IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v52y2017icp245-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Lacey, Justine
  • Carr-Cornish, Simone
  • Zhang, Airong
  • Eglinton, Kelvyn
  • Moffat, Kieren

Abstract

Community relations are an integral part of successful and socially acceptable mining operations. Effective interactions between a mining company and a host community tend to foster mutual understanding and trust, leading to higher levels of acceptance of those operations. The Waihi gold mining operations in New Zealand, which consist of an open pit, several underground operations, a processing facility and waste storage facilities, are well known for their close proximity to their host community. In 2011, the company Newmont Waihi Gold announced a potentially controversial extension to their existing underground operations, which for the first time proposed to extend directly beneath homes in residential Waihi. At the time of this announcement, the company had made no consent application nor held permission to extend their operations. The announcement was the first stage in an extensive three year consultation period with the community to negotiate whether and how the extension might proceed. This paper provides a case study of community relations practice that draws on both quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine the drivers of community acceptance of this extension. This includes results of a survey of community members undertaken prior to the announcement of the proposed extension, which identifies why community members regarded the company as a positive member of their community, and how this contributed to their acceptance of the company. These findings are supported by a series of interviews with key stakeholders from both company and community that interrogate the community relations process and how the mine's extension was negotiated after the initial proposal was announced. Based on these findings, a number of initiatives that were jointly developed by the company, community and other stakeholders through a voluntary, facilitated negotiation process within the legal consenting regime are identified. It is also observed that these negotiations ultimately allowed this complex operation to proceed. Our findings highlight how community relations function in practice, how trust in the relationship between company and community is underpinned by procedural fairness in those interactions, and provide examples of how fair processes are negotiated in context.

Suggested Citation

  • Lacey, Justine & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Zhang, Airong & Eglinton, Kelvyn & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 245-254.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:52:y:2017:i:c:p:245-254
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142071630112X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemp, Deanna & Owen, John R., 2013. "Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 523-531.
    2. Nebel, Gustav & Quevedo, Lincoln & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Helles, Finn, 2005. "Development and economic significance of forest certification: the case of FSC in Bolivia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 175-186, February.
    3. MEI, Xingxing & FENG, Zhongchao & HE, Pinghua & GAO, Yawen & DAI, Yuqin, 2015. "Further Understanding of the Food Safety Problem," Asian Agricultural Research, USA-China Science and Culture Media Corporation, vol. 7(07), pages 1-4, July.
    4. Humphreys, David, 2000. "A business perspective on community relations in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 127-131, September.
    5. Guy Michaels, 2011. "The Long Term Consequences of Resource‐Based Specialisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(551), pages 31-57, March.
    6. Deanna Kemp & John Owen & Nora Gotzmann & Carol Bond, 2011. "Just Relations and Company–Community Conflict in Mining," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 93-109, June.
    7. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    8. Parsons, Richard & Lacey, Justine & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 83-90.
    9. Hilson, Gavin, 2012. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the extractive industries: Experiences from developing countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 131-137.
    10. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    11. Holley, Elizabeth A. & Mitcham, Carl, 2016. "The Pebble Mine Dialogue: A case study in public engagement and the social license to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-27.
    12. Deanna Kemp & Richard Boele & David Brereton, 2006. "Community relations management systems in the minerals industry: combining conventional and stakeholder-driven approaches," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(4), pages 390-403.
    13. Prno, Jason & Scott Slocombe, D., 2012. "Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 346-357.
    14. Joseph Fairchild & Jun Ma & Shu Wu, 2015. "Understanding Housing Market Volatility," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(7), pages 1309-1337, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prada-Trigo, José & Barra-Vieira, Pablo & Aravena-Solís, Natalia, 2021. "Long-distance commuting and real estate investment linked to mining: The case study of Concepción metropolitan area (Chile)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. França Pimenta, Adriano Augusto & Demajorovic, Jacques & Saraiva de Souza, Maria Tereza & de Carvalho Pedro, Samara & Pisano, Viviane, 2021. "Social licence to operate model: Critical factors of social acceptance of mining in the Brazilian Amazon," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    4. Heffron, Raphael J. & Downes, Lauren & Ramirez Rodriguez, Oscar M. & McCauley, Darren, 2021. "The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Marcellinus Essah, 2022. "Gold mining in Ghana and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring community perspectives on social and environmental injustices," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 127-138, February.
    6. Guanghui Hou & Tong Chen & Ke Ma & Zhiming Liao & Hongmei Xia & Tianzeng Yao, 2019. "Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Pablo Rodrigo & Ignacio J. Duran, 2021. "Why Does Context Really Matter? Understanding Companies’ Dialogue with Fringe Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-26, January.
    8. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    9. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    10. Siraprapa Panthong & Viriya Taecharungroj, 2021. "Which CSR Activities Are Preferred by Local Community Residents? Conjoint and Cluster Analyses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    11. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    12. Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leena Suopajärvi & Karin Beland Lindahl & Toni Eerola & Gregory Poelzer, 2023. "Social aspects of business risk in the mineral industry—political, reputational, and local acceptability risks facing mineral exploration and mining," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 321-331, June.
    2. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    3. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Amoako, Kwame Oduro & Lord, Beverley R. & Dixon, Keith, 2021. "Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: An old defence against a new threat?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Luke, Hanabeth, 2017. "Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: Proposing a diamond model of social license to operate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 266-280.
    7. Badera Jarosław, 2014. "Problems of the social non-acceptance of mining projects with particular emphasis on the European Union – a literature review," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 27-34, March.
    8. Holley, Elizabeth A. & Mitcham, Carl, 2016. "The Pebble Mine Dialogue: A case study in public engagement and the social license to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-27.
    9. Olsen, Brett C. & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Bumblauskas, Daniel, 2021. "Setting materiality thresholds for ESG disclosures: A case study of U. S. mine safety disclosures," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1816-1824, September.
    11. Fraser, Jocelyn & Kunz, Nadja C. & Batdorj, Bulgan, 2019. "Can mineral exploration projects create and share value with communities? A case study from Mongolia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    13. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    14. Daniel M. Shapiro & Carlos Vecino & Jing Li, 2018. "Exploring China’s state-led FDI model: Evidence from the extractive sectors in Latin America," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-37, March.
    15. Olivier Boiral & Iñaki Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Marie‐Christine Brotherton, 2023. "Sustainability management and social license to operate in the extractive industry: The cross‐cultural gap with Indigenous communities," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 125-137, February.
    16. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Louis, Winnifred & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Power, participation, and exclusion through dialogue in the extractive industries: Who gets a seat at the table?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 190-199.
    17. Frederiksen, Tomas, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility, risk and development in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 495-505.
    18. Fuisz-Kehrbach, Sonja-Katrin, 2015. "A three-dimensional framework to explore corporate sustainability activities in the mining industry: Current status and challenges ahead," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P1), pages 101-115.
    19. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    20. Omotehinse, Adeyinka O. & De Tomi, Giorgio, 2020. "Managing the challenges of obtaining a social license to operate in the pre-mining phase: A focus on the oil sands communities in Ondo State, Nigeria," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:52:y:2017:i:c:p:245-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.