Global Compact International Yearbook 2013
68
to private, actors is a key element in explaining why – in
situations when differences of opinion among stakeholders
arise over land rights or compensation, for example – there
are increasing risks of a degeneration into violent conflicts.
There have been different responses to these issues of legitimacy
emanating from different arenas, including the multilateral
level – as, for example, though the production of international
norms to which companies are invited to adhere, such as in
the area of environmental impact assessments or involuntary
displacements. However, such “transnational legal frameworks”
leave unresolved the key issue of enforcement, as they do not
address the problem of the capacity of states to ensure their
implementation and to bring in corrective measures if neces-
sary. There have also been proposals from bilateral agencies,
such as the production of tool kits to better manage situations
of risk and potential conflict. These initiatives similarly fail to
address the origins of such conflicts, which often concern the
perceived legitimacy of the positions held by different stakehold-
ers (communities as opposed to companies), about whether to
proceed with a particular project, the conditions under which
it is undertaken, or the distribution of the revenues it produces.
Finally and a third type of response are CSR projects put
forward by private actors with a view of obtaining a social
license to operate. While one can understand the motiva-
tion behind such initiatives, by their very nature and origin
they are most likely to be attempts to respond to commu-
nity grievances – that is, symptoms or manifestations of
the problems at hand – rather than an addressing of their
causes, namely, issues such as the control over resources
and access to land rights, the distribution of influence and
authority among actors, and the choice of the development
agenda being implemented. Beyond the fact that such CSR
strategies are usually externally driven and raise issues of
local appropriation and sustainability beyond the life of a
particular project, they not only fail to address the issue of
the regulatory authority of states, but by sidestepping the
state, they may even contribute to postponing the conditions
necessary for resolving the problems of legitimacy that they
are intended to address.
The issue of legitimacy that companies increasingly face can
be seen as a consequence of evolving structural relations that
have resulted, at least in part, from the manner in which the
mining sector has been reformed. These structural relations
have significantly modified – and sometimes obscured – the
demarcation of spheres of responsibilities, whether public or
private, and have frequently also blurred distinctions between
the political and the technical domains. Such a perspective
underlines the importance of taking into account the reforms
at the origin of the reshaping of institutional arrangements,
the structural relations of influence and authority that char-
acterize these reforms, and the roles and responsibilities of
the various actors involved.
Moreover, strategies of CSR often appear premised on the faulty
hypothesis that it is investments initiated by private compa-
nies that are going to drive development. In fact, there is no
historical example anywhere on the earth whereby sustainable
growth, social and economic development, and poverty reduc-
tion took place through private investment in the absence of