and typically has a market capitalisation of under

15. 4 | P a g e

US$100 million. They usually focus on exploration and techno-economic studies and
are generally listed on one of the world’s venture capital exchanges (INN, 2024).
Juniors are often formed around an idea that a person has to explore in an area of
potential or known mineralisation. This is supported by a modest amount of funding,
primarily from family and friends (Harwood, 2016). Many of these ideas fail to
materialise, mainly due to financial and other business considerations, as well as
regulatory constraints and a lack of access to the full range of skills (particularly
financing and technical innovation) needed to advance a project from exploration to
mining and/or to sell it (Harwood, 2016).
There are approximately 1,400 juniors listed on the TSX-V (the venture capital
exchange of the Toronto Stock Exchange), which is approximately 50% of the world’s
total (PDAC, 2024). Since 2021, funds raised by juniors have significantly decreased,
see Figure 1-4: Funds raised by mining and exploration companies on the TSX and
TSX-V.

Figure 1-4: Funds raised by mining and exploration companies on the TSX and
TSX-V (PDAC, 2024)
On the other hand, majors typically possess large exploration budgets and teams,
enabling them to chiefly self-fund discoveries up to mine development (Wetterhahn,

16. 5 | P a g e

2018), though their share of discoveries has significantly dropped, see Figure 1-3:
Share of mineral discoveries by company type.
ISS Africa, 2025 reports that Africa hosts abundant deposits of the world’s critical and
other minerals, see Figure 1-5: Africa's share of global mined production 2024 and
that it has the potential to expand on this.

Figure 1-5: Africa's share of global mined production 2024 (ISS Africa, 2025)
Whilst the majority of commercial discoveries are made by juniors, over ninety per cent
of them fail (Discovery Alert, 2025). However, there are three known, fully integrated
mining and exploration incubators which have so far stood the test of time and have
created several successful mining companies from juniors (Campbell, 2024):
• The 162 Group, based in Ireland, which was established in the late 1960s and
has created over thirty companies (162 Group, 2025).
• Hunter Dickinson Inc., based in Canada, was established in 1985 and has
created over nineteen companies (HDI Mining, 2025).
• The Lundin Group, also based in Canada, was established in the early 1980s
and has created over fourteen companies worth over CAN$14BN (The Lundin
Group, 2025).

17. 6 | P a g e

Business incubators are commonly viewed as vehicles that facilitate the de-risking,
stimulation, and fast-tracking of business start-ups (Jakobsen, 2017). The researcher
proposes establishing mineral exploration and mining incubators in Southern Africa to
partially de-risk, stimulate, and accelerate the junior mineral exploration and
development process. This will contribute towards achieving various sustainability
goals as well as national and continental economic growth.
The National Development Plan 2030 (“NDP”) (2012) encourages the people of South
Africa to unite their creativity and efforts in fostering a more inclusive and prosperous
economy. One of the critical sectors for potential job creation is mining, primarily
because of its significant multiplier effect, which typically yields seven to ten times the
number of jobs directly linked to mining (Kriel, 2019).
An important argument, perhaps surpassing South Africa’s regulatory requirement of
a 26% Black Economic Empowerment shareholding, is that supporting genuine black
entrepreneurial activity is essential for the growth of this sector (Prosper Africa, 2021).
The African Union’s Africa Mining Vision (2009) supports this, specifically encouraging
local entrepreneurial ownership. This aligns with the researcher’s interactions with
various ministers of mines in Southern Africa, including Hon Lefoko Maxwell Moagi of
Botswana (Pers Comm, Facets 2023, Gaborone, October 2023) and Hon Polite
Kambamura of Zimbabwe (Pers Comm, African Mining Summit, Gaborone September
2024), who view the design of a conceptual business incubator framework for junior
mineral exploration and development as an initiative that will support national and
continental goals.
1.3 Research Philosophy
1.3.1 Personal Philosophical Framework
The personal philosophy of the researcher is best encapsulated in the statement
attributed to John Bradford, a 16th-century Protestant in England: “There but for the
grace of God go I” (Davis, 2013, p. 43). However, life is more complex than a single
sentence descriptor. Throughout the researcher's work and personal life, he is closely
associated with stoicism and pragmatism as personal philosophical frameworks.
Stoicism emphasises resilience and self-control, focusing on what can be controlled

18. 7 | P a g e

and accepting what cannot. Practitioners strive to maintain a calm and rational mindset
in the face of challenges and are often considered boldly optimistic (Anderson, 2022).
These characteristics are generally essential personal traits for a mineral explorer, a
role the researcher has held for much of his working life. Stoicism is an ancient
philosophy first articulated in the writings of Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus
(Miller and Taoka, 2015). Pragmatism emphasises the practical consequences and
real-world applications of ideas. A pragmatic personal philosophy may prioritise
solutions that work effectively in practice rather than adhering strictly to theoretical
principles, and was generally developed by William James and John Dewey (Miller,
Taoka, 2015).
Lachs (2012) best synthesises this juxtaposition of stoicism and pragmatism. He
proposes a novel combination that preserves the beneficial aspects of both
philosophies while addressing some potential weaknesses (Miller and Taoka, 2015).
To quote Lachs (2012), page 4: “If pragmatists can be accused of sometimes
underappreciating the irremediable, and stoics of sometimes being fatalist in a manner
that shuts out real possibilities, the two orientations may need each other”, and “stoic
pragmatism express the need for one’s willingness to make the world better, yet to
remain prepared for realism about lost possibilities, and to possibly surrender the fight
when its continuance is futile. Unlike individuals in a working marriage, each school
affirms a key philosophic virtue the other seems to lack, so their union is one of
potential mutual empowerment”.
Stoicism and pragmatism can form a well-rounded approach when combined. Stoicism
helps prevent pragmatists from overexerting themselves, while pragmatism enables
stoics to avoid giving up too soon. Stoic pragmatism facilitates the management of
moral duties amidst demanding, yet often unattainable, standards. It merges a focus
on practical results (pragmatism) with emotional resilience and acceptance (stoicism).
In summary, the researcher’s philosophical framework can best be described as a
Stoic pragmatist who acknowledges that external factors influence one's success in
life. The researcher strives to remain humble and grateful while simultaneously
recognising his sinful nature and the continued need for God’s grace.

19. 8 | P a g e

1.3.2 Ontology
Ontology investigates the essential characteristics of reality, existence, and being. It
examines the fundamental structure that constitutes what is real and affirms its
existence (Singh, 2025). It also explores what can be understood about the world
(Snape and Spencer, 2003). The researcher's philosophical framework integrates
stoicism and pragmatism. Stoicism (Becker, 2017) posits that reality is governed by
forces beyond one's control, thus fostering acceptance of that which cannot be altered.
Conversely, pragmatism (Simpson, 2018) emphasises reality as something shaped by
actions and their consequences. The researcher has undergone formative training in
the natural sciences, followed by instruction in the social sciences and has authored
several papers and articles in both areas. This journey has led the researcher to
oscillate between the ontological approaches of an objectivist (deductive) perspective,
typical of natural science, where reality is perceived as existing independently of
human beliefs, and a relativist (subjective) viewpoint in social science, where an
external reality is recognised but comprehended solely through socially constructed
meanings.
1.3.3 Epistemology
Epistemology is a framework of assumptions concerning the nature, origin, and
justification of knowledge (Klaassen, MacLeod, Nizamis and Strijbos, 2025) or how
the world can be understood and discovered (Snape and Spencer, 2003). The
researcher's personal philosophical approach is rooted in practical wisdom,
experience, introspection, and the pragmatic application of knowledge. Consequently,
the researcher adopts both interpretivist and constructivist approaches as
epistemological positions, maintaining that human agency is not a static characteristic
of the species. Instead, it is shaped by historical, ecological, and sociocultural contexts
that provide unique symbolic frameworks of meaning through which humans navigate
and collaboratively construct the social world (Zhao, 2022).
1.3.4 Axiology
Axiology is concerned with values and ethics, and the personal philosophical
framework of the researcher contains references to humility, grace, and personal

20. 9 | P a g e

responsibility. The axiological view of the researcher is, therefore, value-bound: i.e.,
the researcher is inherently involved in the subject of study, cannot be entirely
detached, and will, therefore, bring a subjective perspective (Dudovsky, 2024). This
is also reflected in the researcher’s qualitative approach, which involves small samples
and detailed investigations.
1.3.5 TIPS Managerial Leadership Framework
The TIPS Managerial Leadership Framework (“TIPS”) emphasises a holistic approach
to organisational growth by incorporating innovation, leveraging technology, focusing
on people development and optimising systems (Da Vinci research report, 2023). This
integrative model is beneficial for developing a business incubator framework for the
junior mineral industry as it encourages the growth of technology-driven, sustainable,
and people-centred projects.
Technology plays a critical role in the minerals sector, whether through the application
of Artificial Intelligence tools in mineral exploration or through sophisticated waste
sorting technology that utilises the luminescence and other physical properties of
rocks. Mining digitisation can also improve safety and operational efficiency (Deloitte,
2018).
Innovation is significant in the realm of mineral exploration. It is improbable that
substantial commercial discoveries will emerge using outdated thinking and
technology (Betz et al., 2023). An adage attributed to Dr Mark Bristow (Investing in
African Mining Indaba, 13 June 2019) in the exploration industry states, "every time
there is a technology breakthrough, the exploration clock starts ticking again.” This
concept aligns with observations in technological progress, such as Moore's Law
(Moore, 1965), which describes the exponential improvement of technologies over
time. This continuous advancement often leads to new opportunities and resets the
"exploration clock" in various fields (Berleant et al, 2021).
Incorporating the TIPS framework into a mineral development business incubator in
Southern Africa can provide a foundation for promoting innovation, sustainability, and
economic development. By focusing on technology, nurturing innovative ideas,
developing human capital, and establishing robust systems, the incubator framework

21. 10 | P a g e

can address the unique demands of the mining industry while aligning with regional
socio-economic goals.
1.3.6 Approach to Theory Development
According to the Research Onion, Saunders et al. (2009) suggest that the selection of
theory development should align with the researcher's underlying philosophical
position.
A Stoic pragmatist emphasises practical applications and the need for resilience and
adaptability in the face of uncertainty (Lachs, 2012). A relativist ontological stance
highlights the subjective and contextual nature of reality. Therefore, theory should
emerge from observing the lived experiences and social realities of mining
entrepreneurs and other stakeholders (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). Junjie and
Yingxin (2022) state that a constructivist and interpretivist epistemological stance
emphasises the importance of understanding phenomena from the perspective of
those who experience them, which necessitates deep engagement with the individuals
concerned in their context. A value-driven axiological approach suggests that the
researcher's values and ethics may shape the study process.
The most suitable method for developing theory is inductive, given the researcher's
paradigm. This approach ensures that the theory is ethically responsive to the
industry's needs and grounded in personal experiences.
1.4 Preliminary Literature Review
Business incubators in the mining industry are typically structured entities that support
early-stage mining ventures. They provide financial assistance, technical expertise,
infrastructure, and strategic mentorship to foster innovation and expedite project
development (De la Roche and Latham, 2019). These incubators help mining startups
overcome barriers to entry related to exploration, funding, and regulatory compliance.
There are several types of incubators which can be found in the literature:
• University-based incubators, such as the Cambridge Centre for Mineral
Exploration, provide research-backed support to startups working on
innovations in mineral exploration and processing (Mackenzie et al., 2021).

22. 11 | P a g e

• Government-sponsored incubators encourage domestic mineral development,
particularly for critical minerals crucial to strategic industries (OECD, 2020). The
UNDP has established the Timbuktoo MineTech Accelerator Programme,
which aims to identify and support innovative African mining-tech startups. This
initiative focuses on technological advancements that can enhance efficiency,
safety, and sustainability in the mining sector (UNDP, 2025).
• Corporate incubators, such as BHP Xplor and Anglo American’s FutureSmart
Mining, support innovative exploration and extraction startups (BHP, 2023).
The BHP Xplor Programme provides funding and mentorship to early-stage
mineral exploration companies focused on copper and nickel to secure the
company's future supply chains (BHP, 2023). The Sasol Women in Mining
Programme (South Africa) incubator supports women -owned mining
businesses by driving growth through leadership development and targeted
support (Sasol, 2025).
• Private investment funds and venture capital firms have established mining-
focused accelerators such as Prospect Mining Studio and Unearthed Solutions.
Unearthed Solutions is a global mining technology incubator that supports
startups developing Artificial Intelligence, automation, and data-driven solutions
for mineral exploration and mining operations (Unearthed, 2022). The
Johannesburg Stock Exchange, in partnership with the Minerals Council of
South Africa, also offers a programme to assist small and medium-sized
enterprises, which includes elements of business incubation (JSE, 2024).
• Fully integrated mineral exploration and development incubators, such as The
162 Group of Companies, Lundin Group, and Hunter Dickinson Inc., employ
various business models designed to transform a mineral concept into a fully
operational commercial mine (Campbell, 2024).
These incubators have the following specific benefits:
• Technology Development: Incubators promote the use of advanced
geophysics, AI-driven exploration, and sustainable mining practices
(Hodkiewicz et al., 2022).

23. 12 | P a g e

• Risk Mitigation: Startups gain from expert guidance on regulatory, geological,
and market risks (World Bank, 2021).
• Funding Access: Incubators link startups with venture capital, government
grants, and institutional investors (Fraser Institute, 2020).
• Sustainability and ESG Compliance: Numerous incubators concentrate on
environmentally sustainable mining solutions and community engagement
strategies (ICMM, 2023).
However, these incubators have been criticised for the following:
• Long Development Cycles: Unlike tech startups, mining projects can require
years to develop, which poses a challenge to the need for rapid acceleration
(Jamasmie, 2021).
• Capital Intensity: Mining startups necessitate considerable funding, which
constrains the number of projects that incubators can support (EY, 2022).
• Regulatory Hurdles: Incubators must navigate complex permitting and
environmental policies, which can impede project advancement (IFC, 2020).
Seeger (2007) developed a “game plan” for junior mining companies aiming to
establish and grow truly market-winning, globally competitive enterprises. Seeger
(2019) emphasised the importance of successfully raising capital for mining projects,
a vital component of any mining business incubator.
Harwood (2016), Mackenzie (1997), Redwood (2006), and Etheridge (2001) have
written about the technical components of mineral exploration and junior companies;
however, this work is only tangentially related to this study. Sykes and Trench (2017)
focused on the exploration business and developed a business case for greenfield
exploration.
A critical distinction between business incubators in the mining sector and those in
other industries is that they often provide technical expertise, access to geological
data, and significantly facilitate connections between investors and junior companies.
Most incubators exit once the project has reached the bankable feasibility stage or
commercial mining (Campbell, 2018). Campbell (2023) noted that business incubators
in the mining industry also offer early-stage support to exploration and mining

24. 13 | P a g e

companies, primarily by providing funding and mitigating the risks associated with
exploration and mine development.
Following a preliminary literature review, a noticeable gap emerges in the research on
a fully integrated mineral exploration and development incubator. Specifically, there is
a lack of academic focus on a framework that offers holistic, end-to-end support to
mineral exploration and development companies throughout the mineral life cycle.
This gap is particularly evident when considering the integrated and structured support
frameworks used by the three identified integrated mining incubators: The 162 Group
of Companies, Lundin Group, and Hunter Dickinson Inc. These frameworks exemplify
integrated approaches; however, they remain largely unexamined in the academic
literature. These integrated mining incubators employ various business models, all of
which aim to develop a mineral idea into a fully operational commercial mine
(Campbell, 2024).
1.5 Problem Statement
Mining is essential to meet nearly all sustainable development scenarios. It also serves
as a significant economic contributor, particularly in Southern Africa, as evidenced by
the National Development Plan 2030 (“NDP”) (2012) in South Africa and the vital
contribution to GDP that mining makes in Botswana (20%, Statistics Botswana, 2023)
and Zimbabwe (12%, Zimstat, 2023).
For mines to exist, there must be mineral exploration. Over 50% of commercial
discoveries (i.e., mines) are made by so-called juniors or mining entrepreneurs, who
employ a seemingly ad hoc business approach (Visual Capitalist, 2024). There are
very few mining incubators in the world, with none in Africa; where they do exist, they
de-risk, stimulate, and fast-track the mineral exploration and mine development
process (Campbell, 2023).
Therefore, the problem statement is:
“There is an absence of a fully integrated junior mineral exploration and development
business incubator for junior miners in Southern Africa”.

25. 14 | P a g e

1.6 Research Aim and Objectives
1.6.1 Aim
The primary focus of this study is to develop a conceptual business incubator
framework for junior mineral exploration and development, with particular emphasis
on Southern Africa. This could create significant long-term value for the region, as over
50% of commercial discoveries are made by so-called juniors or mining entrepreneurs
(Visual Capitalist, 2024), who employ a seemingly ad hoc business approach that
accounts for 40-60% of the economic value (Schodde, R., 2020).
Thus, the overarching research aim of this study is,
To develop a conceptual business incubator framework for junior mineral exploration
and development for Southern Africa.
1.6.2 Objectives
The objectives are as follows:
Objective 1: To critically evaluate how juniors discover and develop mines.
Objective 2: To determine the reasons and extent of the shortcomings of juniors and
why they fail.
Objective 3: To determine whether the three identified integrated mining incubators
(The 162 Group of Companies, Lundin Group, and Hunter Dickinson Inc.), collectively
known as “named integrated mining incubators,” are more successful than stand-alone
junior companies in discovering and developing mines.

26. 15 | P a g e

1.7 Research Questions
In line with the study's objectives, the following questions are presented in Table 1-1:
Research Questions (“RQ”).
Table 1-1: Research Questions (“RQ”)
Problem statement: The absence of a fully integrated junior mineral
exploration and development business incubator for Southern Africa.
Aim:
To develop a conceptual business
incubator framework for junior mineral
exploration and development for
Southern Africa
Primary research question:
How and why can a conceptual
business incubator framework be
developed to improve the success of
junior mineral exploration and mine
development in Southern Africa?
Objective 1:
To critically evaluate how juniors
discover and develop mines.
Research question 1:
How do juniors identify and develop
mineral deposits into mines, and why do
some strategies succeed where others
fail?
Sub-question:
What internal and external factors
positively influence the processes by
which juniors discover and develop
mines?

27. 16 | P a g e

Problem statement: The absence of a fully integrated junior mineral
exploration and development business incubator for Southern Africa.
Objective 2:
To determine the reasons and extent of
the shortcomings of juniors and why
they fail.
Research question 2:
Why do many junior mineral exploration
and development companies fail to
advance to producing mines?
Sub-question:
How do organisational, financial,
regulatory, and technical shortcomings
contribute to these failures, and what
lessons can be learned?
Objective 3:
To determine whether the three named
integrated mining incubators are more
successful than stand-alone junior
companies in discovering and
developing mines.
Research question 3:
How and why are the three integrated
mining incubators (162 Group, Lundin
Group, Hunter Dickinson Inc.) more
successful at developing juniors
compared to stand-alone junior
companies?
Sub-question:
What mechanisms within these
incubators explain their relative
success, and how can these
mechanisms be adapted to the
Southern African context?

1.8 Research Design and Methodology
1.8.1 Research Design
Research is the systematic study of collected data, which is evaluated and scrutinised
to enhance knowledge, generate insights, characterise events, and form informed

28. 17 | P a g e

opinions (Creswell, 2003, p. 37). Acquiring knowledge through research depends on
the selected theoretical framework and the ontological and epistemological
perspectives that define the researcher's paradigm. Research paradigms are
determined by how researchers make claims about what knowledge is (ontology), how
research derives knowledge (epistemology), what values are involved (axiology), how
one writes about it (rhetoric), and the process for studying it (methodology) (Creswell,
2003, p. 37).
Given that it aligns with the researcher's paradigm and the nature of the research, a
qualitative research method is considered most suitable. Although the researcher
favours a stoic/pragmatist personal philosophy, the study necessitates a relativist
approach to establish a conceptual framework. The researcher's constructivist and
interpretivist epistemology, shaping how knowledge is acquired, is employed through
a systems thinking approach. This method supports the problem-solving focus of the
research design, aligning with the study's objectives and a relativist paradigm.
A relativist ontology suggests that interaction makes reality socially constructed
(Berger and Luckmann, 1967). From a design perspective, data will be collected from
mining entrepreneurs and similar industry leaders using open or semi-structured
questions (Heron and Reason, 1997), while being aware of the interviewees' socio-
economic and cultural contexts.
The research design and methodology for a mining business incubator will primarily
be qualitative, recognising the socially constructed nature of the mining industry and
the unique expertise required to succeed in this sector.
1.8.2 Research Methodology
Creating a conceptual framework for a junior mining business incubator necessitates
a comprehensive understanding of historical context, contemporary practices, and
expert insights into the entrepreneurial environment of the junior mining sector. Both
primary and secondary data sources will be evaluated, each contributing uniquely, and
will form the foundation for capturing this broad spectrum of knowledge.
• Primary data consists of semi-structured interviews with mining entrepreneurs.
Bryman (2016) notes that semi-structured interviews are ideal when the

29. 18 | P a g e

researcher aims to gain insight into the subjective experiences of individuals in
complex and dynamic fields, such as entrepreneurship. This is particularly
significant in this industry, as mining entrepreneurs often possess tacit
knowledge that is not easily captured from archival documents. These
interviews will provide a thorough exploration of challenging issues while
accommodating unexpected and valuable insights.
• Secondary data: historical analyses of archival material on successful mining
juniors. Keenan and McKnight (2003) emphasise the importance of archival and
secondary data in understanding the contributions of junior miners to significant
commercial discoveries. Examining historical records can identify the key
factors that led to the discovery and commercialisation of mines. This method
will help construct a timeline of success stories, from initial exploration to mine
development, and provide insight into business models, strategies, and
decision-making processes. It will also provide support in understanding the
cyclical nature of commodity markets, which can help manage market volatility
and capitalise on opportunities.
• Secondary data: assessment of current mining business incubators. This is one
of the most critical areas of research, as these incubators are already
successful; however, the three known mining business incubators have very
different business models. They vary in terms of their primary objectives, levels
of support, and financial success (Campbell, 2024). Gathering data from these
sources will help inform the development of a new conceptual business
incubator framework that incorporates best practices.
Developing a conceptual business incubator framework could greatly benefit from a
qualitative research approach that integrates historical analyses, evaluations of
current incubators, and insights from mining entrepreneurs. This will ensure that the
incubator framework is grounded in proven practices and valuable insights.

30. 19 | P a g e

1.9 Population and Sampling
The study population refers to the entire group of individuals who meet the
participation criteria (Robinson, 2003, p. 856). In this research, the target population
comprises successful mining entrepreneurs.
This study will conduct between eight and twelve in-depth, semi-structured interviews
with successful junior mining entrepreneurs, selected through maximum variation
purposive sampling. This approach is methodologically appropriate because the
population of entrepreneurs who have successfully guided more than one junior from
concept to mine development is small, thus requiring targeted sampling rather than
statistical representation (Patton, 2002). The research also aims to gather rich,
process-tracing accounts of discovery, development, financing, and governance
strategies, which are best explored through qualitative, interpretivist inquiry (Creswell
and Creswell, 2018). A sample of between eight and twelve information-rich cases
further allows for both within-case depth and cross-case comparison, providing
explanatory insights into the “how” and “why” aspects of the research questions. The
stopping rule for determining the final sample size will be theoretical or thematic
saturation, defined as the point at which further interviews no longer produce new
codes, concepts, or insights of analytical significance (Charmaz, 2006).
Operationally, the researcher will start with eight interviews selected from a range of
commodities, jurisdictions, financing structures, and organisational forms (incubator-
affiliated versus standalone). Up to four additional interviews may be conducted if
necessary to address specific gaps in analysis, such as under-represented commodity
cycles or governance archetypes. This approach strikes a balance between analytical
sufficiency and practicality, while remaining consistent with the relativist/constructivist
paradigm that guides the study. Designing a conceptual mining business incubator
framework necessitates meticulous consideration of the target population and
sampling regime to ensure the incubator fulfils its intended purpose. The sampling
scheme employed in this study will involve a purposive sampling approach, which
intentionally selects participants based on specific characteristics pertinent to the
research.

31. 20 | P a g e

1.10 Data Collection
As this study employs a qualitative research approach, data will be gathered using
qualitative methods. Maxwell (2013) defines qualitative data as encompassing
anything observed, heard, or otherwise communicated during the research process
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 87). Similarly, Creswell (2013) conceptualises data collection as a
series of interconnected activities designed to obtain valuable information to address
evolving research questions (Creswell, 2013).
The data will be categorised by company and commodity to enable the analysis of its
potential evolution over time. All collected responses will be securely stored and
systematically prepared for study and review.
The researcher will utilise several key dimensions to frame research questions and
gather data, namely:
• Biographic (sex, nationality, education, experience, etc) information of
participants
• The commodity.
• Timing, particularly concerning commodity pricing (i.e. Economic context).
• The political and regulatory environment of the relevant jurisdiction.
• Quality of management.
• Technical considerations.
• Availability of funding.
The data collection instruments will be designed to align with these dimensions. The
data collection and co-construction process will be tailored to the research method and
addressed accordingly. Secondary data, comprising historical documents, records,
and reports on successful junior mining companies, will be collected and analysed.
Assessing integrated mining business incubators will involve examining their structure,
goals, and performance. Comparing different mining incubators should highlight best
practices (Grimaldi, 2005).
Semi-structured interviews with mining entrepreneurs will enable a flexible yet focused
data collection process, allowing for the capture of each entrepreneur's unique

32. 21 | P a g e

experiences and perspectives, particularly their tacit knowledge (Kvale and Brinkman,
2009).
1.11 Data Analysis and Integrity Process
Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) explain that a paradigm dictates how meaning is
constructed from the data collected and shaped by our individual experiences (Kivunja
and Kuyini, 2017, p. 26). Creswell (2013) suggests that in qualitative research, data
analysis involves preparing and organising the data, reducing it to themes through
coding, and then representing it in discussions (Creswell, 2013). Creswell (2014) adds
that the inductive process is a back-and-forth movement between the themes and the
data until a complete set of themes is formed. The researcher will gain new insights
to enhance knowledge of the phenomenon during data collection by using an
interpretivist approach (Creswell, 2014, p. 234).
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2015), uninterpreted data is worthless in research
(Leedy and Ormrod, 2015, p. 25). Triangulating data obtained from the two data
collection instruments (primary and secondary) will enhance the validity and
trustworthiness of the results (Carter et al., 2014). Additionally, the ethical stance
outlined in this chapter will strengthen the validity and reliability of the study.
1.12 Significance of the Study
The study will aid junior miners in advancing their mineral exploration and
development projects to a successful conclusion. This should also substantially
mitigate many factors that contribute to project failure.
The study will develop a new approach to a business incubation framework for mineral
exploration and development, specifically targeting junior miners. This could, in turn,
have positive ramifications, such as contributing to greater local ownership and
growth, a goal that many African countries strive for in pursuit of their independence
and national interests (United Nations, 2009; South Africa’s National Development
Plan).
The relative absence of mining incubators, compared to those in other industries (most
notably information technology and biotechnology), is that mineral discovery through

33. 22 | P a g e

to mine project development typically requires significantly more substantial and
complex financing. It also takes much longer, carries a greater risk of significant
financial loss, and requires a considerably more diverse skill set (Campbell, 2023).
1.13 Delimitations of the Study
The primary focus of this research study is to develop a conceptual business incubator
framework for junior mineral exploration and development, with particular emphasis
on Southern Africa. The limited data available, resulting from the relatively small
population, may be perceived as a potential limitation of this research.
Furthermore, considering the researcher's background in the mining industry, he may
be inclined towards a particular viewpoint, which could result in researcher-induced
bias. As a result, the researcher aims to minimise this potential bias by employing a
design approach that integrates the strengths of various primary and secondary data
sets, while triangulating the findings that emerge from these methods.
1.14 Demarcation of Study Chapters
This thesis is organised into six chapters, each containing subsections that provide
further details on the main topics. Each chapter begins with an introduction and
concludes with a summary. The thesis roadmap is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces the topic and outlines the context and rationale for the study,
including sections on the preliminary literature review, conceptual framework, problem
statement, aims, objectives, and research questions. It also covers the research
strategy, population, sampling, and methods. Finally, the chapter addresses the
significance of the study, its delimitations, and the organisation of the chapters.
Chapter 2: Literature review
The literature review commences with the conceptual framework for the study,
followed by an analysis of the relevant theories about this framework and the study's
objectives. Furthermore, it examines the four dimensions derived from the study's
objectives, namely:

34. 23 | P a g e

• The commodity.
• Timing, particularly concerning commodity pricing (ie, Economic context).
• The political and regulatory environment of the relevant jurisdiction.
• Quality of management.
• Technical considerations.
• Availability of funding.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
Chapter 3 centres on the researcher’s philosophical worldview, offering an introduction
to the researcher’s ontological, epistemological, and axiological perspectives. It also
explores the research design, methodology, methods, population, sampling, data
collection techniques, and analysis. Furthermore, this chapter addresses the study’s
validity, credibility, or trustworthiness, as well as its ethical considerations.
Chapter 4: Data collection and analysis
This section addresses the data collection instruments, the data collection process,
and the subsequent analysis. Additionally, this chapter presents a thematic analysis
approach to analysing qualitative datasets. It will cover the iterative inductive process
of reviewing data, identifying themes, categories, and codes, and achieving data
saturation. Supporting secondary qualitative data is utilised whenever possible.
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion
This chapter presents findings derived from the qualitative datasets collected. It
performs a comparative analysis and integrates both primary and secondary datasets.
The study explores the research aim and questions concerning the datasets'
convergence and divergence, ultimately contributing to the development of a proposed
conceptual incubator framework for mineral exploration and development in Southern
Africa.
Chapter 6: Recommendations and conclusion
This chapter presents a conceptual framework for a business incubator in mineral
exploration and development, with a focus on Southern Africa. This framework will
include recommendations and provide methodologies, processes, and strategies for

35. 24 | P a g e

regional implementation. Furthermore, the chapter will critically examine the identified
limitations and propose directions for future research.

Figure 1-6: Research roadmap which the researcher will follow in this study
1.15 Project Plan and Budget
Most of the project budget will be allocated to academic fees for Da Vinci. Where
additional funds are required for travel, electronic resources, etc, these will be self-
funded.

Figure 1-7: High-level project plan
The project plan will be refined as more data becomes available.
1.16 Conclusion
This proposal provides a context and rationale for developing a framework for a
business incubator focused on junior mining exploration and development in Southern

36. 25 | P a g e

Africa. The proposal emphasises the crucial role of mining in the local economy and
underscores that junior miners make significant contributions to commercial mineral
discoveries. The research addresses the absence of a fully integrated business
incubator to support these smaller mining ventures. Furthermore, the proposal details
the research design, philosophy, methodology, and data collection methods that will
be utilised in the study. By examining the challenges faced by junior miners and
drawing lessons from successful mining incubators, the study aims to enhance the
commercial success of these ventures. It concludes by outlining the chapters of the
thesis and the project plan.

37. 26 | P a g e

2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Integrative Roadmap
This chapter reviews and synthesises the literature supporting the Research Aim. It
progresses from fundamental theories of business incubation to developing a
conceptual framework for a sector-specific incubator model in junior mining,
exploration and development. The chapter concludes by highlighting the gaps and
shortcomings in the research.
The chapter begins by exploring how incubation theory has developed over time and
across generations. It then examines various types of incubators and models that are
important for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. These ecosystems offer the contextual
framework for understanding how junior mining enterprises interact within broader
institutional and market dynamics. The discussion then shifts to firm-level perspectives
using the Resource-Based View (RBV) (Peteraf, 1994) and Dynamic Capabilities (DC)
(Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997), which explain how ventures acquire and adapt
strategic resources. Additional behavioural theories, such as Effectuation and
Bricolage, are introduced to demonstrate entrepreneurial behaviour under uncertainty,
especially in resource-constrained environments, typical of the junior environment
(Calzada Olvera, 2022).
The chapter then examines governance elements that influence incubation outcomes
in the mining sector, including the Social Licence to Operate (SLO) and Environmental,
Social, and Governance (ESG). The three known integrated mining incubators
(Hunter Dickinson Inc, Lundin Group and 162 Group) are empirically assessed, as is
the mining incubator landscape in Southern Africa. Finally, these theoretical and
contextual foundations inform the analysis of existing mining incubator frameworks,
culminating in a synthesis that identifies conceptual gaps and motivates the
development of an integrated business-incubator framework for junior miners in
Southern Africa.
2.2 Introduction
Business incubators in the mining sector are typically organised entities created to
support early-stage exploration, development, and mining projects. They provide

38. 27 | P a g e

financial aid, technical expertise, infrastructure, and strategic mentorship to promote
innovation and speed up project progress (De la Roche and Latham, 2019). These
incubators help mining start-ups overcome barriers related to exploration, project
development, funding, and regulatory compliance. Campbell (2024) notes that
dedicated and integrated mining incubators assist new businesses in expanding by
providing mentorship, resources, and opportunities to connect with others in the
sector. This is especially significant in an industry that has not always had such
support. Mining incubators can be operated by universities, supported by the
government, connected to businesses, or funded by private individuals. This
resembles how the NBIA categorises academic, non-profit, corporate, property, and
venture capital incubators (Rubin et al., 2015). In the mining industry, many incubators
aim to accelerate innovative ideas such as exploration, processing, and automation.
They also seek to support new mining companies that might face challenges in
securing funding and commercialising their technology (Durrant-Whyte et al., 2015).
Mining incubators are becoming increasingly important as the sector seeks innovative
solutions for decarbonisation, safety improvements, increased production, and
reduced unit costs (Sibanye Stillwater, 2023). Although the industry has traditionally
been cautious in adopting new technology (discussed in more detail later in this
review), the past decade has seen a growing awareness of innovation challenges.
This includes processing low-grade ores, minimising environmental impact, utilising
digitalisation, and embracing Artificial Intelligence. In this context, incubators are
nurturing grounds for mining-focused enterprises, guiding technological development,
strategy, and market access (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). For example,
Siemens (2018) describes its Digital Mining Incubator (“DMI”) at the University of the
Witwatersrand as a co-creation environment focused on developing skills in mining
engineering and upskilling youth for the industry. Such programmes, by design,
combine technical assistance, business coaching, and access to industry
infrastructure or funding, linking immediate employment needs with long-term
innovation objectives.

39. 28 | P a g e

In summary, mining incubators serve as catalysts for start-ups and technological
initiatives within the mining sector, similar to business incubators in other industries
but with a specific focus on mining (Imasiku and Thomas, 2020).
2.3 The Theory of Business Incubation
Researchers view business incubators as entities that systematically support new
ventures, helping them transform ideas into independent businesses (Hackett and
Dilts, 2004). Hackett and Dilts (2004, p.59) further present a real-options theory of
incubation, describing an incubator as “an entrepreneurial firm that sources and
macro-manages the innovation process within emerging organisations, infusing these
organisations with resources at various developmental stage-gates while containing
the cost of their potential failure”. In essence, incubators act like portfolio investors,
providing funding, advice, and assistance at key stages as a business reaches
important milestones (Clarysse, Wright and Van Hove, 2015). Aernoudt (2004, p.128)
also states that the main aim of incubation is "to create successful companies that
leave the incubator as viable economic actors standing on their own feet within a
reasonable time". These definitions suggest that incubators are designed to help new
businesses survive and accelerate their learning curve.
Incubators provide businesses with a combination of tangible and intangible
resources. These usually include shared infrastructure (such as office space,
laboratories, or workshop facilities), training and mentoring (covering business
planning, technical skills, and market insights), access to networks (including other
entrepreneurs, industry experts, and investors), and sometimes financial support
(such as seed funding or connections to capital). Posza (2019, p.67) states, "through
these services, a business incubator can turn a business proposal into a successful
and viable enterprise.” Hausberg and Korreck (2020) emphasise that incubator
interventions are most crucial in the early months of a startup. Breu and Kanbach
(2025) note that the primary aim of a business incubator is to promote the development
of successful business ideas, thereby helping aspiring entrepreneurs to accelerate
their learning process.

40. 29 | P a g e

In summary, business incubation theory suggests that an incubator is a temporary,
organised space that provides entrepreneurs with additional resources and supports
them in starting and developing their businesses, especially during the early stages.
2.4 Evolution and Generations of Business Incubation
Incubation theory has developed considerably over the past forty years, evolving from
support structures based within facilities to intricate systems integrated into
ecosystems. Early studies by Clarysse et al. (2005) and Von Zedtwitz and Grimaldi
(2006) viewed the incubation process as a series of generational changes that mirror
evolving entrepreneurial and institutional requirements.
• First-generation incubators provided essential physical infrastructure: office
space, shared services, and administrative support to minimise start-up costs.
• Second-generation models introduced managerial guidance, training, and
advisory support, shifting the focus from infrastructure to business
development.
• Third-generation incubators emphasised networking by connecting universities,
investors, and corporate partners to speed up knowledge transfer and
innovation diffusion.
• Fourth-generation incubators, as also outlined by Mian, Lamine and Fayolle
(2016), are investment-driven, ecosystemic platforms that combine financial,
policy, and technological functions within a collaborative environment. Autio et
al. (2023) add that these now integrate virtualisation, investment readiness, and
impact metrics.
These generational progressions demonstrate a shift from supporting individual
ventures to orchestrating systems, where incubators act as connective institutions
within entrepreneurial ecosystems. This change reflects a transition from merely
providing facilities to orchestrating capabilities, establishing a theoretical link to
resource-based and Dynamic Capabilities perspectives that are expanded on later in
this chapter. Recent reviews by Autio et al. (2023) and Brown and Mason (2024)
support this and highlight a post-COVID shift in incubation practices towards
distributed, sustainability-linked digital platforms. These changes are transforming

41. 30 | P a g e

incubators from mere local property-based institutions into globally connected, impact-
driven ecosystems, a particularly significant transformation for the mining industry.
In mineral exploration and development, such progress remains piecemeal at best.
Existing programmes in Southern Africa predominantly exhibit first- or second-
generation characteristics, lacking integration of finance, technical capability, and
socio-institutional coordination. Consequently, this study broadens incubation theory
by proposing a sector-specific, integrated mining-incubator framework that captures
the ecosystemic features of fourth-generation incubation while adapting them to the
particular technological, financial, and social contexts of the junior-mining sector.
2.5 Types and Models of Incubators
The literature recognises that incubators are not universally applicable; instead,
various models and typologies exist based on objectives and sponsors. Clarysse et al.
(2005) conducted a comparative case study of seven technology incubators,
categorising three distinct incubation strategies: Low-Selective, Supportive, and
Incubator. These models employ different approaches to selecting resources and
profiles.
• The low-selective incubator model primarily aims to support regional
development and create jobs, rather than promoting high-growth or technology-
intensive businesses. Entry requirements are generally informal, allowing most
applicants to participate regardless of whether their business idea can be easily
scaled. These incubators typically provide basic infrastructure, including shared
offices, administrative facilities, and utilities, but offer limited business or
technical mentoring. Their funding chiefly comes from public sources, often
through local or regional development agencies that aim to encourage small
businesses and promote self-employment. Although ventures within this model
usually have high survival rates, they seldom achieve significant innovation or
growth because the focus is more on the number of start-ups than on the quality
or competitiveness of the ventures.
• The supportive incubator model attempts to balance social goals and
commercial incubation. It aims to support the sustainability and growth of small

42. 31 | P a g e

and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), combining social development targets
with economic justification. Admission is somewhat selective; entrepreneurs
must demonstrate a certain technological or commercial feasibility level.
Support measures typically include training programmes, business
development services, mentoring, networking opportunities, and occasional
access to finance. Funding arrangements are usually hybrid, blending public
support with private or university involvement. The resulting firms tend to be
stable and capable of moderate organic growth, though they rarely experience
rapid scaling. These incubators are important in building capacity and
strengthening regional entrepreneurial ecosystems.
• The incubator or high-selective model is the most innovation-driven and
performance-oriented incubation identified by Clarysse et al. (2005). Its
strategic goal is accelerating the commercialisation of research-based or high-
technology ventures with significant growth potential. Admission is highly
competitive and limited to teams that can demonstrate they are highly inventive,
possess strong leadership, and show market potential. The highly personal
support includes strategic coaching, access to venture capital and investors,
seed funding, and regular performance evaluations. These incubators are
typically part of corporate or venture-capital networks, measuring success
based on a company's growth, the number of investment rounds it secures, and
the number of successful exits it achieves. Although fewer businesses are
admitted and survival prospects may be slimmer, those who succeed often
become high-impact "gazelle" firms that significantly contribute to technological
progress and economic growth.
Clarysse et al. (2005) demonstrate that each model offers distinct advantages in
finance, organisation, human capital, technology, and networks. Pauwels et al. (2016)
emphasise that some incubators function more like accelerators, for example,
facilitating rapid scaling, while others resemble researcher-supported environments.
Welsh (2024) in The National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) classifies
incubators based on their sponsoring entities: academic institutions (usually affiliated
with universities), non-profit development organisations, for-profit real estate

43. 32 | P a g e

developers, corporate venture arms or venture-capital-related incubators, and
combinations of these. Typically, each category has its own set of rules. University
incubators often focus on selling technologies and may prioritise training. Conversely,
business-supported incubators might align more with strategic research and
development objectives. Most of the time, government or non-profit-backed incubators
aim to stimulate the economy or reduce poverty. It is important to understand the
different types of incubators, as their management and objectives influence the
services they provide and the types of businesses they support.
Despite the methodology, incubation theory (Hacket and Dilts, 2004) suggests that
startups receive specific inputs and stage-gate oversight to enhance their chances of
success. Research on the effectiveness of incubators shows that a well-funded and
well-managed incubator can significantly support a business in its expansion (Bergek
and Norrman, 2008). At the same time, variations in models lead to different outcomes.
Some incubators focus on survival and skill development (supporting incubators),
while others concentrate on rapid growth or investment preparation (selected models).
When considering an incubator in the mining industry, it is important to recognise these
differences, as the industry's technological and capital requirements may necessitate
distinct incubation strategies.
While the previous sections outlined the types and operational models of incubators,
these organisations do not function in isolation. Their performance and sustainability
are inherently affected by the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem in which they
operate. The success of any incubation model, whether public, private, university-
based, or hybrid, ultimately hinges on its interactions with external parties, including
financiers, research institutions, government bodies, and communities. Consequently,
the following section shifts the analytical focus from organisational types to
ecosystemic dynamics, exploring how networks, institutions, and contextual factors
influence incubator performance within the entrepreneurial landscape, especially in
emerging and resource-dependent economies.
This analysis informs Research Question One by clarifying the limitations of generic
incubation models in resource-intensive sectors such as mining.

44. 33 | P a g e

2.6 Ecosystems for Entrepreneurs
This theoretical lens directly addresses the problem identified in Chapter One: the
need to explain how junior mining incubators convert constrained tangible and
intangible resources into sustainable venture outcomes under geological, technical
and economic uncertainty.
The concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (“EE”) has gained significance in policy
and research to fully understand the entrepreneurial environment. Spigel and Harrison
(2018, p.152) describe an entrepreneurial ecosystem as “a conceptual umbrella for
the benefits and resources produced by a cohesive, typically regional, community of
entrepreneurs and their supporters that help new high-growth ventures form, survive,
and expand”. In other words, an ecosystem is a network of individuals, such as
entrepreneurs, investors, universities, government bodies, and institutions, along with
the flow of money, information, and culture, all collaborating to foster entrepreneurship.
Ecosystems involve more than individual companies; they encompass the structural
connections enabling innovation.
Isenberg (2011) and others have developed models of the various components of a
healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem. These components include culture (norms that
promote risk-taking), human capital (skilled workers and entrepreneurship education),
finance (access to seed and growth capital), policy (laws and regulations that facilitate
the start of a business), and support services (incubators, mentors, and accelerators),
among others. These elements depend on each other.
Spigel and Harrison (2018) emphasise that ecosystem research is still developing;
however, they highlight that exploring entrepreneurship from an ecosystem
perspective underscores the significance of context and resource flows over time.
Stam (2021) similarly warns that ecosystem analysis can become a simple collection
of best practices, focusing on how local variables influence results.
Breu and Kanbach (2025) see incubators as vital to an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
They help new businesses access the resources and information they need. However,
incubators are not the sole component required for a healthy ecosystem; they also
need other forms of support. Incubators can assist in areas with weak markets or

45. 34 | P a g e

institutions, such as many parts of Southern Africa, where resources are scarce. For
instance, they might provide seed funding instead of relying on angel investors or offer
training programmes to address the shortage of skilled staff (Hausberg and Korreck,
2020). It is important to note that South Africa has officially recognised the importance
of entrepreneurship within its economic strategy (Department of Small Business
Development, 2025). The SAB Foundation's (2017, p.6) study of the South African
entrepreneurship ecosystem indicates that it is "shaped by laws, regulations, and
formal and informal institutions." It also shows that policy frameworks are being
developed to address systemic challenges. This underscores that any incubator
structure for mining must align with the broader ecosystem, which includes regulatory
authorities, state-owned enterprises, and community groups, all highly significant in
the mining sector.
In summary, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems suggests that a business's success
depends on its resources and the relationships and systems beyond it. This view
broadens incubator theory by placing the incubator within a larger socio-economic
context. Spigel and Harrison (2018, p.158) argue that research should focus on the
"ongoing processes through which resources... are created, enhanced, and utilised"
within an ecosystem. For junior miners, this involves examining how government
policies (such as mining laws and heritage rights), capital markets (including stock
exchange rules and commodity finance), industry networks (like senior mining firms,
consultants, and laboratories), and community organisations influence the
development of new businesses (MacKenzie, Bo utilier, and Simandl, 2014).
Theodoraki et al. (2018) maintain that an ecosystem perspective indicates the
effectiveness of an incubator depends on external relationships, such as
collaborations with universities for geological expertise and with mining companies for
co-funding, as well as on the incubator's internal initiatives.
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Theory focuses on systemic factors such as policy,
finance, culture, and infrastructure that support the initiation and growth of new
businesses (Stam, 2015; Spigel & Harrison, 2018). However, it generally considers
these elements as a whole. Network Theory provides an additional perspective by
analysing ecosystem participants' interactions and resource exchanges. It

46. 35 | P a g e

emphasises the configuration and resilience of relational links among entrepreneurs,
investors, governments, and communities, thereby clarifying the structural
mechanisms that underpin ecosystem functioning in practice (Granovetter, 1985; Burt,
1992). This shift from examining the ecosystem context to assessing network structure
enhances the analysis from system-wide interdependence to participant-specific
embeddedness.
2.7 Network Theory
Network Theory enhances Entrepreneurial Ecosystem perspectives by analysing the
form and quality of relationships that influence opportunity recognition, legitimacy, and
resource mobilisation (Granovetter, 1985; Burt, 1992; Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986).
These networks connect geologists, financiers, politicians, and communities in mining
incubators, enabling the sharing of information and securing funding. Strong internal
links build trust and cooperation, while bridging ties connect businesses with outside
investors and technical expertise. These broking roles are significant in areas with
scarce resources and limited institutional support. However, excessive network
closure could hinder new ideas and creativity.
Network Theory enhances the Resource -Based View by demonstrating that
competitive advantage comes from owned assets and relational capital within trust-
based relationships (Barney, 1991; Dyer and Singh, 1998). However, networks alone
do not explain how firms transform these external connections into proprietary
knowledge, processes, and technologies that sustain a lasting competitive advantage.
The next section of the firm's Resource-Based View (RBV) will focus on this
transformation, which involves shifting from relying on external relationships to
developing internal resource configurations.
2.8 Resource-Based View (RBV) of the Company
This theoretical perspective directly addresses the issue discussed in Chapter One,
specifically the need to explain how junior mining incubators convert limited tangible
and intangible resources into sustainable ventures amidst geological and other forms
of uncertainty. The section also directly addresses Research Question Two, which

47. 36 | P a g e

identifies suitable theoretical frameworks to explain strategic resource mobilisation
within junior mining incubation.
The Resource-Based View (RBV) is an essential concept in strategic management
that explains how some firms outperform others through their unique resources
(Peteraf, 1994). Barney (1991, p.101) broadly describes a firm's resources as "all
assets, capabilities, organisational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge,
etc., controlled by a firm that enable it to conceive and implement strategies that
improve its efficiency and effectiveness." The RBV proposes that resources with the
VRIN traits (valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable) can deliver a sustained
competitive advantage. Intangible resources, such as technical expertise, brand
reputation, proprietary technology, and social networks, are important sources of
competitive advantage because they are difficult for rivals to imitate.
In mining, RBV suggests that specific assets unique to a company, such as exclusive
geological data, specialised exploration technologies, strong community relationships,
and experienced geologists, can set a junior miner apart from others (Iddon, 2015).
For example, an exploration firm with extensive knowledge of the local geology or one
that employs innovative research or exploration methods may identify deposits that
others miss. The incubator supports the assembly and development of the resources
essential for the survival and growth of a new mining enterprise, in relation to RBV.
Rose et al. (2010) state that an RBV clearly distinguishes between resources (what a
company owns) and capabilities (what it can do with them). This distinction naturally
leads into the perspective of Dynamic Capabilities (the following section); however,
within RBV, it is noted that small mining businesses often underutilise their resources
when lacking external support. For example, Mackenzie (2014) states that a junior
miner might possess a potential exploration licence (a rare resource) but lack sufficient
funds to pursue exploration. An incubator could assist with funding or a joint venture,
making it possible to utilise that resource.
The RBV emphasises the importance of internal strengths in emerging companies and
is corroborated by academic research. For example, Alvarez and Busenitz (2001)
argue that entrepreneurial networks and learning processes can be considered
organisational resources. Hausberg and Korreck (2020) state that an advantage of

48. 37 | P a g e

being in an incubator is that it helps entrepreneurs develop their own intangible
resources, such as management knowledge and credibility, while providing temporary
access to the incubator's resource pool.
However, critics point out that RBV’s static assumptions may not adequately reflect
dynamic and uncertain environments (Priem and Butler, 2001; Newbert, 2008). To
address this, the present study combines RBV with process-oriented lenses: Dynamic
Capabilities, Effectuation, and Bricolage to better capture entrepreneurial adaptation
in volatile mineral exploration contexts.
2.9 Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities
This theoretical perspective directly addresses the issue identified in Chapter One,
specifically the need to explain how junior mining incubators transform limited tangible
and intangible resources into sustainable venture outcomes amid geological and
financial uncertainty. The section also directly relates to Research Question Two,
identifying theoretical frameworks that explain strategic resource mobilisation within
junior mining incubation.
The Dynamic Capabilities framework (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997) builds upon
RBV and explains how firms modify their resources to respond to changing
environments. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997, p.516) describe Dynamic
Capabilities as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences to address rapidly changing environments”. These
competences allow organisations to create new and innovative competitive
advantages, especially when path dependencies or volatile markets might otherwise
impede progress. Dynamic Capabilities involve recognising risks and opportunities
and adapting the organisation accordingly.
Mackenzie, Boutilier, and Simandl (2014) highlight that a Dynamic Capabilities
perspective is vital for the mining industry. Tilton and Humphreys (2021) note that
commodity prices in the mining sector fluctuate significantly, in addition to the
regulations that govern the industry, such as changing environmental standards and
community expectations. A junior exploration company must remain flexible and able
to adapt rapidly. If market conditions alter, it might need to shift its focus to a different

49. 38 | P a g e

commodity or quickly learn to operate a new geophysical survey technique
(MacKenzie, Boutilier, and Simandl, 2014). Several authors (Schodde, 2017;
MacKenzie, Boutilier, and Simandl, 2014; Crowson, 2011; Hughes, 2021; Tilton and
Humphreys, 2021; Humphreys, 2015) stress that juniors capable of timing their
financing and development within commodity cycles, or reducing the impact of
downturns through portfolio diversification or alternative funding such as royalties, are
generally more sustainable. This approach is explicitly adopted by integrated
incubators, such as the Lundin Group, through diversification. By fostering an
environment that promotes continuous learning and experimentation, incubators help
individuals develop adaptable skills. Pauwels et al. (2016) state that an incubator can
support a company in shifting its strategy by, for example, connecting founders with
mentors experienced in commodity cycles or encouraging modular venture designs
that can pivot as required.
Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) define Dynamic Capabilities as developing new
methods to gain a competitive advantage beyond simply using existing resources. An
incubator can assist a mining firm in learning how to secure funding from overseas
partners or make its operations more environmentally friendly. This could open up new
markets or attract more investors. The RBV concentrates on the stock of resources,
while the Dynamic Capabilities perspective focuses on how to learn and adapt. The
primary role of an incubator is not just to provide a business with a certain amount of
resources, but also to teach it how to modify its resources as circumstances change.
The RBV focuses on having valued resources, while the Dynamic Capabilities theory
concentrates on how those resources are changed. In junior mining incubation, these
two approaches readily work together to transfer geological and financial assets
between projects.
While dynamic capabilities describe how firms sense and reconfigure resources, these
adaptive processes rely on the continuous accumulation and institutionalisation of
knowledge. Organisational learning theory further clarifies this Learning component,
offering additional insights into how experience is embedded within the firm.

