Jan 18 2010
Bill C-300 – CSR Debate in Canada and Abroad
Blow is an article from the Vancouver Sun.
It outlines some of the debate that surrounds the bill, particularly around the question on monitoring and investigation activities that would be undertaken by the government in order to ensure that companies are complying with the guidelines.
Sat Jan 16 2010
Byline: Fiona Anderson
| Hot debate on corporate responsibility abroad |
As long as Canadian mining companies work in emerging markets, complaints about adverse effects on the local community are going to arise. But how can Canadians be sure that local companies aren’t misbehaving?
MiningWatch Canada is advocating the passage of Bill C-300 — “An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.” The private member’s bill, brought forward by Liberal MP John McKay, passed second reading and was before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when the prime minister recessed Parliament until March. The prorogation order allows reinstatement of private members bills and, if passed, the bill would force the government to create corporate guidelines consistent with Canada’s international commitments on human rights and environmental sustainability. Companies that fail to comply with the guidelines would be ineligible for funding from Export Development Canada.
But the mining industry is against the bill, not because it doesn’t want to comply with the standards, it says, but because the bill doesn’t provide for funding — no private member’s bill can — and the guidelines that need to be followed are too vague. On top of that, three years of roundtable discussions have led to a four-pronged approach that includes developing guidelines and appointing a corporate social responsibility (CSR) counsellor, who was appointed in October. “The problem with C-300 is it really sets all of that aside,” said Laureen Whyte, vice-president of sustainability and operations at the Association of Mineral Exploration British Columbia.
“It’s not based on the outcomes of those roundtable discussions. It instead offers up a pretty punitive way of investigating complaints, and it frankly doesn’t, and it can’t, provide for the resources that’s needed to do proper investigations.” The CSR counsellor, on the other hand, has the funds needed to do the necessary investigations, which can be costly. “It’s really hard from afar to identify what’s really going on, and so you need to have local information that you can rely on,” Whyte said. “You also need to have some ability to assess the factors that are at play. And it takes a huge amount of resources to do that.” Without the ability to investigate, the situation remains as it is now, a media play, Whyte said. It’s easy for people to complain that companies are making them sick or poisoning their water, especially to the media, Whyte said. The CSR counsellor can take those complaints and “create a space for constructive dialogue,” to try to find a resolution.
Read more
With the new CIM website (seee http://www.itihnkmining.com ) to be established with $20 million of taxpayer money, we will soon enough know what mining corporate social responsibility means. We are about to get Canadian-specific guideline, put out by CIM and the government. I can hardly wait to see them.
Why all this expensive effort when it is pretty obvious what CSR means: (a) do not kill or arrange to have killed people who oppose the mine; (b) do not displace populations who do not want to go; (c) do not pullute; and (d) go see Avatar.
Or do I get it wrong: are we about to spend $20 million putting together some guidelines as to how to do CSR in other countries. If a mining company needs that expenditure by the taxpayers rather tell them to pay to hire a reputable consultant on in-house expert. Let the shareholders pay, is my motto.
Perhaps the shareholder is already paying – the question is – what are they paying for.
Doing a quick scan for CSR officer salaries I came across this Acona 2008-9 report (www.csrsalarysurvey.com/). It provides an overview of several sectors (with a small representation of extractive industries) and indicates that median salary of a CSR Officer is in the region of £45-50,000 (about $75-85,000 Cnd). Interestingly, it notes that almost 30% of people do not have a first degree and 52% have a degree, but not in a CSR field – therefore perhaps just being a jack of all trades, one can be the successful interface between corporations and communities. The survey also ranks activities of CSR officers and “reporting” plays a major role – and in some cases seems to trump actual community engagement. Internal and external marketing also make the list. This begs the questions – in these cases, how can you differentiate between CSR and public relations officers?