Mining and Human Rights

  • Eboni TillerEmail author
Part of the The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific book series (PEAP)


This chapter identifies a gap in the literature between the theoretical and philosophical motivations of corporate community development (CCD) and their practical applications. In recent years corporate community relations (CCR) has undergone a substantial change, moving from simply considering the fundamental ethical requirements of corporations, towards seeking to establish a role for corporations in contributing to community development. This change has led to a polarising debate, with proponents supporting the potential for corporations genuinely to contribute to a community and opponents perceiving the move as little more than a public relations exercise. This chapter suggests one catalyst for this debate may be the lack of a solid theoretical and philosophical foundation underpinning and guiding the development actions of corporations. While the rhetoric of human rights is often utilised as motivation for CCD the adequacy of this as a development framework is questioned. Consequently, this chapter explores the limitations of human rights as a development framework and proposes the capability approach as a more appropriate theoretical and philosophical framework to underpin the development aspirations of mining companies.



Corporate community development


Corporate community relations


Corporate social responsibility


International Council on Mining and Metals


International Standardization Organization


Multinational corporation


Non-government organisation


Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Transnational corporation


Universal Declaration of Human Rights


United Nations


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development


  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181-205.Google Scholar
  2. Anand, P, Hunter, G., Smith, R. (2005). Capabilities and well-being: evidence based on the Sen-Nussbaum approach to welfare. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 9-55.Google Scholar
  3. BHP Billiton. (2014). Value through performance: sustainability report 2014. Accessed 24 September 2014.
  4. Blowfield, M. (2004). CSR and development: is business appropriating global justice? Development, 47(3), 61-68.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, A., Buchholtz, A. (2002). Business and society: ethics and stakeholder management. 5th edn. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, D. (2005). The capability approach: its development, critiques and recent advances. Global Poverty Research Group, 1-18. Accessed 12 February 2012.
  7. Davis, R., Franks, D. (2014). Costs of company-community conflict in the extractive sector. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
  8. Deva, S. (2012). Guiding principles on business and human rights: implications for companies. European Company Law, 9(2), 101-109.Google Scholar
  9. Frediani, A. (2010). Sen’s capability approach as a framework to the practice of development. Development in Practice, 20(2), 173-187.Google Scholar
  10. Handelsman, S. (2002). Human rights in the minerals industry. mining, minerals and sustainable development. Accessed 9 June 2013.
  11. International Council on Mining and Metals. (2006). Resource endowment initiative. Accessed 5 August 2013.
  12. International Organization for Standardization, (2010). Social responsibility. International Organization for Standardization. Accessed 5 August 2013.
  13. Kamminga, M. (2015). Company responses to human rights reports: an empirical analysis. SSRN. Accessed 5 August 2013.
  14. Kemp, D. (2010). Mining and community development: problems and possibilities of local-level practice. Community Development Journal, 45(2), 198-218.Google Scholar
  15. Mahon, J., McGowan, R. (1991). Searching for the common good: a process-oriented approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 79-87.Google Scholar
  16. Manteaw, B. (2007). From tokenism to social justice: rethinking the bottom line for sustainable community development. Community Development Journal, 43(4), 297-311.Google Scholar
  17. Martins, N. (2006). Capabilities as causal powers. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(1), 671-685.Google Scholar
  18. Muchlinski, P 2007, Multinational enterprises and the law. 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: the limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81(3), 541-557.Google Scholar
  20. Newmont. (2009). Community relations review: global summary report. Accessed 16 July 2013.
  21. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review, 66(2), 273-300.Google Scholar
  24. United Nations. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2015). What are human rights? Accessed 10 January.
  25. Paton, B. (2000). Voluntary environmental initiatives and sustainable industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(5), 328-338.Google Scholar
  26. Ratner, S. (2001). Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. The Yale Law Journal, 111(1), 443-545.Google Scholar
  27. Rio Tinto. (2013). 2013 Sustainable development: supporting our licence to operate. Accessed 6 April 2014.
  28. Ruggie, J. (2006). Interim report of the special representative of the secretary-general on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. United Nations. Accessed 6 April 2014.
  29. Ruggie, J. (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: a framework for business and human rights. United Nations. Accessed 6 April 2014.
  30. Sayer, J. (2005). Guest editor’s introduction: do more good, do less harm: development and the private sector. Development in Practice, 15(3/4), 251-268.Google Scholar
  31. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166.Google Scholar
  32. Sen, A. (2004), Capabilities, lists and public reason: continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80.Google Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. United States of America: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  34. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  35. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sethi, S. (2003). Setting global standards: guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational corporations. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Sullivan, R (Ed.), (2003). Business and human rights: dilemmas and solutions. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations. Accessed 14 February 2015.
  39. UN General Assembly. (1966a). International covenant on civil and political rights. United Nations. Accessed 14 February 2015.
  40. UN General Assembly. (1966b). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. United Nations. Accessed 14 February 2015.
  41. United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the united nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework. United Nations. Accessed 14 February 2015.
  42. United Nations Global Compact. (2013). Overview of the UN Global Compact. United Nations. Accessed 20 February 2015.
  43. Utting, P. (2005). Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in Practice, (15)3, 375-388.Google Scholar
  44. Van Marrewijk, M. and Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107-120.Google Scholar
  45. Velasquez, M. (1992). International business, morality and the common good. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(1), 27-40.Google Scholar
  46. Weiss, J. (2003). Business ethics: a stakeholder and issues management approach. 3rd edn. Ohio: Thomson - South-Western.Google Scholar
  47. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for International Risk, School of Communication, International Studies, and LanguagesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations