Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector

crossmark

Hector Viveros Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University, Eastern Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility Stakeholder influence Mechanisms Involvement Mining

This paper examines mechanisms that stakeholder groups use in order to influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and their involvement in the Chilean mining sector. The article adopts a qualitative approach and reports on semi-structured interviews conducted with five stakeholder groups. The findings show that the influence wielded by stakeholders to drive mining companies to act more responsibly is founded in five principal mechanisms: demands, communication, counselling, control and engagement. The manner in which stakeholders use these mechanisms varies across stakeholder groups. Some stakeholders adopt a single mechanism, as is the case for communities and media. Other stakeholders such as NGOs, adopt multiple mechanisms. From a dichotomised perspective in relation to involvement, the paper also identifies that stakeholders utilise these mechanisms considering an active (for groups such as government and media) and passive involvement (in the case of communities and unions). NGOs are the only stakeholder group that appear to adopt both active and passive participation, depending on the mechanisms under consideration.

1. Introduction There is a prolific amount of research addressing CSR and stakeholder theory (Laplume et al., 2008; Lockett et al., 2006; Steurer, 2006). Scholars still argue however that despite these studies there remains a need for further study particularly linking CSR with stakeholder perceptions (Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Calvano, 2008). This need is amplified in relation to a lack of research into approaches (Aguilera et al., 2007) that consider actual cases and scenarios across different contexts. This additional research might narrow the existing gap in the CSR literature (Starkey and Madan, 2001). Frooman (1999) mentions three research streams that may assist in this regard. First, literature is used to identify stakeholder groups and to consider their special and particular needs (Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Magness, 2008). Secondly, research focuses on establishing stakeholders’ wants and interests (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Dawkins and Lewis, 2003; Polonsky and Ottman, 1998). The third area of research reviews the way stakeholders are able to influence companies and as a result, achieve the stakeholder's purpose (Bendell and Kearins, 2005; Hendry, 2005; Rowley, 1997; Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). Researchers have also investigated mechanisms for interaction between companies and stakeholders. In particular, studies often address issues of cooperation, engagement or consultation (Burchell and Cook, 2006; Green and Hunton-Clarke, 2003; Harris, 2007;

Morsing and Schultz, 2006). These mechanisms may be used by companies in order to integrate key players and create collaborative relationships with different stakeholder groups (Plaza-Ubeda et al., 2010; Rueda-Manzanares et al., 2008). A stakeholder view of these matters, however, seems be neglected or left aside. Instead, studies tend to focus on a corporate perspective of these mechanisms. In order to bridge this gap, scholars have asked for empirical research in relation to these mechanisms (O’Connell et al., 2005) and for a change to a stakeholder view. This is because, given the different nature and type of stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999), their actions (or inactions) and mechanisms to influence companies’ activities in terms of CSR will not necessarily be the same. Thus, this paper shifts the focus to a stakeholder perspective and to the mechanisms used by stakeholders in order to influence CSR, both as an active or passive participant. The research question is: what mechanisms do stakeholders use to influence CSR? The examination of this question takes into account the level of either active or passive behaviour by the stakeholder with such mechanisms. The paper first reviews stakeholder participation in CSR, and secondly, outlines the method used to analyse the data collected during fieldwork. Finally, the paper discusses the findings and sets out the conclusions.

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.10.014 Received 25 February 2015; Received in revised form 30 October 2016; Accepted 31 October 2016 0301-4207/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

another mechanism, particularly in sectors where companies depend on social approval in order to get the social license to operate (Moffat and Zhang, 2014; Owen and Kemp, 2013). These demands usually find support and response when claims are made by salient demanding stakeholders as stated by Mitchell et al. (1997). Thus, stakeholder groups might use different communication channels when taking actions against companies. Traditionally, this course of action has been used by the media (Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007; Wallack, 2008) and NGOs such as Greenpeace in order to expose wrongdoings as well as to inform companies’ activities (Frooman and Murrel, 2005; Mirvis, 2000), especially in industries with high environmental impacts (Hendry, 2006). Stakeholders may also seek to influence in the form of counselling or advocacy from groups perceived as powerful, well established or institutionalised, including lobbying or governmental pressure. This is a mechanism of pressure to apply, change or toughen regulations and laws (De Bakker and Den Hond, 2008; Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007). Thus, CSR activities could be influenced by stakeholder's considerations, for example, regarding health (Bose-O’Reilly et al., 2008; Hilson et al., 2007; Spiegel and Veiga, 2005) and environmental issues (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006). Frooman (1999) presents another form of stakeholder influence based on resource dependence, suggesting that some groups with control over key resources for companies are able to exert strategies of influence. In this sense, stakeholders with access to these resources (material and human) will have higher influence. As a result, stakeholders have another mechanism of influence, which is represented in the form of monitoring internal corporate activities such as processes and standards. An example of this method is the union supervision in relation to health and safety standards (Dashwood, 2014; Gunningham, 2008; Mutti et al., 2012). Another example of this mechanism is presented by Stanbury (2000) in the environmental control and pressures in the forest industry in British Columbia, Canada. Stakeholders might establish new mechanisms to influence companies and promote CSR practices through the process of engagement. Traditionally, the literature addresses the concept of engagement from a corporate perspective (Burchell and Cook, 2006; Dobele et al., 2014; Harris, 2007; Lin et al., 2015). However, engagement as a mechanism of influence can work as a bidirectional process, that is to say, two-way interaction. For instance, communities might directly engage with companies in order to influence CSR practices (Kemp, 2010b). This is especially relevant in extractive industries in relation to environmental matters where groups such as communities and NGOs play key roles as liaison in the engagement process (Lawrence, 2002). In this regard, Welcomer (2002) supports the role stakeholders play in affecting the way companies address stakeholders concerns. Some scholars suggest, however, that attributes such as power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997) ultimately affect the mechanisms used by stakeholder groups (Eesley and Lenox, 2006) and the likelihood of positive or negative responses by companies. Accordingly, mechanisms to engage companies in socially responsible practices may also be influenced by actions that are undertaken by diverse groups (Bremmers et al., 2007; Carmin and Balser, 2002) which act, not as isolated players, but involving different participants from the stakeholder map. In this sense, Aguero (2004) points out that, in Latin American countries, pressure from social movements is one of the pillars that influences CSR. Thus, through group participation or forming alliances and partnerships (Kochan and Rubenstein, 2000), stakeholders are able to increase their efficacy in establishing the matters they want companies to address. For example, a study by Neville and Menguc (2006) considers three stakeholder groups – government, customers and employees – and analyses their relationships and influence on environmental issues. Neville and Menguc argue that alliances may be affected by the convergence of stakeholder attitudes towards companies, the issues that impact on them, and other matters they perceive as relevant. In the same way, the authors

2. Stakeholder influence and CSR Stakeholder theory addresses the link between the companies and stakeholder groups, taking into account interests and interactions. As defined by Freeman (1984), stakeholders are ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives’ (p.46). In this sense, research regarding stakeholders and corporate social responsibility has grown in interest (Clarkson, 1995; Dobele et al., 2014; Lee, 2011; Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Mutti et al., 2012; Thompson and Driver, 2005; Viveros, 2016; Yakovleva and Vazquez-Brust, 2012), providing evidence of the influence of stakeholder groups in corporate practices. According to Goodstein and Wicks (2007), stakeholders can work with companies in order to promote ethical behaviour and to limit corporate failures in these regards. From grassroots movements to shareholders, stakeholder can exert pressures on companies when they look for changes or improvements in terms of company actions, or simply to send a (warning) message regarding wrongdoings and lack of accountability (Frooman, 1999; King, 2008; Reid and Toffel, 2009). In this regard, Wood (1991) pointed out that, when stakeholders are not satisfied, companies may face a sort of retaliation in the sense that ‘customers stop buying products, shareholders sell their stocks, employees withhold loyalty and best efforts, government halts subsidies or imposes fines or regulates, and environmental advocates sue’ (p.697). Particularly in mining, CSR has been typically addressed through practices of stakeholder engagement, community development, environmental management and conflict resolution (Dashwood, 2014; Humphreys, 2000; Kepore and Imbun, 2011; Kemp, 2010a, 2010b; Owen and Kemp, 2013), through joint initiatives that are proposed, promoted or supported by some stakeholder groups such as communities or NGOs (Argenti, 2004; Bowen et al., 2010; Canel et al., 2010; Sarin, 2006; Veiga et al., 2001). These practices aim to respond to demands regarding corporate responsible behaviour and an alignment between company objectives and guidelines for sustainable development (Hilson and Murck, 2000). This is especially relevant in developing nations, where mining activities have a significant impact in the social and environmental domains (Hilson and Murck, 2000; Jenkins, 2004; Kapelus, 2002; Viveros, 2016). These initiatives are promoted, in some cases, by mining supporters who hold positive relationships with companies. However, opponents to mining within stakeholder groups also may exert pressure on companies that show disregard for social and environmental issues (Ali and O’Faircheallaigh, 2007) such as impacts on the landscape and social grievances regarding lifestyles and health issues (Kepore and Imbun, 2011; Sagebien et al., 2008). In this sense, irresponsible corporate behaviour will result in stakeholder dissatisfaction. Eventually, this will lead to pressures that may end up in delayed mining activities, project failures or costly conflicts in the sector (Bridge, 2004; Hintjens, 2000). 3. Mechanisms to influence CSR The notion that stakeholders might influence companies has been investigated by O’Connell et al. (2005), who argued that companies are obligated to validate and accept some mechanisms whereby stakeholders can exert supervision, promote participation and address their concerns. O’Connell et al. reviewed four mechanisms used by stakeholders to interact with companies in order to discuss their concerns. In some industries these mechanisms are sustained by law. For example, internal subunits mandated by the government to manage stakeholder issues. Similarly, statutory stakeholder participation is another means by which stakeholder involvement is enforced. Another stakeholder mechanism is statutory access to information. In this sense, information can empower stakeholders and direct stakeholder activism to pressure companies to adopt particular courses of action. This pressure is also expressed through community demands as 2

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

their participation in CSR. An active view emphasises an energetic and strong position taken to prevent potential issues affecting stakeholders as well as driving changes and improvements. These actions involve standing up for one's rights and expressing concerns. Conversely, instead of a bustling participation in matters that affect or could affect stakeholders, a passive approach represents a symbolic behaviour that fails to express or stand up for needs and concerns. Thus, through involvement, stakeholders ensure companies and other stakeholders are kept aware of their expectations and concerns while letting those expectations influence through different means. However, it is important to clarify that the notion of passiveness has no negative connotation. As suggested by Barnett (2014), a stakeholder group may remain relatively passive but yet conscious of companies activities. That is, stakeholders are still engaged in a cognitive way.

also point out that, in terms of influence, the government stands out as the more influential stakeholder, and that consumer influence is greater than employee influence in relation to CSR matters. 4. Stakeholder involvement While recognizing the importance of different mechanisms in fostering and driving responsible behaviour, stakeholder involvement in these mechanisms is also a relevant part. Rowley and Berman (2000) highlight some considerations stakeholders take into account when taking action against (or in support of) companies. Thus, the likelihood and nature of stakeholder actions will vary depending on the company against which it is directed (i.e. MNCs, SMEs, etc.), characteristics of the industry (i.e. mining, chemicals, etc.), the issues being addressed (i.e. water consumption in mining, pollution, etc.), the stakeholder environment (i.e. level of stakeholder salience) and the institutional context (i.e. industry impact on a national economy). Accordingly, stakeholders’ actions should be addressed considering the context in which stakeholders interact (Onkila, 2011). However, because the diversity within the stakeholders pool, their roles, interests and priorities in terms of their participation will also vary (Wolfe and Putler, 2002). This diversity, according to Cordano et al. (2004), can be found between and within stakeholder groups. This article argues that stakeholder involvement can vary across groups. Stakeholders that perceive similar issues as the focus of their concerns will be motivated to assume an active role and to take further action to pressure and influence a company's activities (Butterfield et al., 2004). Some stakeholders are more involved than others in terms of taking actions to express or defend their interests (Vos, 2003). Accordingly, and because of the different and distinctive nature of the various stakeholder groups (Clarkson, 1994, 1995; Goodpaster, 1991), there is a variation in their involvement to use mechanisms to influence CSR. The literature addressing stakeholder involvement considers different approaches to classify or describe the way stakeholders take actions in this regards. Arnstein (1969) described stakeholder involvement from passive dissemination of information to an active level of engagement. In this sense, involvement or participation is defined as a process where stakeholders decide to take an active role in the decision-making when they are affected by these decisions (Wandersman, 1981). Grimble and Wellard (1997), and later Vos and Achterkamp (2006) use a similar approach regarding stakeholder identification based on their level of involvement, described as passively and actively involved. A more detailed typology of stakeholder participation is presented by Cornwall (2008), ranking from manipulative participation (low participation) to self-mobilization (high participation). Cornwall highlights the difference between involvement and influence, considering that involvement might be a voiceless participation, whereas, in order to influence, participants should be able to have an influential voice which requires efforts from a two-way perspective described as ‘from above and from below’. Banerjee and Bonnefous (2011) suggest that stakeholders remain passive, having no particular views, when the relationship between stakeholders and the company is neutral. On the other hand, when the relationship is positive or negative, stakeholders will be supportive or detractors respectively, to the company strategies and policies. In these cases, supportive or opposing stakeholders can be considered as active groups. Therefore, stakeholders might influence companies in order to impact CSR practices that are related to their interests and concerns as well as ‘the needs of future stakeholders’ (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002, p.131). Accordingly, this article argues that an active stakeholder is the one that actively participate to pursue CSR through the use of different mechanisms. On the other hand, a passive stakeholder does not interact nor participate as an active player. In this sense, rather than considering that stakeholders will use the mechanisms at their disposal in a similar way, stakeholder involvement explores the dichotomy in

5. Method 5.1. Research context The research is undertaken in the context of the mining industry. As stated by Cowell et al. (1999), the mining sector is central to the discussion about CSR. This industry exhibits characteristics from both sides of the debate. On one hand, mining companies have a questionable reputation because of their impact on the environment. As noted by Warhurst (2001), the main environmental disasters that have occurred are related to this sector. The damage that can be done by mining operations is clear and unless companies are aware of the potential risks and are proactive about their processes to manage those risks, environmental degradation can be significant. On the other hand, the mining industry has a strong positive impact on a country's economy, making mining operations highly substantial and influential (Dorian and Humphreys, 1994). In this particular industry, stakeholders are especially relevant because they have a key role in pushing companies to pursue socially responsible actions (Rwabizambuga, 2007). The literature indicates that a stakeholder's influence and varying levels of engagement (Kepore and Imbun, 2011) might clarify the roles that stakeholders and companies play in terms of CSR (Hutchins et al., 2007). Further, despite the extent and depth of CSR research, scholars recommend and call for studies that consider specific contexts (Cottrill, 1990; Griffin and Mahon, 1997). In this way, it is possible to capture the uniqueness of a specific reality and, in the words of Griffin and Mahon (1997, p. 10), ‘the different configurations of stakeholders and their differing degrees of activism on particular issues’. Moreover, conducting research in an industry like mining allows to address the call made by Harrison and Freeman (1999) in terms of ‘fine-grained ideas about each stakeholder group’ (p. 484). In other words, research about stakeholders and CSR in this industry is an inviting challenge. The empirical basis of this research is the Chilean mining industry. Chile is well known as a mining based economy and some economic data supports this assertion. According to the Consejo Minero de Chile (2016), mining exports accounted for 53% of total Chilean exports in 2015 and on average, 57% over the last five years. Similarly, in 2015, foreign direct investment (FDI) in the mining sector has accounted for 15% of the overall FDI in Chile. Historically this industry has had a relevant impact in the national economy. The contribution to the GDP on average accounted for about 9% in 2015, reaching levels above 12% in the period 2010–2015, representing a sector with one of the highest impacts in economic growth. The main mining commodities are copper, gold, silver and molybdenum, with Chile the principal world producer of copper, having estimated production and reserves of 30% and 29% respectively. Mining ore is exported mainly to Asian and European markets, with China being the main consumer of copper (50%) followed by the European Union (14%). Regarding employment rates, the industry accounts for 9.5% of employment at a national level in terms of direct and indirect workers. 3

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

Fieldwork for this research was undertaken in 2012 across two matched mining regions in Chile. The article relies on interview data from mining stakeholders separated in 5 groups: communities (n=23), government (n=10), unions (n=5), NGOs (n=9) and media (n=4). The role of these participants are: community board presidents, regional ministers (mining and environmental), local government representatives, union presidents, representative of the mining federation, NGOs directors and media directors. In total, 51 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted and distributed across two regions (Region A, 25 interviews; Region B, 26 interviews). The average interview length was one hour. The longest interview took about 2 h whilst the shortest interview was about 45 min. The interview process was conducted in Spanish by the same researcher in a flexible way in order to obtain a natural conversation in a confident environment (Minichiello, 1995). Questions such as “What do you think is your role as stakeholder?”; “As stakeholder, how can you contribute to CSR?”; “How can you help companies to be socially responsible?”; “Do you think you have an active role as stakeholder?” were part of the guide used to obtain their understanding and perspective of the topic investigated. Later, the interviews were coded, transcribed and translated into English. Each interview was then processed and analysed using NVIVO 9 software. Thematic analysis was used to identify common themes, insights and perceptions of participants (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2003; Miles and Huberman, 1994) as well as relationships between concepts amongst different stakeholder groups. Interviews with groups from both regions were initially identified and codified in separated tables. However, after analysis both regions provided similar responses and there were no significant differences in their perceptions and findings. Hence, data obtained from both regions are combined in this paper, and exemplary quotations and discussion are not displayed separately. Finally, interview notes taken during the interview process were also analysed and compared, seeking and complementing themes previously codified. The analysis was also complemented by paying special attention to divergent perceptions that contradicted emerging patterns during the coding process (Mays and Pope, 2000).

As a mining country, Chile ranks among leading developed economies such as Australia and Canada. In this sense, Chile ranks in the 11th place in the Investment Attractiveness Index (out of 109 jurisdictions) and ranking 1st place in the Latin America and the Caribbean region as stated in the Annual Survey of Mining Companies (Jackson and Green, 2015), an annual survey of metal mining companies to assess attractiveness in terms of mineral endowment and public policy. Even more, Chile is the only jurisdiction that is consistently top-ranked in the region. These figures confirm the relevance of the mining industry to Chile, and as a result, mining is recognised as Chile's growth driver. According to Maxwell (2004), a mix of mineral endowment and governmental policies have contributed to improve the levels of development in Chile and consequently, to provide the base to be, in the near future, the first country in the region to reach the status of a high-income economy. Actually, since 2010 Chile is a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In this sense, Chile is the only country in South America that has joined this organisation, which is a symbol of the political and economic stability that Chile has achieved in the last decade. The statistical profile reports some interesting figures regarding the socioeconomic characteristic of the Chilean economy. According to the latest information (OECD, 2016), the GDP per capita was $22,197 and an annual GDP growth rate of 2.5%, a population of almost 18 million and an unemployment level of 6.4%. This industry has influenced social and economic domains in different areas such as economic growth, infrastructure and employment to name a few. For example, Viveros (2016) found that stakeholders perceive that mining has a positive impact in education. This is done through funding and scholarships to the government and local communities to provide access to a better quality education. However, despite these insights it remains a strong negative perception of the counter side of mining. Accordingly, the same study identified that stakeholders assess this activity as highly detrimental to the natural environment highlighting the level of energy and water used in mining processes as well as air and water pollution and the impacts on endangered flora and fauna. Thus, mining activities are also pointed out for the negative impacts on the natural environment and stakeholders located around mining sites as similarly reported by studies in other countries (Kepore and Imbun, 2011; Yakovleva, 2005).

6. Findings In this section, findings show the mechanisms identified by stakeholders to contribute to CSR followed by stakeholders’ views on their level of involvement. Thus, stakeholders consider five mechanisms to impact CSR, established as demands, communication, control, counselling and engagement. In order to assess stakeholder's involvement, two levels were considered: stakeholders actively and passively involved (Fig. 1). Table 1 presents findings by stakeholder group and Table 2 gives exemplary quotations about the mechanisms used to contribute to CSR and about stakeholder involvement that were emphasised by interviewees.

5.2. Data gathering and analysis This paper adopts a qualitative approach to analysing in-depth stakeholder perceptions (Patton, 2002). As stated by Miles and Huberman (1994), this approach allows an understanding of the way participants comprehend situations and how they take action on a dayto-day basis. In selecting participants, previous research using a stakeholder approach was reviewed, especially articles related to salient stakeholders in relation to CSR practices. Findings pointed to stakeholder groups such as communities, consumers, managers, unions, political groups, governments, suppliers, NGOs and media as influential groups (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Laplume et al., 2008; Prebble, 2005). Accordingly, participants were identified from literature review, documents relevant to the Chilean mining industry and purposive sampling to identify relevant players (Miles and Huberman, 1994) living in mining areas and, having knowledge and experience in dealing with mining activities. This makes them a good source of information with proper understanding of the phenomenon under study (Creswell, 2003). Finally, the following groups were selected: communities, government, unions, NGOs and media. Meetings were arranged by telephone and face-to-face discussions to inform potential participants about the scope of the project and the interview. Prior to proceeding with a tape-recorded interview, participants provided their written consent. Anonymity was assured to all interviewees, enabling full participation of sharing their experiences and perceptions.

Demands Communities are the only stakeholder group stating that the way to contribute to CSR is to demand that companies be accountable for their impacts. Although diverse in their composition, these communities have a common factor, namely, they coexist on a daily basis with the impacts (both beneficial and detrimental) of mining companies that have settled in the territory. This perception is reinforced by a community representative: We should contribute by demanding [things] because that's the only way… Asking, asking and demanding. I think demanding accountability more than anything. This group recognises itself as the one with the rights to ask and demand accountability from companies in terms of CSR because they 4

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

Stakeholders Communities

Mechanisms Demands Communication Counselling Control Engagement

Government Unions NGOs

Active Involvement

CSR

Passive

Media

Fig. 1. Mechanisms and involvement to influence CSR.

some NGOs as:

Table 1 Stakeholder mechanisms and involvement in CSR. Mechanisms

Community

Demand Communication Counselling Control Engagement Involvement Active Passive

√

Unions

Government

NGOs

Media

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

We have investigated and informed. We have accessed material using the Transparency Act. Nowadays we can question them [companies], we can have access to several studies and make them public, show them in schools, universities, in seminars with communities, etc. There is an internal control from the unions’ perspective. They highlight the need for audits conducted by people working within companies because of their knowledge about processes and procedures which are not known by other players. These stakeholders also refer to themselves as a type of watchdog within the industry, as one of the union participants has reflected:

are the stakeholder group directly affected by mining activities. From this perspective, communities clearly express that its only means of contributing to CSR is through the demand of solutions to social and environmental issues associated with mining. In this sense, some interviewees recognise that putting pressure on companies by stating their requirements and submitting petitions has resulted in companies taking actions to improve operations in order to become more socially responsible. As a community representative states:

We can call for an internal supervision. Supervising the facilities, supervision in all aspects where the company requires an internal control to make sure that all systems work efficiently.

Counselling Due to the perceived role of some stakeholders by society, some are seen as active advisers in relation to CSR and mining practices. In this way, governmental stakeholders clearly identify themselves as the entities called upon to manage regulation, control and transparency. This allows them to obtain accurate knowledge and to advise companies (as well as other stakeholders) on how to engage and apply responsible practices in order to promote CSR. In this sense, a government manager states:

Participating, demanding, because we approach them with requests. We go there [companies] with requirements and that's a good way to participate and to ask them to be responsible. Communication Amongst some stakeholders there is the notion that communicating and informing company activities as well as mining externalities is the best way for them to impact CSR. In the case of NGOs, they communicate what companies do and also deploy whistleblowing about questionable practices. In this way, NGOs perceive that reporting and communicating company activities may activate the social demand required to pressure companies to embrace CSR. Media identify themselves as social communicators in regards of CSR practices. They are able to highlight commitments and compliance with social and environmental responsibilities. As a media director reflected,

We could be a link channel to reach companies, to be able to establish a joint diagnosis and to study communities in terms of how we can give them certain solutions. Similarly, NGO representatives see themselves as contributors to CSR by advising communities and companies on how to engage and communicate with communities as well as on how to align company objectives with community perspectives and needs. In the words of an NGO director, I feel we carry out a role of a mediator organism between communities and companies…to guide them both. I mean, to advise the company telling them: you know this is a very nice photo but you’re not giving anything sustainable. So, let's reconsider your plan and let's really listen to the community.

We contribute to the development of the region whether communicating in the form of criticism or investigative reports. I do believe the media always have had that spirit; the media always have had a socially responsible work. Control

Engagement There is recognition amongst some stakeholders that controlling companies’ practices is the best way they can contribute to companies being truly committed to CSR. This view is shared by unions, government and NGOs representatives. Control from an external perspective is seen in terms of norms, standards and legislation in the case of government managers as well as NGOs. This is expressed by

Some stakeholders, particularly unions, government and NGOs, highlight one aspect of their roles as a link between communities and companies. These stakeholders look for collaboration and participation between the communities and the companies, and attempt to act as a liaison, linking various stakeholders with companies through joint 5

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

Table 2 (continued)

Table 2 Stakeholders mechanisms and involvement in CSR | Exemplary quotations.

Mechanism

Communities

Unions

Government

NGOs

Mechanism

Involvement

Demand “we have to act and demand. Demanding the commitments. The problem is we haven't done it, we haven't demanded. I think now we are more informed with the agreement 169, now we are well informed and we have done seminars and we are not so ignorant now” Control “Making audits, always, everywhere. Oversee that regional bodies, agencies do the corresponding audits in terms of health and environment” Engagement “We’re very committed to the city because we’re always contributing…Our mission has always been to help the community in every possible way”

Passive “I think we have so much further to go. Because sometimes things happen and then we react, and then tend to act, to do something about it. We are, as someone can say…a little bit slow in our actions”.

Counselling “If they [companies] are going to be in charge in terms of CSR, then they should be talking to us. I mean, we should always work together, in the sense that we have many professionals who have something to say, something to contribute or to recommend in terms of where and how companies should address social concerns” Control “We contribute to control that companies fulfil that role [socially responsible], facilitating the process but not making the norms more flexible. I think that in the future, if companies are not able on their own to generate externalities, we should be able to create the necessary policies and regulations so companies can do so” Engagement “What we look for is a way to get [companies] involved in terms of community participation at the beginning of every project. There are very few companies that answer to that or there are very few companies that come to us in order to present their projects that way” Mechanism Counselling “By being honest with them [companies]. As I said before, we have had fights [with companies] in order to tell them to stop doing charity, to start doing something that is sustainable, to have standards to check each project using a

base line” Control “we have only dedicated to denounce in a serious way, with photos, with videos, with studies we have previously done”

Passive “We are aware that we have a major role in this task [CSR], a major role on the basis that we have the economic potential to do some works, research studies, to acquire knowledge to go to debate and engage with others. Then, we should be leaders, but that is what we have not taken advantage of, we haven’t led in this sense. We should be leaders on these issues, and we, mine workers, have been very passive in these regards” Active “We always ask to be part of [projects], to get involved and informed about what has been done or will be done. This is in order to say what we do agree or disagree, to see what are the effects, to diagnose, to advise and to give approval”

“We are more executive; we try to execute and make things real. We try to anticipate any event or issue and try to do what we can, according to the things we can control at the time”

Media

“In our case we make partnerships, links, agreements, whatever you want to call them, and in those agreements highlight the existing shortcomings in some projects or areas”

Communication “Deep down what we have to do is to activate the social demand. That is, to give the necessary arguments in order to have a social demand…What we do is to distribute knowledge about issues into the society, in order to make the whole society, politicians and everybody else, understand that this [pollution] is an issue that affects not only one person but the entire society” Engagement “[We have] direct connection with the community and companies. That is as a coordinating body. I would say that social connectivity is a strategic priority for the community to know what is really going on, because there is no association and participation of all stakeholders and all sectors” Communication “What we can communicate about companies is going to be helpful because, as we were commenting recently, we are the link with the community. If people don’t know these themes through the media, it will be difficult for them to know about this from other means. So as long as we can inform about some of the activities that companies are organising, it's going to be beneficial, not only for the companies but also for the community. They are going to be able to know what each company is doing”

Involvement

“We know that mining won’t last forever. Therefore, our support and development cannot be based on something that is bread for today and hunger for tomorrow. Then, we must have a vision to go further and we are working on it in that sense. We present plans, we work on projects, we are trying to strengthen other sectors” Passive “[Interactions] It's something that we take so superficially. We do not care to have resources for that, or plans to set discussions, roundtables, meetings. It's something that goes well at the time, nothing more. It's just improvised and spontaneous but not planned”

“Look, sometimes we have been called when [mining] projects are already affecting the community. So it has been a reactive response, a reactive participation to those projects”

Active “Generally we are proactive. We try to find some news, some information, etc. In fact, several news topics have been proposed and exposed here, we have talked about them before they are properly treated, and then, they have derived in different areas, economic, social or cultural, politics”

projects and planning activities. As the director of an NGO points out: We are able to listen to the company and the community in order to try to generate agreements between them. It's a bit about translating speeches, messages [between both sides] and to generate something from there, something positive.

Involvement Active “There is a multidisciplinary team that all the time is generating initiatives, trying to go further. Many times we have to try to break some paradigms, try to have a long-term vision, more macro”. (continued on next page)

In this way, they can relay the concerns of local communities to the companies and vice-versa and try and involve different players in order to discuss, debate and find common ground about the impact of the mining activities. This is highlighted by a government manager as: Our main role or contribution here is…the strengthening of citizen 6

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

actions, behaving as merely receptors without participation. Communities are not stakeholders that tend to seek alternative mechanisms in order to collaborate with other stakeholder groups or engage with mining companies. Furthermore, despite that a community perspective is relevant in the CSR debate (Brueckner and Mamun, 2010; Kemp, 2010a), communities in this study are not contributing in a variety of alternative ways. On the contrary, this stakeholder group approaches CSR solely from a demanding perspective, a perspective that provides a more limited contribution within the stakeholder map. This demanding role does not help to influence the CSR debate nor establish a set of expectations about an accountable company. This represents a missed opportunity, particularly in the case of a primary stakeholder (Clarkson, 1995), and the one, perhaps, with the greatest degree of salience in relation to mining (Kapelus, 2002). The findings also identify communication as another mechanism used by NGOs and media stakeholders as a way to promote and subscribe to CSR. Within the mining industry, these stakeholder groups perceive that driving a responsible behaviour requires them to act as a channel of communication to inform other stakeholders about a company's practices or to report negative effects of mining operations. In these situations, communication is used as a mechanism to pressure and drive CSR. Accordingly, the media might trigger other stakeholders’ attention towards companies in order for them to apply pressure for social and responsible behaviour (Campbell and Slack, 2006). This is especially emphasised in the case of multinational companies who tend to have good visibility in the media, as pointed out by Capriotti (2009). In this regard, mining companies are constantly criticised (Macintyre et al., 2008) and are more likely to be the subject of social scrutiny as they will be judged based on the content of media reports (Wang, 2007). Similarly, NGOs have recognised that communication plays a relevant role in influencing CSR. NGOs act as a link with other stakeholders to report and inform about companies’ activities, and therefore, collaborating in achieving social and environmental goals as described by Peloza and Falkenberg (2009). NGOs in Chile, especially in the mining sector, perceive that they are best placed to assume broader roles in order to drive companies towards responsible behaviour. This perception, of going further than merely setting and monitoring standards as considered by Vogel (2005), gives these stakeholders the role of being a valid channel to inform and alert; not only companies about their performance, but also critical issues affecting society in general. Stakeholders using communication as a mechanism to influence and promote CSR, however, are also the subject of scrutiny in terms of accountability and impartiality. Media and NGOs have an “open flank” when they are criticised for their blurry and double role. On one hand, they use this mechanism as a channel for companies promoting their CSR practices and, on the other hand, they use this mechanism as a proactive watchdog in a social manner. Either way, the media as a business, depend on advertising, and mining companies are frequent advertisers. Similarly, some NGOs work with or for companies and also depend on a budget associated with and funded by mining projects. In this sense, Baur and Schmitz (2012) highlights the relevance of being autonomous and not co-opted as a sign of legitimacy and credibility. Therefore, this gives rise to questions. For example, to what extent do these stakeholders use this mechanism and still be an impartial watchdog if they receive advertising revenue or project funding from mining companies? The government and NGOs are also able to influence by advising companies regarding their processes and impacts. In this sense, the government as stakeholder actively contributes to CSR, especially in cases of mediation and planning, between communities and companies, encouraging to act responsibly taking into account social and environmental impacts on nearby communities. Through this way, government agencies working with other stakeholder groups, as discussed by Thompson and Driver (2005), are able to foster and promote the agenda in terms of CSR. Expert and professional opinions

participation. Let's say a kind of mission and almost a must to do in terms of contributing to the community development.

Stakeholder involvement In evaluating the different mechanisms that were identified by stakeholder groups, the results identify the level of involvement of each stakeholder group with each mechanism identified. The government and the media are identified as being active participants with the mechanisms previously mentioned. These two groups highlight the relevance of active participation by stakeholders in order to achieve changes and improvement on social and environmental issues, which is mentioned by one of the government managers as: We are currently working with some mining companies in projects of human capital development … things like education, citizen security and participation, quality of life, etc. And strongly exemplified by one NGO director in relation to the level of involvement in meetings with companies: I’d better not mention about the fights we’ve had. Telling them [to companies]: stop doing charity and start doing something that is sustainable, and have standards to check each project in this sense. You need to know your community…where they fit in your different projects. Conversely, despite the mechanisms that are utilised by communities and unions, the impact of these mechanisms on company behaviour is diminished by the more passive level of involvement adopted by these stakeholders. Communities recognise that their low or passive participation in CSR, even though they are perceived as a demanding stakeholder, results in not fully influencing company practices. This is stated by a community representative as: We want to participate more…but our people are very shy. We have to open ourselves more and approach them [companies]. Similarly, despite unions wielding significant power in the mining industry, a passive participation is contrary to the mechanisms by which they may influence CSR as recognised by a union president: Today we are being reactive to what's coming up. But we are clear in the sense that we have to be mmm…we can be active and not reactive. We need to be more proactive. A case that presents both active and passive participation is that of NGOs. This group is actively involved in CSR, but only in relation to the mechanisms of controlling and counselling. For communicating and engaging, NGOs demonstrate a degree of passiveness which tends to hamper its potential as an influential stakeholder in the mining industry. 7. Discussion 7.1. From single to multiple mechanisms The first mechanism, which is identified by communities only, refers to a narrow participation in CSR through the use of social demands. Thus, communities see themselves primarily as demanding entities, requiring responsible actions from companies and governments. They perceive themselves as claimants who demand companies’ contribution to the community's social development as well as accountability. Although claims directed at governmental stakeholders help to promote the CSR agenda by articulating stakeholders’ interests (Thompson and Driver, 2005), this view does not demonstrate an active involvement by communities. On the contrary, despite the fact that this group acknowledges this mechanism as the only way to influence CSR, they also recognise a certain passiveness in their 7

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

same time act as advisers, providing counselling to different parties. This group also participates in examining mining companies in terms of a proper operation according to legal norms and standards. This broad spectrum, in terms of their activities and contributions, however, shows traces of contradictions that might test the legitimacy of these groups as stakeholders. Due to their use of such a wide range of mechanisms, they are criticised, not only by other stakeholders, but by themselves as ambivalent players (Arenas et al., 2009). Thus, as stakeholders, NGOs may play a role as a watchdog in order to control mining activities but at the same time as counsellors on some CSR issues. This results in suspicions and questions about the extent to which they participate as unbiased entities.

such as research centres and NGOs are also a valuable resource for stakeholder groups and companies (Baur and Schmitz, 2012), and thus, counselling as a mechanism is considered another option to influence CSR. As an advisory partner, NGOs as well as regulatory bodies tend to influence CSR based on partnerships (Kourula, 2010). These two groups have first-hand information regarding community issues, land rights and disputes, impacts on landscape and water conflicts, etc. Furthermore, in order to anticipate and avoid conflicts with stakeholders, companies tend to engage and hire researchers, former NGOs and government representatives as employees or consultants (Mirvis, 2000). This counselling approach seems to work for these groups in terms of more productive outcomes. This is interesting since it moves away from other confrontational mechanisms and strategies such as the dynamic conflict-cooperation used by some NGOs described by Valor and Merino de Diego (2009). Among the mechanisms identified by unions, government and NGOs, control and engagement are considered as the most useful means. Union interviewees predominately described themselves as internal controllers as their contribution to CSR. Their commitment to succeeding to have a company acting responsibly starts with accountability processes as a means of controlling a company's transparency. This mechanism is in line with the arguments of Simon et al. (2005) in terms of participation of workers as auditors, as a key aspect in influencing CSR practices. A union's engagement, however, is mainly seen as an economic contribution to local programs or specific community activities; not as a strong long term commitment or participation with other legitimate social actors. This results in isolated actions with a low CSR impact. The findings also indicate that governmental bodies are perceived as being able to control, and at the same time, are capable of engaging mining companies and other stakeholders. This is in order to ensure that mining practices comply with lawful and regulatory industry requirements. This mechanism is performed through the constant monitoring of companies and their CSR activities. By doing this, the government is able to mediate corporate behaviour in the sector through regulation, monitoring and institutionalised norms (Mzembe and Meaton, 2014) as well as by a dialogue to engage companies in a CSR philosophy, as stated by Campbell (2007). This mechanism suits the government's role in overseeing company practices, especially in the mining industry, because companies tend to align their CSR practices to government's expectations, as found by Yakovleva and Vazquez-Brust (2012). These results also find support from Dobers and Halme (2009) who highlighted the government's duty as an active controller in mining in order to drive CSR, particularly in developing countries. Thus, the government can play a key role due to its consciousness and awareness of mining impacts, portraying it as a salient stakeholder. In addition, the government has primary responsibility for regulation, control and providing incentives to attract and secure investments and development in the industry. Accordingly, the involvement of the government as a stakeholder is especially relevant when mining activities have a tremendous impact in the country. These notions are in line with Lambert's (2009) arguments in terms of the government being responsible for providing settings to secure accountability in social and environmental issues. Furthermore, a high level of commitment and regulation of mining practices can improve the legitimacy of the government when facing increasing public scrutiny within this industry (Kapelus, 2002). Finally, NGOs also recognise control and engagement as mechanisms to influence CSR. NGOs are usually identified by their strategic relevance and influence on companies through these mechanisms (Schepers, 2006; Van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2010). The diverse range of mechanisms employed by NGOs, however, also gives rise to some criticisms. This group has broadened the mechanisms that promote CSR as more than the control actions described by Dobers and Halme (2009). They are able to communicate and engage other stakeholders in CSR activities (Peloza and Falkenberg, 2009) and at the

7.2. Does stakeholder involvement matter? In addition to having an influence on CSR, the fact that stakeholders have an interest in, and actually participate in these mechanisms, plays a considerable role. Through their active participation in standing up on different matters, stakeholders can make particular CSR issues more visible for companies and to other stakeholders, thereby getting their attention. However, despite these mechanisms being relevant and playing an important role, the level of participation or involvement by each stakeholder with each mechanism varies from active to passive involvement. For example, NGOs participation shifts from passive to active involvement depending on the mechanisms being considered. Among the mechanisms adopted by NGOs, communication and engagement demonstrate a lack of active participation. The lack of good channels of communication, as well as adequate processes for engagement, means that the impact that NGOs might exert is diminished because of its absence of connection with other participants. Despite the fact that NGOs have these mechanisms at their disposal, their efforts will have a low impact or perceived as unproductive when NGOs remain as passive participants. This is a missed opportunity on the part of the NGOs to involve others in examining and discussing aspects of and issues around CSR. Thus, while these mechanisms are relevant, their impact upon companies and other stakeholders is hampered. Active communication and engagement can strengthen the degree of influence that an NGO might wield. As well, they complement and even enable a synergy to develop with other mechanisms that are used by those NGOs that adopt an active position. By way of example, using communication, a stakeholder is able to inform other stakeholders about particular issues or concerns regarding a company's failure to meet particular commitments or standards. This may also have an impact in the way the control is exerted. Consequently, good channels of communication can enhance the control process while at the same time, allowing for an exchange of views and ideas involving other participants. A passive involvement also has an impact in influence, particularly for stakeholders with limited resources. For instance, as stakeholders, communities are limited to the single mechanism of demand as a means of influencing CSR. Even though companies might respond to the demands made by a community in order to maintain or improve relations (Delmas and Toffel, 2004), a community's lack of active participation diminishes the single mechanism available to this group to become an influential and relevant player. In this sense, Lostarnau et al. (2011) show evidence regarding issues and lack of community participation in relation to environmental management systems in Chile. Thus, Lostarnau et al. highlight a low or weak community involvement and linking this scenario to low levels of education or knowledge in affected communities. Passive stakeholders struggle to set their claims and their desired outcomes in terms of CSR, even when they have a number of different mechanisms available to them. For example, unions identify mechanisms such as control and engagement. However, despite having such mechanisms available to them, the passive nature of union actions diminishes their potential to contribute in driving companies to 8

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

they remain as passively involved within the industry. There is no doubt amongst stakeholders of the impacts of mining activities on communities. Even more, from a managerial perspective, it is clearly stated in the literature that relations with communities are key (Jenkins, 2004) in the sense that managers ‘believe that community involvement is a business imperative’ (Altman, 1998, p. 222). According to Humphreys (2000), communities have been gaining recognition amongst other stakeholders and have become a key player for mining companies, particularly from a strategic point of view. In this study, however, communities remain in a passive state that diminishes their level of influence and participation in CSR. The findings suggest that communities may broaden and adhere to other forms of participation. They could be part of the engagement process in conjunction with other stakeholders such as unions, government and NGOs. In this way, communities will have the opportunity to take part in CSR and interact with other stakeholders. Therefore, priority should be given to incentivise and enhance community participation through other mechanisms such as communication and engagement in order to promote linkages with other stakeholder groups. This can be done through strategic alliances with other stakeholders beyond the limits of traditional community organisations. A stronger nexus with NGOs, unions and government might potentially influence in policy processes at different stages, from formulation to implementation. In this sense, Mutti et al. (2012) have suggested partnerships in order to improve relationships with stakeholders. This in turn may give them the chance to be actively visible in the stakeholder network and in further actions concerning CSR activities. Even more, they could also participate and collaborate in communicating CSR jointly with other stakeholders such as the media, particularly through the use of technology available in social media, improving their interactions with other groups and companies (Du et al., 2010). An open and more proactive stakeholder approach can provide a way to inform and educate other groups in Chile, contributing to increase the levels of awareness and criticisms of CSR as found by Viveros (2016) regarding issues and concerns at stake (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). On the other hand, it was found that some stakeholders deploy several mechanisms, which eventually may compromise their reputation as a group with no defined role or pursuing ambiguous activities in the CSR field. Therefore, the use of several mechanisms or inappropriate ways of participation might also include potential risks such as lessening stakeholders’ legitimacy, unless it is based on a careful and well-reasoned selection of the mechanisms of participation. For example, NGOs appear as a stakeholder intervening by various means, from communication and counselling to control and engagement. Consequently, embracing multiple ways to participate in CSR raises concerns about transparency for being representing ‘both sides of the fence’, companies and stakeholders. This does not mean that multiple mechanisms represent a bad approach. It just has to be taken carefully, avoiding potential tensions that may surge due to activities seen as working on behalf of companies rather than impartial activities in the search for accountable practices.

exercise more responsible behaviour. In this sense, unions appear to be conscious of the benefits of CSR and the opportunities they have to influence corporate behaviour through acknowledged standards and guidelines (Waring, 2005). This is particularly relevant in terms of corporate image and the sensitivity by which labour issues push mining companies towards accountable actions. Participation, however, relates primarily to working conditions issues such as compensation, health and safety. This relegates their involvement in social or environmental causes to a second place, away from the public sphere. Consequently, despite being aware of CSR, unions tend to miss the chance to promote and influence deeper changes within the Chilean mining industry. In contrast, the results from government and media stakeholders indicate active participation in using the mechanisms previously addressed. This active participation indicates the progress made by the government as a driver of CSR in contrast to the findings made by Beckman et al. (2009), suggesting that the government, although playing a more active role in terms of CSR, was progressing slowly. Thus, as highlighted by Windsor (2009), a more active government as stakeholder is able to advocate and pressure companies to adopt CSR practices on a voluntary basis or through governmental regulations. Failure to meet governmental control and regulation may result in fines or in having permits and licences to operate denied (Kassinis and Vafeas, 2006). Similarly, the media's active involvement contributes to enhanced CSR consciousness as well as encouraging efforts from other stakeholders. This active participation drives other stakeholders to communicate and stimulate other players to be part of the CSR debate. In doing this, an active media may influence CSR by directly or indirectly changing stakeholder opinions and perceptions about companies and their practices. This is especially significant for companies because negative or positive coverage in media reports may be reflected in different aspects such as stock prices (Chan, 2003) or simply having public recognition for good companies or punishments for those less responsible (Lewis, 2001). Consequently, through an active involvement, the government and media may align with other groups in order to influence companies and achieve their goals, especially through mutual influence amongst stakeholders (Zietsma and Winn, 2008) and their respective mechanisms. Finally, it is also necessary to take into account that the nature of the involvement is also moderated by other variables such as availability, economic resources and willingness. An active involvement may be seen as time-consuming, which for some stakeholders might restrain their availability to take part in some activities. This means that stakeholder groups will require time and monetary resources to be part of meetings, travel to other towns, pay for environmental studies, etc. Therefore, the cost of being actively involved may deter stakeholder actions. Willingness to participate is also another aspect that could affect stakeholder involvement, especially when involvement in previous experiences or activities has not led to successful outcomes or productive impacts. This uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of stakeholder involvement, could install the idea that an active involvement does not work, as previous stakeholder actions have not been noticed or considered by companies. Active involvement may also be discouraged when some groups presume that other stakeholders will pressure companies on their behalf.

8. Conclusion This study reveals that stakeholder groups employ five mechanisms to impact CSR. The use of these mechanisms varies across stakeholder groups as it does stakeholder involvement. It was shown that stakeholders use these mechanisms from a dichotomised perspective, considering an active and passive involvement. Moreover, the degree to which multiple mechanisms will have a voice, participate in and influence CSR, depends on the level of involvement that stakeholders exert over these mechanisms. Thus, despite stakeholders having a set of mechanisms at their disposal, some stakeholders’ passiveness in their approaches causes them to have an invisible and less relevant participation than other more active stakeholder groups. It is the stakeholder's level of involvement or active participation that is even

7.3. A careful approach to the mechanisms considered to influence CSR Despite the varied mechanisms identified by stakeholders to make an impact on CSR, a careful approach to these mechanisms is necessary in terms of the dependency and utility of them in variety and involvement. For example, communities consider that their participation as a demanding stakeholder is the only way to pursue CSR. According to this narrow view, communities have missed chances and ways to take part of the CSR debate. To worsen the scenario, and despite transversal recognition by other groups as salient stakeholders, 9

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

Ali, S., O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2007. Introduction to the issue extractive industries, environmental performance and corporate social responsibility. Greener Manag. Int. 52, 5–16. Altman, B., 1998. Corporate community relations in the 1990s: a study in transformation. Bus. Soc. 37, 221–227. Arenas, D., Lozano, J., Albareda, L., 2009. The role of NGOs in CSR: mutual perceptions among stakeholder. J. Bus. Ethics 88, 175–197. Argenti, P., 2004. Collaborating with activists: how Starbucks works with NGO's. Calif. Manag. Rev. 47 (1), 91–116. Arnstein, A., 1969. A ladder of citizenship participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 26, 216–233. Banerjee, S., Bonnefous, A., 2011. Stakeholder management and sustainability strategies in the French nuclear industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 124–140. Barnett, M., 2014. Why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: a cognitive view. J. Manag. 40 (3), 676–702. Basu, K., Palazzo, G., 2008. Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33, 122–136. Baur, D., Schmitz, H., 2012. Corporations and NGOs: ehen accountability leads to cooptation. J. Bus. Ethics 106, 9–21. Beckman, T., Colwell, A., Cunningham, P., 2009. The emergence of corporate social responsibility in Chile: the importance of authenticity and social networks. J. Bus. Ethics 86 (2), 191–206. Bendell, J., Kearins, K., 2005. The political bottom line: the emerging dimension to corporate responsibility for sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 14, 372–383. Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S., 2004. Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif. Manag. Rev. 47 (1), 9–24. Bose-O’Reilly, S., Lettmeier, B., Matteucci, R., Beinhoff, C., Siebert, U., Drasch, G., 2008. Mercury as a serious health hazard for children in gold mining areas. Environ. Res. 107 (1), 89–97. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., Herremans, I., 2010. When suits meet roots: the antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. J. Bus. Ethics 95, 297–318. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101. Bremmers, H., Omta, O., Kemp, R., Haverkamp, D., 2007. Do stakeholder groups influence environmental management system development in the Dutch agri-food sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16 (3), 214–231. Bridge, G., 2004. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 205–259. Brueckner, M., Mamun, M., 2010. Living downwind from corporate social responsibility: a community perspective on corporate practice. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 19, 326–348. Burchell, J., Cook, J., 2006. It's good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 15, 154–170. Butterfield, K., Reed, R., Lemak, D., 2004. An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder's perspective. Bus. Soc. 43 (2), 162–195. Calvano, L., 2008. Multinational corporations and local communities: a critical analysis of conflict. J. Bus. Ethics 82 (4), 793–805. Campbell, D., Slack, R., 2006. Public visibility as a determinant of the rate of corporate charitable donations. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 15, 19–28. Campbell, J., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 946–967. Canel, E., Idemudia, U., North, L., 2010. Rethinking extractive industry: regulation, dispossession, and emerging claims. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 30, 5–25. Capriotti, P., 2009. Economic and social roles of companies in the mass media. Bus. Soc. 48, 225–242. Carmin, J., Balser, D., 2002. Selecting repertoires of action in environmental movement organizations. An interpretative approach. Organ. Environ. 15 (4), 365–388. Chan, W., 2003. Stock price reaction to news and no-news: drift and reversal after headlines. J. Financ. Econ. 70 (2), 223–260. Clarkson, M., 1994. A risk based model of stakeholder theory. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory, Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, April. Clarkson, M., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 92–117. Consejo Minero de Chile, 2016. Minería en cifras 2016. 〈www.consejominero.cl〉 Cordano, M., Frieze, I., Ellis, K., 2004. Entangled affiliations and attitudes: an analysis of the influences on environmental policy stakeholders' behavioural intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 49, 27–40. Cornwall, A., 2008. Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Dev. J. 43 (3), 269–283. Cottrill, M., 1990. Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace. J. Bus. Ethics (9), 723–729. Cowell, S., Wehrmeyer, W., Argust, P., Robertson, G., 1999. Sustainability and the primary extraction industries: theories and practice. Resour. Policy 25 (4), 277–286. Creswell, J., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Dashwood, H., 2014. Sustainable development and industry self-regulation. Developments in the global mining sector. Bus. Soc. 53 (4), 551–582. Dawkins, J., Lewis, S., 2003. CSR in stakeholder expectations: and their implication for company strategy. J. Bus. Ethics 44, 185–193. De Bakker, F., Den Hond, F., 2008. Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: a review essay. Bus. Soc. 47 (2), 8–20. Deegan, C., Blomquist, C., 2006. Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: an

