Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 319–335

Reasoning about Responsibilities: Mining Company Managers on What Stakeholders are Owed

  • Wesley Cragg
  • Alan Greenbaum


Stakeholder theories propose that managers are responsible not only for maximizing shareholder value, but also for taking into account the well being of other parties affected by corporate decisions. While the language of stakeholder theory has been taken up in industries like mining, controversy remains. Disagreements arise not only about the apportionment of costs and benefits among stakeholders, but about who counts as a stakeholder and about how "costs" and "benefits" are to be conceived. This paper investigates these questions empirically by examining how managers in one mining company talk about corporate responsibilities and by analysing the explicit and implicit values systems and moral logics which inform this talk. The investigations discovered that while some claims by stakeholder groups were readily accommodated by managers, others were not. Analysis of the value frameworks employed by the mangers confirms the views of leading stakeholder theorists that stakeholder theory is grounded in the realities of management practice and behaviour.

corporate social responsibility mining ethics stakeholder theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barrett, M.: 1996, ‘Good Citizenship is Good Business', Policy Options (December), 3–6.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, H.: 1996, ‘The Isle of Harris Superquarry: Concepts of the Environment and Sustainability', Environmental Values 5, 97–122.Google Scholar
  3. Bullis, C.: 1991, ‘Organizational values and Control: The Case of Professionals in the U.S. Forest Service', in C. Conra (ed.), The Ethical Nexus: Values and Decision Making in Organizations (Ablex, Norwood, NJ).Google Scholar
  4. Bullis, C. and J. Kennedy: 1991, ‘Value Conflicts and Policy Interpretations: Changes in the Case of Fisheries and Wildlife Managers in Multiple Use Agencies', Policy Studies Journal 19, 542–552.Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson, M.: 1996, ‘Redefining the Corporation: A Stakeholder Perspective', Policy Options (December), 6–10.Google Scholar
  6. Clarkson, M. (ed.): 1998, The Corporation and Its Stakeholders: Classic and Contemporary Readings (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).Google Scholar
  7. Cragg. W.: 1996, ‘Shareholders, Stakeholders and the Modern Corporation', Policy Options (December), 15–20.Google Scholar
  8. Cragg. W.: 1998, ‘Sustainable Development and Mining: Opportunity or Threat to the Industry?', in J. Skeaff (ed.), Metals and the Environment (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Montreal).Google Scholar
  9. Cragg, W., D. Pearson and J. Cooney: 1996, ‘Ethics, Surface Mining and the Environment', Resource Policy 17(10).Google Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications', Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  11. Dungan, P.: 1997, Rock Solid: The Impact of the Mining and Primary Metals Industries on the Canadian Economy (Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto, Toronto).Google Scholar
  12. Gale, F. and M. M'Gonigle: 1996, ‘Corporate Responsibility: Yet Another Oxymoron?', Policy Options (December), 28–32.Google Scholar
  13. Freudenburg, W. and S. K. Pastor: 1992, ‘NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the Syndromes', Journal of Social Issues 48(4), 39–61.Google Scholar
  14. Liedka, J.: 1991, ‘Organizational Value Contention and Managerial Mindsets', Journal of Business Ethics 10, 543–557.Google Scholar
  15. Low, N. and B. Gleeson: 1998, ‘Situating Justice in the Environment: The Case of BHP at the Ok Tedi Copper Mine', Antipode 30, 210–226.Google Scholar
  16. Maier, M. and J. Messerschmidt: 1998, ‘Commonalities, Conflicts and Contradictions in Organizational Masculinities: Exploring the Gendered Genesis of the Challenger Disaster', Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 35, 325–344.Google Scholar
  17. Morrill, C.: 1998, ‘Decoding the Language of Etzioni's Moral Dimension in Complex Organizations', in D. Sciulli (ed.), Macro Socio-Economics: From Theory to Activism (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk NY).Google Scholar
  18. Pearce, F.: 1996, ‘Overview on Regulatory Reform', in Michael Mehta (ed.), Regulatory Efficiency and the Role of Risk Assessment (Queen's University School of Policy Studies, Kingston, ON).Google Scholar
  19. Scott, M. and S. Lyman: 1968, ‘Accounts', American Sociological Review 33, 46–62.Google Scholar
  20. Shapira, Z. and T. Griffith: 1990, ‘Comparing the Work Values of Engineers with Managers, Production, and Clerical Workers: A Multivariate Analysis', Journal of Organizational Behavior 11, 281–292.Google Scholar
  21. Thain, D.: 1996, ‘Stakeholder Capitalism: Breakthrough or Boondoggle?', Policy Options (December), 23–28.Google Scholar
  22. Young, A.: 1997. 'Public Interest Perspectives on Canadian Environmental Mining Issues: A discussion paper presented to the International Development Research Council's Working Group on Ecosystem Health and Mining in Latin America', Caracas, Venezuela, July, Friends of the Earth Canada. <<http://www.emcbc.miningwatch. org./emcbc/library/ public_interest.html>>Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wesley Cragg
    • 1
  • Alan Greenbaum
    • 2
  1. 1.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Social ScienceYork UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations