212
A. Mallqui et al.
creation, and skills, wealth and income creation, social investment); The environment (Sustainable resource use, energy, water, sustainable land use, emissions, effluents and waste, sustainable transport, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and
adoption, recycling of metals).
Gomes et al. (2014, 2015) analyzed the management practices for sustainability
based on ten principles for sustainable development in the mining industry developed
by ICMM.
Fuisz-Kehrbach (2015) examines the current implementation status of corporate
sustainability activities (CSA) in the mining industry, also proposes and applies a
multi-dimensional framework to analyze the implementation of CSA from three
different angles: (1) the types of CSA from philanthropic to entrepreneurial activities, (2) The issues addressed (e.g., health, safety, environment) and (3) The step of
the value chain concerned, i.e., supply, production or product-related sustainability
activities.
A general synthesis of the works found leads to the importance of adopting
sustainable practices throughout the entire mining operations process. The environmental impacts and practices of mining have received more attention in the
studies. The papers largely have a classification considering the economic, social
and environmental dimensions and based on the principles developed by ICMM.
The content analysis that is carried out in this paper uses the framework proposed
by Fuisz-Kehrbach (2015). It is a three-dimensional framework to analyze corporate
sustainability activities in the mining industry.
2.1 Dimension 1: Types of Corporate Sustainability Activities
The four types allow for two different perspectives: On the one hand, the four components can mark a maturation or professionalization pathway from corporate philanthropy to sustainable entrepreneurship. On this pathway, certain sustainability activities need to be conducted first, involving the development of certain resources and
capabilities before heading to more ambitious sustainability activities (Hart 1995).
Corporate philanthropy can be perceived as the least ambitious sustainability activity
because donations and charity can be easily implemented and entirely separated from
business, in contrast, to seriously integrating sustainability into corporate strategy
(Chapple and Moon 2005). Sustainable entrepreneurship is on the far end of this
pathway and is perceived as the most proactive and mature sustainability activity. It
requires the company to fundamentally shift corporate culture and integrate sustainability considerations into business strategy, products, organizational processes and
setup (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Hart 1995; Russo and Fouts 1997; Sharma and
Vredenburg 1998; Shrivastava 1995). On the other hand, and apart from the sequential logic of path dependence, companies can apply the four types modularly and
simultaneously side-by-side, depending on context (e.g., infrastructure development
in remote and underdeveloped regions). This second perspective is nonjudgmental
A. Mallqui et al.
creation, and skills, wealth and income creation, social investment); The environment (Sustainable resource use, energy, water, sustainable land use, emissions, effluents and waste, sustainable transport, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and
adoption, recycling of metals).
Gomes et al. (2014, 2015) analyzed the management practices for sustainability
based on ten principles for sustainable development in the mining industry developed
by ICMM.
Fuisz-Kehrbach (2015) examines the current implementation status of corporate
sustainability activities (CSA) in the mining industry, also proposes and applies a
multi-dimensional framework to analyze the implementation of CSA from three
different angles: (1) the types of CSA from philanthropic to entrepreneurial activities, (2) The issues addressed (e.g., health, safety, environment) and (3) The step of
the value chain concerned, i.e., supply, production or product-related sustainability
activities.
A general synthesis of the works found leads to the importance of adopting
sustainable practices throughout the entire mining operations process. The environmental impacts and practices of mining have received more attention in the
studies. The papers largely have a classification considering the economic, social
and environmental dimensions and based on the principles developed by ICMM.
The content analysis that is carried out in this paper uses the framework proposed
by Fuisz-Kehrbach (2015). It is a three-dimensional framework to analyze corporate
sustainability activities in the mining industry.
2.1 Dimension 1: Types of Corporate Sustainability Activities
The four types allow for two different perspectives: On the one hand, the four components can mark a maturation or professionalization pathway from corporate philanthropy to sustainable entrepreneurship. On this pathway, certain sustainability activities need to be conducted first, involving the development of certain resources and
capabilities before heading to more ambitious sustainability activities (Hart 1995).
Corporate philanthropy can be perceived as the least ambitious sustainability activity
because donations and charity can be easily implemented and entirely separated from
business, in contrast, to seriously integrating sustainability into corporate strategy
(Chapple and Moon 2005). Sustainable entrepreneurship is on the far end of this
pathway and is perceived as the most proactive and mature sustainability activity. It
requires the company to fundamentally shift corporate culture and integrate sustainability considerations into business strategy, products, organizational processes and
setup (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Hart 1995; Russo and Fouts 1997; Sharma and
Vredenburg 1998; Shrivastava 1995). On the other hand, and apart from the sequential logic of path dependence, companies can apply the four types modularly and
simultaneously side-by-side, depending on context (e.g., infrastructure development
in remote and underdeveloped regions). This second perspective is nonjudgmental