Applied Science, Faculty of
Other UBC
Mining Engineering, Keevil Institute of
DSpace
University of British Columbia. School of Public Policy and Global Affairs
Fraser, Jocelyn
Kunz, Nadja C.
With many of the world’s largest mines operating in jurisdictions of water scarcity, competition for water has become a frequent source of tension between mining companies and other water users. Water stewardship is, therefore, becoming an important strategy for the mining sector to address stakeholder concerns and earn social acceptance. Collaborative partnerships between mining and other water users are a necessary component of advancing water stewardship, but the attributes needed to implement a successful water stewardship strategy are understudied. This paper addresses this gap by examining two exploratory case studies in Peru and Mongolia, where collaboration has been used as a strategy for promoting more sustainable outcomes in water-scarce regions. The findings suggest that while questions remain about who is best suited to lead collaborative partnerships, trust in the entity responsible for leading collaborative partnerships (especially in situations of high conflict) and a willingness to allow each partner to play to their strengths are critical attributes of success. We conclude that the outcome of collective action between mining companies and other water users offers the potential to deliver both business and social value, and to advance more sustainable water management.
waterArticleWater Stewardship: Attributes of CollaborativePartnerships between Mining Companiesand CommunitiesJocelyn Fraser 1,* and Nadja C. Kunz 1,21 UBC School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,BC V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,Canada; nadja.kunz@ubc.ca* Correspondence: jocelynfraser@shaw.ca; Tel.: +1-604-512-1951Received: 10 July 2018; Accepted: 9 August 2018; Published: 14 August 2018Abstract: With many of the world’s largest mines operating in jurisdictions of water scarcity,competition for water has become a frequent source of tension between mining companies and otherwater users. Water stewardship is, therefore, becoming an important strategy for the mining sector toaddress stakeholder concerns and earn social acceptance. Collaborative partnerships between miningand other water users are a necessary component of advancing water stewardship, but the attributesneeded to implement a successful water stewardship strategy are understudied. This paper addressesthis gap by examining two exploratory case studies in Peru and Mongolia, where collaborationhas been used as a strategy for promoting more sustainable outcomes in water-scarce regions.The findings suggest that while questions remain about who is best suited to lead collaborativepartnerships, trust in the entity responsible for leading collaborative partnerships (especially insituations of high conflict) and a willingness to allow each partner to play to their strengths are criticalattributes of success. We conclude that the outcome of collective action between mining companiesand other water users offers the potential to deliver both business and social value, and to advancemore sustainable water management.Keywords: water; mining; collaborative partnerships; stakeholder engagement; stewardship;sustainable development1. IntroductionThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1] predicts that by 2025, 60 per cent of theworld’s population will be living in countries classified as “water stressed”, with the United Nations [2]estimating that to meet global needs, the world will need 30 per cent more clean water by 2030.This poses a challenge for industries such as mining where water is a critical input for mineralseparation and processing, transporting ore and waste, tailings management, dust suppression,washing equipment, and human consumption at mine sites [3]. It is now estimated that two thirds ofthe world’s largest mines are in countries facing water scarcity risk [4], a situation set to intensify inthe coming years [5]. This is likely to create increased competition between mining and other waterusers. A myriad of other negative consequences can result from poor water management practicesat mines such as the discharge of contaminated water into local waterways or acid rock drainage.Consequently, water is now recognized as one of the fastest growing economic and social challengesfacing the mining sector [6,7].Water-related concerns can contribute to tensions between mining companies and nearbycommunities [8]. Of note, in the years 2000–2017, water was an issue in dispute within 58 perWater 2018, 10, 1081; doi:10.3390/w10081081 www.mdpi.com/journal/waterWater 2018, 10, 1081 2 of 15cent of cases filed against mining investments with the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC)Compliance Officer Ombudsman [9]. The sources of community conflict can be diverse, ranging frompoor environmental stewardship practices, concerns about water quality impacts, or tensions due to theconsiderable volumes of water used by mining relative to surrounding users [10]. In an industry thathas tended to treat community engagement as an add-on (versus a strategic business function) [11],one factor motivating corporate action on water stewardship is the cost of conflict. A 2014 studyreported that a mining project with a capital budget of between US$3–5 billion could lose up to US$20million per week (in delayed production in net present value terms) due to social unrest [12]. The studyalso revealed that there is growing recognition in the mining sector that community