THE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY
(ZAMBIA)
Presenter:
Shem Sikombe, BSc., M.A., Dip
Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse
from the Mining Corporations and their
Communities in Zambia.
Conference Theme:
Business Ethics and CSR: The Way
Forward for Emerging Economies.
Background/Problem Discussion
• Zambia is a landlocked country with a population of about 13 million, copper mining accounts
for about 70% of export earnings.
• CSR is ever evolving, dynamic and contextual-specific (Sun et al., 2007).
• To understand the contextual specificity nature of CSR it is important to understand how CSR
discourse is socially constructed.
• And the resulting consequences of such constructions.
• Discourse results in different meanings being ascribed to CSR which result in different discursive
conflicts.
• This is evident in the Zambian mining industry and their communities.
• Different meanings results in different expectations from CSR.
• Its important to comprehend these discourses because organisations are such a pervasive feature
of society.
• Also Research gap: Most research is concentrated on drivers of CSR such as reputation, financial
performance, sustainability etc.
• There is paucity of research on understanding CSR from Zambian context..
Purpose:
To increase the understanding of CSR discourse from the MCs and community stakeholders’
perspectives and its broader implications on the MCs-community stakeholder relationship
Research questions:
•How do MCs construct the meaning of CSR through CSR discourse in their annual CSR reports?
•How do communities’ interpret and reconstruct the meaning of CSR from their perspectives?
•What are the implications of CSR discourse on the MCs-community stakeholder relationship?
Methodology
• Social constructionist qualitative method and discourse analysis (DA).
• Ontological view: reality is socially and discursively constructed in social interactions.
• Epistemological view: knowledge is a product of social interactions and is contingent on the
social activities.
• DA involves analysing the social construction of language in order to identify the social
implications.
• Data sources: CSR annual reports (2010) & open-ended questionnaire interview for
stakeholders.
• Data analysis: Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of analyisIng text, discursive practice and
social practice.
Empirical Material
Comprehensive CSR annual reports (2010) for MCs (KCM, FQM, LM, BARRICK, MCM, CM) ranging from 40-100
pages.
•
Reports were prepared at respective group headquarters
•
Some where integrative while others were arranged by subsidiary.
•
After coding process. Emerging themes from MCs were:
•
Business case; stakeholder partnership and empowerment and corporate citizenship as CSR discourses.
Questionnaire interviews:
•
Total administered 79 via Kwik survey and email.
•
34 successful responded.
•
Following a similar coding process, the themes were:
•
Stakeholder partnership and empowerment; rhetoric/‘greenwash’ and corporate citizenship CSR discourses.
Analysis and Interpretations
CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP DISCOURSE
• Present MCs as citizens with duties and rights.
• CSR is constructed as one of the duties of MCs although its voluntary.
• Personify MCs as ‘persons’ with humane characteristics.
• MCs are presented as good citizens who care for the community.
• MCs legitimatise their operations within communities via discourse.
• Good neighbourliness via unifying pronouns such as ‘we’ and ‘our’.
• Ownership to responsibilities and demonstrated commitment to CSR.
BUSINESS CASE DISCOURSE
• CSR contributes to economic prosperity of MCs and eventually community
• Tool for competitive advantage and other opportunities.
• Essential to sustainable business success.
• CSR embedded in corporate strategy.
STAKEHOLDERS PARTNERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT DISCOURSE
• Partnership committed to engaging and empowering stakeholders.
• Tool for Sustainability development via collaboration.
• Equal power relations characterised by trust, honest, openness and respect.
• Partnership for Socio-economic development of the community.
CSR DISCOURSE FROM COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP DISCOURSE
• CSR should be mandatory not voluntary as claimed by MCs.
• CSR connote risk management and mitigation tool (e.g reducing pollution & Environmental
degradation).
• CSR as a form of compensation to communities.
• CSR as a social contract between MCs and Communities.
RHETORIC/GREENWASH DISCOURSE
• A marketing and public image building tool.
• Genuineness questioned; discrepancy between Talk and Action by MCs.
• Need for legislative framework to guide CSR implementation by MCs.
STAKEHOLDERS PARTNERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT DISCOURSE
•
CSR as implied partnership.
•
However this partnership is one side, driven by MCs.
•
CSR is more of an ‘imposition’ on communities rather than consensus.
•
They emphasise the need for dialogue and consultations with community.
•
Link between CSR and socio-economic sustainability missing.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CSR DISCOURSES
•
MCs draw on traditional extractive industry discourse-maintain the social order.
•
MCs conceal unequal power relations within their discourse.
•
Community stakeholders draw on various mix of discourse challenging the current social order.
•
Stakeholders’ CSR discourse is culturally and historically embedded.
•
MCs-stakeholder relationship on CSR discourse still antagonistic. characterised by ‘love-hate’ (Kapore & Imbun,
2011).
Main Conclusions and Implications
• Two main discourses are at play:
1. One trying to legitimise mining activities through CSR and Self
regulation
2. Anti-mining discourse from communities and advocacy for
regulatory framework over CSR.
• Ongoing struggle on what constitute CSR is still evident.
• Elements of white-washing are still evident in MC’s CSR practice.
• Culture of dependency on MCs by community ‘dependency syndrome’
• ‘Love-hate relationship’ evident.
• MCs making strides towards sustainability and changing the business
model.
Summary Model
THE END…..THANK YOU!