50. 39 | P a g e

2.10 Organisational Learning Theory
Organisational Learning Theory describes how individual and group experiences are
embedded into processes that foster innovation and strategic adaptability (Argyris and
Schön, 1978; Crossan, Lane and White, 1999). In mining incubation, learning occurs
through project evaluations, technical guidance, and collaborative data repositories
that document implicit exploration knowledge and transform it into formalised systems.
It also learns from asking the critical questions (Weick, 1995). Single-loop learning
improves operational efficiency, while double-loop learning challenges fundamental
assumptions, making governance more flexible if geological or regulatory conditions
change. These processes turn temporary adaptations into enduring capability
renewal, supporting the Dynamic Capabilities framework (Teece et al., 1997).
Incubators develop absorptive capacity: the ability to recognise, understand, and apply
new knowledge, thereby increasing organisational resilience.
Learning is also crucial because it changes how entrepreneurs act when unsure what
to do. When results are unpredictable in advance, accumulated knowledge supports
practical and bricolage-based reasoning, utilising existing resources, networks, and
feedback to generate opportunities collaboratively. The following section explores
these entrepreneurial processes and their interaction with incubator learning systems
to promote discovery and adaptation in junior mining ventures.
2.11 Effectuation and Bricolage under Uncertainty
This theoretical lens directly addresses the problem identified in Chapter One: the
need to explain how junior mining incubators convert constrained tangible and
intangible resources into sustainable venture outcomes under considerable
uncertainty.
Effectuation and Bricolage explain how entrepreneurs advance in situations of deep
uncertainty with limited resources. Effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001) begins with
existing resources, identity, knowledge, and networks, emphasising control rather than
prediction by making “affordable loss” bets and forming partnerships to create
opportunities collaboratively. On the other hand, Bricolage (Baker and Nelson, 2005)
describes the practice of "making do" by recombining existing resources, such as

51. 40 | P a g e

materials, talents, and relationships, to tackle new challenges when traditional inputs
are scarce.
Effectuation and Bricolage are highly relevant to junior mining entrepreneurship
because early-stage exploration firms operate under significant uncertainty, resource
scarcity, and environmental complexity, where adaptive decision-making and
resourcefulness often determine survival (Fisher, 2012). Effectuation theory
(Sarasvathy, 2001) explains how entrepreneurs act without knowing the future by
leveraging available means, forming partnerships, and co-creating opportunities,
rather than following predetermined plans. This is particularly pertinent for juniors, who
must adapt their exploration strategies, form alliances, and repurpose limited assets
as geological or market conditions change.
Bricolage, a complementary concept introduced by Baker and Nelson (2005),
demonstrates how entrepreneurs “make do” with resources at hand: an apt description
of how junior miners mobilise in-house expertise, community networks, and existing
data to advance projects despite capital constraints. Together, these concepts
highlight the improvisational, partnership-driven, and opportunity-seeking nature of
junior mining, offering a more realistic understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour than
classical linear planning models (Fisher, 2012; Garud and Karnøe, 2003). For
example, exploration teams face geological and financial uncertainty, fluctuating
commodity prices, and regulatory challenges. Instead of fixed plans, they progress
through staged, fundable milestones, such as restricted drilling and phased studies.
They also form opportunistic alliances, including earn-ins, royalties, and streams,
sharing risk and augmenting resources. In Africa, Effectuation's "crazy quilt" is evident
in early partnerships with major companies, service providers, colleges, and
communities to acquire knowledge, funding, and social licence, while maintaining
strategic flexibility as data and policies evolve (Dawa and Marks, 2024). Bricolage
appears in reusing historical datasets and drill cores, sharing laboratories and drilling
rigs, innovatively sequencing work, and employing hybrid finance to optimise limited
financial resources.
Effectuation (adaptive goal formation through stakeholder commitment) and Bricolage
(resource recombination) explain why many juniors succeed "against the odds"

52. 41 | P a g e

(Fisher, 2012). These companies undertake achievable tasks, continuously refining
their objectives as evidence and collaborations develop, and transforming
environmental limitations into workable solutions (Fisher, 2012; Garud and Karnøe,
2003; Matalamäki, 2017). In environments like Southern Africa, which is characterised
by fragmented and inconsistent regulation, capital shortages, and socio-political risks,
this integrated, means-oriented approach more effectively explains entrepreneurial
behaviour and venture sustainability than predictive, plan-then-execute frameworks
(Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker and Nelson, 2005).
Effectuation and Bricolage are adaptable and resourceful approaches that
entrepreneurs use to manage uncertainty by leveraging their existing resources,
forming alliances, and continuously adapting their plans. However, in the mining
sector, this flexibility is restricted by strict social and environmental regulations that
impact legitimacy and long-term viability. The success of ventures driven by
Effectuation and Bricolage depends on entrepreneurial creativity, maintaining trust-
based relationships with stakeholders, and complying with changing governance
expectations. The following section explores these aspects through the frameworks of
the Social Licence to Operate (SLO) and Environmental, Social and Governance
(ESG), which define the societal and institutional boundaries within which
entrepreneurial experimentation and project development must take place.
2.12 SLO and ESG Governance
From an interpretivist perspective, SLO/ESG is a theme for gaining external legitimacy
and managing risks while supporting internal capabilities. Research indicates that
early ESG-by-design practices, such as stakeholder mapping, grievance procedures,
and transparent disclosure, can reduce permitting delays and improve access to
finance, particularly in high-risk sectors like mining (Petavratzi et al., 2022; CSIS,
2023). This section combines community-focused SLO mechanisms with formal ESG
governance and reporting for early-stage exploration.
2.12.1 Community Acceptance Mechanisms (SLO)
Komnitsas (2020) states that the concept of the SLO has become increasingly
significant in the mining and extractive industries. SLO involves gaining support from

53. 42 | P a g e

local communities and society for a project, even if it lacks all the necessary
government permits. Prno and Slocombe (2012, p.347) describe SLO as occurring
“when a mining project is perceived as having the ongoing endorsement and broad
acceptance of society to carry out its operational activities”. They highlight that
obtaining an SLO is now generally regarded as essential for mineral developers to
avoid costly conflicts or minimise social risks. In other words, a project can still be
stopped if residents or other key stakeholders do not support the project, even if all
the proper legal permissions have been secured.
SLO has significant implications for businesses and incubators. For a junior
exploration company, SLO could mean engaging stakeholders early, making genuine
investments in the community, and being transparent about the project’s
environmental impact (Moffat and Zhang, 2014). Therefore, an incubator supporting
mining businesses should include social and governance training in its programme.
For example, Moffat and Zhang (2014) mention that mentoring to communicate with
the community, align with local development goals, or source ethically could help
entrepreneurs avoid SLO issues. By integrating SLO awareness into the company
development process, incubators can help ensure that new mining companies address
social risks before they escalate (IFC, 2014).
There is a strong academic link between mining projects, governance, and
sustainability (Domínguez-Gómez and González-Gómez, 2021). Prno and Slocombe
(2012) place SLO within broader frameworks of governance and sustainability, arguing
that the rise of the SLO concept indicates a shift in authority towards non-state
institutions and civil society. They show that SLO challenges mainly occur in resource-
rich but often remote regions, such as certain parts of Southern Africa, where historical
grievances or inequality can trigger societal dissent. Therefore, any plan for mining
development must include strategies to promote SLO. In conclusion, SLO is both a
practical constraint and an academic theme highlighting the importance of community
support for resource projects.
2.12.2 ESG Reporting and Assurance
The increasing demand for socially responsible and sustainable mining practices is
closely connected to SLO as the modern mining industry faces significant pressure to

54. 43 | P a g e

meet Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) standards (Prno and Slocombe,
2012). Baker Mackenzie (2022) states that there are many ESG frameworks. Still, they
all follow the same fundamental principles: mining companies must minimise their
environmental impact, ensure safety and fair treatment for everyone, and be
transparent about their actions. Foreign stakeholders such as investors, regulators,
and civil society are increasingly paying attention to a company's ESG performance.
There is no such thing as an ethical vacuum for mining entrepreneurs. It operates
within complex social, environmental, and governance systems that require
accountability, equity, and transparency from those involved in developing and
managing mineral assets. As researchers note, ethical behaviour is essential to a
company’s legitimacy and social licence to operate (Owen and Kemp, 2013; Kemp et
al., 2011), while sustainable entrepreneurship in extractive industries demands
balancing opportunity with stewardship (Hilson and McIntyre, 2020; Cowell et al.,
1999). Therefore, ethical awareness is not just a constraint on mining
entrepreneurship but a strategic skill that builds trust, resilience, and long-term
success.
Oranje (2013) emphasises that if not carefully managed, extractive practices can
cause long-lasting environmental harm and social unrest. Although this might not
always be evident throughout incubator literature, it is clear that a junior exploration
programme should integrate ESG concerns from the very beginning. For instance, an
incubator could advise businesses to explore renewable energy for remote exploration
camps, adopt innovative waste reduction techniques, or share benefits with local
communities (Moffat and Zhang, 2014). These strategies uphold moral
responsibilities, align with SLO, and help attract investment, as many modern funds
expect strong ESG compliance.
Furthermore, many scholars, such as Porter and Kramer (2006) and Teece (2018),
see sustainability as an increasingly important part of competitive advantage. Barney
(2018) has started to include sustainability-related resources in discussions about
RBV (for example, a reputation for eco-excellence can be a unique and valuable
resource). Hilson and Murck (2000) studied corporate views on sustainable
development in the mining industry. They found a growing need to incorporate social

55. 44 | P a g e

equality and environmental protection into business models. Sustainability has now
become essential for ensuring the legality of mining projects; therefore, it should be
incorporated into incubation frameworks.
Southern African countries are starting to adopt ESG into their regulations (Dentons,
2024). For example, XBRL International (2024) reports that South Africa requires ESG
reporting aligned with national frameworks (linked to XBRL filing) to improve
transparency and accountability. These institutional reforms mean that even a junior
miner specialising in exploration geology, who previously only needed to follow basic
regulations, must now comply with strict environmental and social standards. In
summary, the literature on sustainability and ESG underscores that mining companies
must prioritise environmental protection and community well-being within their
business strategies.
SLO and ESG governance principles emphasise that sustained legitimacy in the
mining sector depends just as much on ethical and transparent leadership as on
compliance and reporting systems. For junior exploration and development
companies, implementing these frameworks requires technical skills and
organisational capability to lead responsibly in complex, high-risk environments. The
capacity to align stakeholder expectations, build trust, and embed sustainability into
decision-making ultimately relies on leadership quality and the maturity of internal
systems. Therefore, the following section assesses how leadership dynamics and
organisational capabilities affect performance outcomes in junior mining firms, shaping
their resilience, adaptability, and credibility within capital markets and host
communities.
2.13 Leadership and Organisational Capability in Juniors
In junior mining, leadership quality is arguably the most critical factor for success when
facing significant uncertainty, limited funding, and small teams (MacKenzie, Boutilier
and Simandl, 2014). Hawkins, Ndlovu and Stewart (2021) add that a pragmatic
approach combines a transformational vision with adaptable and decentralised
practices. They further state that leaders must inspire and guide, be capable of
pivoting quickly when new information emerges, and share authority so that technical,

56. 45 | P a g e

financial, and stakeholder experts can act swiftly without losing sight of the overall
goal. This relies on a lean yet resilient governance structure that includes independent
or advisory voices, clear decision-making powers, and transparent disclosure. It also
involves early, genuine SLO/ESG engagement as a key source of legitimacy rather
than merely a compliance requirement (Solomon and Solomon, 2004).
This central role of leadership is widely recognised in commentary on mining
entrepreneurship (MacKenzie, Boutilier and Simandl, 2014). Owen and Kemp (2014),
Hawkins, Ndlovu, and Stewart (2021), and Kemp and Owen (2013) demonstrate that
qualified and experienced leadership and management teams are vital for a junior
miner’s success. Therefore, any venture lacking a cohesive, experienced team will
likely fail (Smith, 2024). Professional investors often say that success in junior
exploration “depends more on people than on the property” (Smith, 2024). In academic
terms, human capital and strategic leadership are vital intangible resources for juniors,
resources that can offset, or sometimes exacerbate, the challenges of limited funding
and technical uncertainty (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001). This understanding explains
why incubator programmes often include mentorship and management support, as
enhancing leadership capacity can directly improve a junior firm’s resilience and
performance.
A systematic approach to learning is equally vital (Garvin, 1993). MacKenzie, Boutilier,
and Simandl (2014) argue that systematic after-action reviews, enhanced QA/QC, and
documenting lessons learnt all contribute to developing Dynamic Capabilities and
optimising resource use across technical work, permitting, and partnerships.
Conversely, juniors often face pressure to fail due to limited management capacity,
gaps in investor credibility, high regulatory costs with start-up resources, commodity-
cycle volatility, and the fragility of single-bet exposure (Tilton and Lagos, 2007). When
juniors perform well, they benefit from clear decision-making rules, reliable boards and
advisory panels, portfolio and joint venture strategies to diversify risk, and treasury
discipline, with opportunistic capital raises and a 12–18-month financial runway guided
by stage gates linked to work programmes (MacKenzie, Boutilier, and Simandl, 2014).
Hawkins, Ndlovu and Stewart (2021) state that formal leadership pipelines are rare in
juniors, so leadership development must be undertaken carefully: mentoring and

57. 46 | P a g e

advisory boards for deal craft and governance discipline; short, mining-specific
courses; stretch rotations; fractional specialists at key points; and, where possible,
shared services or incubator support to encourage intense business processes. A
minimal viable structure with a weekly operating rhythm, a clear RASCI matrix, a basic
risk register with owners and triggers, and a live financial plan aligned with milestones
enables speed with oversight, whilst interpretative leadership stabilises teams and
stakeholders (PMI, 2021).
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) and EY (2022) suggest that when dealing with the
unknown, the principles are straightforward: establish risk gates in advance, keep
options open with JVs, royalties, and streams, balance optimism with realism, and
reward learning rather than promotion. In Southern Africa, where juniors hold many
licences but do not generate significant revenue, leaders must credibly incorporate B-
BBEE with local participation, involve communities early, secure hybrid finance from
DFIs, strategic partners, and national pools, and empower locally credible teams with
greater control (Bowman, 2019). Essentially, entrepreneurial stewardship, which
entails being visionary yet disciplined, and dispersed yet coordinated, can most
reliably transform mineral potential into sustainable projects led by juniors (MacKenzie,
Boutilier, and Simandl, 2014).
Effective leadership and organisational capacity establish the strategic and
operational foundation for junior firms to achieve commercial success in discovery and
development. Visionary leaders harness organisational strengths, such as technical
expertise, a flexible culture, and collaborative networks, into clear exploration and
project development strategies. However, these capabilities only create value when
applied to the practical processes of target identification, assessment, and
progression. The following section, therefore, shifts focus from organisational
dynamics to the technical and process aspects of discovery and development,
examining how juniors transform geological opportunities into tangible assets through
disciplined exploration, risk management, and staged project advancement.

58. 47 | P a g e

2.14 Discovery and Development Practices within Juniors
In line with Objective One, this section explores how junior miners identify and develop
mineral deposits, and why specific strategies succeed while others fail. It covers
technical processes, including geological and commodity considerations.
A junior miner generally follows several steps, each with varying risk levels, from
obtaining a licence to conducting an initial economic assessment (Eggert, 2010). After
securing a licence or establishing a claim, companies perform basic geoscience
activities, such as mapping, geochemistry, and geophysics, to identify and rank
targets. Promising anomalies derived from these targets are subjected to
reconnaissance and systematic drilling, with each campaign refining geological
models and confidence before moving to the next phase. Projects move forward to
scoping/PEA and PFS investigations as the evidence becomes more robust. To
determine project viability, these studies assess metallurgy, engineering, and
scheduling analysis (Schodde, 2017). An example of this approach is illustrated in
Figure 2-1: Mining Lifecycle (Andrade et al. 2024).

Figure 2-1: Mining Lifecycle (Andrade et al. 2024)
At the same time, non-technical de-risking begins early with baseline environmental
studies, stakeholder engagement, and the development of a permitting plan to identify
necessary data and potential areas of disagreement (Jackson and Green, 2023). This

59. 48 | P a g e

process aims to eliminate targets, with many retiring at low cost, leaving only a few to
progress further with additional capital.
Collaboration is key to the exploration and development process, as each successive
project stage becomes increasingly capital-intensive and time-consuming (Schodde,
2017). Many small and medium-sized businesses plan their growth through phased
equity arrangements, most commonly earn-in agreements and joint ventures, to
reduce financial and operational risks. These partnerships offer additional technical
expertise, regulatory credibility, and delivery capacity at key transition points, such as
from resource definition to feasibility studies, and from studies to permitting or
construction (Calzada Olvera, 2022). Financing structures generally develop in
stages: first, seed equity supports early-stage resource generation. Then, more capital
is introduced, often via convertible instruments for drilling and resource delineation.
Ultimately, the focus shifts to royalty or streaming finance, offtake agreements, or
strategic placements to propel the project forward (Sykes and Trench, 2023). At the
same time, dual or cross-listing can expand access to capital by attracting investors
who are more comfortable with exploration risk while maintaining the company’s
legitimacy and visibility within its home jurisdiction (Blose and Shieh, 2019).
Four critical success factors repeatedly emerge from the literature:
1. Robust geological theories supported by rigorous QA/QC ensure confidence in
the mineral resources, as poor data increases the cost of capital (Hronsky and
Groves, 2008).
2. Access to staged patient funding, linked to technical goals, maintains progress
despite uncertainty and fluctuating commodity prices (Schodde, 2017).
3. Transparency and honesty with authorities, communities, and investors foster
external trust, reducing friction and funding costs (Kemp and Owen, 2013).
4. Skilled and flexible leaders help conserve resources by reallocating them
across commodities, jurisdictions, and channels in response to new information
(Hawkins, Ndlovu and Stewart, 2021).
These elements work together: solid technical data attracts partners, credible
government simplifies permitting, and flexible leaders turn opportunities into value.

60. 49 | P a g e

However, junior attrition (or failure) remains high. During the "orphan period," (see
Figure 2-2: The Lassonde Curve: the lifecycle of a mine (Holmes, 2023) when news
flow slows, funding shortages can leave ventures stranded that might have otherwise
succeeded (Tilton and Guzman, 2016). Regulatory and permitting hurdles cause
delays and costs that small treasuries cannot sustain. Inexperienced management,
such as poor project monitoring, overly optimistic budgets, and ineffective stakeholder
strategies, increases execution risks. External volatility in commodities disrupts
planning, potentially leading to unfavourable capital raises or distressed sales.
Consequently, many juniors run out of funds and management time before proving
their economic viability or securing a partner to help them succeed.

Figure 2-2: The Lassonde Curve: the lifecycle of a mine (Holmes, 2023)
Empirical analyses show how rare it is for a junior exploration project to turn into a
producing mine. Hall and Redwood (2006) estimate that approximately one in a
thousand mineral exploration projects progresses to the development stage. More
recent industry data also suggest that over 70% of junior mining ventures never
advance to production (Hughes, 2021). Singh and Mulaba-Bafubiandi (2019) add that
out of 1,000 discovered geological deposits, 100 convert into exploration projects, 10
into feasibility studies to produce only 1 mine (see Figure 2-3: Junior mining success
rate (Singh and Mulaba-Bafubiandi, 2019).

61. 50 | P a g e

These stark odds explain the high attrition rate mentioned earlier and support the idea
that targeted interventions or support mechanisms (such as incubators) are vital to
improve junior miners’ chances of success (Schodde, 2017). An integrated incubator
framework would specifically address many common failure points, from funding
shortages to permitting hurdles, which contribute to this low success rate.

Figure 2-3: Junior mining success rate (Singh and Mulaba-Bafubiandi, 2019)
Drawing from the preceding discussion, the following operational factors highlight what
is essential in designing a mining-specific business incubator.
• Shared technical infrastructure: Centralised services such as standardised data
rooms, GIS and geological modelling toolkits, and robust assay and QA/QC
protocols improve technical quality while reducing duplication and lead times
(OECD, 2019).
• Regulatory coordination: A central permitting desk providing templated
documentation, regulatory trackers, and stakeholder engagement calendars
can streamline navigating complex authorisation environments (Hausberg and
Korreck 2020).
• Trusted networks and strategic relationships: Strong, repeated connections
with mid-tier and major mining companies, specialist service providers,
development finance institutions (DFIs), and impact investors are essential.

62. 51 | P a g e

These relationships can be formalised through pre-negotiated joint venture and
option frameworks to speed up collaborative project development (World Bank,
2019).
• Milestone-linked financing: To tackle capital shortages and reduce orphan-
period risks, funding strategies should be coordinated with key technical
milestones. This may include catalytic grants for early-stage research,
convertible instruments for drilling campaigns, and project streams or strategic
offtakes as ventures near feasibility studies (Hawkins, Ndlovu, and Stewart,
2021).
• Leadership and governance development : Enhancing organisational
capabilities is essential. This involves mentorship on capital efficiency and deal-
making (deal craft), establishing independent advisory boards, integrating
ESG-by-design processes, and implementing operational structures such as
clear RASCI matrices, weekly decision cadences, and live risk registers linked
to project development gates (Domínguez-Gómez and González-Gómez,
2021).
These components collectively foster the development of Dynamic Capabilities,
particularly the ability to sense, seize, and reconfigure resources within the uncertain
and complex field of mineral exploration and development (Teece, 2007; Eisenhardt
and Martin, 2000; MacKenzie, Boutilier and Simandl, 2014; Hawkins, Ndlovu and
Stewart, 2021).
Adopting a portfolio approach is essential for sustaining exploration and development
momentum in high-risk environments characterised primarily by geological and
sovereign uncertainty and infrastructural constraints. Diversification across
commodities, project stages, and jurisdictions, along with contingency buffers in
schedules and capital expenditure, diminishes exposure to single-asset volatility and
external shocks (Tilton and Lagos, 2007). In this setting, an incubation model
integrating shared technical services, pre-negotiated alliances, and portfolio recycling
methods into the system can shift resources, knowledge, and management focus from
underperforming projects to those with higher potential. This organised approach
directly addresses common causes of failure in the junior sector. It enhances the

63. 52 | P a g e

chances that early discoveries evolve into financed, sustainable mining projects,
thereby establishing the foundation for various categories of mining business
incubators, which are discussed in the following section.
2.15 Categories of Mining Business Incubators
While general incubation typologies are well established, the mining sector presents
unique variables: geological and financial uncertainty, regulatory delays, and high
sunk costs. These structural features necessitate viewing incubation as a multi-
stakeholder process rather than a straightforward firm-development pathway.
Mining incubators can be classified based on their organisational support and
objectives. The main categories include private or venture-backed, corporate-backed,
government-sponsored, and university-based (Hausberg and Korreck, 2020). Each
category has its own distinct characteristics.
University-based incubators, often managed by technical institutions or innovation
centres, focus on utilising academic resources and students. For example, the Digital
Mining Incubator (“DMI”) at the University of the Witwatersrand, in partnership with
Siemens (Siemens, 2018), is located within the Tshimologong Digital Innovation
Precinct. This incubator aims to enhance digital mining skills, create new mining
applications, and offer mentoring and access to mining companies for students and
researchers, particularly supporting young and underprivileged South Africans.
The Beck Venture Centre at the Colorado School of Mines in Colorado, USA, provides
workspace, mentoring, and a seed fund (Mines Venture Fund) for mining-related
ventures (Colorado School of Mines, 2025). Entrepreneurs connected with mining
companies can access seed capital ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 and receive
intensive coaching (Colorado School of Mines, 2025). These university incubators
focus on supporting people in developing their skills.
Startups involved in innovative mineral exploration and processing can access
research-backed support from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Earth
Sciences and associated centres such as the Cambridge Enterprise
commercialisation office and the Institute for Manufacturing (University of Cambridge,
2024; Institute for Manufacturing, 2024; Cambridge Enterprise, 2023). These