conflict—anda reputation for failing to address it—can adversely impact revenue streams both at the affectedsite and at prospective operations in other jurisdictions [12]. While reputational costs can be morechallenging to quantify, researchers at Harvard suggest that 70–80 per cent of market value comes fromintangible assets, such as brand equity [13]. With another study demonstrating that more than 60 percent of market capitalization for publicly traded gold companies links to the quality of stakeholderrelationships [14].In response, many mining companies are seeking to demonstrate improved water managementpractices within their operations [3,15,16]. These efforts typically focus on reducing water volumesused for mining, re-using water from operations within the mining process, and designing zerodischarge facilities that seek to capture and recycle all water from the site. More recently, there isgrowing pressure on the sector to adopt a catchment (or water basin) approach by becoming aproactive participant in resolving regional water challenges outside the mining concession or permitareas [10,17,18].Today, both within and beyond the mining sector “... more and more companies are embracing“corporate water stewardship” practices that expand traditional notions of water management toinclude their water-related impacts within communities and the river basins and ecosystems in whichthey operate” [19].While this recent transition in the direction of water stewardship represents a positive step towardsgreater accountability by mining companies [17], it also creates challenges. Success is highly dependentupon the ability to collaborate with diverse stakeholders (any person, group or organization that canplace a claim on a company’s attention, resources, or output [20]), something the mining industry hashistorically struggled to execute effectively. Increasing incidents of mining–community conflict inresource-rich nations [8,9,21–23] are one indication of the tension that exists between corporate andcommunity actors and raises questions about whether the mining sector has, or can earn, the trustrequired to build and execute partnerships with stakeholders. Trust is defined as a central element inlocal communities’ acceptance of mining and is shaped by perceptions of distributional and proceduralfairness, and confidence in governance [24].A further consideration is the relationship between national and local or regional governments.National governments of resource-rich countries may view mining as an important economiccontributor. Local or regional governments within those same countries may have a different view.The concerns of sub-national governments about the potential for adverse impacts from mining intheir areas may result in a lack of willingness to enter into collaborative partnerships that appear tobenefit an industry opposed by local stakeholders.With these considerations in mind, the core research question investigated in this paper is whatattributes of success do productive water stewardship collaborations between mining companies andcommunities share? This question is investigated by studying two exploratory case studies in Peru andMongolia, where collaboration has been used as a strategy for promoting more sustainable outcomesin water-scarce regions.Water 2018, 10, 1081 3 of 152. Materials and MethodsA multi-methods approach is employed in this paper, beginning with a quantitative mediaanalysis and then utilizing qualitative techniques to investigate the core research question. The researchapproach is anchored in stakeholder engagement theory, which Freeman [25] places withinorganizational management and business ethics. Freeman’s premise is that to be successful andsustainable over time, business must align the interests of its stakeholders—not just shareholders—tocreate value for all. Although mining companies have not always engaged effectively with stakeholders,there is growing evidence of the sector’s recognition that social and business risk are inter-relatedand that there is business benefit to placing greater priority on stakeholder engagement [12–14].With mining companies and communities sharing a common interest in access to water—and theeffective, efficient management of limited water resources—stakeholder engagement theory offers auseful frame for investigating the characteristics of successful shared approaches to support sustainablewater stewardship.In the first phase of the study, media analysis is used to investigate the frequency with whichwater was a key contributor to mining–community conflict in two purposefully selected countries withareas of water scarcity: Peru and Mongolia. These two countries were chosen as study regions becauseboth are rich in mineral resources, have shown a steep growth in mining in recent years, and exhibitevidence of increasing conflict between mining companies and the communities impacted by theiroperations. Both countries also have a mix of large-scale mines (significant water users and thereforethe focus of this research) owned by multinational corporations, state-owned agencies, and jointventures, and in both countries the national governments have recognized mining as an importantcontributor to the host country’s economy. These factors contribute to an interesting examinationof water stewardship issues and suggests the findings may be generalizable to other resource-richjurisdictions where mining occurs within close proximity to communities.To focus the research, two initiatives, one from each study country, were selected for detailedcase study analysis to explore the attributes of successful collaborative partnerships that are needed toadvance water stewardship. The Peru case was selected following the media analysis that yielded anarticle from August 2014 reporting on how an expansion project at the Cerro Verde copper mine in theArequipa region of Peru had not experienced the type of conflict and protests affecting several othermining projects [26]. With estimated reserves of 4.63 billion tonnes of copper, Cerro Verde is one of thelargest copper deposits in Peru. The mine is located in an area of water scarcity, adjacent to a region ofthe country where agriculture is the predominant industry. For these reasons, the expansion project wasselected to investigate how water issues were considered during the expansion planning, to determineif a collaborative approach to water stewardship was established, and, if so, to evaluate the effectivenessof that multi-stakeholder process. The Mongolia case was selected for two reasons. First, it representeda revelatory case study [27] by allowing investigation of phenomena to which few scientists have beenprivileged due to the first-hand experience of one of the authors. Second, the project has receivedrecognition as a best practice example of a shared approach to water management by an internationaldevelopment institution and the sector’s leading industry body, the International Finance Corporation(IFC) and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), respectively [9]. While it is notpossible to generalize all findings from this small sample, the attributes of success are predicted to beinformative for future collaborative partnerships between mining companies and communities.Methods employed in the case research included a review of publicly available documents, in-fieldobservation, and either qualitative interviews (Peru) or meeting facilitation (Mongolia). It is notedthat the use of one-to-one interviews do not provide parallel information to focus groups, yet pointsof intersection are noted between the two approaches: for example, both cases sought to establishcommon ground and building understanding amongst diverse stakeholder groups. With limitedability to compare the qualitative data, this research seeks to examine the attributes of success withinthese different approaches to water stewardship and to triangulate the data from the two approacheswith desktop and field research.Water 2018, 10, 1081 4 of 152.1. Media Analysis ApproachTo investigate the number of mining community conflicts in Peru and Mongolia with water as akey or underlying issue, an analysis of recent media coverage was undertaken. Media articles from afive-year period (2012–2016) were sourced from the news database, Factiva. In total, more than 600articles focusing on Peru and Mongolia were identified using the search term “mining + conflict”.It is important to note that media coverage within the Factiva database does not capture allsituations of company–community conflict. For example, Mongolia may be under-represented in theinternational media coverage as compared to Peru, one of the world’s best-known mining jurisdictions.Nevertheless, “International events data, day-by-day coded accounts of who did what to whom asreported in the open press” [28], are a valuable source of quantifiable information to support aninvestigation into water as a nexus point between mining companies and resource-rich communities.To enhance understanding of the situation within Mongolia, media results were compared againstprimary and secondary data sources, including industry journals and grey literature publications ofinternational agencies such as the IFC and ICMM, as well as reports done by in-country civil society anddevelopment agencies. Of note, the database of the Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman(CAO) [29] for the private sector lending arm of the World Bank was reviewed for conflicts. The resultscomplement the media analysis with two identified conflicts. Both conflicts related to Oyu Tolgoi,one of the world’s largest known copper-gold deposits and a mine operating in the South Gobi. In bothcases, water was the focus of the complaint.2.2. Case StudiesAs noted earlier, two examples of collaborative water partnerships were selected for analysis,both of which have been recognized as leading practice examples within the sector [9]. The same coreresearch question is investigated for both cases, but slightly different methods are employed.To inform both case studies, desktop research was conducted to review current academicliterature on water management in the mining sector, as well as collaborative approaches to advancesustainable development. Reports of third-party groups such as the World Economic Forum (WEF),management consultancies, industry associations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) werealso reviewed.To develop the Peru case, two fields visits to the Arequipa region of Peru provided valuableobservational data and the opportunity to conduct in-person qualitative interviews (N = 17).A semi-structured interview guide used a series of open-ended questions to frame the discussion.Purposefully selected interview candidates represented a diversity of groups involved in the watersupply discussion, and the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment plant. Intervieweeswere recruited first by using personal contacts and the contacts of colleagues working in developmentand mining in Peru. This initial list was complemented with the use of snowballing to develop a finalgroup of interview candidates that included government regulators (N = 3), civil society groups (N = 2),local water authorities (N = 2) contractors and maintenance personnel (N = 3), wastewater treatmentplant operators (N = 3) and company officials (N = 4). Interviews were conducted under a Universityof British Columbia ethics certificate (H16-00245). Transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes,issues, and recommendations.The Mongolia case drew upon first-hand experience of one of the authors who provided technicalexpertise as a consultant to the South Gobi Water and Mining Industry Roundtable, a project focusedon strengthening the water management and stakeholder engagement practices of participating miningcompanies [30]. The project has been operating since 2012; however, the author has been engaged forthe past three years. Observational data, and publicly available reports and water balance data werecollected during eight in-country trips between April 2016 and June 2018, with each trip lasting betweenone and two weeks. Three trips included visits to mine sites in the South Gobi. Seven sessions wereheld in the capital, Ulaanbaatar, including one-day workshops attended by approximately 15 companyrepresentatives, as well as half-day leadership meetings with more senior management representatives.Water 2018, 10, 1081 5 of 15One workshop in the province of Dalanzadgad was jointly attended by government representativesfrom the local River Basin Administration (RBA). During each field visit, the author also attendedin-person meetings with government representatives, development institutions, mining companies,consulting firms, researchers, and non-government/civil society organizations.In both case studies, triangulation of observation, meeting facilitation or interviews, and thedocument review provides a more accurate account than any of the methods would provide alone [31].3. Results3.1. Media AnalysisOnce articles reporting on “mining + conflict” in Peru and Mongolia had been collected fromFactiva, the first step in the analysis was to remove articles reporting on conflicts that did not appearto be driven primarily by community stakeholders concerns with mining companies’ operations.For example, articles reporting on military conflict and/or terrorism, financial divestment campaignsor legal cases before the courts but addressing pre-2012 situations were excluded. Once the screeningprocess was complete, 540 articles referencing mining-community conflict in Peru remained, with afurther 76 articles referencing mining-community conflict in Mongolia.The remaining subset of news stories reporting on mining–community conflict were grouped bycountry, and then sorted to identify specific mining projects mentioned in the media coverage (Table 1).Next, the remaining news articles were reviewed and hand-coded to identify causes of conflict.Table 1. Projects affected by mining-community conflict with the trigger for conflict as reported withinthe media article. Articles were sourced from the Factiva database.Media Analysis of Mining–Community ConflictPeruTotal of 540 New Articles “Mining + Conflict”MongoliaTotal of 76 News Articles “Mining + Conflict”Project Referenced Conflict Trigger Project Referenced Conflict TriggerConga Water Oyu Tolgoi Tax and royalties/WaterTintaya Environment Tavan Tolgoi Export issuesPierina Water Southern Gobi Tax evasionQuellevecco Water Gatsuurt Environment/ReclamationTia Maria Water Khan Resources ArbitrationSanta Anna WaterLa Zanja WaterYanacocha WaterConstancia BeneficiationCanariaco WaterToromocho ResettlementRio Blanca UnclearLas Bambas VariousMichiquillay UnclearCorihuami BeneficiationLa Granja UnspecifiedMarcona Labour issuesIn Peru, 17 individual mining projects sparking conflict with nearby communities were identifiedthrough the media analysis. In some cases, the causes of conflict are clearly identified: water (N = 8);labour issues (N = 3). In others, the causes of conflict can be complex and interwoven: for example,articles reporting on land use or environmental conflict (N = 2) may reflect concerns about water.Therefore, it is relevant that water is directly mentioned as a driver of concern in almost 50 per cent ofthe news reports.Water 2018, 10, 1081 6 of 15In Mongolia, five projects were the subject of news coverage reporting on conflict.Although significantly fewer mining projects were the subject of media reports within the Factivadatabase covering company–community conflicts in Mongolia, mining has expanded rapidly in theSouth Gobi Desert, home to vast mineral deposits including copper, gold, and coal. Nomadic herdersand other water users populate this area of water scarcity. Although disputes have not attractedinternational media attention on the same scale as conflict in Peru, the potential for increased conflictis evident in Mongolia where mining has the potential to expand at a time when water scarcity and theadverse effects of climate change threaten traditional herding and grazing pursuits [32,33].3.2. Peru CasePeru is one of the South American countries where mining is a vital component of the nationaleconomy. In 2017, Peru was the world’s second largest copper producer, with base and precious metalsaccounting for almost 60 per cent of the country’s total export revenues, an amount equal to US$21.3billion [34]. In addition, in 2017–2018, 23 per cent of foreign direct investment is expected to come frommining companies and the industry offers direct employment for approximately 200,000 people [34].Despite its financial contribution, Peru has experienced a steep increase in mining–communityconflict in recent years [6], such that securing a “social license to operate” is now the mining sector’ssingle largest challenge [34]. An issue of ongoing concern is that water scarcity is a characteristic ofmany of the mineral-rich areas of Peru. Water shortages can be due to arid conditions, situations wheresurface water is abundant but only at certain times of the year in certain regions, and by the presenceof pre-existing water users including farmers, hydroelectric power, mining, other industrial users,and communities [35]. Concerns about the allocation of scarce water resources has been a driver ofsocial opposition for numerous mining projects in Peru, including Conga, Las Bambas, and Tía María.The FindingsQualitative interviews revealed that when personnel at Cerro Verde copper mine began planninga mine expansion—increasing production from 120,000 metric tonnes per day to 360,000 metric tonnesper day—the question of how to access the volume of water that would be required for processingthe additional ore was an important one. The mine is located in the Atacama Desert, approximately30 km from Peru’s second largest municipality, the city of Arequipa. Access to clean water is one ofthe region’s most important needs. This meant that securing access to water for mining operationswas recognized as both a fundamental operations requirement and a potential risk. Mining companypersonnel knew that to reduce the risk of the type of conflict that had disrupted or stalled other miningprojects in the country, it would be critical to engage stakeholders and to avoid placing the mine incompetition with other water users for clean water.As the mine expansion planning got underway in 2008, Cerro Verde evaluated the river basinand discovered that already limited volumes of fresh water had the potential to be adversely affectedby drought. (Peru is one of the countries likely to be hardest hit by climate change [6]). The projectplanning team, therefore, assumed that any proposal to use fresh water for mining would likelygenerate concern from other water users. Social leaders encouraged mine planners to explore thepossibility of treating municipal wastewater from the city of Arequipa in exchange for water for miningoperations. At that time, the only wastewater treatment facility in the city of Arequipa (populationapproximately one million) was operating at capacity yet treating less than 10 per cent of municipalsewage. This meant most of the city’s wastewater was discharged directly into the principal watersource for the region, the Chili River, where fecal coliform counts vastly exceeded those set by healthauthorities and regulatory agencies.For the mine planners, municipal sewage offered a source of water not in use by others, a morereliable supply than fresh water, and one that had the potential to increase given Arequipa’s growingpopulation. In addition, according to one government official interviewed, the Peruvian governmentis promoting the re-use of effluent as a sustainable water supply for the mining sector population.Water 2018, 10, 1081 7 of 15This meant the project could help to meet an important policy objective of a key stakeholder, potentiallygenerating the type of value inherent in stakeholder engagement theory. For local stakeholders,collaborating with the mine to secure municipal wastewater treatment could help them to addressa key sustainability issue and deliver tangible benefits to river water users. It seemed that a sharedapproach to address water quality and supply issues could yield benefits for both business and society,as well as supporting more sustainable water management.Following a period of consultation with multiple stakeholders, which included more than 200meetings, it was decided that Cerro Verde would finance, build, operate, and ultimately transferownership of a plant to treat municipal wastewater from the city of Arequipa. In exchange, the minewould receive a portion (1 m3/s) of the treated wastewater for use in mining operations. The localwater authority—Servicio de Agua potable y Alcantarillado de Arequipa (SEDAPAR)—would beresponsible for managing distribution of the remaining treated water to the Chili River to improvewater quality in the river, reduce fecal coliform counts, and improve bio-dissolved oxygen demand inthe river.In this initiative, access to water was viewed as a shared company–community problem. A keyto the success of the project was the recognition that many stakeholders had important perspectivesto share, as well as different needs and expectations. Within the city of Arequipa, the populationhas increased significantly in recent years due, in large part, to in-migration from the highlands.This has resulted in new neighbourhoods in areas where the city has not yet planned for services,making water supply a sensitive issue. Farmers in the nearby agricultural region of La Joya are equallyimportant stakeholders but with very dissimilar needs and interests from those living in the city.The interests of government officials, water regulations and authorities, civil society organizations,and the company’s head office executive and shareholders, made each group important. The diversityof stakeholder interests meant collaboration was needed to (a) understand diverse perspectives andto balance sometimes conflicting needs; and (b) to negotiate roles and responsibilities within thewastewater treatment process, a new water management initiative.The company secured several important outcomes from the shared approach to watermanagement. The expansion project was completed on schedule and unlike other projects in theregion, Cerro Verde did not experience any lost production days to community opposition. A watersupply for expanded operations was secured using treated wastewater. Moreover, because wastewateris not a source included in agricultural allotments, Cerro Verde avoided competition with farmers forscarce water resources.Equally important when assessing collaborative partnerships is the fact that the shared approachdelivers clear benefits to the community. Approximately 99 per cent of city sewage is now treated.Fecal coliform levels in the Chili River have been reduced and the improved water quality in ChiliRiver basin will enhance agricultural production, as well as increase recreational activities and tourismopportunities for the region. In addition, as part of the wastewater treatment plant, water intakevolumes from the Chili River are now measured. This systematic approach means that water authoritieshave access to scientifically measured water volumes. Sharing this information has helped to answerquestions from stakeholders about water allocation and availability.3.3. Mongolia CaseMongolia has similarities with Peru with respect to rapid growth of the mining sector and itseconomic significance. Recent statistics indicate that mining accounts for 18 per cent of Mongolia’sgross domestic product and employs over 20,000 people [36]. Mining is often regarded as the backbonefor the country’s future economic growth; however, the rapid industry expansion has created tensionswith local communities that have traditionally relied on animal husbandry for their livelihoods [9].Developing robust conclusions about the actual impacts of mining on water quantity and qualityare especially challenging due to a lack of baseline data and effective governance mechanisms [37].This uncertainty contributes to significant distrust between mining companies and local communities:Water 2018, 10, 1081 8 of 15a baseline survey commissioned by the IFC in 2014 found that public trust was an all-time low [38]and this was not necessarily targeted at specific companies but rather affected the sector as a whole [9].Despite mistrust in the industry, mining has expanded rapidly in the arid South Gobi, a regionof scarce water resources that is home to vast deposits of resources including copper, gold, and coal.In 2012, against a backdrop of growing conflict between herders, NGOs and mining companies,the local legislature in the South Gobi implemented a new law to ban the use of groundwater formining operations [9]. This represented a major risk for the mining sector because such a ban wouldsignificantly stall, if not halt, mining development. Many mining projects, including Oyu Tolgoi,the country’s largest mine, rely on deep groundwater aquifers to extract the water for mining andprocessing [39]. Although the 2012 ban on groundwater use by mining has since been overturned,communities continue to express concerns about water issues, and trust levels between miningcompanies and communities remain low [9].The IFC, a member of the World Bank Group and an investor in the Oyu Tolgoi project,subsequently engaged with partners in a program to strengthen the collective water performance andthe stakeholder engagement practices of mining companies in the South Gobi [10]. A key part of thisprogram involved convening quarterly round tables to bring together mining companies operating inthe region. One of the authors of this paper has served as a technical consultant to the IFC and was afacilitator of the round tables. The goal of these meetings was essentially two-fold: To improve thewater management and community engagement practices of the companies themselves; and to engagetrusted third parties to understand local communities concerns and to communicate company effortsto address these issues. In working towards these objectives, the program team made a dedicatedeffort to complement related programs coordinated by other actors, including government and othermultilateral institutions, who were often invited as speakers to roundtable discussions.Performance data from participating companies was collected and reported in a variety ofways. At the interactive workshop on developing mine site water balances, described below,process flowcharts and water metrics tables summarizing site water use and management wereprepared. The water use data from participating companies has subsequently been shared withlocal community members [31], representing a significant step towards transparency. Additionally,participants from the round table sessions have contributed to the design of a water and miningcurriculum for a stakeholder training program. From 2014–2016, more than 1000 people participatedin the training [10].Company water management practices were strengthened in several ways. One example isthrough delivering a training workshop to educate companies about how to develop a mine–sitewater balance and a water account (Figure 1 and Table 2). These workshops built upon best practiceframeworks including the Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) water accounting framework [40],and the new ICMM water reporting guidelines [18]. Consistent water accounting is important becausewithout a reliable understanding of their own water use, companies are unable to benchmark theirperformance with other sites to identify opportunities to improve, nor do they have the data needed tocommunicate effectively with external stakeholders.Water 2018, 10, 1081 9 of 15Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15 all-time low [38] and this was not necessarily targeted at specific companies but rather affected the sector as a whole [9]. Despite mistrust in the industry, mining has expanded