Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

Demanding stakeholders

can be said to be those

stakeholders whose sole relevant attribute (at

present) is urgency. Lacking power or legitimacy,

such actors nevertheless constitute the vocal “mos-

quitoes buzzing in the ears of management”. In a

mining context, actors in this category can include:

community interest groups; single interest envi-

ronmental or historic preservation groups; national

and/or international “anti-mining” or “anti-devel-

opment” interest groups;

and so forth.

3.1.2

expectant stakeholders

The second category of stakeholders to be addressed

in this discussion is deemed to be expectant. This

group includes powerful actors with an issue of

interest (dominant) who despite this, currently see

no urgency in the issue; suffering or otherwise le-

gitimately affected actors who depend on support

granted by one more powerful (dependent); and

angry or upset stakeholders with power who lack a

legitimate status (dangerous). Again, more detailed

delineation of these categories and examples with a

mining context are included below.

Dominant stakeholders

include powerful and le-

gitimate actors. Simply put, such actors possess

legitimate claims and have the necessary resources

or means with which to act upon such claims. As

has previously been stated, this actor group is gen-

erally (or traditionally) deemed the most important

and is granted most attention by industrial actors.

Organizations commonly produce reports to le-

gitimate, powerful stakeholders such as these (e.g.

environmental and social responsibility reports as

well as more traditional annual corporate reports).

While such stakeholders are central, they are not

always the most important when issues of concern

arise. In the context of this document, such actors

include the owners and creditors of minerals relat-

ed organizations, community leaders, ministries of

natural resources and environment, international

development agencies, and so forth.

Dependent stakeholders

have urgent and legiti-

mate claims but depend on others for the power to

carry out their will or to meet their calls for aid. As

power is not reciprocal in their relationship with

organizations or industry, then exercise is gov-

erned by advocacy or guardianship of others (e.g.

government, legislators or other powerful actor

groups must engage on their behalf). In the con-

text of minerals related activities, relevant groups

in this category could include: near-mine or near-

minesite residents, downstream water users, and

transboundary communities and/or political ac-

tors across jurisdictional boundaries. Further, this

group is also deemed to encompass non-human

actors such as mammals and birds, aquatic species

– and indeed nature itself.

Dangerous stakeholders

can arise where urgency

and power combine within an actor that lacks legiti-

macy. Such actors can be coercive or even violent,

are deemed “dangerous”, and can utilise measures

such as wildcat strikes, sabotage, or even terrorism

in order to achieve their aims. There are a number

of stakeholders relevant to mining activities in this

regard and the importance of this group cannot be

understated in Nation states or sub-regions where

political instability is, or has recently been prevalent.

Possible actor groups in this category that are of

relevance include militant political groups, radical

NGOs, marginalised ethnic groups and so forth.

3.1.3

definitive & potential

stakeholders

The stakeholders of most marked salience within

this framework (and thus to an organization en-

gaged in mining activities in the context of this dis-

cussion) are those who combine all three definitive

attributes. Stakeholders holding power and legiti-

macy (by definition dominant) are those most like-

ly to evolve to this category. This occurs when some

incident or development lifts the criticality of the

issue for them. When such stakeholders discover

an issue, or a claim that is urgent, then managers

(or other responsible parties) have a clear and im-

mediate mandate for action.

Moreover, it is most important to note that there is

interaction between groups. For example, depend-

ent stakeholders may move into the definitive posi-

tion by having their urgent and legitimate claims

picked up by a dominant stakeholder (e.g. Mitchell

et al

(1997) describe Alaskan communities moving

in this manner in the Exxon Valdez case when the

government became an important ally); or danger-

ous actors migrating to a definitive position via the

legitimization of their claim (e.g. the evolution of the

African National Congress [ANC] from an organiza-

66. In most nations and societies, the NIMBY (Not In My Back-

Yard) syndrome must be dealt with to some extent. In situations

where trust in authorities and industrial actors is low, then it ap-

pears reasonable that the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing

Anywhere Near Anything) syndrome may also be relevant.