CSV Strategies for Material Issues in Mining

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Creating shared value using materiality analysis: Strategies
from the mining industry
Cesar Saenz
Administration Department, ESAN University,
Lima, Peru
Correspondence
Cesar Saenz, ESAN University, Alonso de
Molina 1652, Lima, Peru.
Email: csaenz@esan.edu.pe
Abstract
Materiality reflects an organization's significant social, economic, and environmental
impacts, together with their influence on stakeholders' assessments and decisions.
The Global Reporting Initiative's G4 Guidelines describe a four‐step process for an
organization to follow to determine the specific content to be included in its social
responsibility report. However, there are no recommendations regarding what types
of strategies should be used for each social issue depending on their materiality.
The main aims of this paper are to explain the material issues and to identify what
creating shared value (CSV) strategies can be applied to address each social issue
according to a materiality analysis. For this purpose, a sample of 27 mining companies
is obtained. Based on secondary sources, a content analysis is prepared. The resulting
framework provides CSV theory with a guide to what CSV strategy is recommended
according to the location of each social issue in the materiality matrix.
KEYWORDS
creating shared value, materiality, mining, social responsibility, strategy
1 | INTRODUCTION
Creating shared value (CSV) seeks to address declining social trust in
corporations and to improve the relationships between business and
society by aligning social benefits with corporate profits (Porter &
Kramer, 2011). Portrayed as a new conception of capitalism able to
unleash a next wave of global growth (Porter & Kramer, 2011), shared
value has been adopted by a number of the world's major corporations.
Furthermore, this concept emerged because many companies remained
trapped in an outdated approach to value creation; that is, optimizing
short‐term financial performance while neglecting the most important
customer needs and the broader influences that determine longer‐term
success (Porter & Kramer, 2011).
Nevertheless, the active pursuit of shared value requires different
thinking and internal actions, such as establishing and embedding
shared value within the corporate culture. This may be achieved by
defining a clear social purpose, to be subsequently publicized or
embedded in core processes such as strategic planning and budgeting
(Pfitzer, Bockstette, & Stamp, 2013; Saenz, 2018b).
Scholars support that materiality analysis plays a crucial
part in CSV (Camilleri, 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2006) by helping
identify the most relevant issues for the long‐term maximization of
value.
1.1 | Research gap
Materiality analysis has a role to play in CSV as a tool for prioritizing
issues and strategic planning, allowing an integrated approach to
defining a sustainability strategy and to reporting. CSV requires stake-
holders to be involved in the identification of social issues (Pfitzer
et al., 2013; Saenz, 2018a; one of the core steps of the materiality
analysis methodology), as more value is created when companies
diligently seek to serve the interests of a broad group of stakeholders
(Freeman, 1984; Harrison & Wicks, 2013). A change in focus to what
is material to a company's value (to their business and their key stake-
holders) allows for more credible, relevant, and user‐friendly reports
(Global Reporting Initiative [GRI], 2016) that are aligned with the
Received: 24 October 2018 Revised: 16 February 2019 Accepted: 26 February 2019
DOI: 10.1002/csr.1751
Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;1–10. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr 1

principles of CSV (Font, Guix, & Bonilla‐Priego, 2016). Due to the
growing relevance in the agenda of nonfinancial, social, environmental,
and governance issues, there is no way back from integrating environ-
mental and social governance outcomes into business strategies by
highlighting those issues that provide current or potential opportuni-
ties for social progress and where, by innovating and developing prod-
ucts accordingly, shared value can be created. Defining which social
issue is material, the company can create strategies to cope with it
encompasses discerning materiality to its stakeholders, industry, and
the environment (Kemp, Bond, Franks, & Cote, 2010; Font et al.,
2016; Saenz, 2019).). For this reason, the main aims of this paper are
(1) to explain the material issues in the mining industry and (2) to iden-
tify what CSV strategies can be applied to address each social issue
according to a materiality analysis framework in the mining industry.
The paper has been divided into five sections. After establishing
the theoretical and practical ambiguities of the materiality analysis
and its relationship with CSV in the first section, a concise and struc-
tured methodology of the literature review is discussed in the second
section. It then presents a framework for analysis where the CSV
strategies are used by each quadrant in the materiality matrix. The
third section presents the methodology, which aims to test the frame-
work presented in this study. The fourth section discusses the identi-
fication of the type of CSV used to deal with the issues in each
quadrant. The fifth section concludes the discussion and identifies
the opportunities for future research.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | Creating shared value
The creation of shared value has been defined as policies and operat-
ing practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while
simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the
communities in which it operates (Porter & Kramer, 2011). There are
three mutually reinforcing avenues related to CSV (Porter & Kramer,
2011): First, companies that continuously explore societal needs will
discover new opportunities for differentiation and repositioning in tra-
ditional markets and will recognize the potential of new markets. Sec-
ond, the synergy of societal progress and productivity in the value
chain increases when firms approach societal issues from a shared
value perspective and find innovative ways of operating to address
these issues throughout the value chain. Third, productivity and inno-
vation are strongly influenced by clusters (geographic concentrations)
of firms, related businesses, suppliers, service providers, and logistical
infrastructure in a particular field.
