Select Page

I have provided a sample wiki about palm oil. Based on this structure and write a similary wiki about “coal mining”. Notice that you ONLY need to do the Second Part, which is the Current Challenges part(There are 4 parts in total in the example, please take a look at it). Use the resources I provided and use APA format both for in-text and final references. If the resources are not enough for you, you can search more on your needs. And please and hyperlinks into the wiki. Thank you.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Environmental Aspects And Impacts Of Coal Mining Research Paper
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 23, 50–64 (2016)
Published online 21 July 2014 in Wiley Online Library
( DOI: 10.1002/csr.1363
Examining Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Mining
Impacts and Corporate Social Responsibility
Hector Viveros*
Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
This paper aims to provide a better understanding of multistakeholder perceptions of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) in connection with mining industry impacts. While there
is significant research about CSR, there is a lack of understanding in the area of specific stakeholders’ perceptions within the extractive industry, particularly in a developing country like
Chile. The findings reveal that stakeholders perceive mining impacts on social and environmental domains negatively in contrast to a positive perception about economic impacts. CSR is
addressed in terms of social and environmental responsibilities, but is also perceived
negatively as mere rhetoric, or simply as a marketing campaign. These perceptions reflect an
anti-trade-off sentiment, revealing that CSR cannot be used as a tool to compensate negative
mining impacts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Received 22 October 2013; revised 14 April 2014; accepted 24 April 2014
Keywords: corporate social responsibility; sustainable development; stakeholder engagement; stakeholder perceptions; mining; Chile
mestic product (GDP) from mining companies is immensely relevant and cannot be ignored. According to Dorian
and Humphreys (1994), the benefits of this industry and its effects have significant impacts and sometimes can define a country’s economic growth, and assume a special emphasis in developing countries. The relevance of CSR
within the mining industry takes on special significance, particularly since CSR is usually considered in terms of an economic contribution. It is CSR’s economic contribution that becomes its most noticeable social impact (Visser, 2008).
Despite this economic contribution, however, organised social groups and particular stakeholders discourage mining
because of its attendant negative impacts (Kapelus, 2002) and because the concept of CSR within the mining industry
is ambiguous. This is especially critical in developing economies that are rich with natural resources (Hilson, 2012).
According to Jenkins (2004, p.24), CSR within the mining industry ‘is about balancing the diverse demands of
communities and the imperative to protect the environment with the ever present need to make a profit’. Thus,
CSR is generally analysed in three domains – social, environmental, and economic – and they are also relevant factors
in corporate sustainability and sustainable development (Elkington, 1997; Steurer et al., 2005). This approach to CSR
is often associated with research into stakeholder relations (Clarkson, 1995; Snider et al., 2003; Dobele et al., 2014)
considering a broad range of stakeholder groups that will be affected by companies’ operations. It also addresses
additional corporate responsibilities beyond the traditional economic perspective (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Ambec
*Correspondence to: Hector Viveros, Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University, Eastern Road, North Ryde 2109, Sydney
NSW, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Mining and CSR
and Lanoie, 2008). These additional corporate responsibilities include social and environmental impacts. Thus, to
understand CSR, scholars must take into account participation across a range of active stakeholders (Orlitzky and
Benjamin, 2001) highlighting the necessity to uncover CSR understandings across different contexts and industries
(Cramer et al., 2004).
Of course, CSR is not the sole proactive way to measure or account for companies acting responsibly within a
society. In fact, according to Hamann and Kapelus (2004), CSR is understood to be more of a reactive response
to multiple stakeholders – communities, government, and NGOs to name a few – and these stakeholders’ criticisms
of mining’s impact on the community and the environment. Warnaars (2012) points out that CSR is also recognised
as a source of tension between companies and stakeholders. In some cases, this tension can intensify conflicts,
especially between communities and mining firms. This may be because mining companies do not practise CSR
as an integrated part of their operations, but only adopt the rhetorical aspects of CSR against the reality of their
practices (Slack, 2012) and stakeholder views. Thus, the aim of this study is to examine stakeholders’ perceptions
in the Chilean mining industry, particularly in relation to mining impacts and CSR. How stakeholder groups in
Chile perceive CSR and its impacts in relation to the mining industry has important implications. Stakeholder
perceptions are directly collected from the stakeholders’ judgements, which in turn provide lessons for how this
industry is viewed in this regard in the eyes of stakeholder groups. This paper begins with a brief review of literature
about CSR, stakeholders and the mining industry and is followed by a description of the method. The next section
provides findings with a final discussion and conclusions.
CSR and Stakeholders
The CSR literature offers several constructs for interpreting and applying CSR. Despite long-term debate by business
and management, however, differences of opinion exist over the definition and scope of CSR (De George, 2008).
Research has attempted to map the terrain (Garriga and Mele, 2004; Taneja et al., 2011) in order to establish and organise the studies and to derive a common concept that accounts for the different criteria and purposes (Windsor, 2006).
Generally, normative and instrumental perspectives are used to approach CSR (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994). This
normative view adopts the perspective of the ethical obligations businesses have to society, regulated by ‘doing the right
thing’. This normative approach has been criticised by some academics because of its overemphasis on the idealism of
business in society (Dentchev, 2009). An alternative view is the instrumental approach to CSR that adopts a neutral
consideration of ethics and, instead, highlights CSR’s role in improving profitability. This instrumental approach to
CSR should, according to Amaeshi and Adi (2007) be constructed using instrumental business language in order to
achieve credibility. The risk to stakeholders from the instrumental approach is, however, that companies might emphasise the status of being a responsible business rather than looking for social benefits (Gond et al., 2009).
To date, an understanding of CSR through stakeholder perceptions of it remains fertile terrain. Perhaps, the lack
of common definition or the different understandings of what CSR really encompasses (Karnani, 2011) leads to
diverse outcomes. Moreover, not only are there diverse definitions or understandings, but stakeholder groups
themselves vary as much as the expectations about CSR and the likely impacts by companies. As pointed out by
Calvano (2008), the gap in stakeholder perceptions is one of the elements that give rise to conflicts between companies and stakeholders. Wood and Jones (1995) identify three roles for stakeholders. First, stakeholders are the
source of expectations for a company’s performance. Secondly, they experience the effects of companies’ activities
and, thirdly, they evaluate companies’ outcomes in terms of stakeholder expectations; and the effects on them. Of
course, from a stakeholder perspective, CSR will be evaluated on the basis of how a company meets the stakeholder
demands and expectations (Ruf et al., 2001). Thus, stakeholders will perceive CSR according to the stakeholders’
own demands and interests (Fiedler and Kirchgeorg, 2007; Hillenbrand and Money, 2007).
Stakeholder perceptions of CSR might clarify roles stakeholders have on CSR (Hutchins et al., 2007). It is
necessary, however, to remember that ‘CSR can work, for some people, in some places, on some issues, some of the
time.’ Therefore, the various assumptions and conditions about CSR cannot be extrapolated into a unique construct
(Newell, 2005, p. 556). It is important to remember that, to gain a better understanding about specific CSR contexts
and experiences, it is necessary to recognise what stakeholders understand and distinguish about CSR. In many cases,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 23, 50–64 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/csr
H. Viveros
the diversity of stakeholders translates into a diversity of interests and objectives, as well as fundamental notions of CSR.
These interests sometimes converge or diverge into confronting scenarios involving social, environmental and
economic domains (Steurer et al., 2005). In such circumstances, stakeholder views on CSR are not only diverse across
groups, but sometimes even within the same group.
CSR and Mining: An Ongoing Tension
The mining industry has been identified as a sector in which social responsibilities as well as sustainability are
central issues in the debates that occur within responsible companies (Cowell et al., 1999; Macintyre et al.,
2008). Mining outputs and benefits have a significant effect and influence on economic growth. This is particularly
so in Latin American economies for which natural resources are one of the principal economic sectors and their impacts are particularly emphasised in developing economies (Dorian and Humphreys, 1994).
Mining activities, however, are also characterised by irreversible effects on landscape and potential long term
damage to the natural environment (Ali and O’Faircheallaigh, 2007). The most notorious impacts are not only on
the environment, but also on the social economy of the nation. There is a special interest in the effect of mining
operations on nearby communities (Harris, 2007; Kepore and Imbun, 2011) for which lifestyle and health conditions are among the problems that must be addressed continually (Sagebien et al., 2008). As a result, there is an
emerging debate among stakeholders who claim to be affected by mining (Kapelus, 2002), with the attendant
tensioning of relations between the mining companies and the stakeholders in this sector.
Within the mining context, CSR is usually addressed taking a triple bottom line approach, considering three dimensions: social, environmental and economic (Elkingon, 1997). Thus, this approach takes into account how mining companies may affect stakeholder groups in social (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002), environmental (Linnenluecke et al., 2007)
and economic aspects (Ambec and Lanoie, 2008). The approach to CSR in the mining industry context requires not
only a company perspective, but also a stakeholder perspective (Mzembe and Meaton, 2013) about the scope and meaning of CSR. This is particularly relevant because of the potential for conflict between a company’s and the stakeholders’
expectations as well as the divergences that will exist amongst stakeholders. As found by Eweje (2006), expectations
between companies and communities are not the same in relation to CSR. Whilst communities focus on sustainable
development, companies focus on demonstrating how responsibly they behave. Furthermore, according to Hsieh
(2009), companies operating in developing countries are expected to fulfil uppermost expectations. Thus, scholars have
called for more attention to comprehend company impacts considering stakeholder perceptions in order to address
their necessities and claims in a tailored way (Jenkins, 2004; Edoho, 2008; Kemp, 2010).
This paper takes a multistakeholder approach based on the analysis of data obtained from semi-structured interviews.
The fieldwork for this research was undertaken during three months in Chile in 2012. Participants were identified from
a literature review, documents related to the Chilean mining industry and purposive sampling to identify relevant
players (Miles and Huberman, 1984).
The interviewees were similarly recruited from two matched mining regions after stakeholder mapping that
identified and selected the following key stakeholder groups: community, government, unions, NGOs, and media.