rapidly in the arid South Gobi, a region of scarce water resources that is home to vast deposits of resources including copper, gold, and coal. In 2012, against a backdrop of growing conflict between herders, NGOs and mining companies, the local legislature in the South Gobi implemented a new law to ban the use of groundwater for mining operations [9]. This represented a major risk for the mining sector because such a ban would significantly stall, if not halt, mining development. Many mining projects, including Oyu Tolgoi, the country’s largest mine, rely on deep groundwater aquifers to extract the water for mining and processing [39]. Although the 2012 ban on groundwater use by mining has since been overturned, communities continue to express concerns about water issues, and trust levels between mining companies and communities remain low [9]. The IFC, a member of the World Bank Group and an investor in the Oyu Tolgoi project, subsequently engaged with partners in a program to strengthen the collective water performance and the stakeholder engagement practices of mining companies in the South Gobi [10]. A key part of this program involved convening quarterly round tables to bring together mining companies operating in the region. One of the authors of this paper has served as a technical consultant to the IFC and was a facilitator of the round tables. The goal of these meetings was essentially two-fold: To improve the water management and community engagement practices of the companies themselves; and to engage trusted third parties to understand local communities concerns and to communicate company efforts to address these issues. In working towards these objectives, the program team made a dedicated effort to complement related programs coordinated by other actors, including government and other multilateral institutions, who were often invited as speakers to roundtable discussions. Performance data from participating companies was collected and reported in a variety of ways. At the interactive workshop on developing mine site water balances, described below, process flowcharts and water metrics tables summarizing site water use and management were prepared. The water use data from participating companies has subsequently been shared with local community members [31], representing a significant step towards transparency. Additionally, participants from the round table sessions have contributed to the design of a water and mining curriculum for a stakeholder training program. From 2014–2016, more than 1000 people participated in the training [10]. Company water management practices were strengthened in several ways. One example is through delivering a training workshop to educate companies about how to develop a mine–site water balance and a water account (Figure 1, and Table 2). These workshops built upon best practice frameworks including the Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) water accounting framework [40], and the new ICMM water reporting guidelines [18]. Consistent water accounting is important because without a reliable understanding of their own water use, companies are unable to benchmark their performance with other sites to identify opportunities to improve, nor do they have the data needed to communicate effectively with external stakeholders. Figure 1. Visual representation of a mine site water system used to conduct water balance andaccounting training, based on [40] and [17].Table 2. Sample template for companies participating in the South Gobi Water and Mining IndustryRoundtable in Mongolia to report water inputs and outputs [30].Input-Output Source/Destination Inputs/OutputsInputSurface WaterRainfall and RunoffExternal surface water storagesGroundwaterOpen pit dewateringBore FieldsWater locked in ore concentrateOther Other (define)Total InputsOutputSurface Water Discharge to surface waterGroundwaterSeepage from storage facilitiesReinjectionOtherEvaporation from water storage dams and process pondsEvaporation from tailings damDust suppressionWater locked in waste streamsWater locked in product concentrateOther (define)Total OutputsParticipating in the roundtable also allows the companies to communicate their achievements tolocal communities through a third party (initially the IFC), which also offers an external assessment ofcompany performance [30]. The program established a Voluntary Code of Practice (VCP) on watermanagement, to which eight participating roundtable companies voluntarily committed. The VCPcommits signatories to specific goals under six overarching pillars [9]:1. Act transparently and with accountability.2. Comply with national law and international standards.3. Engage proactively and inclusively.4. Effective water resource management and conservation.5. Create positive impacts.6. Support local water infrastructure and services.Signatories file annual reports about their performance to the roundtable secretariat across allsix pillars and these data will be used to track VCP compliance over time and to communicateWater 2018, 10, 1081 10 of 15achievements back to local communities. The program is also pioneering efforts to share privatewater data (e.g., mine water use and hydro-geological water monitoring data) with the Mongoliangovernment, thereby contributing towards improved regional water management and governance [9].The principal outcome of the initiative, as noted by one of the signatories, is that it “providesthe framework for a positive impact on water management by conserving ecosystems, strengtheningcommunities, and committing to specific operational practices” [41]. Safeguarding