The principle of CSV focuses on identifying and expanding the
connections between social and economic progress (Porter & Kramer,
2011). This is characterized by policies and operating procedures that
enhance competitive positioning while simultaneously advancing the
economic and social conditions of the communities within which the
company operates (Maltz & Schein, 2012; Pfitzer et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, the active pursuit of shared value requires a differ-
ent way of thinking and internal actions, such as establishing and
embedding shared value within the corporate culture. This may be
achieved by defining a clear social purpose, which is subsequently
publicized or embedded in core processes, such as strategic planning
and budgeting (Pfitzer et al., 2013). Because there is a fundamental
interdependence between a company's success and social welfare,
the difficulty lies in balancing short‐term costs against long‐term
externalities (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Every company will need to sort
social issues into the following two categories: (1) Creating a social
dimension to the value proposition. At the heart of any strategy is a
unique value proposition—a set of needs a company can meet for its
chosen customers that others cannot. (2) Value chain social impacts
are those that are significantly affected by the company's activities
in the ordinary course of business.
However, CSV faces numerous critics in the academy. Crane et al.
(2015) claim that CSV is unoriginal, ignores the tension between social
and economic goals, is naïve about the reality of businesses' ethical
compliance, and is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's
role in society. Also, De Los Reyes et al. (2017) said that CSV leaves
managers ill‐equipped to legitimately manage social issues where they
face the prospect of win–lose or lose–win social engagements. For
legitimacy, managers need to bolster CSV with ethical frameworks—
specifically, norm‐taking and norm‐making frameworks. Managers
can be better positioned to create shared value through CSV+, a mul-
tipart framework built around CSV and augmented by ethical frame-
works. Furthermore, Beschorner (2014) also noted that the creation
of business value and social value may not always go hand in hand.
He regarded Porter and Kramer's (2011) shared value approach as a
reformulation of a classical strategic stakeholder approach that tends
to prioritize the relevance of social issues of stakeholders according
to their influence on the business' activities. Moreover, Strand et al.
(2015) suggested that CSV necessitates heightened forms of collabo-
ration and stakeholder management as they remarked about the
apparent links between CSV and stakeholder theory which
incorporate social issues. Also, Camilleri (2017) said that the corporate
sustainability and responsibility construct is about embedding sustain-
ability and responsibility by seeking out and connecting with the
stakeholders' social issues. Nowadays, every year more and more
companies are voluntarily reporting sustainability information, and
increasingly, they are using reporting frameworks, such as the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 guidelines (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Jain &
Islam, 2016; Schadewitz & Niskala, 2010). GRI G4 provides companies
with guidelines on how to define sustainability report content,
stressing the concept of materiality analysis. Consequently, it is impor-
tant to know how CSV strategies can be used to address social issues
according to a materiality analysis.
2.2 | Materiality analysis
In the GRI's Guidelines, materiality reflects an organization's significant
social, economic, environmental, and social impacts, together with
2 SAENZ

their influence on stakeholders' assessments and decisions. Thus, the
concept of materiality for sustainability reporting is complex because
it is concerned with a wider range of impacts and stakeholders (GRI,
2018). A materiality matrix tool can be used to include the company's
and its stakeholders' perspectives on what is material; for example, the
process‐oriented AA1000 framework developed by AccountAbility (an
international institute dedicated to promoting social, ethical, and over-
all organizational accountability) offers a five‐step test to determine
what is material and what is not, which should result “in a comprehen-
sive and balanced understanding and prioritization of its material sus-
tainability issues” (AccountAbility, 2008: 13). In this respect, the
process for determining materiality constitutes a “strategic business
tool” that companies can adopt to “apply a sustainability lens to busi-
ness risk, opportunity, trendspotting and enterprise risk management
processes” (KPMG, 2014: 3).
The way in which materiality is identified varies from one organiza-
tion to another, but a number of common elements can be identified
(PGS, 2013). These include the explicit identification of a number of
environmental, social, and economic issues around which the sustain-
ability report is developed; the evaluation and ranking of both com-
pany and stakeholder concerns on each of the identified issues;
identification of the ways in which the company has elicited stake-
holders' contributions to the process; and the prioritization of these
issues in a way that informs the company's sustainability strategy
and reporting process.
After completing this process, the company will be aware of stake-
holders' concerns and be ready to prepare the sustainability report.
Moreover, the researcher suggests that these concerns or material
issues (social and environmental) should be contained in the code of
conduct, which represents a set of undertakings that their sponsors
promise to implement with a view to addressing some of the real or
perceived societal concerns associated with or emanating from the
company's conduct.
In effect, the main objective of the materiality principle is to pro-
vide stakeholders with information consistent with their expectations
so that they can assess company performance (Hsu, Lee, & Chao,
2013). Indeed, material reports provide stakeholders with information
that enables them to evaluate the organization's long and short‐term
social and environmental performance (Gray, 2006; Muñoz‐Torres
et al., 2012; Moffat & Zhang, 2014). There are numerous topics on
which organizations can report; nevertheless, many of the relevant
topics and indicators are those that can reasonably be expected to
influence the stakeholders' perceptions and decisions (for example,
those concerning the intention to purchase or development of cus-
tomer loyalty). The aim of materiality analysis is to identify relevant
issues for corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and prioritize
these material issues in accordance with stakeholder needs and expec-
tations (Deegan & Rankin, 1997; Hsu et al., 2013).
The GRI (2016) offers a complete implementation manual on how
to standardize the prioritization of issues, risks, and opportunities
using stakeholder inputs and company insights to determine material
issues and report content. Briefly, this consists of (1) identifying
triple‐bottom‐line aspects and topics (within and outside of the
company) and applying the principles (GRI, 2016) of sustainability
and stakeholder engagement (Messier, Martinov‐Bennie, & Eilifsen,
2005); (2) prioritizing by employing the principles of materiality and
stakeholder inclusiveness, as commonly captured and visually repre-
sented in a materiality matrix (GRI, 2016; Murninghan, 2013); (3)
validating using the principles of stakeholder inclusiveness to assess
the aspects against scope, boundaries, and time, ensuring the report
provides reasonable and balanced triple‐bottom‐line impacts; and (4)
reviewing the outcome by using the principles of sustainability and
stakeholder engagement by revising the aspects that were material
in the previous reporting period. Figure 1 depicts this idea in the form
of a two‐by‐two matrix.
The matrix approach is proposed in order to prioritize social issues
and determine a materiality threshold at which issues are sufficiently
significant to be reported. However, the GRI G4 guidelines provide
neither any structured approach to perform this task nor strategies
to cope with those social issues. Consequently, companies face diffi-
culties for making materiality analysis work in practice. First of all,
materiality analysis requires companies to evaluate the significance
of a social issue, identifying to whom it is significant and why and to
design strategies to cope with those social issues. Indeed, materiality
analysis is a highly subjective process in which personal opinions,
experiences, and expectations are key elements for evaluating the sig-
nificance of aspects (Zhu, 2011).
2.3 | Framework for analysis
Materiality analysis plays a role in CSV as a tool for prioritizing
issues and strategic planning, allowing an integrated approach to
defining a sustainability strategy and reporting. CSV requires stake-
holders to be involved in identifying problems (Pfitzer et al., 2013;
one of the core steps of the materiality analysis methodology), as
FIGURE 1 The materiality matrix
SAENZ 3

more value is created when companies diligently seek to serve the
interests of a broad group of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984; Harrison
& Wicks, 2013). Due to the growing relevance in the agenda of non-
financial, social, environmental, and governance issues, integrating
environmental and social governance outcomes into business strate-
gies by highlighting issues that provide current or potential opportu-
nities for social progress and where, by innovating and developing
products accordingly, shared value can be created, has become
unavoidable (Font et al., 2016).
CSV also requires exploration of societal needs in both the value
chain and clusters. Moreover, the materiality analysis needs to estab-
lish the influence on external stakeholders (social dimension or cluster)
and on the business (value chain; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Therefore,
CSV and the materiality analysis are related, as indicated in Figure 2.
According to the framework, the CSV strategies used by each
quadrant are as follows:
Quadrant 1:. Highest materiality. CSV uses three strategies: (1)
reconceiving products and markets, (2) redefining productivity in
the value chain, and (3) creating an enabling local environment (Por-
ter & Kramer, 2011).
Quadrant 2:. Medium to high materiality. CSV uses only one strategy:
(3) creating an enabling local environment (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Quadrant 3:. Low materiality. CSV uses two strategies: (1) redefining
productivity in the value and (2) creating an enabling local environ-
ment (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Quadrant 4:. Medium to high materiality. CSV uses only one
strategy: (1) redefining productivity in the value chain (Porter &
Kramer, 2006).
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Data sample
The mining industry holds an even more predominant position for
national economies because managing mineral resources has always
presented a major challenge for many countries worldwide, especially
in the developing world. Hence, to test the framework presented in
this study, a sample from the International Council on Mining and
FIGURE 2 Framework: creating shared
value strategies by each materiality quadrant
4 SAENZ

Metals (ICMM) was used. ICMM is an international organization ded-
icated to maintaining a safe, fair, and sustainable mining and metals
industry. ICMM members currently include 27 major companies and
three commodity and regional trade and industry associations.
Data and information related to the social activities of companies
in the sample were taken from their respective current corporate
websites, social responsibility reports, and other reports (10 docu-
ments). This information is already in the public domain, and conse-
quently, the researcher took the considered view that there was no
need to contact the companies to obtain formal permission prior to
conducting the study.
3.2 | Data analysis
This study was carried out using secondary sources. The
information was compiled using the content analysis technique pro-
posed by Fernandez (2002). Content analysis examines any available
texts pertaining to social responsibility policies, strategies, goals,
practices, or performance reported by the sample companies.
Indeed, content analysis has been widely used in research on
social responsibility (Bohdanowicz, 2007; Holcomb, 2010) and is
one of the most popular methods used to analyze social and envi-
ronmental reporting by firms (Gray et al., 1995; Holder‐Webb
et al., 2009).
Moreover, this method may also provide the possibility to mea-
sure new CSR activities (Abbott & Monsen, 1979). Especially in
recent years, information about social responsibility has become
more readily accessible due to the increasing attention that compa-
nies pay to social disclosure, that is, the information companies pro-
vide on their practices regarding environmental, community,
employee, and consumer issues (Gray et al., 1995). The growing
body of literature on corporate social reporting has increased the
use of content analysis as a method of measuring CSR. According
to Ruf et al. (1998), this method allows for an “objective rating of
companies since once the social attributes are selected, the process
of rating is standardized” (p. 121). However, the information given in
a corporate report can be different from the actual corporate actions
(McGuire et al., 1988). Companies may mislead the potential readers
of these reports in order to create a more favorable image. There-
fore, the reliability of company reports may represent a significant
limitation for the content analysis method in this setting. Previous
studies that focus on the reliability of corporate environmental dis-
closures have provided empirical evidence that there is no significant
association between the content of these reports and actual perfor-
mance (Freedman and Wasley, 1990; Ingram and Frazier, 1980;
Rockness, 1985; Wiseman, 1982). Also, the technique has previously
been used in studies that involve corporate information located on
the internet, covering topics such as transparency of corporate infor-
mation on the websites of listed companies, disclosure of social
responsibility information in the financial sector, and disclosure of
CSR information in Latin American companies (Briano & Rodriguez,
2012; Gandía & Perez, 2005; Haro de Rosario, Alarcon, & Perez,
2012; Cuevas‐Mejia, Escobar‐Vaquiro, & Maldonado‐Garcia, 2013;
Rodríguez, Fuentes, & Sanchez, 2012).
In content analysis, it is recommended that a set of categories
be established into which data can be coded (Stray, 2008), and
the current study has developed broad categories of social issues
(e.g., water, stakeholder engagement, environmental compliance,
sustainable benefits for communities, rights and engagement of
indigenous peoples, and human rights) rather than responsibility
types (e.g., economic and legal); this categorization method has
been suggested to have more potential to enhance theoretical
understanding and empirical testing (Jamali, 2008). Also, these
social issues are categorized by materiality quadrant, and this
prevents a clearer investigation of the social issues linked with mate-
riality quadrant (Spiller, 2000; Turker, 2009a, 2009b; Waddock,
2004).
However, content analysis has mainly been critiqued for coding
errors caused by a reliance on human judgment, which can be affected
by fatigue, among other factors (Maphosa, 1997). This potential limita-
tion was addressed in the current study through the following mea-
sures: first, the social issues in the mining industry and the
comprehensiveness of the information were identified independently
by two researchers who then coded to relevant items; second, any
coding discrepancy was discussed and scrutinized repeatedly, until
both coders exhibited satisfactory coherency; finally, the intercoder
reliability was evaluated for all coded variables, and this resulted in a
level of agreement ranging from 90 to 100%, indicating that all items
are highly reliable.
4 | DISCUSSION
The main aim of this paper is to understand which CSV strategies can
be applied to address social issues according to a materiality analysis.
The paper addresses two main points: (1) to explain the material issues
according to each quadrant and (2) to identify the type of CSV strat-
egy that mining companies are using to face those issues according
to the materiality matrix.
First, this section discusses some main results of applied content
analysis in terms of unique frequency counts of top emerging social
issues in each quadrant, and according to the social responsibility
reports and websites of the mining companies; the following social
issues were obtained:
Quadrant 1:. Highest materiality. Waste and hazardous material man-
agement, stakeholder engagement, water, environmental compli-
ance, sustainable benefits for communities, rights and engagement
of indigenous peoples, human rights, workforce safety and health,
governance, and accountability
Quadrant 2:. Medium to high materiality. Economic performance, bio-
diversity and land use, and tax strategy/transparency.
Quadrant 3:. Low materiality. Mine closure, partnerships and collabo-
ration, information and asset security, supply chain, emergency pre-
paredness, and public policy.
SAENZ 5

Quadrant 4:. Medium to high materiality. Ethics, anticorruption and
compliance, diversity, inclusion and equality, workforce engagement
and management, air quality, energy management, and climate
change.
These results are summarized in Figure 3, which also provides an over-
view of frequent occurring social issues identified through performing
content analysis on the available information.
Second, regarding identification of the type of CSV strategy that
mining companies are using to deal with the issues in each quadrant,
the following results were obtained:
Quadrant 1:. Highest materiality. These social issues are relevant for
both the mining company and external stakeholders (GRI, 2016).
Therefore, for each issue, the type of CSV strategies used varied
from (1) reconceiving products and markets, (2) redefining produc-
tivity in the value chain, to (3) creating an enabling local environ-
ment (Porter & Kramer, 2011). There are issues that can use only
one strategy—(1), (2), or (3), for example: rights and engagement
of indigenous peoples. On the other hand, a social issue can use
all three types of strategies—for example, water (see Table 1).
As an example, the water issue is addressed by using all the CSV
strategies as follows: (1) Reconceiving products and markets. This
can be done by finding new water sources to avoid taking surface
and underground fresh water; for example, a mining company reports
that at their Hillside aluminum smelter in South Africa constructed a
desalination plant to address water shortages resulting from drought.
With access to water through this plant, they no longer need to rely
on the shared community water resources. (2) Redefining productivity
in the value chain. Water can be conserved and recycled; for example,
a mining company reports that they have invested in innovative and
highly effective recycling and conservation practices to ensure they
allocate water efficiently. They recycle water across all operations,
from truck‐washing to cooling systems, and treat household waste
water at seven waste water treatment plants. (3) Creating an enabling
local environment; for example, a mining company reports that
Freeport's Cerro Verde mine in Peru agreed to cofinance two dams
to better regulate the Rio Chili system, as well as construct a potable
water plant.
Quadrant 2:. Quadrant 2: Medium to high materiality. These social
issues are relevant for external stakeholders but not for the mining
company (GRI, 2016). Therefore, for each issue, the type of
strategy used is mainly (3) creating an enabling local environment
(Porter & Kramer, 2006)—for example, transparency and biodiver-
sity (see Table 2). As an example, the transparency issue is
addressed as follows: BHP Billiton began publicly releasing informa-
tion about the tax and royalty payments it makes to governments
on a project‐by‐project basis. By voluntarily deciding to do it in
every country and subnational jurisdiction where it operates, BHP
Billiton has illustrated the massive scale of its fiscal contributions
(Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) et al., 2016).
Quadrant 3:. Quadrant 3: Low materiality. These social issues are less
relevant to both the mining company and external stakeholders
(GRI, 2016). Therefore, for each social issue, the types of strategies
used varied from (2) redefining productivity in the value chain to
(3) creating an enabling local environment (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
FIGURE 3 Material issues identified in each quadrant for the mining industry
6 SAENZ

There are issues that can only use one strategy—(2) or (3)—for exam-
ple, supply chain and public policy (see Table 3). As an example, the
supply chain issue is addressed as follows: Anglo American founded
its Zimele (“to stand on one's own feet”) program in 1989 to help
previously disadvantaged South Africans with funding and support
to build their own successful small‐ to medium‐sized enterprise
Quadrant 4:. Quadrant 4: Medium to high materiality. These social
issues are relevant for the mining company but not for external
stakeholders (GRI, 2016). Therefore, for each social issue, the type
of strategy used is mainly (2) redefining productivity in the value
chain (Porter & Kramer, 2006)—for example, workforce engagement
and management, energy management, and climate change (see
Table 4). As an example, the gender equality issue is addressed as
follows: in recognition of the need to correct gender disparities in
mining and engineering, Goldcorp donated C$500,000 to the
TABLE 1 Quadrant 1 (highest materiality)
Social issue
CSV
strategy Examples
Water (1) Sharing benefits through water
and energy infrastructure.
(2) Conserving and recycling water
(3) Providing drinking water to
community
Waste and hazardous
material management
(2) Implementing the environmentally
sound management of chemicals
and all wastes throughout
their life cycle
(2) Preventing emission of toxic
substances to the
surrounding environment
Stakeholder
engagement
(3) Planning early for land access,
resettlement and livelihood
restoration
(3) Supporting non‐mining‐related
livelihood options
(3) Implementing community
development agreements
(CDAs) to help broaden access
to anti‐poverty strategies
Environmental
compliance
(2) Minimizing mine inputs and waste
(2) Implementing responsible sourcing
(2) Reducing, measuring and reporting
emissions
(3) Avoiding impacts to critical
habitat and working towards
no net loss and net gain
Sustainable benefits for
communities
(3) Supporting local procurement
and skill development
Rights and engagement
of indigenous peoples
(1) Respecting free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC)
and the special status of
indigenous peoples
Human rights (1) Implementing human rights
impact assessments
Governance and
accountability
(2) Participating in conflict‐
free mineral certification
schemes
Legend: (1) Reconceiving products and markets. (2) Redefining productivity
in the value chain. (3) Creating an enabling local environment.
TABLE 2 Quadrant 2 (medium to high materiality)
Social issue
CSV
strategy Examples
Economic
performance
(3) Understanding the limits and
opportunities of mining's
economic impacts
(2) Driving economic growth
with local procurement and
supplier development strategies
Biodiversity and
land use
(3) Supporting projects that link
communities and biodiversity
(3) Implementing biodiversity offsets
Tax strategy/
transparency
(3) Spearheading transparency
TABLE 3 Quadrant 3 (low materiality)
Social issue
CSV
strategy Examples
Mine closure (2) Implementing a life‐of‐
mine skills baseline
and assessment
Partnerships and
collaboration
(1) Incorporating sustainable
development goals in
to policies
(3) Transferring innovative
and environmentally
sound technologies
(3) Sharing geodata
(3) Participating in dialogues
(3) Strengthening coordination
between initiatives
(3) Collaborating to strengthen
health services
(3) Recognizing and collaborating
to strengthen traditional
practices
Supply chain (3) Building local, regional and
national procurement
strategies
Emergency
preparedness.
(3) Participating in planning
the response to epidemics
(2) Advocate for improved
coordination and response
Public policy (3) Strengthen coordination
between public initiatives
SAENZ 7

University of British Columbia on International Women's Day in
2014 to set up the Goldcorp Professorship in Women in Engineering
5 | CONCLUDING REMARKS
In practical terms, this study points out which CSV strategies can be
used according to the quadrant of the materiality matrix in the mining
industry and improves the use of the materiality analysis and the
actions that a mining company must take. These findings can help min-
ing executives to prioritize social issues and increase the allocation of
resources to cope with those social issues.
Improving a business's strategic response to stakeholder demands
can be promoted through a more nuanced understanding of stakeholder
expectations (Whitehead, 2017). Depending on the social issue's mate-
riality, a company can allocate resources to reconceive its operations,
redefine productivity in the value chain, and create an enabling local
environment. The findings of the study also raise some interesting
policy implications. Businesses have limited resources to address sus-
tainability concerns. The findings of the research suggest that there
are a range of issues that attract widespread stakeholder concern and
that it is probably in the best interest of businesses to address these
concerns using the corresponding CSV strategy. Knowing the most rel-
evant issues and strategies to be developed for each quadrant, stake-
holder groups can assist mining executives in aligning their
sustainability efforts with their stakeholders' concerns. These results
provide a new angle to improve the application of the CSV theory.
The main limitation of this study is that it focused on only the min-
ing sector. A broader sample of the industrial sector might enhance
the generalizability of results. Despite its limitations, this research con-
tributes to understanding of the culture needed to earn SLO. Despite
its limitations, however, this study provides support for the strategic
view of CSV as delivering shared value for business and society, as
envisioned by Porter and Kramer (2011).
Future studies could focus on the following aspects: (1) finding
other types of strategies for each quadrant in the materiality analysis,
using, for example, bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid theory or triple‐bottom‐
line theory, and (2) applying the framework in other sectors, such as
finance, industry, agriculture, construction, or oil and gas. A broader
sample of firms would also enhance the generalizability of results.
ORCID
Cesar Saenz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9610-1057
REFERENCES
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the Measurement of Corporate
Social Responsibility: Self‐Reported Disclosures as a Method of Mea-
suring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management
Journal, 22(3), 501–515.
AccountAbility (2008), “AA1000 accountability principles standard 2008”,
available at: www.accountability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/
AA1000APS_english.pdf6&cd=2&hl=it&ct= clnk&gl=it.
Beschorner, T. (2014). Creating shared value: the one‐trick pony approach.
Business Ethics Journal Review, 1, 106–112.
Bohdanowicz, P. (2007). A case study of Hilton environmental reporting as
a tool of corporate social responsibility. Tourism Review International,
11(2), 115–131.
Briano, G., & Rodriguez, L. (2012). Corporate information transparency on
the internet by listed companies in Spain (IBEX35) and Mexico (IPYC).
International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 12, 1e37. Research
in. http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10272/6170/Cor-
porate_information_transparency.pdf?sequence¼2
Camilleri, M. A. (2012). Creating shared value through strategic CSR (pp.
218–233). Netherlands: International conference on innovation and
management (ICIM).
Camilleri, M. (2017). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating
value for business, society and theenvironment. Asian Journal of Sus-
tainability and Social Responsibility (2017), 2, 59–74.
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), UN Sustainable Devel-
opment Solutions Network (SDSN), United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the World Economic Forum. (2016). Mapping
Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas. Retrieve from:
http://unsdsn.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/11/Mapping_Mining_
SDGs_An_Atlas.pdf
TABLE 4 Quadrant 4 (medium to high materiality)
Social issue
CSV
strategy Examples
Ethics (1) Collaborating to establish codes
of conduct and principles
Anti‐corruption and
compliance
(1) Promoting the rule of law
Diversity (3) Promoting sustainable
development and
cultural diversity
Inclusion and equality. (3) Collaborating to manage
impacts on women in
local communities
Workforce engagement
and management
(2) Promoting inclusive employment
(2) Promoting skills development
(2) Investing in workforce
education, training and
technical programs
Energy management (2) Improving energy efficiency
(3) Sharing benefits through
energy infrastructure
(2) Incorporating renewable
energy
(3) Supporting local energy
initiatives
Climate change (2) Adopting a corporate
policy to address
climate change
(2) Aligning company
strategies with national
efforts and sharing the
company's policy on
climate change
(2) Building climate
change resilience
8 SAENZ

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2015). Contesting the
value of ‘creating shared value’. California Management Review, 56,
130–153.
Cuevas‐Mejia, J., Escobar‐Vaquiro, N., & Maldonado‐Garcia, S. (2013).
Aproximacion a los factores que influyen en la divulgacion de
informacion sobre RSC en empresas de America Latina. Cuardernos de
contabilidad, 14(34), 91–131.
De los Reyes, G., Scholz, M., & Smith, N. C. (2017). Beyond the ‘win‐win’:
creating shared value requires ethical frameworks. California Manage-
ment Review, Forthcoming. Forthcoming, INSEAD Working Paper
No. 2016/67/ATL/SocialInnovation Centre. https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2848192.
de Rosario, A. H., Alarcon, F., & Perez, M. d. C. C. (2012). Los
Determinantes de la Divulgacion de Informacion sobre
Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en el Sector Financiero: caso
Espa~nol. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Economicas: Investigacion y
Reflexion, 20(1). Research in. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?
script¼sci_arttextandpid¼S0121‐68052012000100012#t6
Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental
information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 10(4), 562–583. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513579710367485
Fernandez, F. (2002). El Analisis de contenido como ayuda metodologica
para la investigacion. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 96, 35–53. Research
in. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/153/15309604.pdf
Font, X., Guix, M., & Bonilla‐Priego, M. J. (2016). Corporate social respon-
sibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value.
Tourism Management, 53, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2015.10.007
Freedman, M., & Wasley, C. (1990). The Association Between Environmen-
tal Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and
10‐Ks. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 183–193.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Bos-
ton MA: Pitman.
Gandía, J., & Perez, T. (2005). E‐Gobierno corporativo y transparencia
informativa en las sociedades cotizadas espanolas: un estudio
empírico. Direccionn de Estudios y Estadísticas, Comision Nacional
de Mercado de Valores. Monografía N, 8, 1e47. Research in. http://
internet.cnmv.es/DocPortal/Publicaciones/MONOGRAFIAS/MON20
05_8.PDF
González, M., del Mar Alonso‐Almeida, M., & Dominguez, D. (2017). Map-
ping global sustainability reportscoring: a detailed analysis of Europe
and Asia. Quality & Quantity, 1–15.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental
reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK dis-
closure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and
organisational value creation, Whose value? Whose creation? Account-
ing, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09513570610709872
GRI (2016). Defining what matters. Do companies and investors agree on
what is material? Mining, metals and in collaboration with electric
utilitiesGlobal Reporting Initiative.
GRI (2018). The materiality principle: A deep dive. https://www.
globalreporting.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2018/CSE/Materiality%
20Webinar%2029%20Nov%202018.pdf
Harrison, J., & Wicks, A. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm
performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97e124.
Holcomb, J. L. (2010). General managers’ perceptions of corporate social
responsibility in Florida hotels. Doctoral dissertation. Central Florida:
University of Central Florida, http://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=2618&context=etd. Accessed 7 June 2016.
Holder‐Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of
corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. Journal of
Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527.
Hsu, C. W., Lee, W. H., & Chao, B. (2013). Materiality analysis model in sus-
tainability reporting—A case study at lite‐on technology company.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.05.040
Ingram, R., & Frazier, K. (1980). Environmental Performance and Corporate
Disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(2), 614–622.
Jain, A., & Islam, M. A. (2016). The rise of GRI: a social contagion epidemic.
In Proceedings of the Ninth Asia‐Pacific Conference on Global Business,
Economics, Finance and Banking. Paper ID: HK619.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibil-
ity: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business
Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.
Kemp, D., Bond, C., Franks, D., & Cote, C. (2010). Mining, water and human
rights: making the connection. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol, 18
Issue(15), 1551–1560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.008
KPMG (2014), “The essentials of materiality assessment”, available at:
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/10/material-
ity‐assessment.pdf (accessed 10 June 2017).
Maltz, E., & Schein, S. (2012). Cultivating shared value initiatives: A three
Cs approach. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2012(47(Autumn),
55–74. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2012.au.00005
Maphosa, F. (1997). Corporate social responsibility in Zimbabwe: A con-
tent analysis of mission statements and annual reports. Zambezia,
24(2), 181–193.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate Social
Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 31, 854–872.
Messier, W. F., Martinov‐Bennie, N., & Eilifsen, A. (2005). Review and
integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later.
Auditing Journal of Practice and Theory, 24(2), 153e204.
Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social licence to operate: An
integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining.
Resources Policy, 39, 61–70.
Muñoz‐Torres, M. J., Escrig‐Olmedo, E., Ferrero‐Ferrero, I., Fernandez‐
Izquierdo, M. A., Leon‐Soriano, R., & Rivera‐Lirio, J. M. (2012). Materi-
ality analysis forCSR reporting in Spanish SMEs. International Journal of
Management, Knowledge and Learning, 1(2), 231–250.
Murninghan, M. (2013). Redefining materiality II: Why it matters, who's
involved, and what it means for corporate leaders and boards. Setting
the standard for corporate responsibility and sustainable development.
New York: Accountability.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V. and Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared
value. Harvard Business Review.
PGS (2013), “Determining materiality: A key for corporate sustainability”,
Available at: Www. pgsadvisors.com/2013/07/determining‐material-
ity‐a‐key‐tool‐for‐corporate‐sustainability/ (accessed 8 January 2015).
Porter M. & Kramer M. 2011. The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard
Business Review January–February: 62–77
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 84(12).
Rockness, J. W. (1985). An Assessment of the Relationship Between US
Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure. Journal of Busi-
ness Finance & Accounting, 12(3), 339–354.
SAENZ 9

Rodríguez, P., Fuentes, F., & Sanchez, S. (2012). Aplicacion de la
Metodología del analisis de contenido a la revelacion de informacion
sobre clientes y empleados en las entidades financieras espanolas a
traves de las memorias RSC (2007‐2010). Revista de Ciencias Sociales:
Prisma Sociales, 9, 226e261.
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The Development of a Sys-
tematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal
of Management, 24(1), 119–133.
Saenz, C. (2018a). The context in mining projects influences the corporate
social responsibility strategy to earn a social licence to operate: A case
study in Peru. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement, 25(4), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1478
Saenz, C. (2018b). Building legitimacy and trust between a mining company
and a community to earn social license to operate: A Peruvian case
study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1679
Saenz, C. (2019). A social conflict diagnostic tool for application in the min-
ing industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1714
Schadewitz, H., & Niskala, M. (2010). Communication via responsibility
reporting and its effect on firmvalue in Finland. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(2), 96–106.
Spiller, R. (2000). Ethical Business and Investment: A Model for Business and
Society, the. Netherlands: Springer.
Strand, R. (2015). Scandinavia can be an inspiration for creating shared
value. Financial Times Business EducationSoapbox. http://www.ft.
com/intl/cms/s/2/84bbd770‐b34d‐11e3‐b09d‐00144feabdc0.
html#axzz2zw0bVEbR.
Stray, S. (2008). Environmental reporting: The UK water and energy indus-
tries: A research note. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 697–710.
Turker, D. (2009a). How corporate social responsibility influences organi-
zational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.
Turker, D. (2009b). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale
development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.
Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the prog-
ress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5–42.
Whitehead, J. (2017). Prioritizing sustainability indicators: Using materiality
analysis to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Business Strat-
egy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 26(3), 399–412. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.1928
Wiseman, J. (1982). An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Cor-
porate Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 7(l), 53–63.
Zhu, Y. (2011). Materiality approach in sustainability reporting: applica-
tions, dilemmas, and challenges. In 1st World Sust’ainability Forum
(Vol. 1). MDPI.
How to cite this article: Saenz C. Creating shared value using
materiality analysis: Strategies from the mining industry. Corp
Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1751
10 SAENZ

CSV Strategies for Material Issues in Mining

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to CSV Strategies for Material Issues in Mining

Similar to CSV Strategies for Material Issues in Mining (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CSV Strategies for Material Issues in Mining