64. 53 | P a g e

institutions foster the development of new geoscientific methods and technologies by
bringing together world-class academics, advanced analytical tools, and experts from
various fields. This support includes enhancing exploration techniques, devising
innovative ways to study critical minerals, and demonstrating that early-stage
technologies are scientifically viable. Cambridge's innovation ecosystem connects
academic research with practical application through mentoring, funding opportunities,
and research partnerships. These initiatives align with the mining sector's broader
aims of sustainable resource development and technological modernisation
(Mackenzie et al., 2021). Academic incubators generate ideas from research and
student projects but primarily rely on industry partners to transform those ideas into
reality products.
Government-sponsored incubators chiefly assist businesses in developing and make
the economy more diverse (Martins, 2023). The UNDP and Zambian government
agencies fund the Timbuktoo MineTech Hub and Accelerator in Zambia (UNDP,
2025). This Pan-African programme aims to support mining-tech companies led by
young people across the continent by providing up to £25,000 in equity-free funding,
mentorship, and access to global networks to help them develop long-term mining
solutions.
In North America, Nevada has partnered with Canada's MineConnect, a mining supply
organisation, to establish an incubator in Elko, Nevada. This programme offers
regional miners access to Ontario's knowledge business facilities (Business Facilities,
2021). Such government-industry collaborations aim to reduce the risks associated
with innovation and attract investment. Business Facilities (2021, p.1) states that the
incubator will "enhance our most important industries" by connecting local businesses
to global mining expertise.
Organisations like the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA) in South Africa
run specialised incubators. For example, an incubator focuses on tools and assists
people in the mining and farming industries to learn how to create tools, run a
business, and develop new ideas (SEDA, 2021). Government-backed initiatives in
South Africa aim to promote industrial growth and economic diversification by focusing
on job creation, skills transfer, and alignment with national policy goals. These

65. 54 | P a g e

programmes strengthen the economy and increase inclusivity by implementing
policies supporting local businesses and skill development. Mining incubation
programmes are a vital part of this ecosystem because they help new enterprises to
get started and enable the benefits of mineral wealth to reach as many people as
possible (DTIC, 2011).
Major mining or resource corporations sometimes support incubators or accelerators
to help bring inventions and new projects to market. For example, Rio Tinto partnered
with venture builder Founders Factory to develop a Mining Tech Accelerator,
specifically targeting "breakthrough technologies that address major issues in mining
and sustainability" (Founders Factory, 2025, p.2). The Chief Innovation Officer of Rio
Tinto stated that the initiative aimed to enhance efficiency and "reduce the
environmental impact of producing the minerals vital to the world economy and the
clean energy transition" (Founders Factory, 2025). Such corporate accelerators
provide testing venues and technical expertise to start-ups in exchange for pilot
projects.
Similarly, energy giant Sasol in South Africa has launched a Women in Mining
Incubator in collaboration with WomHub to support the growth of early-stage, women-
led mining companies. This year-long initiative includes leadership training, mentoring,
and pitch preparation (Womhub, 2023).
Corporate incubators' advantages align well with industry needs and the potential for
market acceptance. However, a drawback is that their objectives may be too limited,
such as supporting a single company's supply chain, which can often be unclear to
outsiders (Topp, 2017).
Independent or venture capital-backed incubators and accelerators generally
concentrate on climate or technology. International venture funds like Newlab in the
US have launched mining projects. Newlab's Mining Innovation Studio, in collaboration
with the Saudi government and Ma'aden, finances global start-ups to commercialise
mining technologies and "de-risk critical technology" for mineral projects (Newlab,
2025). These private initiatives support emerging mining technology companies by
leveraging international investor networks. Unlike government programmes, they may

66. 55 | P a g e

offer more funding and shorter timelines, but could be less integrated within local
mining environments (Pratty, 2025).
Mining incubators can be university labs, government programmes, or company
collaborations to foster new ideas in the mining industry (MacKenzie, Boutilier, and
Simandl, 2014; Hausberg and Korreck, 2020). University incubators like Wits DMI
focus on research and talent development. Government hubs, like UNDP's Timbuktu,
aim to promote economic growth and ensure equal opportunities for success.
Corporate and VC incubators like Rio Tinto's accelerator concentrate on strategic
technology adoption. Although all aim to bridge the gap between early ideas and
commercial mining realities, each type of incubator has its own resource base and
priorities (Ratten and Jones, 2021).
2.16 Mining Incubator Benefits
Mining incubators offer several advantages for both emerging businesses and the
industry. They provide a secure environment for prototyping, research, development,
and innovation within the mining sector. Incubators accelerate the development of new
mining tools and techniques by delivering technical mentoring, laboratory and field
space, and industry expertise (Ratten and Jones, 2021). For example, Siemens' DMI
(Siemens, 2018) provides a platform for people to develop innovative solutions to
some of the mining industry's most significant issues, such as health and safety,
environmental protection, and increased productivity. Start-ups working with
incubators can test sensors, software, or new extraction methods using real mine data
or pilot mines (Reuter et al., 2019). Corporate accelerators like Rio/Founders and
BHP/Nova also bring mining knowledge into start-ups, helping academic concepts
(e.g., AI exploration or biometallurgy) develop into deployable solutions (Founders
Factory, 2022). Unearthed (2019) states that mining incubators help convert industry
expertise into technical innovation by bringing together miners, engineers, and
entrepreneurs from diverse fields.
The mining industry is recognised for being capital-intensive and risk-averse.
Incubators can help share this risk by accepting early uncertainties and losses that a
single start-up cannot handle (Bartos, 2007). Companies such as Hunter Dickinson

67. 56 | P a g e

Inc. (HDI), Lundin Group, and 162 Group operate as integrated incubators by investing
in multiple early-stage projects (Campbell 2018). These groups "apply a mix of
entrepreneurial skills, business experience and risk appetite" to find new resource
ventures, says Campbell (2018, p.11). Since 1985, HDI's portfolio has supported over
15 private exploration firms, generating more than CAD 1.9 billion in wealth (Campbell,
2018). Such companies build a portfolio of junior miners, thereby distributing the high
exploration risk across multiple initiatives. These incubators reduce risk for new
businesses by leveraging expert advice and networks, such as refining feasibility
studies or negotiating legal requirements, thus lowering the likelihood of costly errors
(Unearthed, 2019). In contrast, while independent start-ups may face significant risks,
particularly during the so-called "orphan period," when development news is limited
and funding diminishes, incubator support (including seed investment and
sponsorship) can aid them in navigating early fluctuations (PDAC, 2020). Incubators
are places where businesses can receive support or invest in one another to reduce
risk.
Incubators often provide or facilitate funding through direct investment or investor
referrals. For example, the Mines Venture Fund at Colorado Mines offers seed
financing to incubated companies (Colorado School of Mines, 2025). Each start-up in
Zambia receives US$25,000 in equity-free funding from the Timbukto Accelerator
(UNDP, 2025). Furthermore, incubators create pathways for additional funding rounds
by connecting start-ups with venture capitalists and established mining firms
(Unearthed, 2020). Increased interest in venture capital for mining has been observed,
as PitchBook reported unprecedented investment in mining technology in 2024.
Initiatives like Founders Factory's Mining Tech Accelerator directly link businesses
with startup funding (Founders Factory, 2025). Beyond financial support, incubators
connect business owners to partner and consumer networks; for instance,
MineConnect's Elko incubator links Nevada start-ups with over 190 Canadian mining
companies (Canadian Mining Journal, 2021). This network effect is vital in mining,
where scaling a solution typically requires industry-wide adoption and integration into
the supply chain.

68. 57 | P a g e

Modern mining incubators generally focus on environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) goals, many of which aim to promote sustainable mining operations (Kuhn and
Navarro, 2023). For instance, Rio Tinto's accelerator concentrates on mining with less
impact and reducing carbon emissions. With support from the UNDP, the Timbuktoo
Hub aims to transform Africa's mining industry by placing technology and innovation
at its core. This will help Africa become a sustainable and ethical mining practice
leader (UNDP, 2025).
Similarly, incubator programmes often include social objectives. Sasol's Women in
Mining Incubator accelerates women-led mining companies, promoting gender
equality (Womhub, 2023). These initiatives foster sustainability from the ground up by
combining technical innovation with social and environmental education. Overall,
mining incubators aim to develop viable enterprises supporting broader goals, such as
safer mining practices, greener processes, and inclusive development, which large
mining firms and governments increasingly expect (Barnard and Jenkins, 2021).
In summary, mining incubators provide comprehensive support to early-stage mining
projects by offering technological development tools, assuming initial risks through
knowledge or financial backing, connecting entrepreneurs to capital and markets, and
assisting them in meeting current ESG standards. In an industry sector where
investments have long payback periods, these benefits can help mining companies
bring their products to market more quickly and improve the success rates of mining
ventures (Valenta et al, 2022).
2.17 Limitations of Mining Incubators
Despite the benefits of mining incubators, they encounter several limitations and
criticisms. This section examines why many junior enterprises fail and the challenges
incubators face to meet Objective Two. From exploration to feasibility, construction,
and mine development, mining projects naturally require lengthy development periods
that can last several years, often called “orphan” periods (Schodde, 2014). Early-stage
businesses sometimes run out of funds before reaching key milestones during this
extended cycle. Schodde (2014) describes this as an 'orphan period' during
development when news is scarce and impatient investors sell off. Projects funded by

69. 58 | P a g e

incubators can stagnate during this gap without ongoing support. Critics such as
Humphreys (2015) argue that, although institutional investors tend to wait until late-
stage (building) to commit, even highly funded businesses find it challenging to survive
until production. The slow mining life cycle suggests that incubators must maintain
project activity considerably longer than typical tech businesses, requiring patient
financing and business strategies (Eggert, 2010).
Mining is one of the most capital-intensive industries and relies on new technology,
which is challenging because it tends to avoid taking risks (McNab, 2009). The World
Economic Forum (WEF, 2015, p.1) notes that mining firms are "reluctant to try
unproven technologies in new projects" precisely because of the scale of the
investment. Retrofitting mines with modern technology is also a complex task. Scaling
up to reduce risk is challenging, so the sector requires government or industry test
facilities or willing mid-tier enterprises to act as pilot sites for innovative concepts
(Bailey, 2016). Critics of incubators, such as Lester and Hartley (2013), argue that
many mining enterprises will fail without substantial funding and patience.
Furthermore, mining companies often reduce investment in research and
development, relying on short-term solutions during market downturns, undermining
ongoing support for incubators. Mining incubators tend to depend on a few remaining
adventurous businesses, such as mid-tier miners, to test new technologies (Hogan
and Goldsworthy, 2015). The challenge remains that a conservative culture and limited
funding hinder the success of incubated projects.
Another significant issue is the complex legal and permitting system surrounding
exploration and mining (Bridge, 2004). Obtaining permits for mining and exploration
can be difficult and time-consuming because multiple authorities have overlapping
jurisdiction. One study indicates that delays in securing approval could discourage
investment (Canadian Mining Journal, 2025). If these obstacles arise, environmental
and societal regulations, known as the "precautionary principle," may effectively block
projects (Wiener, Rogers, Hammitt, and Sand, 2019). Many jurisdictions permit
individuals and NGOs to initiate legal actions against new mining projects, which can
result in delays (ERM, 2023). For incubator-based entrepreneurs, navigating these
legal challenges without corporate assistance can be daunting. Additionally, critics

70. 59 | P a g e

argue that adopting new technology might be hindered until it proves compliance or
simplifies the permitting process. Incubators may offer some support by providing
regulatory advice, but cannot fully resolve this issue (Morrison-Saunders, Gorey, and
Pope, 2020). Ultimately, licensing and community permissions create uncertainty and
delays that incubators need to help participants manage.
Critics such as Wagner (2020) argue that the incubation paradigm recognised in the
information technology and biotechnology sectors is not suitable for the exploration
and development of mines. Unlike software companies, which can expand rapidly,
mining projects are often highly capital-intensive and progress more slowly. The
mining industry is characterised by major projects that typically require several billion
pounds and years of development before becoming profitable. Mining projects usually
involve "large amounts of upfront capital, with long lead times, reflecting a scale and
timeline far beyond typical IT startups" (Calzada Olvera, 2022, p.1). At the same time,
junior explorers face a substantial regulatory burden. Jackson and Green (2023) note
that obtaining rigorous environmental permits can delay and increase the cost of
mining projects. These results correspond with research indicating that South African
juniors face a burdensome licensing system similar to major mining companies
(Baxter, 2022) and that Canadian enterprises often encounter permit delays lasting
months or years (Natural Resources Canada, 2021). These structural factors make
the rapid, milestone-driven timelines and growth targets typical of technological
incubators possibly irrelevant in the mining sector.
The process of mineral exploration is particularly challenging due to significant
geological uncertainty and natural hazards. Studies in the field, such as those by
Logan and Associates (2010), indicate that the average success rate in mineral
exploration is low and that geological uncertainty is considerable. This results in poor
odds for potential miners. This contrasts sharply with IT or biotech projects, which can
be assessed and developed incrementally at minimal costs. In mining, concepts often
need to be tested on a large scale. Calzada Olvera (2022) highlights insufficient
locations for testing prototypes in mining research and development. Consequently,
companies may have to invest in costly pilot plants or conduct on-site tests to verify
new ideas. These sector-specific requirements, combined with regulatory constraints

71. 60 | P a g e

and limited funding, extend project timelines and make it challenging to adhere to
typical incubation periods, which are usually measured in months or quarters.
Many mining incubators, especially those funded by corporations, are small projects
that rely heavily on the sponsor's commitment (Reichl and Schatz, 2019). If this
dedication wanes, the incubator could cease operations, risking the businesses
involved. A practical issue is the limited number of fully integrated mining incubators.
Campbell (2024) identified only three such resource-sector incubators worldwide (162
Group, Hunter Dickinson, Lundin Group), demonstrating that most junior mining
companies develop essentially ad hoc businesses. The fact that few utilise the
incubator model indicates that it has not yet gained widespread support.
In summary, mining incubators provide structured support and advice; however, they
must also address industry challenges such as long-term projects, high capital
demands, fluctuating resource and commodity prices, and strict regulatory
frameworks. These factors temper expectations and clarify why many projects still fail
or stagnate, even while being incubated. These are the limitations of the current
literature, and the researcher will examine these deficiencies.
2.18 Integrated Mining Incubators
Integrated mining incubators systematically initiate, develop, and finance new junior
resource projects, forming a distinct category within the broader mining incubator
landscape. Unlike traditional technology incubators, these are usually investment
groups (Harrington and Jenkins, 2021). Among notable examples are Hunter
Dickinson Inc., the Lundin Group, and the 162 Group. These integrated mining
incubators have collectively established several junior mining companies,
demonstrating significantly higher success rates than typical standalone juniors
(Campbell, 2024), although formal comparative research remains scarce.
2.18.1 Hunter Dickinson Inc
Unless otherwise specified, this section is sourced from hdimining.com (2025) and its
affiliated websites.

72. 61 | P a g e

2.18.1.1 Introduction
Hunter Dickinson Inc. (HDI) exemplifies a well-established corporate “venture builder”
or fully integrated mining incubator. HDI is a private mineral development company
founded in Vancouver, Canada, in 1985. It assists various affiliated exploration and
mining firms within their portfolio with their strategic, technical, financial, and
administrative needs (HDI Mining, 2025). With a multidisciplinary team of engineers,
geologists, and financiers, HDI identifies, acquires, and develops high-potential
mineral assets from initial discovery to production, combining entrepreneurial initiative
with organisational rigour.
Since its inception, HDI and its affiliates have undertaken or managed over twenty
mineral projects, including Golden Bear, Mount Milligan, and Kemess. These
companies have generated significant capital returns through trade sales and listings.
Since 1985, HDI has raised over C$1.9 billion in equity financing (Campbell, 2019),
demonstrating its ability to secure patient financing and turn geological potential into
commercial success. HDI combines discovery, permitting, finance, and governance
into a unified corporate structure, enabling better risk management and more efficient
resource utilisation projects.
2.18.1.2 HDI's Value-Adding Mechanisms
HDI’s incubation framework creates value through four interconnected mechanisms:
1. Technical de-risking: Advanced exploration, resource modelling, and feasibility
studies conducted by an in-house team convert early-stage prospects into
investable assets. HDI’s multidisciplinary expertise is a research and
development engine, lowering exploration risks (HDI Mining, 2025).
2. Capital formation: Access to broad investor networks enables HDI to finance
successive project stages and list ventures at appropriate milestones,
distributing financial risk across its portfolio (Campbell, 2019).
3. Integrated management: A shared services model oversees finances,
governance, and compliance so subsidiaries can focus on technical progress
while aligning with the company's objectives.

73. 62 | P a g e

4. Strategic exits: Mature projects are sold to major producers or listed on the
stock exchange, freeing up funds for reinvestment. These carefully planned
exits have consistently delivered high returns on equity, enabling repeated
success with similar projects.
HDI also considers environmental and social responsibility in its practices. It promotes
"Responsible Mineral Development" by engaging with communities early and working
with host governments. This method introduces a third layer of risk mitigation by
addressing social and political factors alongside technical and financial risks (Dauda,
2022; ICMM, 2023).
2.18.1.3 Conclusion
HDI's venture-building system demonstrates how a well-structured platform that
combines technical expertise, capital, governance, and social engagement can
transform early-stage exploration into successful mining enterprises. Its approach
could serve as a model for establishing a mineral incubator in Southern Africa that
addresses skill shortages, attracts risk-tolerant investors, and promotes responsible,
inclusive resource development.
2.18.2 Lundin Group
Unless otherwise stated, this section is sourced from thelundingroup.com (2025) and
its affiliated websites.
2.18.2.1 Introduction
The Lundin Group is a family-run network of independent resource companies
collaborating to demonstrate how a corporate incubation model functions in the
extractive sector. It was established in 1971 by Adolf H. Lundin. The Group has a
broad range of investments in mining, energy, and oil and gas industries, including
Lundin Mining, Lundin Gold, Lucara Diamond, and International Petroleum. These
businesses are based in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The
Group leverages its cash, technical expertise, and management skills to support new
businesses in developing into independent, publicly traded companies. It fosters an
entrepreneurial culture and embraces geological and political risk (Campbell, 2019).

74. 63 | P a g e

2.18.2.2 Lundin Group Evolution and Structure
The Group’s early ventures, including Gulfstream Resources (Qatar) and Lundin
Mining (Chile), developed a decentralised structure with independent boards operating
under a shared philosophy of entrepreneurial leadership, stakeholder engagement,
and resource efficiency. Each company is part of a broader corporate ecosystem,
sharing expertise, networks, and financial credibility rooted in the Lundin brand. This
approach formalises a family-based incubation system connecting technical, financial,
and relational resources across multiple ventures (Lundin Group, 2025).
2.18.2.3 Lundin's Framework in a Theoretical Context
The Lundin model can be interpreted through three overlapping theoretical lenses.
1. Corporate incubation and venturing: Consistent with Guth and Ginsberg’s
(1990) and Sakhdari’s (2016) theories of internal corporate entrepreneurship,
Lundin develops new resource ventures within its existing structure. Early-
stage projects are provided with capital, governance, and technical expertise
before being spun off as independent companies: essentially, an internal
corporate incubation process (Gassmann and Becker, 2006).
2. Resource-Based View (RBV): The Group's success stems from leveraging
unique and difficult-to-imitate assets such as brand reputation, financial
strength, and geological knowledge (Komakech, Moyo and Ackah, 2025).
These intangible resources enhance the company's credibility and reduce the
cost of finance, enabling Lundin-affiliated companies to raise more funds and
complete projects more swiftly than standalone juniors (Campbell, 2019).
3. Entrepreneurial ecosystem: The Lundin network is a self-reinforcing system of
shared knowledge, investor confidence, and managerial mobility (Spigel, 2017;
Lose and Tengeh, 2021). Cross-company collaboration promotes learning and
risk sharing, while the “Lundin network” provides signalling benefits similar to
those seen in technology accelerators.

75. 64 | P a g e

2.18.2.4 Strategic Advantages and Risks
Lundin’s integrated model provides four principal advantages:
1. Access to capital: Established financial credibility enables sustained funding
during exploration “orphan” phases.
2. Knowledge transfer: Companies exchange their expertise and geological data
with each other, aiding in the development of new technical ideas (Gassmann
and Becker, 2007).
3. Risk diversification: A portfolio containing various commodities and jurisdictions
aids in maintaining market stability.
4. Network effects: Brand association and shared governance arrangements
boost investor confidence (Kouhizadeh, Saberi and Sarkis, 2021).
However, possible risks include over-centralisation of control within the Lundin family,
potential duplication of resources, and exposure to geopolitical instability in frontier
markets (Campbell, 2019). Governance uniformity can restrict adaptation to local
contexts, while concentration of authority raises concerns about succession and
transparency.
2.18.2.5 Conclusion
The Lundin Group illustrates how family governance, resource-based advantages,
and entrepreneurial ecosystems can collaborate to support a corporate incubation
system in the mining sector. It has effectively leveraged finance, experience, and
brand trust to establish independent businesses, serving as a positive example for
Southern African incubation frameworks. The strategy could be modified to align with
local regulations and procedures for granting authority, with its combination of risk
sharing, knowledge exchange, and ethical governance, it provides a foundation that
can be used to foster junior mining entrepreneurship and regional economic
development.
2.18.3 162 Group
Unless otherwise specified, the following section is taken from 162group.com (2025)
and its associated websites.

76. 65 | P a g e

2.18.3.1 Introduction
Dr John Teeling established the 162 Group, a private resource incubator based in
Ireland in the early 1980s. The group adopts an entrepreneurial and risk-oriented
approach to mineral and petroleum exploration (162 Group, 2025). It functions as an
integrated project generator by providing seed funding, management oversight, and
early-stage technical support to advance exploration ventures from concept to market
listing, typically within three years (Campbell, 2018). Over four decades, the Group
has established over thirty mineral and energy ventures across Africa, Europe, and
Latin America, including African Diamonds, Kenmare Resources, and Mwana Africa.
Its strategy combines financial engineering with geological entrepreneurship:
balancing geological risk against political uncertainty and exemplifying a rare private-
sector incubator within the extractive industries.
2.18.3.2 Business Model and Strategy
The 162 Group uses a project incubator and “prospect generator” model.
Opportunities are identified through in-house or partner reconnaissance and assigned
to new special-purpose companies. Initial funding comes from Teeling’s private
network and is managed internally until the resource potential is verified. Once initial
results are promising, projects are listed, often on London’s AIM, to attract both
institutional and retail investors (Campbell, 2018). This rapid-cycle approach combines
geological validation with corporate structuring, using the stock market as an external
capital-raising tool.
2.18.3.3 Collaborative Ventures and Alliances
Strategic alliances form the foundation of the Group’s incubation philosophy. By
partnering with major corporations that finance or oversee exploration projects, the
162 Group minimises technical and political risks while maintaining project equity. For
example, joint ventures with Alrosa in Botswana (Sunland Minerals JV) and Glencore’s
Group Eleven in Ireland. These large partners bring expertise and capital in exchange
for access to exploration licences. Such partnerships have led to successful
commercial outcomes, including the Stonepark zinc discovery (Ireland) and the
Maibwe diamond licences (Botswana). These alliances demonstrate an adaptable

77. 66 | P a g e

incubation strategy combining relational capital and shared value creation (Campbell,
2019).
2.18.3.4 Project Development Approach
The Group’s projects are managed efficiently from its Dublin headquarters, where
Teeling and long-standing associates James Finn and David Horgan oversee multiple
listed ventures simultaneously. This shared-management approach enables the rapid
redeployment of expertise across companies, aligning with the “shared services”
model commonly found in corporate incubators (Gassmann and Becker, 2006).
Funding is mainly equity-based: fifteen of the Group’s companies are publicly listed
with a total valuation of around £135 million. Dual listings, such as those of Botswana
Diamonds on the AIM and the Botswana Stock Exchange, extend access to regional
capital while signalling credibility to investors.
2.18.3.5 Geographic and Sectoral Scope
Although global in scope, the 162 Group’s portfolio focuses on high-potential resource
jurisdictions and commodities, including diamonds, base metals, oil, and, more
recently, lithium (162 Group, 2025). Africa remains crucial to its growth strategy,
especially in Botswana and Ghana, where stable regulations and support for local
partnerships exist. The Group's deliberate avoidance of politically unstable countries
such as Zimbabwe or Angola aligns with Teeling's approach of balancing geological
opportunities against sovereign risk (Campbell, 2019).
2.18.3.6 Conclusion
The 162 Group offers a unique example of private-sector incubation in mineral
exploration. Its approach, which combines risk diversification, partnership leverage,
and early-market engagement, demonstrates how entrepreneurial finance and
geological innovation can be formalised within a cost-effective incubation framework.
Potentially tailored to Southern Africa’s policy environment, such a model could help
address junior explorers' financing and skills gaps and bolster the region’s growing
mining and entrepreneurial ecosystem.

78. 67 | P a g e

2.18.4 Shortcomings of the Integrated Mining Incubators
Although Hunter Dickinson Inc. (HDI), the Lundin Group, and the 162 Group
demonstrate the potential of integrated incubation in mineral exploration, each exhibits
significant shortcomings when assessed against the theoretical frameworks discussed
in Sections 2.3–2.13.
Mining’s long, capital-intensive “orphan” phases fundamentally conflict with
technology-style incubation models that depend on short innovation cycles (Clarysse
et al., 2015). While these incubators speed up early-stage technical and corporate
growth, none can entirely overcome the sector’s reliance on time and capital. Lengthy
delays in feasibility and permitting often reduce value and investor confidence
(Campbell, 2018; WEF, 2015).
Institutional and social licence restrictions further constrain impact. Even well-
organised incubators, such as HDI, with rigorous ESG systems, cannot fully navigate
the unpredictable regulatory and community environments typical of emerging
jurisdictions (Prno and Slocombe, 2014). Ecosystem theory predicts institutional
obstacles, where external governance failures, rather than internal resource
shortages, determine outcomes.
Governance concentration also emerges as a weakness. The Lundin Group’s family-
led structure and HDI’s centralised management demonstrate strong strategic control
but pose risks related to succession and adaptability. At the same time, the 162
Group’s reliance on the founder limits decentralised decision-making. From a Dynamic
Capabilities perspective, these structures diminish flexibility and local responsiveness
(Teece, 2007).
All three face ongoing funding instability. Despite strong networks, they remain
vulnerable to mid-stage financing gaps, known as the “orphan phase,” where the
resource has been identified but construction capital is still lacking (Schodde, 2020).
This hampers project continuity and limits the conversion of exploration achievements
into production.
Furthermore, the spread of innovation remains limited. The incubators lack shared
learning infrastructure, such as pilot plants or demonstration sites, that could formalise

79. 68 | P a g e

experimentation and cross-portfolio knowledge transfer (WEF, 2015). As a result,
dynamic learning and technology adoption, core to sustained capability development,
remain under-realised.
Because these incubators are commercially oriented towards listing or asset
monetisation, their activities generate limited developmental spill-overs, that is, few
lasting transfers of knowledge, skills, or infrastructure to the broader economy or host
communities (McMahon and Moreira 2014). Their prioritisation of shareholder returns
over broader ecosystem strengthening restricts inclusive outcomes in skills, supplier
development, and community engagement (Isenberg, 2011). Empirical research on
integrated mining incubation remains limited, emphasising the need for hybrid models
that combine private-sector efficiency with institutional intermediation and patient
capital suited to Africa’s institutional settings (Autio et al., 2018).
In summary, HDI, Lundin, and the 162 Group demonstrate credible RBV-based
technical, financial, and governance strengths; however, they remain impeded by
sectoral inertia, regulatory uncertainty, and capital-stack fragility. Future mining-
incubator design should focus on contextual fit, integrating regulatory intermediation,
distributed governance, learning infrastructure, and long-term financing to convert
Dynamic Capabilities into sustainable developmental impact.
2.18.5 Summary of the three Integrated Mining Incubators
The following is a summary of the three incubators. This analysis addresses Objective
Three:
• HDI is the most organised and technical group, offering a reproducible model
for centralised technical services vital in talent-scarce regions.
• Lundin emphasises entrepreneurial autonomy and sustainability, showcasing
the benefits of strategic timing and flexible capital structuring, which fit well with
cyclical African markets.
• The 162 Group emphasises speed, investor returns, and minimal overheads
while concentrating on early-stage companies that benefit from agile
entrepreneurship and access to the London AIM market.

80. 69 | P a g e

Table 2-1: Comparative analysis of key integrated mining incubator dimensions The
table summarises governance, shared-services scope, capital stack, cycle-time to
gates, portfolio risk logic, Africa transferability constraints, and observable outcomes
(listings, BFS/production, exits). It synthesises peer-reviewed concepts with
descriptive (grey) case material appropriately triangulated.
Table 2-1: Comparative analysis of key integrated mining incubator
dimensions
Dimension HDI (Hunter Dickinson Inc.) Lundin Group 162 Group
Governance
model
Private Vancouver-based mining
group providing management
services to affiliated
listed/private companies via
service agreements; central
technical and corporate
leadership (founders Robert
Hunter, Robert Dickinson; CEO
Ron Thiessen). Boards of
affiliates typically include HDI
principals; services are charged
on a cost-recovery basis.
Separate, individually
managed public
companies across
exploration →
production; Lundin
family trust is a
major/majority
shareholder; family
member(s) often on
boards/executive roles;
companies can
leverage group
advisors and the Lundin
Foundation for ESG.
Dublin-based
entrepreneurial group led
by Dr John Teeling, with
multiple AIM-listed
vehicles (e.g., Botswana
Diamonds, Arkle
Resources) and oil and
gas peers;
board/management talent
shared across vehicles;
HQ and several
companies co-located at
162 Clontarf Road.
Shared
services scope
In-house technical (geology,
engineering), permitting,
corporate finance, and admin;
ability to “rapidly advance
projects through exploration,
development, permitting,
construction”; historical use of
affiliated technical entities (e.g.,
UMS) on projects.
Advisor network across
companies; access to
Lundin Foundation
ESG expertise, working
groups, and knowledge
sharing.
Opportunity origination,
JV negotiation, listing
support; long-standing
diamond technical team
and Africa experience;
cross-vehicle PR/IR and
governance templates.
Typical capital
stack and
instruments
Historically, public equity has
been raised in affiliates
(>$1.4bn), project/JV farm-ins,
and asset monetisations.
Public equity across
multiple listings
(TSX/Stockholm),
project-level debt, and
innovative
offtake/stream facilities.
AIM placings in listed
vehicles, JV/earn-ins with
majors (e.g., De Beers;
African Diamonds →
Lucara transaction), spin-
outs.

81. 70 | P a g e

Dimension HDI (Hunter Dickinson Inc.) Lundin Group 162 Group
Example
cycle-time to
key gates
It was not disclosed as a group
KPI; the mandate emphasises
accelerated progression through
technical and permitting gates
via central teams.
Example: Fruta del
Norte—acquired Dec
2014; construction start
2017; first gold Nov
2019; commercial
production Feb 2020
(ahead of schedule).
Example pathway: African
Diamonds (AFD)
advanced AK6
(Botswana); Lucara
acquired AFD Dec 2010;
the Karowe mine reached
commercial production in
2012 under Lucara (post-
transaction).
Portfolio risk
logic
The multi-company platform
allows stage and commodity
diversification (porphyry Cu-
Au/Mo; Au; diamonds) and
enables the recycling of projects
through discoveries, JVS, and
sales.
Separate listed entities
diversify by commodity
(Cu, Au, diamonds,
energy) and jurisdiction;
within the group, the
mix is operator–
builder–explorer.
Option-rich, JV-driven
exploration focusing on
diamonds, Irish zinc, and
selective Africa gold;
capital-light farm-outs
common.
Africa
transferability,
constraints
and
mitigations
Prior operational/transactional
exposure in Southern Africa
(e.g., Rockwell Diamonds
management services; BEE
structuring) supports local
partnering and permitting know-
how.
Foundation-backed
ESG capability and
global permitting
experience support
host-country
engagement, and there
is strong capital
markets access for
Africa projects (e.g.,
Lucara/Karowe is in the
Group ecosystem via
Lucara).
Deep Botswana/Africa
diamond experience
(AFD → Lucara; BOD
active in Botswana,
Zimbabwe, Cameroon),
local teams, AIM access;
relies on partnerships
with majors and local JV
structures.
Observable
outcomes
(examples)
The track record includes 19+
public/private companies;
projects associated with HDI
include Mount Milligan, Kemess,
Prosperity/New Prosperity,
Pebble, Xietongmen, Gibraltar,
and Sisson (various stages from
discovery to operation).
Multiple public
companies (e.g.,
Lundin Mining, Lundin
Gold, Lucara) have
demonstrated repeated
project delivery. Fruta
del Norte was brought
to production in 2019–
20, and ESG
programmes are
conducted via the
Foundation across 25+
countries.
Creation and exits: AFD
sale to Lucara (2010,
~C$82m); historic roles in
Tara Mines creation and
early Kenmare Resources
investment; ongoing
listings (BOD, Arkle),
multiple JVs.

82. 71 | P a g e

2.19 Southern African Mining Incubators
In Southern Africa, policy instruments such as the SADC Revised Industrialisation
Strategy (2023) and the African Mining Vision (2024 update) emphasise mineral-
based entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, programmes like SEDA's Innovation Support
and UNDP's Timbuktoo MineTech Hub remain fragmented and focused on
compliance, highlighting the need for an integrated incubation model that caters to
each region's specific requirements.
Given its substantial mining sector, Southern Africa has seen only a limited number of
organised, primarily narrowly focused, incubator-led projects, mainly in South Africa.
Key examples include:
• The Siemens-Wits Digital Mining Incubator opened in 2018 and is part of
Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand's (Wits) innovation hub
(University of the Witwatersrand, 2018). It aims to support young South
Africans, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, by teaching them
digital mining skills with the assistance of Siemens engineers. The incubator's
mission includes developing use cases for automation, data analytics, and
other Fourth Industrial Revolution (4ir) technologies in the mining sector. It is
particularly significant as one of the few university-based industrial incubators
focused on mining in Africa.
• The WomHub platform supports early-stage mining enterprises owned by
South African women through Sasol's Women in Mining Incubator (South
Africa) programme (WomHub, 2025). In addition to providing mentorship, the
hub offers a year-long training programme focused on leadership, funding, and
entrepreneurial skills. This project addresses technical business development
and ESG objectives, including gender equity. It demonstrates how enterprise
and supplier development (ESD) corporate programmes utilise the incubator
model.
• The SEDA Agricultural and Mining Tooling Incubator trains local micro-
enterprises in tool design for mining and agriculture (Innovation Bridge, 2023).
Although it does not focus on high-tech mining research and development, it
supports small suppliers. These programmes demonstrate that the South

83. 72 | P a g e

African government is committed to supporting local suppliers in enhancing
their skills through incubation.
• Although not located in Southern Africa, the UNDP-supported Timbuktu centre
in Zambia is significant for Africa (UNDP, 2025). Described as a first of its kind
on the African continent in terms of mining technology, it supports African
businesses with networking, mentoring, and financial aid. It was established in
early 2025 and received official UN backing, reflecting a rising regional interest
in mining entrepreneurship.
• Companies such as Gold Fields (Gold Fields, 2025) and Anglo American
(Zimele Supplier Development, 2025) run supplier development programmes,
while mining firms like De Beers have established community incubators,
including an entrepreneurship incubator at the Venetia mine (Disrupt Africa,
2017) in South Africa to support local enterprises. However, most of these are
not officially recognised as "incubators" in the sense of technological start-up
centres.
Southern African programmes are generally small and limited, reflecting a mix of
university, industry, and government efforts. Studies, such as Masutha and Rogerson
(2014), indicate that the region needs more coordinated incubation infrastructure as
the existing programmes (DMI, Sasol, SEDA, etc.) focus on nurturing local talent.
Southern Africa lacks a widespread network of mining accelerators or incubators;
projects are often isolated, company-specific, or narrowly focused (Sentsho, 2025).
This geographical disparity is significant given the sector's importance to regional
economies.
2.20 Comparative Performance of Integrated Mining Incubators versus
Stand-Alone Juniors
Between 2015 and 2025, global evidence suggests that stand-alone junior exploration
companies experienced high attrition rates, whereas integrated incubators sustained
nearly universal survival. Industry data estimates that roughly 2,000 junior miners
worldwide exist, of which 70–90 per cent have delisted or liquidated within a decade,
equivalent to 1,400–1,800 failures (Mining-International, 2024; Discovery Alert, 2024).

84. 73 | P a g e

By contrast, the three integrated mining incubators demonstrate an order-of-
magnitude lower failure rate. The 162 Group has never had a failure, nor has the
Lundin Group. Hunter Dickinson Inc. has eight associated firms, of which only one has
been delisted, resulting in a 12.5% failure rate. These claims are based on the
company's disclosures as of October 9, 2025, and will be later researched, verified
and triangulated. Notwithstanding this, incubator-backed companies exhibit an
average failure rate of approximately 4%, compared with 70–90% for global stand-
alone juniors, a performance gap exceeding fifteen-to-one.
This brief comparative research reveals a fundamental insight: integrated incubators
transform geological knowledge into financial and social capital through embedded
partnerships and feedback loops, whereas stand-alone juniors typically cannot embed
similar mechanisms.
This difference in performance indicates that the benefits are more structural than
cyclical. Incubators combine technological, financial, and relational capital within
shared governance frameworks. From an RBV perspective (Barney, 1991), these
pooled assets of geological intelligence, experienced teams, and trusted investor
networks are unique resources that cannot be replicated. Dynamic Capabilities theory
(Teece et al., 1997, 2018) clarifies their agility in reallocating capital and knowledge,
while Effectuation and Bricolage (Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker and Nelson, 2005) reflect
their adaptive, means-driven approach to venture formation. These mechanisms
collectively enhance incubators' resilience and ability to transform projects into
commercial returns.
Therefore, the comparative performance data empirically support the theoretical
premise of this study: integrated mining incubators consistently outperform stand-
alone juniors through coordinated resource management and networked learning. The
comparative evidence from the three integrated incubators shows that their success
results from the interaction of internal resources, dynamic skills, entrepreneurial
actions, and network legitimacy, rather than a single factor. These findings align with
and relate to the theories discussed in previous sections: RBV, Dynamic Capabilities,
Effectuation, Bricolage, Organisational Learning, and Ecosystem perspectives, each
emphasising an aspect of consistent success amid uncertainty. This synthesis lays

85. 74 | P a g e

the foundation for the conceptual framework introduced in the next section, combining
these theoretical and empirical insights into a unified incubation model for junior mining
enterprises.
2.21 Synthesis: Toward a Conceptual Framework
The previous sections have demonstrated that no theoretical or practical perspective
can fully explain how junior mineral exploration companies in Southern Africa
systematically achieve commercial success amid complex and uncertain conditions.
The Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic Capabilities (DC), Effectuation, and
Bricolage highlight different aspects of businesses and entrepreneurs' operations.
Meanwhile, Network, Organisation Learning, and SLO/ESG Governance theories
show how knowledge sharing, legitimacy, and stakeholder collaboration influence
these outcomes. These perspectives, when combined, offer a comprehensive
framework for understanding how business incubators transform dormant geological
potential into successful enterprises through coordinated resource mobilisation,
developing adaptive capabilities, and fostering continuous learning within socially
embedded ecosystem contexts.
This synthesis combines these theoretical strands with real-world data from the three
integrated mining incubators: 162 Group, Hunter Dickinson Inc. (HDI), and the Lundin
Group. It aims to offer a conceptual framework tailored to the junior mining ecosystem
in Southern Africa. It explicitly addresses the Research Problem Statement and
advances the study's aim: to examine how integrated incubators create and maintain
competitive advantage in high-risk junior mining and exploration contexts by linking
theoretical frameworks to observed empirical evidence.
Furthermore, portfolio diversification is a vital resilience strategy within integrated
mining incubators. Incubators diminish exploration risk, repurpose underutilised
assets, and sustain organisational learning by carefully spreading technical, financial,
and geographic exposure across numerous ventures. This transforms uncertainty into
a source of new opportunities and capabilities.

86. 75 | P a g e

The conceptual framework offers a comprehensive platform for understanding the
dynamics of value creation and resilience in junior mineral ventures. It utilises the RBV
to demonstrate how strategic resources such as geological knowledge, technical
expertise, financial capital, and stakeholder trust form the foundation of differentiation
and advantage; Dynamic Capabilities to illustrate how these assets are renewed and
redeployed through sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring processes (Teece, 2018); and
the complementary logics of Effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001) and Bricolage (Baker &
Nelson, 2005) to show how entrepreneurs and incubator managers pragmatically
leverage existing means to create opportunities amid uncertainty. Organisational
Learning Theory clarifies how iterative project experiences are accumulated into
collective processes and absorptive capacity. At the same time, Network Theory and
SLO/ESG frameworks outline the emergence of legitimacy and social licence through
relational trust, governance transparency, and community engagement.
These theoretical integrations are in line with the Da Vinci TIPS framework (Da Vinci
Research Report, 2023):
• Technology refers to using exploratory technologies, data analytics, and
process advances that enable sensing opportunities.
• Innovation involves transforming limitations into solutions using effective and
improvised methods.
• People include leadership, implicit knowledge, and learning processes that
lead to new capabilities and entrepreneurial judgement.
• Systems are the institutional, network, and governance structures that link
businesses, investors, governments, and communities into a single entity
ecosystem.
In this TIPS-aligned approach, integrated mining incubators are viewed as dynamic
systems that organise capabilities rather than static support structures. They
coordinate and deploy resources to generate opportunity pipelines and position
businesses within institutional, financial, and socio-political frameworks that foster
growth. Empirical evidence clearly supports this: the 162 Group exemplifies a means-
driven, high-velocity effectual model that rapidly transforms ideas into listed entities;
HDI emphasises systemic learning and technical-managerial integration through

87. 76 | P a g e

shared repositories of expertise; and the Lundin Group utilises relational and
reputational capital to access global funding networks. These examples illustrate three
competence domains interconnected: entrepreneurial, technical-managerial, and
relational-institutional. Each domain corresponds to a TIPS dimension, forming the
core structure of practical mining incubation.
Finally, the framework architecture features mining incubation, where developing
internal capabilities intersects with engaging external ecosystems. The incubator
becomes a space where business discipline, emerging technology, and creative
thinking converge to transform geological prospects into tangible investments. It
collaborates with governments, research institutions, investors, and communities to
gain legitimacy, regulatory approval, and social acceptance from external
stakeholders. This interaction creates a continuous feedback loop. Learning from
venture outcomes enhances internal sensing and reconfiguration, while signals from
the ecosystem support strategic decisions and resource allocation. This cyclical,
adaptive process embodies the core principles of sustainable value creation:
technologically informed, innovation-driven, human-centred, and systemically
coherent, aligned with the theoretical framework and the TIPS philosophy
underpinning this research.
Building on these insights, the framework is expressed in three-layers, which is
explicitly aligned to Da Vinci’s TIPS orientation (Da Vinci Research Report, 2023):
Technology (geoscientific tools and data analytics); Innovation (business model
experimentation and financing mechanisms); People (entrepreneurial and technical
talent); and Systems (governance structures and feedback loops linking incubator to
ecosystem). Each layer interacts dynamically with the others through feedback and
learning loops. Dynamic Capabilities form the connective tissue between the inner
Core Engine and the Operational Platform, ensuring that adaptability at the micro level
is institutionalised as innovation at the organisational level.
1. Core Engine (Technology and People): Capability Orchestration:
The inner layer represents the incubator’s capability engine, integrating the
Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities alongside Effectuation
and Bricolage principles. Here, Dynamic Capabilities act as the micro-

88. 77 | P a g e

foundations of adaptability: entrepreneurial cognition, experiential learning, and
resource improvisation. These enable ventures to sense emerging
opportunities and reconfigure available means. The main processes include
resource identification, configuration, and renewal through continuous sensing,
seizing, and reconfiguring at both individual and team levels.
2. Operational Platform (Innovation): Incubator Mechanisms:
The middle layer depicts the incubator’s internal mechanisms and learning
structures where Dynamic Capabilities are presented at the organisational
level. They manifest through structured processes, governance systems, and
capital mechanisms that formalise learning and coordinate actions across
ventures. This layer transforms entrepreneurial agility from the Core Engine into
scalable innovation processes. Each of the three incubator examples
emphasises a different operational focus: 162 Group (entrepreneurial agility),
HDI (technical integration), and Lundin (relational capital).
3. Ecosystem Interface (Systems): External Embeddedness:
The outer layer illustrates the institutional, financial, and community networks
that shape opportunity recognition and legitimacy. Ecosystem and network
theories demonstrate how relationships and legitimacy influence resource
access and trust. Feedback loops relay insights from the ecosystem into the
inner layers, allowing strategies and tactics to be adjusted as new information
and partnerships develop.
The Venture Pipeline comprises a diverse portfolio of exploration, feasibility, listing
or sale, and eventual mine development projects. Knowledge and resources flow both
ways: successful projects enhance the incubator's capital and reputation, while
unsuccessful projects provide practical experience that helps improve future detection
and acquisition processes. This cyclical learning process explains the consistent
success and resilience observed in serial mining incubators compared to independent
juniors. Portfolio diversification is a vital business strategy that integrated incubators
employ to spread technological, financial, and geographical risks across various
ventures. This approach reduces exploration risks, utilises underused assets, and
maintains capabilities through shared learning and adaptable resource allocation.

89. 78 | P a g e

Building on the synthesis of Resource-Based, Dynamic Capability, Effectuation, and
Bricolage perspectives, the proposed framework translates these theories into an
applied, multi-layered structure aligned with Da Vinci’s TIPS lens. Each layer
represents a different locus of capability development and interaction: the Core Engine
focuses on internal entrepreneurial cognition and resource orchestration; the
Operational Platform institutionalises adaptive learning; and the Ecosystem Interface
embeds ventures within legitimising external networks. Table 2-2: Mapping of
Theoretical Constructs to Framework Layers maps these theoretical constructs to their
respective layers, clarifying the mechanisms through which they collectively shape
performance in junior mining incubation.
Table 2-2: Mapping of Theoretical Constructs to Framework Layers
Framework
Layer (TIPS
Lens)
Theoretical
Construct(s)
Core Concepts /
Mechanisms
Illustrative Application in
Junior Mining Incubation
Core Engine
– Technology
& People
RBV, Dynamic
Capabilities,
Effectuation,
Bricolage
Identification and
orchestration of strategic
(VRIN) resources;
sensing–seizing–
reconfiguring; means-
driven action; creative
recombination of available
assets
Entrepreneurial and
technical teams integrate
geological, financial, and
relational capital through
iterative learning and
adaptive decision-making
Operational
Platform –
Innovation
Primary: Dynamic
Capabilities and
Incubation
Theories
Secondary:
Organisational
Learning Theories

Structured mechanisms for
project execution, capital
structuring, and scaling;
feedback loops that
institutionalise learning
Use of shared data rooms,
governance templates, and
funding gateways to
accelerate venture
progression
Ecosystem
Interface –
Systems
Primary:
Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem Theory
Legitimacy building, policy
alignment, and multi-
stakeholder coordination
Interaction with regulators,
financiers, and
communities to sustain

90. 79 | P a g e

Framework
Layer (TIPS
Lens)
Theoretical
Construct(s)
Core Concepts /
Mechanisms
Illustrative Application in
Junior Mining Incubation
Secondary:
Network Theories

legitimacy and mobilise
ecosystem support

As Table 2-2: Mapping of Theoretical Constructs to Framework Layers illustrates, the
framework combines the micro-foundations of entrepreneurial behaviour with the
meso-level routines of organisational learning and the macro-level dynamics of
ecosystem embeddedness. This layered structure provides a clear analytical bridge
between theory and methodology, guiding the empirical investigation in Chapter Three
and allowing for the examination of how integrated incubators coordinate resources,
learning, and relationships to enhance the success of junior mineral ventures.

91. 80 | P a g e


Figure 2-4: TIPS-aligned Conceptual Integrated Business Incubation
Framework for Junior Mining

Figure 2-4: TIPS-aligned Conceptual Integrated Business Incubation Framework for
Junior Mining contrasts with previous incubation and capability models (Clarysse et
al., 2005; Teece, 2007; Spigel and Harrison, 2018), illustrating its unique combination
of resource orchestration and ecosystem embeddedness (see Table 2-3: Comparative
summary of incubation frameworks).

92. 81 | P a g e

Table 2-3: Comparative summary of incubation frameworks
Model or
Framework
/ Source
Core
Orientation
Analytical
Level
Key Constructs Limitations
Distinctive
Features of
Proposed
Framework
Clarysse et
al. (2005)
Typology of
incubators by
sponsorship and
services
Organisational
/ structural
Input–output
model of
incubation
Static; little
emphasis on
dynamic
learning or
capability
building
Introduces
capability
orchestration
(sensing–
seizing–
reconfiguring)
within the
incubator core
engine
Teece
(2007)
Dynamic
Capabilities
(sensing,
seizing,
reconfiguring)
Firm-level
strategic
management
Adaptive
resource
modification
Theoretical, not
operationalised
for start-ups or
incubators
Operationalises
Dynamic
Capabilities
through incubator
mechanisms and
venture pathways
Spigel and
Harrison
(2018)
Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem
attributes
Regional /
network
Cultural, social,
and material
support
structures
Limited sectoral
focus; weak
micro-level
process
explanation
Integrates
ecosystem-level
feedback loops
with internal
venture capability
building
Present
Study
(Campbell,
2025)
TIPS-aligned
Three-Layer
Framework:
Core Engine,
Operational
Platform,
Ecosystem
Interface
Multi-level
(firm ↔
ecosystem)
Integrates RBV,
Dynamic
Capabilities,
Effectuation and
Bricolage, and is
enhanced by
Organisational
Learning and
Network Theory.
—
Synthesises
theory and
practice; sector-
specific (mining);
embeds
ESG/SLO;
bridges micro
capabilities and
macro
ecosystems.

