Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

ers (as best as can be done). This is dynamic and

an evolving area where trained people are in short

supply.

3.1

In order to support this discussion of stakeholders,

a framework and approach developed by Mitchell,

Agle and Wood (1997) will be utilised.

If we commence with a broad definition of stake-

holder as proposed by Freeman (1984) as:

any group or individual who can affect or is af-

fected by the achievement of an organization’s

objectives,

then it is clear that there are many actors and indi-

vidual for whom the conduct of mining operations

affects in relevant ways, or can affect the conduct

of minerals related activities. Further examination

reveals that such interactions are relevant within all

levels of the sustainable development debate – en-

vironmental, social, developmental and economic.

Moreover, it can be seen that the presence of min-

ing legacies in the form of abandoned or orphaned

sites will also interact with a broad range of social

actors. Thus, it is clear that some insight into

which

stakeholders are most important

is required – as is

a consistent framework within which to categorise

them. This is held to be particularly true if this

document is to address regional decision-mak-

ers, policy makers, and leading industrial actors.

Similarly, we must have some understanding of

the manner in which such actors can affect miner-

als related activities (or the making safe of mining

legacies), how they can productively contribute to a

improvement of the current situation, why they are

motivated to be involved (and so forth).

The groupings of stakeholders used here will be

based around such the mining operations that they

have a “stake” in and thus (in this part of the dis-

cussion) the “operative organizations” that conduct

the mining operations. As such, the prime audi-

ence for this document will be classified as a stake-

holder to the activities of such operative organiza-

tions. As this discussion will outline, policy makers

and regulators are dominant stakeholders but are

not the only stakeholders of marked salience to an

organization engaged in mining activities.

Mitchell

et al

(1997), propose that classes of stake-

holders can be identified by their possession of

key attributes, or the nature of their key attributes.

These attributes include:

the power

to influence an organization,

the legitimacy

of their relationship with the

organization, or

the urgency

of the stakeholder’s claim on the

firm.

In simplistic terms, the most important stakehold-

ers for an organization involved in carrying out

some activity, are those who combine all three such

attributes.

Power

is simplified to a definition following where

it is held to be

“a relationship among social actors in

which one social actor, A, can get another social actor,

B, to do something that B would not otherwise have

done”

(Pfeffer, 1981). Stakeholders with power in

such relationships have access to coercive, utilitari-

an (generally material rewards as goods or services,

including money) or normative means to impose

their own will in a relationship. It is important to

recognise that there are some stakeholders with the

power to influence whether they have legitimate

claims or not.

who and what

are mining

stakeholders?

62. In this vein, Alexios Antypas of the Department of Environ-

mental Sciences and Policy at the Central European University

(personal communication: Central European University, 2005,

24 July) indicates that negotiated agreements with communities

offer both sides an opportunity to develop a win-win situation, or

at least to minimize the harm and maximize the benefits to com-

munities by focusing proactively on community rights and inter-

ests. He indicates that many communities in the world have actu-

ally been made poorer by mining projects rather than enriched,

and that communities can bear by far the greatest environmental

and social burden that such projects entail – both during opera-

tion and in the post-closure phase. Further, he notes that now

that mining communities are increasingly linked to international

NGO networks that have the capacity to disrupt projects, the min-

ing industry has practical as well as moral interests in making

sure that communities are brought into the development process

and benefit from their projects. He also indicates that negotiated

agreements between communities and mining companies can

take many forms and include any number of issues important to

both parties. They can be reached at any time, but the best time

to make this is while the project is still being developed so that

communities can help shape the project so it imposes the least

burdens and brings the greatest benefits to them.

63. Mitchell, R.K., Agle B. A. and Wood D.J., Toward a Theory

of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle

of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), 853-886