Marina Yue Zhang, University of Technology Sydney

Though they still haven’t been officially confirmed, reports China’s state-owned buyer told steelmakers to stop purchasing iron ore from Australian mining giant BHP have rattled both markets and Canberra.

At first glance, this looks like a simple dispute over price. But step back, and a picture begins to emerge of something possibly far more deliberate.

If true, this ban represents a pressure test from China – one that goes beyond trade and speaks directly to the future of Australia’s economy and the shape of global resource politics.

A dispute over price

The flashpoint appears to be a breakdown in iron ore supply contract talks between BHP and the China Mineral Resources Group (CMRG), a government-run company created in 2022 to consolidate purchases for China’s steel industry. The disagreement centres on stalled negotiations over pricing.

According to reporting by Bloomberg, China applied pressure earlier in September by instructing its mills to stop buying one specific BHP product. Then, at the end of the month, China reportedly expanded the order to suspend all shipments from BHP priced in US dollars.

Neither side has yet confirmed or denied the report, and one Chinese commodity analysis firm, Mysteel, disputed the claim of a ban. But markets were quick to react anyway. BHP’s share price fell on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese voiced concern over the report, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers spoke with BHP chief executive Mike Henry.

For Canberra, it may have carried an unsettling sense of déjà vu: harking back to the 2020–21 trade dispute, when Beijing targeted Australian exports including wine, barley, and coal.

The difference now is that iron ore matters more than any of those products combined. Nearly 60% of Australia’s exports to China in the year to May 2024 were iron ore. Losing access to that trade would strike at the heart of Australia’s economy.

China’s long game

To understand where China sits in these negotiations, it is necessary to rewind two decades.

Despite being the world’s biggest buyer of iron ore, China has long had little influence over the price. Hundreds of steel mills cut deals separately with BHP, Rio Tinto, and Brazil’s Vale. The miners spoke with one voice. The mills did not.

The result was higher costs for China, captured in a phrase often used in its media: the “pain of pricing power”. Whatever China bought, the price went up.

Attempts to push back failed. The China Iron and Steel Association urged boycotts of the miners, but mills broke ranks to secure supply.

In 2009, one Rio Tinto executive was jailed in China for alleged commercial espionage during fraught negotiations.

Then came 2010. BHP’s then chief executive Marius Kloppers led a push to replace annual price benchmarks with shorter-term market-based pricing.

This change supercharged profits for Western Australian producers, who could capitalise instantly as China’s demand surged. For China, it was a nightmare – less control, more volatility, bigger bills.

The creation of the CMRG in 2022 was Beijing’s strategic response.

This is not old-fashioned central planning. It is state capitalism with sharper tools: centralised buying, stockpiling, and big data to support national goals. Its purpose is clear – to turn China from price-taker into price-maker.

The standoff: who holds the cards?

Australia and China rely on each other, but not in equal amounts.

Australia is critically dependent on China for revenue. China, in the short term, still depends heavily on Australian ore. BHP alone supplies around 13% of China’s imports – impossible for either side to replace overnight.

BHP is seeking alternative markets, and Beijing is investing billions in Guinea’s Simandou mine, but both things will take years or decades before reaching scale.

That creates a tense balance: fighting without breaking (斗而不破). Both sides can inflict pain, but neither can afford a full rupture.

If the reports are true, the “ban” is less a final break than a negotiation tactic. It is Beijing’s way of showing BHP – and by extension Rio Tinto and Vale – that the old rules no longer apply.

The future: from iron ore to green steel

Beneath this contest lies a bigger question: who will shape the future of steel?

Traditional steelmaking is one of the world’s dirtiest industries. It relies on coal, which pumps out carbon emissions. The next frontier is “green steel”, made with renewable energy and green hydrogen instead of coal.

During his visit to Beijing earlier this year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pitched a vision for Australia to move beyond exporting raw ore and instead sell processed “green iron” – an intermediate product on the path to green steel. With its vast renewable resources, Australia could climb the value chain rather than remain just “the world’s quarry”.

This aligns with China’s own carbon-neutral goals. By flexing now, Beijing may be signalling that future cooperation on green steel will come with conditions. China will not simply be a buyer; it intends to set the rules.

Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Carla Liuzzo, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Queensland University of Technology

Endless economic expansion isn’t sustainable. Scientists are telling us our planet is already beyond its limits, with the risks to communities and the economy made clear in the federal government’s recent climate risk assessment.

Sustainability is a hot topic in Australian business schools. However, teaching about the possible need to limit economic growth – whether directly or indirectly related to sustainability – is uncommon.

Typically, business school teaching is based on concepts of sustainable development and “green growth”.
Under these scenarios, we can continue to grow gross domestic product (GDP) globally without continuing to grow emissions – what is known as “decoupling”. It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” promise for sustainability.

Our new research published in the journal Futures shows business students themselves are interested in learning the skills they would need under an alternative post-growth future.

Emerging alternatives to ‘growth is good’

There is mounting evidence of the difficulty of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions growth. The United Nations goals of sustainable development are “in peril”.

This has led to increased interest in no-growth or post-growth economic models and to the movement towards degrowth. Degrowth means shrinking economic production to use less of the world’s resources and avoid climate crisis.

Explicit teaching of degrowth rejects the belief in endless growth. This presents a challenge to traditional concepts in business education, including profit maximisation, competition and the notion of “free markets”.

The issue, and one that degrowth invites students to consider, is that green growth and sustainable development are underpinned by the need for continued economic growth and development. This “growth obsession” is pushing the planet and society to its limits.

Students are keen

Our new study provides a snapshot of students’ interest in alternative systems. It reveals 90% of respondents are open to learning about different economic models.

The study found 96% of students believe business leaders must understand alternative models to continued economic growth. Yet only 15% were aware of any alternatives that may exist. Most (71%) believed viable alternatives exist, but they admitted to lacking sufficient knowledge.

The study had 61 participants currently studying a masters of business administration (MBA) in a top Australian institution.

The research raises the question: if future business leaders are not made aware of alternatives, won’t they continue to assume growth is “inherently good”, and perpetuate the business practices that have pushed humanity beyond planetary boundaries?

The trouble with endless growth

Advocates of the “beyond growth” agenda argue endless growth is not possible. They promote alternate measures of progress to GDP, such as the recent Measuring What Matters report.

Degrowth proposes scaling back the consumption of resources as part of a transition to post-growth economies. Their aim is what economist Tim Jackson calls prosperity without growth. This entails businesses sharing value with communities, and reducing production of things like fast fashion, fast food and fast tech.

It is a rejection of maximising profit in favour of maximising value, based around meeting real needs like housing, food and essential services. Some industries would grow, such as care, education, public transport and renewables. Others may shrink or vanish.

Degrowth and post-growth aren’t alien concepts. There are grassroots movements such as minimalism. Social media abounds with lists of “things I no longer buy”, social enterprises, the right-to-repair movement and community-supported agriculture.

Degrowth also invites students to debate concepts like modern monetary theory, income ratio limits and universal basic income.

The role of business schools

Business schools are doing great work teaching students about changing consumer preferences for green alternatives, new global standards for reporting environmental and social impact, and ways businesses can reduce their environmental impact.

The Australian Business Deans Council in March this year detailed these efforts in its Climate Capabilities Report. This highlighted the need for business schools to produce graduates capable of “balancing business and climate knowledge”.

Our study of Australian business school students shows they are open to learning about degrowth. It challenges the assumption that ideas critical of endless growth would be unwelcome in business schools in Australia.

There is an argument for making explicit degrowth teaching in business schools more accessible because business schools have been criticised for not doing enough to address climate change and social inequality.

Globally, degrowth is starting to be taught explicitly in business schools in Europe, the UK and even the US.

Business schools have long been criticised for a culture of greed and cutthroat competition. As one distinguished professor from the University of Michigan recently put it, “today’s business schools were designed for a world that no longer exists”.

The introduction of no growth or degrowth scenarios to business schools in Australia may go some way to ensuring they are preparing leaders for the future – not priming students for a world that no longer exists.

Carla Liuzzo, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Geelong champion Patrick Dangerfield wowed the AFL world during last week’s preliminary final win against Hawthorn, pushing his 35-year-old body to the limit to propel his team into this year’s Grand Final.

At an age when most AFL players have retired or are slowing down, Dangerfield showcased his immense physical attributes, even prompting Hawks coach Sam Mitchell to plead: “I’m certainly ready for Dangerfield to retire.”

Now Dangerfield and his Geelong teammates will take on Brisbane for the AFL premiership in a battle between the 2022 and 2024 winners, respectively.

It has taken these athletes more than 10 months of intense training and preparation to get there. They are finely tuned machines, built to meet the rigorous demands of elite Australian rules football.

But what exactly constitutes the “perfect” AFL body? And what qualities does an AFL athlete need to succeed?

The physical demands of AFL

Australian football is an intermittent contact sport made up of frequent bursts of high-intensity activity (such as sprinting, jumping and tackling) separated by brief periods of low-intensity activity (such as standing, walking and jogging).

With this in mind, it requires players to excel in multiple physical domains to be successful:

• Aerobic fitness: research indicates the average AFL player covers around 13 kilometres during a match, with some players even getting close to 19km. As a result, having high aerobic fitness (the ability use oxygen to create energy for physical activity) is integral to ensure they can both cover these vast distances and maintain a high level of performance
• Repeated sprint ability: in conjunction with the ability to run for a long time, AFL athletes also need to be able to perform repeated sprints without fatiguing and losing speed – something known as “repeated sprint ability”. This is what ensures they stay fast and powerful in the latter parts of games
• Strength: AFL is a contested sport. Players need upper and lower body strength to lay tackles, stay strong in marking contests and hold their position under contact. To illustrate this, some older research indicates the average AFL player can bench press about 125 kilograms, although there are anecdotal reports of larger players benching more than 170kg

Power: in conjunction with brute strength, AFL athletes also need to be explosive. This is what allows them to jump high to take a mark or make a spoil, and is a defining characteristic of elite AFL athletes. Current Greater Western Sydney player Leek Aleer holds the record for the largest running jump height in the AFL, with a whopping 107 centimetres.

Speed and agility: being able to change direction and accelerate rapidly are essential for evading opponents and creating scoring opportunities. These are often considered to be some of the most important AFL attributes. In fact, some research suggests faster players are significantly more likely to get drafted than slower players.

Decision making: AFL athletes also need to be able to make good decisions when the ball is in their hands. Making good split-second decisions allows their team to maintain possession, which can have a major influence on the outcome of a game.

Evolution of the AFL athlete

Research on the fitness of elite AFL athletes is sparse (understandably so – clubs might want to keep this information private as a competitive edge).

But we do know the physical profile of the typical AFL player has evolved dramatically over time.

Historically, players were often shorter and stockier, with an average height of around 180cm in the 1940s, and then around 184cm in the 1990s.

However, there has been a noticeable shift over the past 30 years towards taller, leaner athletes. The average height of the modern-day player is currently edging closer to 190cm, with a notable number of key position players exceeding 200cm.

We have also seen the running demands of the game increase. Over the past 20 years, the total distance athletes are travelling has increased. They are also accelerating more often and spending more time running at faster speeds.

This change has been somewhat reflected in the athletic profiles of the elite young players hoping to get drafted, with a consistent increase in the aerobic fitness of draftees over the past 20 years.

Interestingly, it has been suggested this change may largely be the result of changes in game style, where teams are adopting a less contested, faster, more free-flowing game style.

Indeed, this is something we have seen happen in the AFLW over the past few seasons, which reinforces this suggestion.

The ideal AFL body depends on the player’s position

With all this in mind, it’s important to note it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to AFL athletes.

Different positions will have different requirements.

For example, you can expect midfielders to be fitter, more agile and physically smaller than full forwards and full backs. Conversely, you can almost guarantee key forwards and defenders will be bigger and stronger than midfielders.

The modern AFL athlete is a product of years of specific training and a deep understanding of the game’s evolving demands – and the Grand Final is the best opportunity to observe it all come to fruition.

And as the game continues to evolve, so will the ideal physical profile of its athletes.

Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.