In contrast to the high-tech or urban settings studied by Clarysse (2005), Teece
(2007), and Spigel and Harrison (2018), junior mineral exploration occurs in a
resource-intensive, high-uncertainty environment characterised by lengthy project
durations, capital limitations, and the need for multi-stakeholder legitimacy.
Conventional incubation models fail to address these systemic challenges. The
proposed framework is distinctive because it integrates RBV, Dynamic Capabilities,
Effectuation, Bricolage, Organisational Learning, and Network/ESG theories into a

93. 82 | P a g e

unified, TIPS-aligned structure. Technology includes exploration and digital
innovation; Innovation refers to the development of adaptive capabilities; People
represent experiential learning and leadership; and Systems denote governance and
ecosystem alignment.
In conclusion, the conceptual framework combines theoretical, empirical, and practical
findings to explain how integrated mining incubators generate and sustain value within
the junior exploration ecosystem. Integrating RBV, Dynamic Capabilities, Effectuation,
Bricolage, Organisational Learning, Network, and SLO/ESG perspectives within the
TIPS philosophy highlights the technological, innovative, human, and systemic
mechanisms that facilitate capability orchestration and ecosystem engagement. This
framework links Chapter Two's theoretical synthesis with Chapter Three's
methodological design. It aids in understanding how capabilities develop and how a
business performs. However, several conceptual and empirical gaps remain, which
the following section outlines to support the study’s focus and the comparative
approach used in the following chapter.
2.22 Research Gaps and Shortcomings
Despite the increasing body of literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation
systems, and incubation models, the application of these frameworks in the junior
mineral exploration and development sector in Southern Africa remains
underdeveloped and poorly contextualised. The review highlights several
interconnected research gaps that justify the current study and inform its objectives,
problem statement, and guiding questions.
• Limited conceptualisation of mining-specific incubation models
The current concept of incubation mainly stems from technological and
manufacturing sectors (Clarysse et al., 2005; Von Zedtwitz, 2003; Pauwels et
al., 2016). Its application in extractive industry contexts has not been thoroughly
examined. The capital-intensive, high-risk, and geologically uncertain nature of
junior mining ventures requires unique entrepreneurial approaches, such as
Bricolage, Effectuation, and resource-based capacity development, which
traditional incubator models do not cover. The absence of an empirically

94. 83 | P a g e

proven, mining-focused incubation framework creates a significant gap in both
theory and practice for effectively supporting these enterprises.
• Fragmented and underdeveloped incubation infrastructure in Southern
Africa
The review finds that Southern Africa lacks a cohesive network of mining
incubators similar to those in more established innovation economies. Existing
programmes such as those supported by SEDA, Sasol, and the DMI are small,
sectorally fragmented, and mainly government-led, with limited collaboration
between academia, industry, and investors (Masutha and Rogerson, 2014;
Dubihlela and Van Schaikwyk, 2014). This institutional fragmentation hampers
ecosystem learning, diminishes cross-project synergies, and restricts the
growth of successful incubation models. As a result, entrepreneurs in the region
still depend on ad hoc, company-specific initiatives or foreign incubator models
from North America or Europe, which do not always align with the realities of
local institutions, culture, politics and geography.
• Absence of empirical synthesis on successful incubator archetypes in
mining
Although the Lundin Group, Hunter Dickinson Inc., and the 162 Group exemplify
the potential of integrated incubator models, scholarly analyses of their
institutional structures, governance approaches, and success determinants
remain limited. Existing references are mostly descriptive or historical, rather
than analytical or comparative. No comprehensive framework explains why
these incubators achieve above-average success in project commercialisation
or how their internal routines could be adapted to Southern Africa. This exposes
a significant empirical gap that the current research seeks to address through
comparative case analysis.
• Insufficient linkage between entrepreneurial theory and mining practice
Although theories such as the Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic
Capabilities, and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems have been widely applied in
general entrepreneurship research, their integration within extractive-industry
entrepreneurship remains in its early development. The literature does not

95. 84 | P a g e

explain how resource orchestration, institutional intermediation, and
stakeholder governance (including SLO/ESG dimensions) affect venture
performance in mining start-ups. This study, therefore, extends these
theoretical frameworks into a sector-specific model that more precisely reflects
the realities of junior exploration and development.
• Lack of localisation and contextual adaptation
Much existing knowledge on incubation and innovation ecosystems derives
from high-income economies with robust capital markets, well-established
regulatory frameworks, and efficient technology transfer systems. The Southern
African context, however, is characterised by policy uncertainty, infrastructure
gaps, and limited venture capital opportunities. The research offers limited
insights into how incubation models are adapted to fit specific institutional
contexts, particularly where geological, socio-political, and community
legitimacy risks intersect.
• Deficient longitudinal and systemic perspectives
Most studies focus on a static or program-level view of incubation outcomes,
overlooking the long-term paths from discovery to viability, mining development,
and potential exit. Limited research shows how incubated junior firms progress
through these stages, establish legitimacy, or sustain adaptive capabilities over
time. This study aims to fill this gap by analysing the complete incubation
lifecycle within the mining sector.
These gaps collectively emphasise the central issue of this research: the absence of
a coherent, context-sensitive conceptual framework to support early-stage mineral
exploration and development projects within the Southern African ecosystem.
Combining theories from both entrepreneurship and resource-based paradigms is
essential to address these issues while also adapting proven international models
practically. The study's objectives and research questions seek to close this gap by
examining successful global incubator archetypes, identifying key contextual enablers
and obstacles specific to Southern Africa, and integrating these elements into a
cohesive conceptual framework that can inform policy and practice.

96. 85 | P a g e

2.23 Conclusion
This chapter critically synthesises the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical
foundations supporting the Research Aim. It traced the evolution of business-
incubation theory through its generational shifts, demonstrating its transition from
facility-based support systems to ecosystem-integrated models. The chapter
examined entrepreneurial ecosystems within this broader context as external factors
influencing business growth and skill development.
The Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities (DC) frameworks clarified
the internal processes through which junior miners and incubators acquire, utilise, and
update strategic assets. The complementary frameworks of Effectuation and Bricolage
explain entrepreneurial behaviour under uncertainty and constraints. At the same time,
the integration of SLO and ESG perspectives situates these processes within their
broader social and governance context.
This chapter provides a foundation for Chapter Three's methodological choices and
analytical strategies by incorporating contemporary developments in incubation
theory, critical perspectives on the Resource-Based View (RBV), the African policy
environment, and an empirical assessment of the three integrated mining approaches
incubators.
Examining global and regional incubator typologies revealed successful frameworks
and persistent shortcomings in the Southern African context. These insights
contributed to shaping the proposed conceptual business-incubator framework, which
integrates capability orchestration, adaptive learning, and ecosystemic alignment. The
next chapter elaborates on this theoretical synthesis by detailing the research
methodology and demonstrating how the philosophical assumptions, research design,
and data collection procedures work together to test and develop this conceptual
approach framework.

97. 86 | P a g e

3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This study employs a qualitative research method to establish a conceptual framework
for a mining business incubator that supports sustainable mining entrepreneurship.
The research is grounded in a relativist ontology and constructivist epistemology,
recognising the socially constructed nature of knowledge in this field. The study aims
to gather diverse perspectives by analysing historical studies of successful mining
juniors, evaluating current mining incubators, and conducting semi-structured
interviews with mining entrepreneurs. Key features of this research methodology
include addressing ethical concerns, ensuring data integrity, and employing a
purposive sampling approach focusing on successful junior mining enterprises.
Through this comprehensive approach, the research seeks to develop a practical,
research-based framework for a mineral exploration and development incubator
tailored to junior miners and explorers in the Southern African context.
3.2 Research Design
Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing
knowledge in a novel and creative manner to generate new concepts, frameworks,
methodologies, and insights (Creswell, 2013, p. 37). This could include the synthesis
and analysis of previous research to the extent that it results in new and creative
outcomes (WSU, 2025). Theoretical interpretation, analytical thinking, and critical
assessment all contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this field through this
process (Creswell, 2003, p. 37). The acquisition of knowledge through research largely
depends on the theoretical framework employed and the researcher's ontological and
epistemological stance, which define their paradigm.
Creswell (2003, p. 37) defines five fundamental elements of a research paradigm:
• Ontology examines the nature of life and reality as perceived by the
researcher.
• Epistemology is the study of how researchers obtain and validate knowledge.

98. 87 | P a g e

• Axiology explains how the researcher’s values, including ethical issues,
influence the study.
• How rhetorical language and style are used in the research proposal.
• Methodology refers to the general procedures, tools, techniques, and
methods of data collection and analysis employed by the researcher.
Given the researcher's underlying philosophy and the subjective nature of the
research subject, a qualitative research method was selected as the most suitable
approach for this study. Qualitative research uncovers subtle patterns that quantitative
methods may overlook, making it particularly effective for exploring social phenomena
and capturing the complexity of human interactions and experiences (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2011). While the researcher's philosophical stance is fundamentally that of a
Stoic pragmatist, and acknowledging that specific objective facts exist, this study
requires a relativist approach to develop a conceptual framework that takes into
account both situational and contextual variations.
This study is grounded in constructivism and interpretivism as an epistemological
posture that emphasises knowledge is subjectively created through both social
interactions and experiences (Schwandt, 1994). Essentially, the researcher adopts
both perspectives because they are not mutually exclusive. The researcher can
acknowledge the social construction of reality while also focusing on how individuals
make sense of their experiences. For instance, the researcher might study how
individuals construct their understanding of a specific social issue (constructivism) and
how those understandings influence their behaviours and interpretations
(interpretivism). This viewpoint aligns with a systems thinking approach, which
perceives the mining sector as a dynamic and interrelated system where numerous
stakeholders, environmental elements, and socioeconomic settings impact all facets
of the industry and corporate performance. Further supporting the problem-solving
emphasis of the study design is a relativist paradigm, which asserts that reality is
socially created and context-dependent.
From an ontological perspective, a relativist paradigm suggests that social interactions
and interpretations shape reality rather than dictating what is fixed in nature. Berger
and Luckmann (1967) argue that social construction through human interaction forms

99. 88 | P a g e

knowledge. This perspective is particularly relevant in the mining sector, where
cultural, financial, economic, legal, and technical aspects all directly influence
company performance. Therefore, this study acknowledges the subjective nature of
reality by including the viewpoints of mining entrepreneurs to develop a holistic
understanding of the mining entrepreneurial environment.
The research design will utilise a qualitative approach, offering detailed, contextualised
insights that consider the socially constructed nature of a mining company. Data
collection will be undertaken through semi-structured, open-ended interviews,
facilitating in-depth discussions where participants can freely convey their experiences
and viewpoints (Heron and Reason, 1997). The study's sensitivity to the
socioeconomic and cultural contexts of the interviewees shapes the understanding of
the challenges and opportunities in the mining sector. Thus, this approach enhances
that sensitivity.
In summary, the research design is rooted in a qualitative paradigm that supports a
relativist ontology, along with constructivist and interpretivist epistemologies, and
employs a systems-thinking approach to problem-solving. Therefore, this study aims
to understand the entrepreneurial landscape of mining through a flexible and context-
sensitive methodology.
3.3 Research Methodology
Establishing a framework for a conceptual mining incubator necessitates a research
methodology that integrates best practices, historical knowledge, and firsthand
entrepreneurial experience. Capturing the full range of information requires a research
methodology that encompasses both primary and secondary data.
• Primary data: semi-structured interviews with mining entrepreneurs
• Secondary data:
o Historical analysis of junior mining successes.
o Evaluation of current integrated mining business incubators
Developing a conceptual framework for a junior mining company incubator requires
an interdisciplinary study approach that integrates firsthand entrepreneurial insights,
best practices, and lessons learned from the past. By combining these two research

100. 89 | P a g e

methods, primary (semi-structured interviews) and secondary (historical analysis and
incubator evaluation), the study ensures that the incubator framework is grounded in
established successes while remaining adaptable to the evolving needs of the mining
sector.
3.3.1 Primary Data: Semi-Structured Questioning of Mining Entrepreneurs
Mining entrepreneurs possess tacit knowledge that is not easily accessible through
secondary data analysis or archival studies. Although this may not be formally
documented, tacit knowledge encompassing experiential, intuitive, and industry-
specific insights is essential for a company's success (Polanyi, 1966). The study will
utilise semi-structured interviews to access this critical resource, as this approach
allows for both organised investigation and open-ended exploration of findings
(Bryman, 2016).
Essential points of focus for these conversations will be:
• The challenges, barriers and risks that mining entrepreneurs face at different
stages of business development.
• Understanding financing plans while considering the significant risks associated
with the mining business.
• How will sustainable mining practices and technological advancements impact
future junior mining projects?
• The importance of industry networks, relationships, and mentoring for corporate
success.
3.3.2 Secondary Data: Historical Analysis of Junior Mining Successes
Designing a potentially successful business incubator framework for the junior mining
sector relies, to some extent, on understanding how junior mining businesses have
historically achieved considerable commercial success. Keenan and McKnight (2003)
argue that secondary data analysis provides valuable insights into how junior miners
have successfully transitioned from exploration to mine development.
By analysing historical documents, a timeline of successful mining activities can be
created, highlighting significant events and critical perspectives that support

101. 90 | P a g e

commercial viability. Additionally, it will provide valuable insights into how mining
entrepreneurs navigate various constraints, including technological innovations, and
manage financial limitations and legal obstacles.
Variations in commodity prices have a significant impact on the mining industry, and
historical data illustrate how junior miners respond to market instability and volatility.
This knowledge is essential for creating an incubator framework that enables
businesses to manage risk, allocate resources, and efficiently utilise market
opportunities when possible (Torries, 1998).
3.3.3 Secondary Data: Evaluation of Integrated Mining Business Incubators
Fully integrated mining business incubators are a relatively new and rare concept, with
only three known examples. These incubators serve as valuable reference points for
developing a new incubator framework. Campbell (2024) observes that the three
recognised integrated mining business incubators employ different business models,
which vary in their fundamental aims, support structures, financial sustainability, and
long-term industry impact. Evaluating these incubators will enable the study to identify
key features such as financing, recruitment, best practices, and innovative ideas that
can inform the formulation of a new incubator framework explicitly tailored for mining
entrepreneurs.
This evaluation will consist of:
• Comparative study of business models: Evaluating the differences in structure
(both corporate and organisational), finance, human resources, and access to
capital among various incubators.
• Financial success evaluation: Understanding how these incubators sustain
themselves financially through government support, private investments,
industry collaborations, or a combination of income sources, as well as their
exit strategies.
• Impact assessment: Evaluating the effectiveness of these incubators in
supporting mining entrepreneurs in achieving long-term commercial success.

102. 91 | P a g e

3.4 Population and Sampling
Research begins with a clearly defined study population, encompassing all individuals
relevant to the research aims and meeting specific participation criteria (Robinson,
2003, p. 856). The target demographic for this study comprises successful mining
entrepreneurs who seek to provide insights into individuals who have achieved
success, defined as transforming a concept or idea into a commercial entity. These
mining entrepreneurs will also have practical knowledge, industry expertise, and a
comprehensive understanding of the opportunities and challenges within the junior
mining sector.
The study uses maximum variation sampling, a form of purposive sampling, to gather
a diverse range of viewpoints. As few junior mining entrepreneurs have achieved more
than one success, between eight and twelve participants will be selected. In qualitative
research, this method is crucial as it facilitates the selection of individuals with varying
critical characteristics, including geographical location, cultural background, company
model, and operational scale (Creswell and Creswell, 2018, p. 151). Ensuring variation
in participant selection enhances the study's understanding of diverse experiences
and viewpoints, thereby improving the validity and reliability of the research results.
Creswell and Plano-Clark (2017, p. 23) clearly state, "The central idea is that
participants are purposefully chosen to be different in the first instance, and then their
views will reflect this difference, providing a rich qualitative study with a complex
picture of the research." Including individuals from diverse backgrounds enables the
researcher to gain a deeper understanding of successful mining entrepreneurs, their
challenges, and the support networks, such as business incubators, that can enhance
their long-term viability.
According to Patton (2002, p. 246), purposive sampling is a technique that intentionally
selects information-rich samples to promote a more thorough and in-depth study of
the topic. Unlike random sampling, which aims to ensure statistical
representativeness, purposive sampling offers detailed insights from individuals
possessing the most relevant knowledge and experience (Patton, 2002).

103. 92 | P a g e

Sample sizes may vary during the data collection process as saturation points are
reached at different stages. The sample size for primary data collection and analysis
in this study will range from eight to twelve interviews. Saturation occurs when a study
reaches a particular threshold of redundancy, at which point further data gathering
offers no additional value. This happens when patterns, themes, or insights have been
extensively investigated, and additional data merely reiterate existing findings rather
than providing new perspectives. Saturation is a key concept in qualitative research
that assesses the sufficiency of data gathering, ensuring the completeness of the
study and preventing the accumulation of unnecessary data. As Charmaz (2006, p.
97) describes it, saturation is the point at which data collection loses meaning due to
information overload, indicating that the researcher has acquired a sufficiently rich and
in-depth understanding of the topic under study.
The selection of the study population and the sampling technique determine the depth
and validity of this study. By choosing successful mining entrepreneurs and employing
maximum variation sampling within a purposive sampling framework, the study
ensures that a broad spectrum of views is represented, thereby producing rich
qualitative results. These outcomes will provide a robust and well-informed framework
for a junior mining business incubator aimed at assisting entrepreneurs in overcoming
challenges, achieving commercial success, and fostering sustainable economic
development.
3.5 Data Collection
Research projects rely heavily on comprehensive data collection, which serves as the
foundation for analysis and interpretation. This study employs a qualitative research
method to investigate junior mineral exploration and development start-ups, with a
specific focus on Southern Africa. Qualitative research is an exploratory and
interpretive approach that enables the gathering of rich, descriptive data, providing
insights into the experiences, challenges, and decision-making processes of mining
entrepreneurs (Denzin and Lincoln, 2018).
Data collection in qualitative research is a dynamic, iterative process. Emphasising its
broad and multi-dimensional character, Maxwell (2013) defines qualitative data as any

104. 93 | P a g e

information observed, heard, or otherwise communicated during the study process.
Similarly, Creswell (2013) views qualitative data collection as a bridge between
activities that methodically compile and evaluate data to refine research questions and
foster a deeper understanding of the research. This flexible and adaptable
methodology is crucial when researching an industry as dynamic as junior exploration
and mining, where entrepreneurial decisions are influenced by factors such as funding
availability, economic cycles, legal contexts, and technological advancements (Yin,
2018).
All the collected data will be organised according to two main criteria to ensure a
structured and orderly approach to data collection (see Table 3-1: Approach to data
collection).
Table 3-1: Approach to data collection
Company-specific characteristics Features specific to commodities
Strategic position, ownership structure,
and firm size.
Type of mineral resource: gold,
platinum, lithium, etc.
Management style and quality of
leadership (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2020).
Investment appeal, pricing volatility, and
market patterns (Tilton, 2018).
Financial resiliency and investment
strategies (PWC, 2022).
Technical and geological factors
(Humphreys, 2019).

All the collected answers will be securely stored and systematically prepared for
analysis, ensuring data integrity, confidentiality, and adherence to ethical research
standards (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2019). The study will also concentrate on
seven key factors that influence the success and sustainability of junior mining
projects, as illustrated in Table 3-2: An example of key factors that will be included in
the data collection process (Bridge, 2019).

105. 94 | P a g e

Table 3-2: An example of key factors that will be included in the data collection
process (Bridge, 2019)
Biography of
participants
Gender, country,
education and industry
expertise
Studies have shown that
professional networks and
industry knowledge often
determine entrepreneurial
success (Wang, Lin, and
Luo, 2021).
Commodity Different minerals provide
different technological,
financial, and regulatory
challenges (Tilton, 2018).
Evaluation of
entrepreneurs' adaptation
to various commodities
(PWC, 2022).
Timing in Economics
and Commodity Pricing

Affected by global
demand, investor attitude,
and geopolitics, mining
investments are generally
somewhat cyclical
(Bridge, 2019).
The study will examine
how junior mining
companies negotiate
economic downturns and
commodity booms (World
Bank, 2022).
Political and Regulatory
Context

Investing decisions are
strongly influenced by
mining law, regulations
and fiscal (including tax)
policies (Otto, 2017).
The study will examine
variations in jurisdiction
(viz., Political risk) that
may impact
entrepreneurial success.

106. 95 | P a g e

Enhancement of
Management and
Entrepreneurial
Competency

Navigating operational
risks and financial
limitations calls for
effective leadership
(Eisenhardt and Martin,
2020).
Interviews will examine
how various managerial
and human resource
strategies, as well as
leadership styles, may
impact company
performance.
Technical Factors

Geological assessments,
mining and processing
methods, and
environmental laws are
vital to the success of
junior mining companies
(Guj, 2021).

This study will investigate
how companies utilise
innovative technology in
exploration to reduce
costs, enhance
sustainability, and
improve efficiency
(Jamasmie, 2021).
Mechanisms for
Investment and
Availability of Funds

One of the most
significant challenges
junior mining companies
still face is access to
capital (PwC, 2022). In
the researcher’s
experience, this is the
most critical challenge of
all.
This dimension will
examine venture capital,
private equity,
government incentives,
stock market financing,
and other funding sources
(Ernst and Young, 2021).


Primary qualitative data from semi-structured interviews offers the flexibility to explore
emerging themes (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). This method is particularly effective
in capturing tacit knowledge, unwritten expertise, and industry intuition, which are
crucial in entrepreneurial decision-making within the high-risk mining sector (Nonaka

107. 96 | P a g e

and von Krogh, 2009). In contrast, secondary qualitative data from document analysis
will facilitate a comparative assessment of several junior mining companies and
incubators, identifying best practices that support early-stage mining projects
(Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). Additionally, incorporating secondary data will enhance
the credibility and contextual richness of the research, allowing for triangulation with
interview results (Bowen, 2009).
Considering the aims and objectives of this study and the research methodology,
example questions for mining entrepreneurs can be found in Table 3-3: Abridged
example of the semi-structured questions .
Table 3-3: Abridged example of the semi-structured questions
Section 1: Entrepreneurial History and Background:
• Could you share your journey in the junior mining industry and the reasons
that motivate you to pursue mineral exploration and development?
(Purpose: to illustrate human stories and contextualise entrepreneurial
identity and agency).
• What do you think about the entrepreneurial climate for junior miners in
Southern Africa? (Purpose: to understand the socio-political and economic
landscape juniors navigate).
Research question 1:
How do juniors identify and develop mineral deposits into mines, and why do
some strategies succeed where others fail?
• How did you conceive the idea of exploring a specific area?
• What exploratory philosophies, techniques, or decision-making strategies
have guided your discovery process?
• How important is technology in this process?
• Could you explain how your business transitioned from discovery to
development? What were the key enablers?

108. 97 | P a g e

• During the exploration and pre-development phases, how have you funded
your work? What challenges and solutions have emerged?
• How do partnerships with corporations, government agencies, or private
investors facilitate mineral discovery and development?
• How do organisational culture, leadership, and governance influence the
discovery and development journey of your company?
• What are the key roles and character traits of leaders in a successful junior?
• As mineral exploration is a lengthy process, how important is timing,
particularly concerning commodity cycles?
• How important is political risk, and how do you manage it?
• How important are ESG factors, particularly for a junior start-up?
Research question 2:
Why do many junior mineral exploration and development companies fail to
advance to producing mines?
• What internal factors most often cause junior mining companies to fail,
based on your experience?
• What external obstacles, political, regulatory, community-related,
infrastructure-based, or financial, have significantly impacted junior miners'
ability to achieve a buyout or reach commercial production?
• Reflect on a moment when either your project or a peer's project
encountered failure or near-failure. What were the reasons behind it, and
what lessons were learned?
• How do junior miners typically react to failures, and what factors
differentiate successful projects from those that fail?

109. 98 | P a g e

Research question 3:
How and why are the three integrated mining incubators (162 Group, Lundin
Group, Hunter Dickinson Inc.) more successful at developing juniors
compared to stand-alone junior companies?
• Are you familiar with the concept of an integrated mining business
incubator? If so, how do you envision its potential contribution to the
success of junior miners in Southern Africa?
• Have you worked within or alongside any organised assistance programs
(e.g., state-sponsored incubators, industrial partnerships, technical hubs)? If
so, how would you contrast this experience with working as an independent
junior?
• Based on your observations or network, do you believe that juniors
associated with integrated mining incubators are more successful than
those who are stand-alone juniors? Why or why not?
• In your opinion, what would be the defining elements that contribute to the
success or failure of such fostered juniors?
• In your opinion, what are the distinguishing elements that either assist or
hinder such incubated juniors?

This study aims to offer rich and practical insights into the entrepreneurial landscape
of junior mining through a comprehensive data collection strategy. The researcher will
develop a contextually relevant and empirically grounded business incubator
framework, utilising semi-structured interviews and document analysis, thus providing
valuable insights for sustainable mining entrepreneurship in Southern Africa.
3.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis in qualitative research is a detailed and iterative process designed to
extract meaningful insights from the collected information. As Kivunja and Kuyini
(2017) note, the epistemological perspective of a researcher directly affects how data
is understood, influencing the meaning of the study's findings. This paradigm-driven

110. 99 | P a g e

approach emphasises the necessity of a rigorous methodological framework to ensure
validity, dependability, and ethical integrity in the research process.
Creswell (2013) describes qualitative data analysis as a multi-stage process that
includes data preparation and organisation, coding, theme generation, and final
interpretation and presentation of results. The preparation phase entails transcribing
interviews, organising field notes, and digitising textual, visual, or audio data for
systematic analysis. Central to qualitative research, the next stage involves coding,
which categorises data into meaningful portions to support theme formation (Braun
and Clarke, 2006). One of the most frequently used methods in qualitative research is
thematic analysis, which identifies patterns in the data to create a logical narrative that
addresses the research question (Nowell et al., 2017).
Creswell (2014) emphasises the inductive nature of qualitative data analysis, where
researchers engage dynamically with the data and create themes. This circular
approach ensures a flexible interpretive strategy, allowing researchers to refine
themes as they emerge. The subjective nature of qualitative research enhances the
rigour and reliability of findings through robust methods, such as content analysis (Elo
and Kyngäs, 2008). The data collection and analysis approach shown in Table 3.4
involves a systematic process of scrutinising and organising information acquired from
the semi-structured open-ended interviews.
Table 3-4: Data collection and analysis
Type of data to be collected Data approach
Primary qualitative data
collected from semi-structured,
open-ended interviews.

Thematic analysis is a method for examining
data that involves semi-structured interviews and
open-ended questions. The researcher
meticulously analysed the data to discern
prevalent themes, subjects, concepts, and
patterns of meaning (Maguire and Delahunt,
2017).

111. 100 | P a g e

Type of data to be collected Data approach
Primary qualitative data (Semi-
structured open-ended
interviews)




Secondary qualitative data
Comparative analysis entails examining the
similarities and differences between datasets
through triangulation or convergent analysis
(Creswell and Creswell, 2018, p. 151). The data
collection process involved a systematic
approach to scrutinising and organising
information gathered from semi-structured, open-
ended interviews.
Secondary qualitative data collection (where
appropriate) was undertaken to enhance the
triangulation analysis.
3.7 Data Validity
In qualitative research, where subjectivity and researcher interpretation are present,
data integrity is a fundamental pillar of study credibility (Tracy, 2019). Leedy and
Ormrod (2015) emphasise the necessity for comprehensive research to ensure
accuracy and contextual relevance.
Utilising various data collection techniques, including interviews, observations, and
document analysis, methodological triangulation enhances validity by verifying
findings through multiple methods or approaches to investigate a research question or
phenomenon (Flick, 2018). Data triangulation, which involves gathering data from
diverse sources or settings, further increases the depth and authenticity of the study
by providing a comprehensive view of the phenomenon being examined (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2018).
Reflexivity also enhances data validity by encouraging researchers to critically
examine their biases, assumptions, and positionality within the study (Alvesson and
Sköldberg, 2017). This approach is particularly relevant in interpretivist paradigms,
where the researcher's subjectivity may shape data interpretation (Berger, 2015).

112. 101 | P a g e

Maintaining a reflective attitude helps researchers ensure the authenticity of their
interpretation.
3.8 Data Reliability
Qualitative research dependability is demonstrated through the consistency and
reliability of the data and methods used. Systematically tracking and validating the
research process ensures dependability by employing comprehensive audit trails and
documentation. Technological tools such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and MAXQDA assist in
this effort with clear coding frameworks and structured data management (Silver and
Lewins, 2014; Paulus and Lester, 2021). Furthermore, by documenting each stage of
the decision-making process and enhancing methodological consistency, the use of
audit trails provided by these software tools bolsters the reliability of the research.
3.9 Data Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, trustworthiness refers to the overall integrity and credibility of
the findings. Establishing trustworthiness, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) state, requires
four basic criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability:
• Credibility ensures that the results accurately reflect participants' life
experiences, which can be achieved through continuous involvement, detailed
observation, and validation from participants.
• Transferability refers to providing comprehensive and detailed descriptions that
enable readers to determine whether the results apply to other settings.
• Dependability depends on ongoing methodical documentation and the
establishment of audit trails.
• Confirmability refers to the extent to which participant input, rather than
researcher bias, shapes study results. Techniques such as triangulation and
reflective writing can help facilitate this.
Digital technologies enhance credibility through systematic processes, transparency,
and the replicability of analytical methods (Paulus and Lester, 2021). By employing
rigorous techniques, such as systematic coding, triangulation, reflexivity, and
adherence to ethical standards, qualitative researchers can ensure the credibility of

113. 102 | P a g e

their findings. The integration of technological tools further enhances the transparency,
reliability, and impact of qualitative research as the field continues to evolve.
3.10 Ethical Considerations
While considering socio-economic and environmental sensitivities, the study should
uphold high ethical standards to ensure transparency, accountability, and inclusivity
(Mkhwanazi, 2023). Ethical issues in this sector encompass study biases, conflicts of
interest, confidentiality concerns, and the necessity of informed consent (Rens, 2021).
A primary ethical concern is the issue of informed consent. Research participants must
understand the goals, techniques, potential risks, and benefits of the study, whether
they are stakeholders in mineral exploration or entrepreneurs in a business incubator.
Voluntary participation is essential in mining-affected areas, where historical
marginalisation and economic inequality prevail (Dutt et al., 2016). Ethical standards
dictate that participation should be voluntary, and participants have the right to
withdraw at any time (Guerrero, Urbano, and Gajón, 2020).
Confidentiality and data protection are becoming increasingly important. While mineral
exploration research requires access to sensitive geological and financial data, studies
in business incubation programmes may need access to confidential corporate
information. Sensitive information must be anonymised and safeguarded through
ethical research that prioritises data security (McAdam and McAdam, 2008).
Researchers adhering to global research ethics guidelines must comply with the
General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and other relevant privacy laws in the
Southern African region (Denyer and Buchanan, 2013).
The avoidance of study bias and conflicts of interest is another important ethical issue.
Business incubation and mineral exploration are two fields where vested interests
could influence research results for political or commercial benefit (Busch and
Barkema, 2022). Researchers must be transparent regarding conflicts of interest.
Funding sources should be disclosed to prevent biases that may compromise research
integrity (Lackéus and Middleton, 2015).
Ethics also encompasses equitable representation of diverse perspectives. This
involves ensuring that business incubation studies do not favour established

114. 103 | P a g e

entrepreneurs over underprivileged or emerging populations (Nicolopoulou et al.,
2017). Consequently, ethical mineral discovery research should engage indigenous
and local communities to acknowledge their historical knowledge as well as their land
and resource rights (Hisrich, 2003). Many mining operations overlook community
involvement, rendering Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (“FPIC”) a crucial
consideration in Africa (McAdam, Miller, and McAdam, 2016).
Research on ethical mineral exploration also emphasises the importance of
environmental sustainability. Preventing ecological decline necessitates long-term
research on environmental impacts (Sloman et al., 2019). Researchers have an ethical
duty to avoid implicitly supporting exploitative or unsustainable mineral extraction
practices that could exacerbate land degradation and biodiversity loss (Abduh, Quazi,
and D'Souza, 2007).
The dynamic and complex nature of business incubation and mineral exploration
continually drives academics to challenge their assumptions, positionality, and ethical
obligations. This requires avoiding the falsification of study results for political or
financial gain (Bouyoucos et al., 2019). By upholding the highest standards of
intellectual and professional integrity, adherence to these ethical principles can
contribute to sustainable economic development in Southern Africa.
3.11 Conclusion
This chapter outlines a research methodology designed to develop a conceptual
framework for a junior mining business incubator in Southern Africa. The study will
employ a qualitative research method, utilising historical analyses of successful mining
projects, evaluations of existing mining incubators, and semi-structured interviews with
mining entrepreneurs. Recognising the socially constructed nature of knowledge in
this field, the research methodology emphasises a relativist ontology and constructivist
epistemology. Key aspects of this research methodology include ethical
considerations, data integrity, and a meticulously designed sampling strategy focused
on successful junior mining companies. The ultimate goal is to establish a conceptual
and practical incubator framework that fosters sustainable junior mining
entrepreneurship.

115. 104 | P a g e

4 REFERENCES
162 Group 2025. https://162group.com/. Accessed on 6 July 2025.
Abduh, M., Quazi, A., and D’Souza, C. 2007. Investigating and classifying clients'
satisfaction with business incubator services. Managing Service Quality. Emerald
Insight.
Aernoudt R 2004. “Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship?” Small Business
Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2004, pp. 127-135.
African Union Commission, 2009. Africa Mining Vision. Addis Ababa: African Union.
https://www.africaminingvision.org/amv_resources/AMV/Africa_Mining_Vision_Englis
h.pdf. Accessed on 7 May 2025.
Africa Mining Vision , February 2009. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://au.int/sites/default/files/docume
nts/30995-doc-africa_mining_vision_english_1.pdf. Accessed on 4 October 2024.
African Union (AU), 2024. African Mining Vision 2024 Update: Implementing the Africa
Minerals Development Centre Framework. Addis Ababa: AU Commission.
Anderson P 2022. Stoics are Optimists in https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stoics-
optimists-peter-anderson-phd-acc-cec/ accessed on 28 September 2024.
Andrade, L. B., Silva, M. L. N., & Costa, R. 2024. From exploration to production:
Understanding the dynamics and challenges of mining project lifecycles. Energy
Policy, 185, 117167.
Aldrich, H.E. & Zimmer, C. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social networks, in Sexton,
D.L. & Smilor, R.W. (eds) The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger, pp. 3–23.
Alvarez and Busenitz 2001. The Entrepreneurship of Resource-Based Theory,
published in the Journal of Management, Volume 27, pages 755-775.
Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. 2017. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for
qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

116. 105 | P a g e

Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. and Wright, M., 2018. Entrepreneurial
innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 47(1), pp.1–15.
Autio E., Nambisan S. and Thomas L.D.W., 2023. Digital innovation ecosystems:
Orchestration, platforms and entrepreneurship in the post-pandemic era.
Technovation, 123, 102746.
Bailey, P., 2016. Bridging the innovation gap in the mining sector. AusIMM Bulletin,
April. Available at: https://www.ausimmbulletin.com/feature/bridging-the-innovation-
gap-in-the-mining-sector. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Baker McKenzie, 2022. “Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
considerations for the mining and metals industry”, Insight+.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(3), 329–366.
Barnard, P., and Jenkins, H. 2021. Innovation ecosystems in mining regions: The dual
role of incubators in balancing commercial viability and sustainable development
imperatives. Resources Policy, 74, 102287.
Barney, J. 1991. ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of
Management, 17(1), pp. 99–120.
Barney, J. B. 2018. Why resource-based theory's model of profit appropriation must
incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(13), 3305–
3325.Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. 1991.
Bartos, P.J. 2007. ‘Is the mining industry still a "risky business"?’, Mining Engineering,
59(12), pp. 36–42.
Baxter, R. 2022. Policy and Regulatory Reform in South African Mining: Addressing
the Challenges of Junior Miners. Johannesburg: Minerals Council South Africa.
https://www.mineralscouncil.org.za. Accessed on 5 May 2025.

117. 106 | P a g e

Bebbington, A., Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, D. H., Burneo, M. L., and Warnaars, X.
2008. Contentious and Ambiguous: Mining and the Possibilities of Development.
Development and Change, 39(6), 887-914.
Becker L.C. 2017. A New Stoicism: Revised Edition. Princeton University Press.
Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. 2008. ‘Incubator best practice: A framework’,
Technovation, 28(1–2), pp. 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.008
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books.
Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in
qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
Berleant D, Kodali V, Segall R, Aboudja H and Howell M, 2021. Moore's law, Wright's
law and the Countdown to Exponential Space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09637,
2021•arxiv.org.
Betz U.A.K. Loukik Arora, Reem A. Assal, Hatylas Azevedo, Jeremy Baldwin, Michael
S. Becker, Stefan Bostock, Vinton Cheng, Tobias Egle, Nicola Ferrari, Elena K.
Schneider-Futschik, Stefan Gerhardy, Alexandra Hammes, Achim Harzheim, Thomas
Herget, Cristina Jauset, Simon Kretschmer, Corey Lammie, Nina Kloss, Steve Marquis
Fernandes, Claudia-Gabriela Mitrofan, Iuliia Myrgorodska, Daniela Nedbalek,
Siegfried G. Neumann, Stella Paffenholz, Laia Pascual Ponce, Birgit Rogell, Dragana
Savic, Gergana Velikova, Christian Schumacher, Nina Weisshaar, Mohammadzadeh
Yahya, Joshua Y.C. Yang, Guoping Zhao. 2023. Game changers in science and
technology - now and beyond, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume
193, 2023,122588, ISSN 0040-1625.
BHP 2023. BHP Xplor – Accelerating Exploration Innovation. Retrieved from
www.bhp.com on 31 January 2025.
Blose, L.E. and Shieh, J.C.P. 2019. The benefits of cross-listing: Evidence from mining
and resource firms. Resources Policy, 63, 101417.
Bouyoucos, I. A., Brooks, E. J., Sloman, K. A., et al. 2019. Ethical considerations in
research methodology. Journal of Fish Biology. Wiley Online Library.

118. 107 | P a g e

Bowen, G. A. 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Bowman, A. 2019. ‘Black economic empowerment policy and state–business
relations in the South African mining industry’, Review of African Political Economy,
46(160), pp. 223–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2019.1605587
Breu, F, Kanbach, D. 2025. Strategy and business model development for business
incubators: a systematic literature review and framework. J Technol Transf (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10253-3.
Bridge, G., 2004. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 29, pp.205–259.
Brown R. and Mason C., 2024. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainable regional
development: Lessons from the global periphery. Regional Studies, 58(4), pp. 512–
529.
Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Busch, C., and Barkema, H. 2022. Planned luck: How incubators can facilitate
serendipity for nascent entrepreneurs through fostering network embeddedness.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. SAGE Journals.
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bridge, G. 2004. Contested terrain: Mining and the environment. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 29, 205-259.
Bridge, G. 2019. The map is not the territory: A sympathetic critique of energy
research’s spatial turn. Energy Research and Social Science, 36, 11-20.
Bristow M. 2019. An interview with Mark Bristow, Investing in African Mining Indaba,
13 June 2019. https://miningindaba.com/Articles/an-interview-with-mark-bristow
Bryman, A., and Bell, E. 2011. Business Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.

119. 108 | P a g e

Bryman, A. 2016. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Business Facilities. 2021. Nevada, Canada To Open Mining Incubator In Elko, NV.
Published 14 September 2021. Available at: https://businessfacilities.com/nevada-
canada-to-open-mining-incubator-in-elko-nv. Accessed 6 October 2025.
Calas C. 2017 Mineral Resources and Sustainable Development. October 2017
Elements 13(5):301-306.
Calzada Olvera, B., 2022. Innovation in the mining sector: drivers, barriers and key
enablers. Paris: OECD.
Campbell, B., 2019. Mining in Africa: Regulation and Development. 2nd ed. London:
Pluto Press.
Campbell, B., 2025. ‘Risk and reward: corporate governance in global resource
frontiers’, Journal of Extractive Industries and Society, 12(1), pp. 112–127.
Campbell J.A.H. and Jooste V 2017. The AK6 kimberlite – discovery through to
production: learning the lessons of history. Botswana Journal of Earth Sciences 7:13-
28.
Campbell J.A.H. 2018. Financing Diamond Projects. South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy – Diamonds Source to Use 2018.
Campbell, J.A.H. 2018. Interview with Dr John Teeling: Resource entrepreneurship
and risk balancing in the 162 Group. Mining Review Africa, 27(3), pp.34–38.
Campbell J.A.H. 2020. The role of Geoscientists in a Junior Exploration Company.
Foundations for a Geological Career. Geoskills Webinar August 2020.
Campbell J.A.H. 2023. Attracting Funds to Develop Southern Africa’s Diamond
Exploration and Mining Potential. Kimberley International Diamond Conference,
August 2023.
Campbell J.A.H. 2024. Mine your Mind: Ideation to Creation. Art and Science of
building a business (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXLnLyGHm-wandt=1986s).
Presentation to the University of Kwa Zulu Natal Business School, 16 September
2024.

120. 109 | P a g e

Cambridge Enterprise 2023. ‘Commercialisation and Entrepreneurial Support for
Researchers and Startups’, University of Cambridge. Available at:
https://www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk. Accessed on 5 October 2025.
Cambridge Science Park 2023 . ‘Innovation Ecosystem and Research
Commercialisation in Cambridge’, Cambridge Science Park. Available at:
https://www.cambridgesciencepark.co.uk. Accessed on 5 October 2025.
Canadian Mining Journal, 3 Feb. 2021. MineConnect coming to Elko: Canadian
business incubator to bolster mining industry.
https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/mineconnect-coming-to-elko-
canadian-business-incubator-to-bolster-mining-industry/. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Canadian Mining Journal, 24 April 2025. Regulatory Permitting: From exploration to
mine development . https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/featured-
article/regulatory-permitting-exploration-to-mine-
development/#:~:text=,barriers%20to%20issuing%20of%20permits. Accessed on 4
May 2025.
Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ 2014. The use of
triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 Sep;41(5):545-7. doi:
10.1188/14.ONF.545-547. PMID: 25158659.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through
Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Carvedblog.com, 2012. The distilled wisdom of John Teeling. chrome -
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://theuncarvedblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/decision-summer-
2012.pdf#:~:text=There%E2%80%99s%20been%20a%20merry%20band,exit%20wi
thin%20DECISION%20THE%20INTERVIEW accessed on 5 May 2025.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E. and Vohora, A. 2005. Spinning
out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research
institutions, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216. 2003.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J. and Mahajan, A., 2015. Creating value in business
incubators: Towards a typology of incubator models. Technovation, 50–51, pp.29–41.

121. 110 | P a g e

Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van Hove, J. 2015. A look inside accelerators: Building
businesses or creating options? Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2), 32–
49
Colorado School of Mines. Beck Venture Center. https://ventures.mines.edu/.
Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Cowell, S., Wehrmeyer, W., Argust, P. and Robertson, J. 1999. ‘Sustainability and the
primary extraction industries: Theories and practice’, Resources Policy, 25(4), pp.
277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4207(99)00034-2
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Los Angeles.
Creswell, J. W., and Plano-Clark, V. L. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed
Methods (3rd ed). SAGE Publications.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. & White, R.E. 1999. An organizational learning framework:
From intuition to institution, Academy of Management Review, 24(3), pp. 522–537.
Crowson, P. 2011. ‘The economics of the extractive industries’, Resources Policy,
36(1), pp. 1–7.
Dauda S. 2022. Earning a social licence to operate (SLO): A conflicted praxis in sub-
Saharan Africa's mining landscape? The Extractive Industries and Society, Volume
11, September 2022, 101141.

122. 111 | P a g e

Dawa, S., and Marks, J. 2024. An effectuation approach to sustainable
entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. [Manuscript]. University of Pretoria /
Makerere University.
Davis, A.J. 2013. There but for the Grace of God Go I. In: Smith, A., Freedman, M.H.
(eds) How Can You Represent Those People?. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Da Vinci Research Report 2023. Co-Creating Sustainable Futures.
De la Roche, I., and Latham, M. 2019. Mining Startups and Incubation: A Framework
for Growth. Resources Policy, 62, 101374.
Deloitte 2018. Tracking the Trends 2018: The Top 10 Issues Shaping Mining in the
Year Ahead. Deloitte.
Deloitte, 2024. 2024 Renewable energy industry outlook. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/renewable-energy/renewable-
energy-industry-outlook.html accessed on 6 August 2024.
Disrupt Africa, 2017. SA’s De Beers Mine launches business incubator .
https://disruptafrica.com/2017/10/18/sas-de-beers-mine-launches-business-
incubator/. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Dentons 2024. “South Africa: Environmental, Social and Governance – Country
Comparative Guide”.
Denyer, D., and Buchanan, D. 2013. Researching tomorrow's crisis: Methodological
innovations and wider implications. International Journal of Management Reviews.
Wiley Online Library.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
SAGE Publications.
Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) (2025) MSMEs and
Cooperatives Funding Policy. Pretoria: Government of the Republic of South Africa.
Available at:
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202502/52109gon5869.pdf.
Dewey, J. 1931. Philosophy and Civilization. Minton, Balch and Company.

123. 112 | P a g e

Discovery Alert 2024 ‘Why Most Juniors Fail to Reach Production’. Perth: Discovery
Media.
Mining-International (2024) ‘Global Junior Mining Statistics 2015–2025’.
Discovery Alert 2025. https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/junior-mining-investments-
2025-risks-rewards/. Accessed on 6 July 2025.
Dlamini S, 2025. The extent, nature and economic impact of the junior and emerging
mining sector in South Africa. The Junior and Emerging Miners Desk. Minerals
Council of South Africa.
Domínguez-Gómez, J.A. and González-Gómez, F. 2021. “Governance in mining:
Management, ethics, sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production.
Dudovsky J 2022. The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies:
A Step-by-Step Assistance (7th edition). E-Book.
Durrant-Whyte, H., Geraghty, R., Pujol, F. and Sellschop, R., 2015. How digital
innovation can improve mining productivity. McKinsey and Company. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/how-digital-
innovation-can-improve-mining-productivity. Accessed 3 May 2025.
Dutt, N., Hawn, O., Vidal, E., and Chatterji, A. 2016. How open system intermediaries
address institutional failures: The case of business incubators in emerging-market
countries. Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management.
Eggert, R.G., 2010. Mining and the role of technology. In: J.E. Tilton, ed. The
economics of the mineral industries. 3rd ed. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), pp. 61–86.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. 2000. ‘Dynamic capabilities: What are they?’,
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), pp. 1105–1121.
Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM), 2023. Accelerating mining projects by
putting communities and the environment first. Available at:

124. 113 | P a g e

https://www.erm.com/insights/accelerating-mining-projects-by-putting-communities-
and-the-environment-first/. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Etheridge MA 2001. Managing risk and value in mineral exploration. SRK Consulting.
July 2001.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. 2020. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., and Alkassim, R. S. 2016. Comparison of convenience
sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Ernst and Young (EY). 2021. Top 10 business risks and opportunities for mining and
metals in 2022. EY Global. https://www.ey.com/en_gl/mining-metals/top-10-business-
risks-and-opportunities-for-mining-and-metals-in-2022 accessed on 24 March 2025.
Ernst and Young (EY) 2022. Top 10 Business Risks and Opportunities for Mining and
Metals in 2023. Retrieved from www.ey.com accessed on 31 January 2025.
fDi Intelligence, 2024. Energy transition brings back strong mining investment.
https://www.fdiintelligence.com/content/news/energy-transition-brings-back-strong-
mining-investment-82912. Accessed 4 May 2025.
Fisher, G. 2012. ‘Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioural comparison of
emerging theories in entrepreneurship research’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 36(5), pp. 1019–1051.
Flick, U. 2018. An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Flores-Castañeda, R.O., Olaya-Cotera, S., López-Porras, M., Tarmeño-Juscamaita,
E. and Iparraguirre-Villanueva, O., 2024. Technological advances and trends in the
mining industry: a systematic review.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382145083_Technological_advances_and
_trends_in_the_mining_industry_a_systematic_review. Accessed on 4 May 2025.

125. 114 | P a g e

Founders Factory 2022 Our partnership with Rio Tinto: Scaling disruptive mining
technologies. London: Founders Factory. https://www.foundersfactory.com.
Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Founders Factory 2025. Founders Factory and Rio Tinto invest in reduced-impact
mining through AI and breakthrough technologies.
https://foundersfactory.com/articles/mining-tech-press-release/. Accessed on 3 May
2025.
Fraser Institute 2020. Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2020. Retrieved from
www.fraserinstitute.org on 31 January 2025.
Garud, R. and Karnøe, P. 2003. ‘Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and
embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship’, Research Policy, 32(2), pp. 277–
300.
Garvin, D.A. 1993. ‘Building a learning organization’, Harvard Business Review, 71(4),
pp. 78–91.
Gassmann, O. and Becker, B., 2006. Towards a resource-based view of corporate
incubators. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), pp.19–45.
Gassmann, O. and Becker, B. 2007. ‘The transfer of management knowledge in
corporate incubators’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(4), pp. 329–345.
Gibson, D., and Stiles, C. 2020. Incubator best practices that lead to successful new
ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21(3), 172-183.
Gold Fields, 2025. CfSD Incubation Hub. https://www.goldfields-
southdeep.co.za/working-with-south-deep/cfsd-incubation-hub? Accessed on 4 May
2025.
González-Espinosa, P. C. 2025. A comparative analysis of cross-sectional and
longitudinal methods in business research.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), pp. 481–510.
Grimaldi, R., and Grandi, A. 2005. Business Incubators and New Venture Creation:
An Assessment of Incubating Models. Technovation, 25(2), 111-121.

126. 115 | P a g e

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., and Gajón, E. 2020. Entrepreneurial university ecosystems
and graduates' career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and
university business incubators matter? Journal of Management Development.
Emerald Insight.
Guj, P. 2021. Economic evaluation of mineral projects: Application of real options.
Resources Policy, 70, 101-120.
Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A., 1990. ‘Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate
Entrepreneurship’, Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue), pp. 5–15.
Hackett, S.M., Dilts, D.M. 2004. A Real Options-Driven Theory of Business Incubation.
The Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 41 –54 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011180.19370.36
Harrington, D. and Jenkins, K., 2021. Alternative financing models and the evolution
of junior mining ventures: the rise of integrated resource incubators. Resources Policy,
74, 102315.
Harwood T. Raising Capital for Junior Mining and Exploration Companies. Junior
Mining Indaba, 2016.
Hausberg, J.P. and Korreck, S. 2020. Business incubators and accelerators: a co-
citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 45(1), 151–176.
Hawkins, D., Ndlovu, T. and Stewart, R. 2021. ‘Leadership, strategy and performance
in junior mining companies: Navigating uncertainty in resource-based sectors’,
Resources Policy, 74, 102284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102284
HDI Mining 2025. https://www.hdimining.com/. Accessed on 6 July 2025.
Heron, J., and Reason, P. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry,
3(3), 274–294.
Hilson, G. and McIntyre, N. 2020. ‘The ethical foundations of responsible mining’,
Resources Policy, 68, 101784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101784

127. 116 | P a g e

Hilson, G., and Murck, B. 2000. Sustainable Development in the Mining Industry:
Clarifying the Corporate Perspective. Resources Policy, 20, 227-238.
Hisrich, R. D. 2003. Ethics and entrepreneurs: An international comparative study.
Journal of Business Venturing. Elsevier.
Hodkiewicz, M., et al. 2022. AI and Automation in Mining: The Role of Incubators in
Technology Development. Mining Engineering Journal, 74(5), 32-45.
Hogan, L. and Goldsworthy, M., 2015. Australia’s innovation imperative in the mining
sector. Resources Policy, 46(1), pp.275–283.
Holmes, F 2023. Evaluating Opportunities in Gold and the Junior Mining Sector.
https://www.usfunds.com/resource/evaluating-opportunities-in-gold-and-the-junior-
mining-sector/ accessed on 18 October 2025.
Hronsky, J.M.A. and Groves, D.I. 2008. ‘Science of targeting: Definition, strategies,
targeting and performance measurement’, Ore Geology Reviews, 34(3), pp. 283–313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2008.09.006
Hughes W 2021. Why Do So Many Junior Mining Companies Fail? 8 Reasons
Explained. https://www.opens.co/articles/junior-mining-companies-failure#:~:text=5
accessed on 15 September 2025.
Hughes, K. 2021. ‘Financing junior mining companies: navigating cycles and risk’,
Resources Policy, 74, 102393.
Humphreys, D., 2015. The remaking of the mining industry. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Humphreys, D. 2019. The remaking of the mining industry. Springer.
Hunter Dickinson Inc (“HDI”), 2025. https://www.hdimining.com/. Accessed on 4 May
2025.
Iddon, C., Hettihewa, S., and Wright, C. S. 2015. Value relevance of accounting and
other variables in the junior-mining sector. Australasian Accounting, Business and
Finance Journal, 9(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v9i1.3

128. 117 | P a g e

Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge 2024. ‘Critical Minerals and
Sustainable Supply Chains’, IfM, University of Cambridge. Available at:
https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/supply-chain-ai-lab/current-projects/critical-
minerals. Accessed on 5 October 2025.
International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2014. A Strategic Approach to Early
Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Industries. Washington, DC: IFC.
International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2020. E-Conomy Africa 2020. Accessed
from www.ifc.org on 31 January 2025.
ICMM 2023. Sustainable Mining and Innovation. Retrieved from www.icmm.com
accessed on 31 January 2025.
Imasiku, K. and Thomas, V.M. 2020. The Mining and Technology Industries as
Catalysts for Sustainable Energy Development. Sustainability, 12(24), 10410.
Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), 2025. Junior Exploration Mining Fund.
https://www.idc.co.za/junior-
mining/#:~:text=The%20Fund%20will%20provide%20grant,for%20the%20prospectin
g%20of%20diamonds. Accessed on 7 May 2025.
Innovation Bridge, 2023. Seda Agricultural and Mining Tooling Incubator.
https://innovationbridge.info/ibportal/content/seda-agricultural-mining-tooling-
incubator. Accessed 4 May 2025.
Investor News Network (INN) 2024. How to spot best junior mining stocks.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/how-spot-best-junior-mining-
stocks-investing/ Accessed on 6 July 2025.
Institute for Security Studies (“ISS”) 2024. South Africa is falling behind in Africa’s new
gold rush. Available at: https://issafrica.or g/iss-today/south-africa-is-falling-behind-in-
africas-new-gold-rush on 11 August 2024.
Isenberg, D. 2011. The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for
Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Institute of International
and European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland, 12 May 2011, 1-13.Jackson, T. and Green, K.,
2023. Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2022. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

129. 118 | P a g e

ISS Africa 2025. Africa has critical minerals but needs a unified strategy.
https://futures.issafrica.org/blog/2025/Africa-has-critical-minerals-but-needs-a-
unified-strategy accessed on 6 July 2025.
Jackson, R. and Green, C. 2023. Sustainable mine project development: Managing
non-technical risk in the early stages of the project pipeline. Resources Policy, 82,
103637.
Jamasmie, C. 2021. Why Mining Startups Struggle in Traditional Incubation Models.
Mining.com. Retrieved from www.mining.com accessed on 31 January 2025.
Jakobsen et al. The value of business incubation services for early-stage start-ups.
The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Toronto, Canada on 19-22 March 2017.
Jaroudi, I., and Müller, V. 2025. Towards a Green H2 Economy: Kenya Country
Report. Fraunhofer IEG. https://publica.fraunhofer.de/bitstreams/0fcee8c4-976f-46fb-
b127-e5cdad803e49/download accessed on 17 June 2025.
Johannesburg Stock Exchange 2024. SME Development Support. 2024.
Junjie M and Yingxin M. 2022. The discussions on Positivism and Interpretivism. Glob
Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4, Iss-1 (Jan-Feb, 2022): 10-14.
Keenan, C., and McKnight, R. 2003. Junior mining companies and resource
discoveries. Journal of Resource Economics, 12(2), 123–138.
Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., Gotzmann, N. and Bond, C.J. 2011. ‘Just relations and
company–community conflict in mining’, Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), pp. 93–
109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0711-y.
Kemp, D. and Owen, J.R. 2013. ‘Community relations and mining: Core to business
but not “core business”’, Resources Policy, 38(4), pp. 523–531.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.08.003
Komakech, S., Moyo, B. and Ackah, C., 2025. ‘Resource-based view and African
venture development: towards a regionalised conceptual framework’, African Journal
of Business and Economic Research, 20(2), pp. 33–49.
Komnitsas, K. 2020. ‘Social License to Operate in Mining: Present Views and Future
Trends’, Resources, 9(6), p. 79.

