Canadian Mining Companies
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | Hevina S. Dashwood |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200506000406 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Hevina S. Dashwood
Canadian mining
companies
and the shaping of global norms of corporate social responsibility
| International Journal | Autumn 2005 | 977 |
INTRODUCTION
The launch of the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) in 1998 marked a novel
attempt to promote corporate social responsibility within the specific con-
text of the mining sector. The GMI is novel in the sense that it was
launched by a group of committed mining company executives from
around the world. Comprising nonstate actors, without any direct involve-
ment from states, the GMI can be characterized as a global transnational
network among mining multinationals.1
Hevina Dashwood is an associate professor in the department of political science at Brock
University. She would liketo take this opportunityto express her gratitude to BobMatthews,
who has shown unwavering support over the years as she has crossed various milestones in
her professional career. “His dedication to teaching and scholarshipsets a standard of excel-
lence to which I canonly attempt to aspire.” This article is part of a larger, SSHRC-funded
research project that includes research on several Canadian mining companies and their
activities in developing countries. The author would like to thank Ian Spears and Elisabeth
King for theirencouraging comments,and Ian for his sharp editorialeye! She would also like
to thank Wesley Cragg andFrederick Bird for their helpful comments.
1 Although the GMI officially ended in 2002, for ease of discussion this article uses the term
“GMI” throughout. After 2002, the activities of the GMI were carried forward by the
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). A transnational network consists of non-
state actors who engage in regular interaction across national boundaries for the purpose of dis-
seminating information, knowledge, and norms around a particular global issue or activity.
Further elaboration can be found in Michele M. Betsill and Harriet Bulkeley, “Transnational net-
works and global environmental governance: The cities for climate protection program,”
International Studies Quarterly
(2004): 471-93 and in T. Risse-Kappen, ed.,
Bringing
| Hevina S. Dashwood |
| 978 | International Journal | Autumn 2005 |
The GMI represents an attempt by mining companies to shape the dis-
course on corporate responsibility and, ultimately, to influence the policies
and practices of mining companies around the world. Characteristic of
transnational networks in other fields, the GMI seeks to harness scientific
expertise around sustainable mining practices, transmit information about
such practices, and inculcate norms around acceptable corporate behaviour
within the mining sector.2
The significance of the GMI lies not so much in its impact, which to date
has beenmodest, but inthe influences that drove mining companiesto under-
take this initiative. While some might dismiss mining companies’ motivesas a
desireto improvetheir public relations,such a blanket dismissalfails to account
for the variation between mining companies in terms of the policies and prac-
ticesthey have adopted. A desireto improve their public imageis better under-
stood as but one of a range of influences that have led to a significant shift in
thinking on the partof mining companies. This article willexplore thoseinflu-
ences, and assess the significance ofthe GMI from the perspective ofthe liter-
ature on transnational networks. It will be argued that the GMI represents a
conscious effort to promote learning and disseminate norms of acceptable
corporate behaviour, which will be demonstrated by an examination of the
participation of two Canadian mining companies, Noranda and Placer Dome.
(Noranda merged withFalconbridge inMarch 2005.)
CONCEPTUALIZING THE GLOBAL MINING INITIATIVE
The GMI can be conceptualized within the larger context of the devolution of
public(government)authorityto the privatesector in certainareas of global gov-
ernance. Whereas traditionally global governance was the exclusive purview of
the state, increasingly nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs)and multinationals, havecome to play a significant role. Transnational
networks, such as the GMI, have developed around specific issue areas that
transcend national boundaries and even bypass states altogether.
Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International
Institutions
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
2 An alternative, neo-Marxian explanation might be that mining multinationals are seeking to
establish a moral hegemony around appropriate corporate behaviour. While the wealth and
power of multinationals appears self-evident, such a perspective fails to capture the nuances in
critical debates, both within and outside the mining sector,as to the extent and nature of a com-
pany’s obligations towards society. Important differences exist with respect to these issues,
both among mining companies and other concerned actors, such as NGOs.
To continue reading
Request your trial