First, meetings were arranged by telephone and face-to-face to discuss and inform potential participants about the
scope of the project and the interview. All participants were assured of anonymity, especially the community and
union representatives. This was done to ensure honest and direct answers based on experiences and perceptions.
Interviewees provided their written consent prior to proceeding with a tape-recorded interview.
The study consists of 51 participants undertaking a face-to-face, semi-structured interview. Of the 51 participants,
there were community representatives with indigenous and non-indigenous background (23), government managers (10), union presidents and representatives from the mining federation (5), directors of non-governmental
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 23, 50–64 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Mining and CSR
and non-for-profits organisations (9); and press directors (4). During the interview, participants were asked questions such as: What does the CSR concept mean to you? What kind of impact results from the mining industry?
What are the relevant aspects of this industry? What do you believe CSR means in the mining industry? What do
you think are the relevant aspects of CSR in the mining industry? How do mining companies act in a manner that
is socially responsible? These questions guided the topic and provided further discussion in a flexible and natural
conversation that allowed the researcher to introduce more questions when unforseen and interesting areas
emerged (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991).
The interviews were conducted in Spanish by the same researcher. On average, each interview took about one
hour. Only two interviews differed in the length of time with one taking two hours and the other taking about 45 minutes. The interviews were transcribed and translated into English. The data was analysed using thematic analysis to
identify concepts or themes within the gathered data (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun and Clarke, 2006) using NVIVO 9 software. This technique allows working with coded information to identify common themes and insights (Miles and
Huberman, 1984; Yin, 1994) as well as relationships between concepts amongst different stakeholder groups. Later,
in order to assure analytic closure (Miles and Huberman, 1994), coded material was reviewed and complemented
with notes taken during the interview process.
This section presents findings in two aspects. The first relates to the elements that stakeholders perceive as impacts
in terms of positive as well as negative effects by corporate activities. The second describes how stakeholders understand CSR within the mining industry. Findings are presented considering three dimensions: social, environmental
and economic.
Impacts of the Mining Industry
In the process of this research, participants identified mining impacts associated with three major themes – social,
environmental, and economic – as shown and summarised in Table 1. In the social domain, mining impacts were
addressed in respect of the following topics: cost of living, demographic growth, education, family, health and
indigenous issues. From a social perspective, mining impacts have been appraised mainly as negative effects across
stakeholder groups. The only exception is the perception concerned with impacts on education. In this sense, there
is a general perception amongst stakeholders that mining companies have impacted local areas positively, helping
communities and also the government by providing better quality education. However, some participants are critics
regarding this issue, in the sense that a positive contribution is merely self-help to their own advantage in order to
obtain and secure skilled people to work in their operations due to a shortage of qualified workers. It also worth
noting that there is no differences in perceptions between indigenous and non-indigenous communities.
With regard to the environmental domain, mining impacts are perceived by almost every stakeholder group highlighting the following topics: energy consumption, flora and fauna, pollution and water consumption. The intensity
of mining operations in stakeholder eyes was addressed as responsible for increasing environmental issues. Stakeholder criticisms arise against mining companies to point out the significant effects on the endangered flora and fauna
as well as the quality of air and water supplies. These impacts are also extended to effects on health in communities
located around mining sites produced by airborne particles and the mining process itself. Furthermore, major
complaints and concerns relate to water issues. In this sense, mining sites are located in deserted and remote areas
and water consumption is highly intensive in their operations. Thus, this activity has increased water scarcity amongst
communities, particularly in geographic areas where water is already an issue.
The main economic impacts that were identified were development, economic growth, local employment and
mining royalties. Stakeholder groups are aware of the industry’s positive impact on development and economic
growth. Across all the different stakeholder groups there was broad acknowledgment of mining’s contribution to
the national economy. The mining industry is identified as the main driver of economic development in the country.
However, despite the positive economic effects and dynamism provided by mining, some stakeholders criticise the
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 23, 50–64 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/csr
H. Viveros
Cost of living
Demographic growth

Energy consumption
Flora and fauna
Water consumption


Economic growth
Local employment
+/Tax and royalties
+/- ambiguous perception that could be positive or negative


Table 1. Stakeholder perceptions of mining impacts
fact that economic growth has not been shared with the affected communities. In particular, local employment did
not record a rise. Similarly, communities and governmental manager stakeholders identified neglect in respect to
royalties paid by mining companies. A perception of insufficient royalty rates in comparison to mining companies’
revenues persists amongst interviewees. Critics claim that companies in this regard have overlooked their responsibilities. To provide a better idea about these impacts, Table 2 presents exemplary quotations from the interviewees
about mining impacts in the three domains identified.
Different Understandings of CSR
Findings show that interviewees associate CSR with activities that are focused mainly on social and environmental responsibilities. Some stakeholder groups also address CSR as a corporate compensation for damage done to society as well
as to the environment. These responsibilities are also perceived as part of sustainable development, integrating the CSR
construct simply as sustainability. However, amongst stakeholders, CSR has also a negative connotati …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP