The intersection of corporate social responsibility guidelines and indigenous rights: Examining neoliberal governance of a proposed mining project in Suriname
The intersection of corporate social responsibility guidelines and indigenous rights: Examining neoliberal governance of a proposed mining project in Suriname
复制标题
企业社会责任准则与原住民权利的交叉点：审查苏里南拟议采矿项目的新自由主义治理
DOI：
10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.06.003
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
B. Haalboom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Haalboom
随着新自由主义改革和发展中国家跨国矿业投资的增长，企业社会责任（CSR）因其填补社会和环境治理空白的潜力而变得引人注目（并引起争议）。迄今为止，对政治斗争和权力动态的分析关注还很有限，这些政治斗争和权力动态通过具体的企业社会责任准则及其在当地的实施来反映；这在企业社会责任的人权方面尤其明显，更具体地说，是土著权利。本研究记录了代表原住民权利的非政府组织与矿业公司之间的辩论、问责问题以及对企业社会责任的不同解释。这些争论的焦点是环境影响评估；土著人的土地权；以及土著人的自由、事先和知情同意权。这些交流说明了这些参与者的社会政治和经济定位，以及与其立场相关的不同议程，这些议程决定了问责问题并形成了对企业社会责任准则的不同解释。这些辩论的结果也反映了这些参与者在这种背景下所拥有的不同程度的权力，无论他们关于企业社会责任的论点的力度或有效性如何。因此，这种对话是对企业社会责任作为一种治理模式在“实地”展开时所出现的更加复杂和有争议的纠葛的一个镜头。这些发现还强化了这样的问题：我们可以期望企业社会责任作为一种治理模式来解决资源开采项目的人权问题，特别是在压倒性的政治和社会结构的限制下。
With neoliberal reforms and the growth of multinational mining investment in developing countries, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become notable (and debatable) for its potential to fill a social and environmental governance gap. As yet, there has been limited analytical attention paid to the political struggles and power dynamics that get reflected through specific CSR guidelines and their implementation in local contexts; this is particularly apparent with respect to the human rights dimension of CSR, and more specifically, indigenous rights. This study documents the debates, issues of accountability, and different interpretations of CSR between NGOs representing indigenous rights and a mining corporation. These debates focus on environmental impact assessments; indigenous rights to land; and the indigenous right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. These exchanges illustrate the socio-political, as well as economic, positioning of these actors, and the different agendas associated with their positions that determine issues of accountability and shape alternate interpretations of CSR guidelines. The outcomes of these debates also reflect the different degrees of power that these actors hold in such contexts, irrespective of the strength or validity of their arguments about CSR. This dialogue is thereby a lens into the more complex and contentious entanglements that emerge with CSR as a mode of governance, as it plays out ‘on the ground.’ These findings also reinforce questions regarding what we can expect of CSR as a mode of governance for addressing human rights issues with resource extraction projects, particularly within the constraints of overriding political and social structures.