Advertisement

The Practice of Stakeholder Colonialism: National Interest and Colonial Discourses in the Management of Indigenous Stakeholders

  • Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee
Chapter

Abstract

After decades of struggle, the land rights of Aboriginal people of Australia were finally recognized by the Native Title Act of 1993. Recognition of Native Title overturned the long-standing view that Australia was terra nullius—land belonging to no one—and finally recognized the rights of Aboriginal people over their illegally occupied land. While this was hailed as a major milestone in the process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, the implementation of the Native Title Act was fraught with problems and uncertainties. As several Aboriginal communities discovered, granting of Native Title did not always mean control of the land and its resources, especially when the clarion call of “national interest” was sounded. Tourism, the creation of national parks and mining interests were all enclosed under the rubric of national interest and in almost every case, Aboriginal interests were put last. This chapter examines one such case: the debate over the construction of the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory, which was recently approved by the Australian government despite protests by the Mirrar community, the traditional owners of the land, and by various national and international environmental groups including UNESCO.

Keywords

Aboriginal People Stakeholder Theory Corporate Social Performance Uranium Mining Mining Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, I. 1995. Aboriginal nations? In S. Perera (Ed.), Asian and Pacific inscriptions: Identities/ethnicities/nationalities (pp. 65–82). Melbourne: Meridian.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 1984. Aborigines and uranium: Consolidated report to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the social impact of uranium mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory (1979–84). Canberra: AGPS.Google Scholar
  3. Bachelard, M. 1998. The great land grab. Melbourne: Hyland House.Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee, S. B. 2001a. Corporate citizenship and indigenous stakeholders: Exploring a new dynamic of organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1 (1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee, S. B. 2001b. Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (4), 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead. S. 2001. Globalization, multiculturalism and other fictions: Colonialism for the new millennium? Organization 8 (1), 711–750.Google Scholar
  7. Banerjee, S. B., & Osuri. G. 2000. Silences of the media: Whiting out Aboriginality in making news and making history. Media, Culture, Society, 22 (3), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. 2001. Why companies go green: A model of ecological respon-siveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates, D. 1966. The passing of the Aborigines, cited in Muecke (1992).Google Scholar
  10. Beamish, T. D. 2001. Environmental hazard and institutional betrayal: Lay-public perceptions of risk in the San Luis Obispo County oil spill. Organization & Environment, 14 (1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bringing Them Home. 1997. Report of the National Inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  13. Carruthers, D. V. 1996. Indigenous ecology and the politics of linkage in Mexican social movements. Third World Quarterly, 17 (5), 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christophersen, C., and Langton, M. 1995. Allarda! Arena Magazine, 9 (June–July), 28–32.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy ofManagement Journal, 16, 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodson, M. 1994. The end in the beginning: Re(de)finding Aboriginality. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, 2–12.Google Scholar
  17. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  18. Dreiling, M., & Wolf, B. 2001. Environmental movement organizations and political strategy: Tactical conflicts over NAFTA. Organization & Environment, 14 (1), 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Energy Resources of Australia. 1999. The Jabiluka Project Executive Summary: EIS findings in brief. [www.energyres.com.au/jabiluka/eis/brief.htm.]Google Scholar
  20. Escobar, A. 1992. Imagining a post-development era/ Critical thought, development and social movements. Social Text, 31 & 32, 20–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World, 1945–1992. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. E. 1983. Stockholders and shareholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25 (3), 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldsmith, E. 1997. Development as colonialism. The Ecologist, 27 (2), 60–79.Google Scholar
  25. Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation. 1997. We are not talking about mining: The history of duress and the Jabiluka Project. [www.mirrar.net.]Google Scholar
  26. Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation. 1998. Submission from the Mirrar people to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. [www.mirrar.net.]Google Scholar
  27. Hollinsworth, D. 1992. Discourses on Aboriginality and the politics of identity in urban Australia. Oceania, 62 (2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howitt, R. 1998. Recognition, respect and reconciliation: Steps towards decolonization. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, 28–34.Google Scholar
