Mining and social development: Refocusing community investment using multi-criteria decision analysis
This paper addresses the question: How can mining companies assess social investment projects so that projects create value for the company and communities in which they operate? Mining companies are still wrestling with the limits of their responsibility in relation to social development even though they accept the business case for community investment at a general level. Fully aware of the practical hazards involved in taking an active role in facilitating local development, companies increasingly avoid methods that are overly paternalistic or assume the functions of the national or local governments. Gaining senior management's commitment to long-term social projects, which are characterised by uncertainty and complexity, is made easier if projects are shown to benefit the site's strategic goals. Case study research on large global mining companies, including interviews with social investment decision makers, has assisted in developing a Social Investment Decision Analysis Tool (SIDAT), a decision model for evaluating social projects. Multi-criteria decision analysis techniques integrating business planning processes with social impact assessment have proved useful in assisting mining companies think beyond seeking reputational benefits, to how they can meet their business goals and contribute to sustainable development.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Humphreys, D., 2001. "Sustainable development: can the mining industry afford it?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-7, March.
- de Graaf, H. J. & Musters, C. J. M. & ter Keurs, W. J., 1996. "Sustainable development: looking for new strategies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, March.
- Warhurst, Alyson & Mitchell, Paul, 2000. "Corporate social responsibility and the case of Summitville mine," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 91-102, June.
- Hilson, Gavin & Murck, Barbara, 2000. "Sustainable development in the mining industry: clarifying the corporate perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 227-238, December.
- Humphreys, David, 2000. "A business perspective on community relations in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 127-131, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:33:y:2008:i:1:p:39-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.