130. 119 | P a g e

Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S. and Sarkis, J., 2021. Resource-based view theory and its
applications in supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 314, p.127849.
Kivunja, C., and Kuyini, A. B. 2017. Understanding and Applying Research
Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6, 26-
41.
Klaassen, R. G., MacLeod, M., Nizamis, K., and Strijbos, J.-W. 2025. Epistemic
Fluency in Interdisciplinary Learning Environments. Frontiers in Education.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1561463/full accessed on 17
June 2025.
Kuhn, A., and Navarro, L. 2023. Mining innovation ecosystems: The emergence of
sustainability-focused incubators in extractive industries. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 386, 135672.
Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S. 2009. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative
research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Kriel H.J. 2019. The extent, nature and economic impact of the junior and emerging
mining sector in South Africa. The junior and emerging miners desk, Minerals Council
South Africa.
Lachs J 2012, Stoic Pragmatism. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2012, 204
pages Matthew Caleb Flamm.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. 2016. Practical Research: Planning and Design. 11th
Edition, Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Lester, R.K. and Hartley, P., 2013. Unlocking Australia’s resource potential: The role
of innovation. Melbourne: Minerals Council of Australia.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lackéus, M., and Middleton, K. W. 2015. Venture creation programs: Bridging
entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education+Training. Emerald
Insight.

131. 120 | P a g e

Logan and Associates, 2010. Exploration Risk and the Mineral Discovery Process: A
Global Review. Vancouver: Logan and Associates Consulting Group.
Lose. T, 2021. Institutionalised business incubation: a frontier for accelerating
entrepreneurship in African countries. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal
Volume 27, Special Issue 1, 2021.
Lose, T. and Tengeh, R.K. 2021. ‘The role of business incubators in creating
sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystems in Africa’, Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation in Emerging Economies, 7(2), pp. 97–117.
Lundin Group, 2025. https://thelundingroup.com/. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Macdonald, A.J. 2004. Managing risk in mineral exploration: The role of incubator
companies. SEG Special Publication, 11, 165–180.
MacKenzie, A., Boutilier, R. and Simandl, G. 2014. ‘Innovative junior companies and
the role of incubators in mineral exploration’, Resources Policy, 41, pp. 93–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.03.006
Mackenzie, S., et al. 2021. The Role of University-Based Incubators in Mining
Innovation. Journal of Extractive Industries, 14(2), 55-67.
Maguire M, Delahunt B. 2017. Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step
guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education. Vol.
9 No. 3 (2017)
Martins, J.M. 2023. The Role of Business Incubators in Local Economic Development.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 23(1).
Masutha, M., and Rogerson, C. M. 2014. Small business incubators: An emerging
phenomenon in South Africa’s SMME economy. Urbani Izziv, 25(Supplement), S47–
S63. DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-supplement-004
Matalamäki, M.J. 2017. ‘Effectuation, an emerging theory of entrepreneurship –
towards a mature stage of the development’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 24(4), pp. 928–949.
Maxwell, J.A. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Sage,
Thousand Oaks.

132. 121 | P a g e

McAdam, M., Miller, K., and McAdam, R. 2016. Situated regional university incubation:
A multi-level stakeholder perspective. Technovation. Elsevier
McAdam, M., and McAdam, R. 2008. High-tech start-ups in university science park
incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of
the incubator’s resources. Technovation. Elsevier.
McMahon, G. and Moreira, S. 2014. The Contribution of the Mining Sector to
Socioeconomic and Human Development. Washington DC: World Bank.
McNab, K.L., 2009. Innovation in the mining sector: Drivers and constraints. Mining
Engineering, 61(12), pp.34–39.
Mian, S.A., Lamine, W. and Fayolle, A. 2016. Technology business incubation: An
overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50–51, 1–12.
Minerals Council South Africa 2019. Facts and Figures 2019. Johannesburg: Minerals
Council SA. https://www.mineralscouncil.org.za/industry-news/publications/facts-and-
figures. Accessed on 7 May 2025.
Mining Journal Intelligence, 2019. 162 Group: A New Breed of Incubator.
Mkhwanazi, N. 2023. An investigation of InvoTech business incubation programme
and its effect on entrepreneurs. DUT OpenScholar.
Miller SA, Taoka Y, 2015. Toward a practice of Stoic Pragmatism. The Pluralist.
Volume 10, Number 2. Summer 2015: pp 150-171.
Mills R, 2024. ‘Indispensible’ mining and juniors’ place in the food chain.
https://www.mining.com/indispensible-mining-and-juniors-place-in-the-food-chain/
accessed on 31 January 2025.
Moffat, K. and Zhang, A. 2014. ‘The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative
model explaining community acceptance of mining’, Resources Policy, 39(1), pp. 61–
70.
Moore, G. E. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics,
38(8).
Morrison-Saunders, A., Gorey, P. and Pope, J., 2020. Mining and sustainable
development: current issues. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82, 106386.

133. 122 | P a g e

National Development Plan 2030, 2012. Available at chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/g
cis_document/201409/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-workr.pdf accessed on 4 October
2024 accessed on 4 October 2024.
Natural Resources Canada 2021. Permitting Processes for Mining Projects: Analysis
and Recommendations. Ottawa: Government of Canada. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca.
Accessed on 5 May 2025.
Newbert S.L., 2008. Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), pp. 745–768.
Newlab 2025. Newlab and Partners Announce First Set of Projects at the Future
Minerals Forum. https://www.newlab.com/blogs/mining-studio-fmf. Accessed on 3
May 2025.
Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) and Northeastern
Nevada Regional Development Authority (NNRDA) 2021. GOED and NNRDA
welcomes MineConnect to Elko. https://goed.nv.gov/newsroom/goed-and-nnrda-
welcomes-mineconnect-to-elko/. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Nicolopoulou, K., Karataş‐Özkan, M., and Vas, C. 2017. An incubation perspective on
social innovation: The London Hub–a social incubator. RandD Management. Wiley
Online Library.
Nonaka, I., and von Krogh, G. 2009. Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory.
Organization Science, 20(3), 635-652.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., and Moules, N. J. 2017. Thematic analysis:
Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1), 1-13.
OECD 2019. ‘Innovation in the Mining Sector: Shared Infrastructure for Exploration’,
OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers, No. 68.

134. 123 | P a g e

OECD 2020. Mining Incubators and Economic Development: A Global Review.
Retrieved from www.oecd.org.
Oranje M 2013. The extractive industries and ’shared, inclusive and sustainable
development’ in South Africa. Spatium 2013 Issue 29, Pages: 1-7.
Otto, J. M., Andrews-Speed, P., Cawood, F. T., Doggett, M. D., Guj, P., Stermole, F.,
Stermole, J., and Tilton, J. E. 2006. Mining Royalties: A Global Study of Their Impact
on Investors, Government, and Civil Society. World Bank Publications.
Otto, J. 2017. The regulatory framework of mining and mineral development.
Resources Policy, 54, 1-11.
Owen, J.R. and Kemp, D. 2013. ‘Social licence and mining: A critical perspective’,
Resources Policy, 38(1), pp. 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.06.016.
Owen, J.R. and Kemp, D. 2014. ‘Mining and community relations: Framing leadership
for social performance’, The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(1), pp. 5–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.02.002
Parry G 2024. Case Study Research 2024 .
https://www.youtube.com/@GoodProfessor accessed on 11 August 2024.
Patton. M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. 2015. Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory
and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Paulus, T. M., and Lester, J. N. 2021. Doing qualitative research in a digital world.
SAGE Publications.
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van Hove, J. 2016. ‘Understanding a new
generation incubation model: The accelerator’, Technovation, 50–51, pp. 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. 1997. Realistic Evaluation, SAGE, London.

135. 124 | P a g e

PDAC 2020. Junior exploration: Sustaining discovery through financing cycles.
Toronto: Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Available at:
https://www.pdac.ca. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
PDAC 2024. Access to capital 2024. https://pdac.ca/programs-and-
advocacy/access-to-capital/mineral-finance-reports/mineral-finance-2024. Accessed
on 6 July 2025.
Peoples K. 2020. How to Write a Phenomenological Dissertation: A Step-by-Step
Guide - Qualitative Research Methods. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. ISBN:
9781544328362.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P and
Sobrero, M. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the
literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. ‘The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based
View’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), pp. 179 –191.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303.
Project Management Institute (PMI) 2021. PMBOK® Guide – Seventh Edition: The
Standard for Project Management.
Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. 2006. ‘Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business
Review, 84(12), pp. 78–92.
Posza A. 2019. Business Incubation analysis with the help of Real Option Theory.
International journal of multidisciplinary in business and science, 5 (8), 64-72.
Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/228427.
Pratty, F. 2025. Gold rush: Why VCs suddenly love mining. https://sifted.eu/articles/vc-
mining-tech-startups. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Priem R.L. and Butler J.E., 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective
for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp. 22–
40.

136. 125 | P a g e

Prno, J., and Slocombe, D. S. 2012. Exploring the origins of 'social license to operate'
in the mining sector. Resources Policy, 37(3), 346–357.
Prosper Africa, 2021. Investing in Black Entrepreneurs: A South African Fund Leads
the Way. https://www.prosperafrica.gov/blog/investing-in-black-entrepreneurs-a-
south-african-fund-leads-the-way/?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed on 31 January
2025.
PWC. 2022. Mine 2022: The future of the global mining industry. PWC Global.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/assets/mine-
2022.pdf accessed on 24 March 2025.
Ratten, V., and Jones, P. 2021. Money Don't Matter? How Incubation Experience
Affects Start-Up Outcomes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173,
121073.
Redwood SD 2006. The mineral exploration business: innovation required. SEG
Discovery · April 2006.
Reichl, H. and Schatz, R., 2019. Corporate innovation in the mining sector: case
studies and limitations of incubator models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237,
117738.
Rens, V. 2021. Entrepreneurial marketing as a tool used by business incubators to
effectively support SMEs in South Africa. Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
Resource World 2015. ‘TSX/TSXV Delistings and Market Trends’.
Reuter, M.A., van Schaik, A., Gutzmer, J., Bartie, N. and Abadías-Llamas, A. 2019.
‘Challenges of the circular economy: A material, metallurgical, and product design
perspective’, Annual Review of Materials Research, 49(1), pp. 253–274.
Richards, K. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, W.S. 2003. Sampling in Survey Research. Journal of Social Research
Methods, 56(8), 856–872.
Robinson Jr., R.B. and Pearce, J.A. 2003. Strategic Management. 8th Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., OH.

137. 126 | P a g e

Rose, R.C., Abdullah, H. and Ismad, A.I. 2010. A Review on the Relationship between
Organizational Resources, Competitive Advantage and Performance, The Journal of
International Social Research, 3, 488-498.
Rubin TH, Tor HA, Stead A 2015. Knowledge flow in Technological Business
Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel. Technovation Volumes 41–42, July–
August 2015, Pages 11-24.
SandP Global, 2024. World Exploration Trends 2024. Available at:
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/pages/world-exploration-trends-
2024#sec1 accessed on 6 August 2024.
SAB Foundation, 2017. THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM OF SOUTH
AFRICA: A STRATEGY FOR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 2017 . chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
61f285bbbe13b3424b806bf7/t/63650c2840466065d4942376/1667566638150/GEDI
%2BSouth%2BAfrica%2BAnalysis.compressed.pdf#:~:text=Entrepreneurship%20ec
osystems%20are%20complex%3A%20they,Introduction. Accessed on 21 August
2025.
Sakhdari, K., 2016. ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: A review and future research
agenda’, Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(8), pp. 5–18.
Sarasvathy, S.D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from
economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management
Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Sasol, 2025. The Sasol Women Hub . Accessed from
https://www.womhub.com/sasolwim on 31 January 2025.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research Methods for Business
Students. Pearson, New York.
Schodde, R. 2014. ‘Key issues affecting the time delay between discovery and
development — Is it getting harder and longer?’, Presentation at the AMEC
Convention 2014, MinEx Consulting, Perth, Australia.

138. 127 | P a g e

Schodde, R. 2017. ‘Key success factors in the discovery of world-class mineral
deposits’, Mines and Money London Conference Proceedings, MinEx Consulting.
Schodde, R. 2017. ‘A review of exploration success and the role of juniors in the
discovery pipeline’, MinEx Consulting Report, pp. 1–12.
Schodde, R. 2020. Trends in Global Exploration and Discovery Performance. MinEx
Consulting.
Schodde, R., 2020. Key issues facing the junior mining sector—An analysis of the
exploration and financing pipeline. MinEx Consulting Report, Sydney.
Schwandt, T. A. 1994. Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118–
137). SAGE Publications.
Seeger M.W.F. 2007. Development of a strategic and tactical game plan for junior
mining companies. PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Seeger M.W.F 2019. Mining Capital. Methods, best practices and case studies for
financing mining projects. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
Sentsho, Olebogeng T. 2025. Incubation as an Alternative Funding Solution for
Emerging and Junior Mining Companies in South Africa: An Update. The Extractive
Industries and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101115
Sibanye-Stillwater 2023. Digital Transformation and Innovation in Mining.
https://staging.sibanyestillwater.com/innovation-technology/. Accessed 3 May 2025.
Siemens AG. 2018. Siemens launches the Digital Mining Incubator at Wits University’s
Tshimologong Digital Innovation Precinct [Press release].
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid%3A4902cb84-a42a-48a0-
ab05-ff34a518eca9/siemens-launches-digital-mining-incubator.pdf. Accessed on 3
May 2025.
Sillitoe RH 2024. Geochemical Perspectives (2024) 13 (1): 141–167.
Silver, C., and Lewins, A. 2014. Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step
guide (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

139. 128 | P a g e

Silverman, D. 2020. Interpreting qualitative data. SAGE Publications.
Simpson B. 2018. Pragmatism: A philosophy of practice. The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods.
Singh, N and Mulaba-Bafubiandi A.F. 2019. Junior mining and regulated artisanal
mining and small scale processing of locally found commodities as entrepreneurial
business ventures. UNESCO 6th Africa Engineering Week and 4th Africa Engineering
Conference, on the 18th – 20th September, 2019, at Avani Victoria Falls Resort,
Livingstone, Zambia.
Sillitoe RH 2024. Geochemical Perspectives (2024) 13 (1): 141–167.
Singh, K. 2025. The Nature of Reality: Exploring Ontology and Metaphysical
Perspectives. International Journal of Social Science Research , 1(4).
https://www.ijssr.com/wp-content/uploads/journal/published_paper/volume-1/issue-
4/IJSSR25226.pdf accessed on 17 June 2025.
Sloman, K. A., Bouyoucos, I. A., Brooks, E. J., et al. 2019. Ethical considerations in
research methodology: Impacts on ecological sustainability. Journal of Fish Biology.
Wiley Online Library.
Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA). (2021). Annual Report 2020/21. from
https://www.seda.org.za/Publications/Annual%20Reports/Seda_Annual%20Report_
2021%20interactive.pdf. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), 2024. Innovation Support and
Incubation Programme Annual Report 2023/24. Pretoria: SEDA.
Smith L. 2024. Five metrics investors use to evaluate a junior mine. https://pr-
republic.com/five-metrics-investors-use-when-evaluating-a-junior-mine/#:~:text=1
accessed on 15 September 2025.
Snape D., and Spencer, L. 2003. The foundations of qualitative research In J. Richie
and J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 1-23). Los Angeles: Sage.
Solomon, J. and Solomon, A. 2004. ‘Corporate Governance and Accountability’,
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

140. 129 | P a g e

Southern African Development Community (SADC), 2023. Revised Industrialisation
Strategy and Roadmap 2023–2035. Gaborone: SADC Secretariat.
Spigel, B. 2017 ‘The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), pp. 49–72.
Spigel, B and Harrison, R 2018, 'Towards a process theory of entrepreneurial
ecosystems', Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 151–168.
Stam, E. and van de Ven, A., 2021. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Elements, Small
Business Economics, 56(2), pp. 391–409.
Statistics Botswana, 2023. Mining statistics Botswana . In
https://www.statsbots.org.bw/ accessed on 1 February 2025.
Sykes JP and Trench A. The business of greenfields mineral exploration. Target
Conference, Perth, Australia, 2017.
Teece, Pisano, and Shuen from 1997 . Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management, Strategic Management Journal, Volume 18, pages 509-533.
Teece, D.J. et al. 1997. ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509–533.
Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
pp.1319–1350.
Teece, D.J. 2018. ‘Business models and dynamic capabilities’, Long Range Planning,
51(1), pp. 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
Teeling J. 2017. Speech to the Junior Mining Indaba in Johannesburg held on 7 – 8
June 2017 .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKmJYDSaW7Qandlist=PL5zLWMpFfFgp3pgXF
mXcFClyn63wzc_bnandindex=5andt=682s .
The Lundin Group 2025. https://thelundingroup.com/. Accessed on 6 July 2025.
Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K. and Rice, M. 2018. “A Holistic Approach to Incubator
Strategies in the Ecosystem Context,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, 24(3), pp. 485–503.

141. 130 | P a g e

Tilton, J. E. 2018. Mineral economics and policy. Routledge.
Tilton, J.E. and Guzmán, J.I., 2016. Mineral economics and policy. New York: RFF
Press.
Tilton, J.E. and Humphreys, D. 2021. ‘Materials, Society and the Environment: Critical
Metals Handbook of Mining Economics’, 3rd edn, Routledge, London.
Tilton, J.E. and Lagos, G. 2007. ‘Assessing the future of the Chilean mining industry’,
Resources Policy, 32(1 –2), pp. 49 –58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2007.03.001
Topp, K. 2017. Corporate Incubators And Accelerators: Failing? Flailing? Or Flying?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/corporate-incubators-accelerators-failing-flailing-
flying-kerry-topp-1. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Torries, T. F. 1998. Evaluating Mineral Projects: Applications and Misconceptions.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
Tracy, S. J. 2019. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting
analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley.
UNDP 2025. Timbuktoo Mine Accelerator Programme .
https://www.undp.org/africa/press-releases/call-applications-join-timbuktoo-
minetech-accelerator-programme?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed on 31 January
2025.
Unearthed 2019 Accelerating innovation in the resources sector: How mining
innovation hubs and incubators are reshaping the industry. Perth: Unearthed
Solutions. https://unearthed.solutions. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
Unearthed 2022. Mining Innovation Accelerators. Retrieved from
www.unearthed.solutions on 31 January 2025.
United Nations 2009. Mining to profit Africa’s people .
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/april-2009/mining-profit-
africa%E2%80%99s-people accessed on 6 August 2024.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2025. Timbuktoo MineTech Hub:
Catalysing Africa’s Sustainable Mining Future. New York: UNDP.

142. 131 | P a g e

University of Cambridge Department of Earth Sciences 2024. ‘Mineral Sciences
Research Theme’, University of Cambridge. Available at:
https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/directory/research-themes/mineral-sciences. Accessed
on 5 October 2025.
University of the Witwatersrand (“Wits”), 2018. Siemens launches Digital Mining
Incubator. [online] Wits University. Available at:
https://www.wits.ac.za/future/stories/siemens-launches-digital-mining-incubator.html.
Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Valenta, R., Kemp, D., Owen, J., Corder, G., and Lèbre, É. 2022. Mining innovation
ecosystems: Accelerating sustainability transitions through entrepreneurial support
systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, 129954.
Visualcapitalist, 2024. Visualizing the Genealogy of Exploration Success. Available at
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-genealogy-of-exploration-
success/ accessed on 6 August 2024.
Von Zedtwitz, M. and Grimaldi, R. 2006. Are service profiles incubator-specific?
Benchmarking international business incubators with the BII index. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 457–471.
Vu, T.N. 2025. “ESG investment performance and global attention to ESG ratings,”
Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, forthcoming.
Wagner, T., 2020. Innovation and entrepreneurship in the mining sector: a case for
different models. Resources Policy, 65, 101539.
Wang, H., Lin, X., and Luo, Y. 2021. Entrepreneurial cognition and new venture
performance: The role of industry experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(1).
Wang, Z., Xiang, Y., Wu, Y., Wang, L., and Gu, C. 2025. Optimization and data-driven
approaches for energy storage-based demand response to achieve power system
flexibility. Frontiers in Energy Research .
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2025.1618235 accessed on 17 June
2025.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

143. 132 | P a g e

Welsh, J., 2024. Business Incubator. https://www.justinwelsh.me/glossary/what-is-a-
business-incubator. Accessed on 21 August 2025.
Wetterhahn, J.P.P. 2018. A method to assess the likelihood and magnitude of initial
capital expenditure overruns of future gold mining projects using retrospective data
analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/download/76289845/download.pdf accessed on 17 June
2025.
Wise, H., and Shtylla, S. 2007. The role of the extractive sector in expanding economic
opportunity. Harvard Kennedy School.
WomHub 2023. Sasol Women in Mining Programme.
https://www.womhub.com/sasolwim.html. Accessed on 3 May 2025.
WomHub, 2025. https://www.womhub.com/. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
World Bank 2019. ‘Mineral Resource Governance in the 21st Century: Gearing
Extractive Industries Towards Sustainable Development’, Washington, DC: World
Bank.
World Bank 2021. The Future of Mining and the Role of Innovation Incubators.
Retrieved from www.worldbank.org accessed on 31 January 2025.
World Bank. 2022. Commodity markets outlook: The impact of COVID-19 on
commodity prices. The World Bank Group .
https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets accessed on 24 March
2025.
World Bank, 2023. Strengthening Junior Mining and Exploration in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Policy, Practice, Potential. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.
World Economic Forum (WEF), 2015. Mining and Metals in a Sustainable World 2050.
Geneva: World Economic Forum.
World Economic Forum (“WEF”), 2015. Mining – The Innovation Challenge.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/08/mining-%25e2%2588%2592-the-
innovation-

144. 133 | P a g e

challenge/#:~:text=Testing%20and%20scale,would%20reduce%20the%20risk%20a
nd. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
World Economic Forum, 2024. Why the time is now to invest in mining technologies. :
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/09/sdim-sdim24-mining-technology-
investment-opportunity-tech/. Accessed on 4 May 2025.
Western Sydney University (“WSU”). Definition of research .
https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_applica
tion/dest_definition_of_research#:~:text=Research%20is%20defined%20as%20the,t
o%20new%20and%20creative%20outcomes accessed on 17 May 2025.
Wiener, J. B., Rogers, M. D., Hammitt, J. K., and Sand, P. H. 2019. Philosophy and
the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Risk Research, 22(3), 1-16.
XBRL 2024. South Africa’s ESG reporting revolution .
https://www.xbrl.org/news/south-africas-esg-reporting-revolution/ accessed on 4
October 2025.
Yin, R. K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhao, S. 2022. Human agency and social structure: From the evolutionary
perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour , 52(1), 64–84.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jtsb.12336 accessed on 17 June 2025.
Zimele Supplier Development, 2025. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://southafrica.angloamerican.com
/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-South-Africa-V2/documents/zimele-
docs/emalahleni/zimele-supplier-development-brochure.pdf. Accessed on 4 May
2025.
Zimstat, 2023. Zimbabwe mining statistics. In https://www.zimstat.co.zw/ accessed on
1 February 2025.