  29. Jabiluka. 1997. Documentary film produced and directed by David Bradbury. Presented by the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation and Frontline Film Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Katona, J. 1998. If Native Title is us, it’s inside us: Jabiluka and the politics of intercultural negotiation. Interview with S. Perera & J. Pugliese, Australian Feminist Law Journal, 10 (March), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kauffman, P. 1998. Wik, mining and Aborigines. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  32. Keefe, K. 1988. Aboriginality: Resistance and persistence. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, 67–81.Google Scholar
  33. Knights, D. 1992. Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management. Academy of Management Review, 17 (3), 514–536.Google Scholar
  34. Lattas, A. 1993. Essentialism, memory and resistance: Aboriginality and the politics of authenticity. Oceania, 63 (2), 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacDonald, J. 1999. A million dollars and some fancy lobbying helped sway countries. The Age, July 14, 12.Google Scholar
  36. Mani, L. 1989. Multiple meditations: Feminist scholarship in the age of multinational reception. Inscriptions, 5, 1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Manne, R. 1999. A cruel case of absurd historical denial. The Age, November 15, 17.Google Scholar
  38. McClintock, A. 1992. The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the term “post-colonialism.” Social Text, 31/32, 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McEachem, D. 1995. Mining meaning from the rhetoric of nature: Australian mining companies and their attitudes to the environment at home and abroad. Policy, Organization & Society (Winter), 48–69.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, C. 1999. North shareholders protest over Jabiluka. The Age, June 4, 7.Google Scholar
  41. Moody, R. 1996. Mining the world: the global reach of Rio Tinto Zinc. The Ecologist, 26 (2), 46–52.Google Scholar
  42. Muecke, S. 1992. Textual spaces: Aboriginality and cultural studies. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  43. Perera, S., & Pugliese, J. 1998. Parks, mines and tidy towns: Enviro-panopticism, ‘post’colonialism, and the politics of heritage in Australia. Postcolonial studies, 1 (1), 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. 1975. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Pugliese, J. 1995. Parasiting “post”-colonialism: On the (im)possibility of a disappropriative practice. Southern Review, 28 (3), 345–357.Google Scholar
  46. Radhakrishnan, R. 1993. Postcoloniality and the boundaries of identity. Callaloo, 16 (4), 750–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Radhakrishnan, R. 1994. Postmodernism and the rest of the world. Organization, 1 (2), 305–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Report of the Senate Inquiry. 1999. Report of the Senate Inquiry into the Jabiluka Project. [www.mirrar.net .]Google Scholar
  49. Reynolds, H. 1989. Dispossession. St Leonards’s: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  50. Rintoul, S. 1998. “Tide of history” sinks land claim. The Weekend Australian, December 19–20, 11.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, J. 1981. Massacres to mining: The colonization of Aboriginal Australia. Victoria: Globe Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rowse, T. 1990. Are we all blow-ins? Oceania, 61 (2), 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Said, E. 1986. Intellectuals in the post-colonial world. Salmagundi, 70/71 (Spring/Summer), 44–64.Google Scholar
  54. Sheridan, S. 1988. “Wives and mothers like ourselves, poor remnants of a dying race”: Aborigines in colonial women’s writing. In A. Rutherford (Ed.), Aboriginal culture today, Sydney.Google Scholar
  55. Shohat, E. 1992. Notes on the “post-colonial.” Social Text, 31/32, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Starik, M., & Marcus, A. A. 2001. Special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. UNESCO 1998. Report on the mission to Kakadu National Park, Australia. [www.biodiversity.environment.gov.au/kakadu/pdfs/infl8e.pdf]Google Scholar
  58. Verjauw, R. 1997. Draft resolution for the European Parliament on the impact of the nuclear industry on indigenous peoples. Brussels, Belgium: Kola (International Campaigns Office).Google Scholar
  59. Walck, C., & Strong, K. C. 2001. Using Aldo Leopold’s land ethic to read environmental history: The case of the Keweenaw forest. Organization & Environment, 14 (3), 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watego, C. 1989. Review of R. Sykes Black Majority Editions. Cited in Rowse (1990).Google Scholar
  61. Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. 2000. Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), 1265–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilmott, H. 1995. What has been happening in organization theory and does it matter? Personnel Review, 24 (8), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wood, D. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691–718.Google Scholar
  64. Yencken, D., & Porter, L. 2001. A just and sustainable Australia. Redfern, NSW: The Australian Council of Social Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations