Key Findings
This investigation shows that the media for social and environmental disclosure within the mining sector is still evolving both within companies and the sector as a whole.
It is evident that stand-alone Social and Environmental reports are becoming more sophisticated and stylish. Elements of this increasing sophistication include:
- Reports covering a wider scope of issues;
- A trend towards producing Sustainable Development and CSR reports;
- The development of integrated policy statements and codes of conduct;
- Accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines;
- Increasing levels of external verification of data contained in reports; andIncreasing take-up of reporting on the web.
- Increasing take-up of reporting on the web.
Reports are covering more complex issues relating to sustainability and CSR, indicating the increasing maturation of over-arching CSR strategies and policies within the mining companies studied. However, this maturation process is far from uniform, with some mining companies in the top ten trailing far behind others in the development of social, ethical and environmental disclosure. This variability, both in terms of the sophistication of reporting and policy development, and the types of metrics used, means that the social and environmental performance of one company cannot be compared against another’s. Thus, we have no real measure of the overall CSR performance and progress towards sustainability of the global mining industry. There is also no measure of whether policy statements are applied in practice in any meaningful way; further research is needed to develop such measures in order that performance against intention can be calculated.
Furthermore, the content analysis of a separate set of social, ethical and environmental reports reveals that they are permeated with the language of CSR and sustainable development, with the themes of mutuality and togetherness emerging strongly. By using these analogies the companies are tapping into a robust and widely accepted international rhetoric that is likely to gain much support. However, community responses to mining companies cannot be framed in these terms alone, but should also be placed in their broader social, cultural, political, environmental and economic contexts. Yet, rather than choose to construct communities based on their complex realities, or even attempt to delineate their social and/or geographical boundaries, the companies have preferred to identify the community in relation to themselves, with the company at the centre or heart of the community.
It is clear that the decision of companies to develop community strategies does not stem from a moral choice; it is as a strategic response to social challenges that constantly shift the background of constraints in which the organisation must operate. In justifying their view on social and environmental responsibilities, companies often fall back on 'institutionalised vocabularies of motive' (Morrill, 1998, quoted in Cragg & Greenbaum, 2002, p.4), whereby the company's strategies are determined by external constraints, such as community conflict, and instrumental imperatives, such as the requirement for legitimacy. By framing community responsibility within instrumental necessities, the company avoids the potential for conflict with other accepted corporate responsibilities, such as the need to make a profit. Further research may focus on whether community development programmes implemented by mining companies actually deliver socially responsible outcomes, or whether they simply create mechanisms of dependency which can be used to control communities.
