Description : This paper proposes to build on my previous research (Dashwood 2012), which analyzed how and why the norm of sustainable development became institutionalized in the global collaborative corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of major mining companies. Since the late 1990s, the majority of major global mining companies have employed the norm of sustainable development to frame their individual CSR policies and to inform industry collaboration at the global level through the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). This paper proposal seeks to address lingering questions from that research, by developing an explanation for how the normative frame of sustainable development has translated into specific CSR standards adopted by the mining industry. Preliminary findings suggest that, although the global mining industry has reached broad consensus on the meaning of sustainable development in the context of mining, there remains considerable variation between mining companies in terms of which specific global standards they adopt. As members of the ICMM, major mining companies are required to report according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators relevant to mining, and there has been wide-spread up-take of the ISO 14,001 environmental management system standard. However, other global standards, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards and the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, have not been uniformly adopted by the mining industry. What explains this variation?
The paper employs a three-level institutional framework (rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and the ‘new’ institutionalism in organization theory) to explain the influences on the adoption of CSR standards in the global mining sector. Existing research confirms that institutional context is an important factor in explaining CSR adoption in the mining sector (Dashwood 2012). Are similar forces at work in explaining the variation in adoption of specific CSR standards? A three-level institutional analysis lends itself to uncovering influences both external to mining companies (such as pressures from stakeholders), as well as internal company dynamics (such as managerial discretion). Furthermore, the framework can incorporate dynamics operating at the global level (such as isomorphism), the national level (such as the regulatory regime) and the local level (such as community needs and environmental challenges). The theoretical significance of this framework is that the influences on CSR adoption are more complex than can be explained in a single approach (such as narrow rational choice/costbenefit explanations). On a practical level, insights into how global standards get interpreted and acted upon by individual companies could lead to the development of more appropriate and effective global standards.
Read The Complete Paper: CLICK HERE