more crucial in impacting corporate behaviour in terms of social responsibilities. In this sense, stakeholders that actively participate, even though with limited mechanisms, might have a deeper and broader influence than stakeholders adopting several mechanisms but lacking active involvement. More passive stakeholders remain mere spectators in the stakeholder map. This narrows their contribution and capacity to influence the CSR debate, diminishing their status to that of mere bystanders instead of enhancing their contribution and role. Effective mechanisms to participate in different areas of the CSR debate need proper levels of involvement. However, stakeholders in this study, despite their perceptions in these matters, need a more proactive approach in order to have a voice to prompt more assertive actions. As pointed out by Lostarnau et al. (2011), it is necessary to review the mechanisms and strategies to inform and encourage stakeholder participation by providing new and proper channels in order to promote real and effective involvement. Finally, this paper has contributed to the CSR discussion by addressing the mechanisms that stakeholders in the mining industry undertake in the search for more responsible corporate behaviour. While some of them have been previously identified in the literature, engagement and communication, for example, new insights have been identified. Therefore, through the lens of stakeholders, these groups can provide novel insights by considering what stakeholders have to say in terms of their means and actions. In this sense, stakeholders can provide relevant, accurate and first-hand information about the mechanisms used to participate and influence CSR. This paper presents certain limitations that are worth noting in order to provide possible avenues and suggestions for future studies. The first limitation relates to the geographical focus of this study. There are other mining countries and regions that can also add insights to the findings in this paper. Furthermore, comparisons between countries with different levels of development are also another opportunity for further investigation. Particularly because mining companies come from developed economies (North America or Australia) and most of these mining companies operate in the developing countries of Latin America, Asia and Africa. Consequently, this sector represents a greater degree of complexity in respect of CSR. A developed country philosophy will not necessarily match a developing country's reality. Different levels of development in terms of economic, institutional and legal frameworks will create different CSR drivers. A second limitation relates to the participants in terms of the stakeholder groups considered. For future research, other stakeholder groups such as employees and managers should be included in order to assess their perceptions of the mechanisms and participation in particular cases such as environmental crisis. Further, a managerial point of view would be interesting, particularly from CSR or sustainability managers. Finally, these findings can be taken as a baseline to investigate specific CSR initiatives following a quantitative methodology. For example, the level of involvement in social programs or the mechanisms used in environmental crisis and its levels of impact. Acknowledgement I would like to thank to the anonymous reviewers and editor of the journal for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper. References Aguero, F., 2004. Globalization, business, and politics: promoting corporate social responsibility in Latin America, In: Proceedings of the paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal Quebec, Canada, March 17th, 2004. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., Ganapathi, J., 2007. Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 836–863.

10

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

supply. Nat. Resour. Forum 25, 275–284. Laplume, A., Sonpar, K., Litz, R., 2008. Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J. Manag. 34 (6), 1152–1189. Lawrence, A., 2002. The drivers of stakeholder engagement: reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. J. Corp. Citizsh. (6), 71–85. Lee, M., 2011. Configuration of external influences: the combined effects of Institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. J. Bus. Ethics 102, 281–298. Lewis, S., 2001. Measuring corporate reputation. Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 6 (1), (31-5). Lin, P., Li, B., Bu, D., 2015. The relationship between corporate governance and community engagement: evidence from the Australian mining companies. Resour. Policy 43, 28–39. Lockett, A., Moon, J., Visser, W., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influences. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (1), 115–136. Lostarnau, C., Oyarzún, J., Maturana, H., Soto, G., Señoret, M., Soto, M., Rötting, T., Amezaga, J., Oyarzún, R., 2011. Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: major gaps between theory and practiceJ. Environ. Manag. 92, 2470–2478. Macintyre, M., Mee, W., Solomon, F., 2008. Evaluating social performance in the context of an ‘audit culture’: a pilot social review of a gold mine in Papua New Guinea. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (2), 100–110. Magness, V., 2008. Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. J. Bus. Ethics 83, 177–192. Maxwell, P., 2004. Chile's recent copper-driven prosperity: does it provide lessons for other mineral rich developing nations? Miner. Energy 19 (1), 16–31. Mays, N., Pope, C., 2000. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality on Qualitative research. Br. Med. J. 320, 50–52. Miles, M., Huberman, M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Minichiello, V., 1995. In-depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, analysis, Melbourne, Australia. Mirvis, P., 2000. Transformation at shell: commerce and citizenship. Bus. Soc. Rev. 105 (1), 63–84. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., Wood, D., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886. Moffat, K., Zhang, A., 2014. The paths to social license to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour. Policy 39, 61–70. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Bus. Ethics.: A Eur. Rev. 15, 323–338. Mutti, D., Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust, D., Di Marco, M., 2012. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: perspectives from stakeholder groups in Argentina. Resour. Policy 37 (2), 212–222. Mzembe, A., Meaton, J., 2014. Driving corporate social responsibility in the Malawian mining industry: a stakeholder perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 21 (4), 189–201. Neville, B., Menguc, B., 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. J. Bus. Ethics 66, 377–391. O’Connell, L., Stephens, C., Betz, M., Shepard, J., Hendry, J., 2005. An organizational field approach to corporate rationality: the role of stakeholder activism. Bus. Ethics Q. 15 (1), 93–111. OECD, 2016. Chile. OECD Economic Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris, 16(1) Onkila, T., 2011. Multiple forms of stakeholder interaction in environmental management: business arguments regarding differences in stakeholder relationships. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 379–393. Owen, J., Kemp, D., 2013. Social license and mining: a critical perspective. Resour. Policy 38, 29–35. Patton, M., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Peloza, J., Falkenberg, L., 2009. The role of collaboration in achieving corporate social responsibility objectives. Calif. Manag. Rev. 51, 95–113. Plaza-Ubeda, J., Burgos-Jimenez, J., Carmona-Moreno, E., 2010. Measuring stakeholder integration: knowledge, interaction and adaptational behaviour dimensions. J. Bus. Ethics 93, 419–442. Polonsky, M., Ottman, J., 1998. Exploratory examination of whether marketers include stakeholders in the green new product development process. J. Clean. Prod. 6, 269–275. Prebble, J., 2005. Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Bus. Soc. Rev. 110 (4), 407–431. Reid, E., Toffel, M., 2009. Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strateg. Manag. J. 30 (11), 1157–1178. Rowley, T., 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 887–910. Rowley, T., Berman, S., 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Bus. Soc. 39 (4), 397–418. Rowley, T., Moldoveanu, M., 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (2), 204–219. Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragon-Correa, A., Sharma, S., 2008. The influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: the moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. Br. J. Manag. 19 (2), 185–203. Rwabizambuga, A., 2007. Negotiating corporate social responsibility policies and practices in developing countries: an examination of the experiences from the Nigerian oil sector. Bus. Soc. Rev. 112 (3), 407–430.

exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Account. Organ. Soc. 31 (4–5), 343–372. Delmas, M., Toffel, M., 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 13, 209–222. Den Hond, F., De Bakker, F., 2007. Ideologically motivated activism: how activist groups influence corporate social change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 901–924. Dobele, A., Westberg, K., Steel, M., Flowers, K., 2014. An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: a case study in the Australian mining industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 23 (3), 145–159. Dobers, P., Halme, M., 2009. Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 16, 237–249. Donaldson, T., Preston, L., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 65–91. Dorian, J., Humphreys, H., 1994. Economic impacts of mining. A changing role in the transitional economies. Nat. Resour. Forum 18 (1), 17–29. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S., 2010. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12 (1), 8–19. Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 11 (2), 130–141. Eesley, C., Lenox, M., 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strateg. Manag. J. 27, 765–781. Freeman, R., 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach. Pittman, Boston, MA. Frooman, J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2), 191–205. Frooman, J., Murrell, A.J., 2005. Stakeholder influence strategies: the roles of structural and demographic determinants. Bus. Soc. 44 (1), 3–31. Goodpaster, K., 1991. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Bus. Ethics Q. 1, 53–73. Goodstein, J., Wicks, A., 2007. Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: making business ethics a two-way conversation. Bus. Ethics Q. 17, 375–398. Green, A., Hunton-Clarke, L., 2003. A typology of stakeholder participation for company environmental decision-making. Bus. Strategy Environ. 12 (5), 292–299. Griffin, J., Mahon, J., 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Twenty five years of incomparable research. Bus. Soc. 36 (1), 5–31. Grimble, R., Wellard, K., 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 55 (2), 173–193. Gunningham, N., 2008. Occupational health and safety, worker participation and the mining industry in a changing world of work. Econ. Ind. Democr. 29 (3), 336–361. Harris, N., 2007. Corporate engagement in processes for planetary sustainability: understanding corporate capacity in the non-renewable resource extractive sector, Australia. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16 (8), 538–553. Harrison, J., Freeman, R., 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 42 (5), 479–485. Hendry, J., 2005. Stakeholder influence strategies: an empirical examination. J. Bus. Ethics 61, 79–99. Hendry, J., 2006. Taking aim at business: what factors lead environmental nongovernmental organizations to target particular firms? Bus. Soc. 45, 47–86. Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1999. The relationship between environmental and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad. Manag. J. 42 (1), 87–99. Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry: clarifying the corporate perspective. Resour. Policy 26, 227–238. Hilson, G., Hilson, C., Pardie, S., 2007. Improving awareness of mercury pollution in small-scale gold mining communities: challenges and ways forward in rural Ghana. Environ. Res. 103 (2), 275–287. Hintjens, H., 2000. Environmental direct action in Australia: the case of Jabiluka Mine. Community Dev. J. 35, 377–390. Humphreys, D., 2000. A business perspective on community relations in mining. Resour. Policy 26, 127–131. Hutchins, M., Walck, C., Sterk, D., Campbell, G., 2007. Corporate social responsibility. A unifying discourse for the mining industry? Greener Manag. Int. 52, 17–30. Jackson, T., Green, K., 2015. Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2015. Fraser Institute. 〈www.fraserinstitute.org〉. Jenkins, H., 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: conflicts and constructs. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 11 (1), 23–34. Kapelus, P., 2002. Mining, corporate social responsibility and the "community": the case of Rio Tinto, Richards Bay Minerals and the Mbonambi. J. Bus. Ethics 39 (3), 275–296. Kassinis, G., Vafeas, N., 2006. Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 145–159. Kemp, D., 2010a. Community relations in the global mining industry: exploring the internal dimensions of externally orientated work. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (1), 1–14. Kemp, D., 2010b. Mining and community development: problems and possibilities of local-level practice. Community Dev. J. 45 (2), 198–218. Kepore, K., Imbun, B., 2011. Mining and stakeholder engagement discourse in a Papua New Guinea mine. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 18 (4), 220–233. King, B., 2008. A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Adm. Sci. Q. 53 (3), 395–421. Kochan, T., Rubenstein, S., 2000. Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: the Saturn partnership. Organ. Sci. 11 (4), 367–386. Kourula, A., 2010. Corporate engagement with non-governmental organizations in different institutional contexts – a case study of a forest products company. J. World Bus. 45, 395–404. Lambert, I., 2009. Mining and sustainable development: considerations for minerals

11

Resources Policy 51 (2017) 1–12

H. Viveros

social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 23 (1), 50–64. Vogel, D., 2005. Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. Calif. Manag. Rev. 47, 19–45. Vos, J., 2003. Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 10, 141–152. Vos, J., Achterkamp, M., 2006. Stakeholder identification in innovation projects: going beyond classification. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 9 (2), 161–178. Wallack, L., 2008. Media advocacy: a strategy for empowering people and communities. In: Minkler, M. (Ed.), Community Organizing and Community Building for Health2nd ed.. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 419–432. Wandersman, A., 1981. A framework of participation in community organisations. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 17, 27–58. Wang, A., 2007. Priming, framing, and position on corporate social responsibility. J. Public Relat. Res. 19 (2), 123–145. Warhurst, A., 2001. Corporate citizenship and corporate social investment. Drivers of trisector partnerships. J. Corp. Citizsh. 1, 57–73. Waring, P., 2005. The Global Compact and socially responsible investment: opportunities for unions? Int. Employ. Relat. Rev. 11 (1–2), 119–135. Welcomer, S., 2002. Firm-stakeholder networks. Bus. Soc. 41 (2), 251–257. Windsor, D., 2009. Tightening corporate governance. J. Int. Manag. 15, 306–316. Wolfe, R., Putler, D., 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organ. Sci. 13 (1), 64–80. Wood, D., 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16, 691–718. Yakovleva, N., 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining industries. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, Hampshire and Burlington, USA. Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust, D., 2012. Stakeholder perspectives on CSR of mining MNCs in Argentina. J. Bus. Ethics 106, 191–211. Zietsma, C., Winn, M., 2008. Building chains and directing flows. Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Bus. Soc. 47 (1), 68–101.

Sagebien, J., Lindsay, N., Campbell, P., Cameron, R., Smith, N., 2008. The corporate social responsibility of Canadian mining companies in Latin America: a systems perspective. Can. Foreign Policy J. 14 (3), 103–128. Sarin, R., 2006. No dirty gold: consumer education and action for mining reform. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 305–306. Schepers, D., 2006. The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Bus. Soc. 45, 282–299. Simon, C., Martinez, J., Aguero, A., 2005. Solidarity day at union fenosa in Spain. Bus. Horiz. 48 (2), 161–168. Spiegel, S., Veiga, M., 2005. Building capacity in small-scale mining communities: health, ecosystem sustainability, and the Global Mercury Project. EcoHealth 2 (4), 361–369. Stanbury, W., 2000. Environmental groups and the international conflict over the forests of British Columbia, 1990 to 2000. SFU-UBC Centre for the Study of Government and Business. Starkey, K., Madan, P., 2001. Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. Br. J. Manag. 12, S3–S26. Steurer, R., 2006. Mapping stakeholder theory anew: from the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’ to three perspectives on business–society relations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (1), 55–69. Thompson, G., Driver, C., 2005. Stakeholder champions: how to internationalize the corporate social responsibility agenda. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 14, 56–66. Valor, C., Merino de Diego, A., 2009. Relationship of business and NGOs: an empirical analysis of strategies and mediators of their private relationship. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 18, 110–126. Van Huijstee, M., Glasbergen, P., 2010. NGOs moving business: an analysis of contrasting strategies. Bus. Soc. 49, 591–618. Veiga, M., Scoble, M., McAllister, M., 2001. Mining with communities. Nat. Resour. Forum 25, 191–202. Viveros, H., 2016. Examining stakeholders’ perceptions of mining impacts and corporate

12