water resourcesand promoting the efficient and transparent use of a scarce resource is viewed as an important stepfor building trust between mining companies and communities, a critical attribute for an industryregarded as central to the national economy [41].4. DiscussionThis research investigated approaches that contribute to successful collaborative partnerships aspart of a water stewardship strategy. In particular, the research considered what attributes of successproductive collaborations share.Based upon the findings of the two cases, some common attributes of successful partnershipprojects can be observed. In both cases, access to water was viewed as a shared industry–communityproblem, and both employed effective multi-stakeholder processes. In Peru, the local governmentand the company organized more than 200 meetings to hear from, and understand, the diverse,and sometimes conflicting, perspectives of multiple stakeholders. In Mongolia, a multi-tiered strategywas used to respond to the complex tensions relating to the use and management of water by the miningindustry. Roundtable discussions have built the capacity of companies to engage more effectively withlocal community members, while a consistent approach to water reporting has been introduced thatwill facilitate constructive dialogue.Both cases also appear to allow each group in the collaborative partnership to play to its strengths.In Peru, social leaders introduced the idea for the mine to treat and then use municipal wastewater asa sustainable water source for mining operations. The company initiated a stakeholder engagementprocess to earn approval from pre-existing water users. Local government supported the engagementprocess, and worked collaboratively with the company to explore, and then promote, the role ofthe mining company in the provision of regional wastewater treatment. The local water authoritybecame a partner to operate the plant and manage distribution of the treated wastewater not used bythe mine. In Mongolia, the IFC has played a key role in facilitating cooperation between companiesthat are from a typically competitive industry, and has engaged diverse partners from multilateralinstitutions, governments, communities, and technical specialists to support various elements of theprogram’s implementation.In addition, and perhaps most importantly, both cases indicate that collaborative partnershipscan deliver both business and social value. In Peru, using treated municipal wastewater gave themining company access to a source of water that was not included in water allocations for agriculture.This meant the mine was not in competition with farmers for scarce supplies of fresh water and helpedthe mine’s expansion project to avoid the type of company–community conflict that had stalled orderailed other mining projects in the region. This delivered significant business value. The projectalso delivered significant social value. Before the construction of the treatment plant, the City ofArequipa treated just 10 per cent of its municipal wastewater. Today almost all municipal wastewateris treated and that has resulted in significant improvements in the health of the region’s main watersource, the Chili River. In addition, the collaborative approach used to operate the plant also buildslocal technical capacity. In Mongolia, the introduction of a consistent water accounting approachbuilds business value by allowing companies to accurately benchmark performance across sites inMongolia and internationally, facilitating the identification of opportunities for reducing freshwaterconsumption. Consistent water accounts also benefit local communities through ensuring that minewater-use data is reported consistently across companies, creating a platform for strengthening watergovernance over the longer term.Water 2018, 10, 1081 11 of 15Sustainable water management requires financial resources, local knowledge, technical expertise,effective communication skills, and a willingness for each party in the collective initiative to play to itsstrengths. Because water is a shared resource, valued by both mining companies and host communities,it can be a highly emotional issue where trust plays a vital role. Lack of trust is a critical issue, a findingconsistent with research studying the attributes of successful industrial symbiosis networks [42].Stakeholders need to have a high degree of trust in the organizations collaborating on sustainabilityinitiatives. There must also be high trust amongst the partners themselves, because individual partnerscan be required to set aside self-interest in the favour of collective action and shared benefits. Theseattributes raise interesting questions for future research about who is best positioned to convenecollective action and who is best positioned to lead a given initiative.Based on this initial research into the attributes of successful collaborative partnerships, we positthat while mining companies and their industry partners may appear well positioned to lead collectiveaction, as Cerro Verde did in the Peru case, in many cases industry may not be the best choice. To theiradvantage, individual companies have significant financial resources, and often have a conveningpower that reaches through their supply chains into financial markets and government. In addition,personnel within mining companies have access to networks to recruit specialized expertise for socialand environmental innovation. While each attribute is important for progressing improved watermanagement and governance, we believe that in most instances concerns are likely to be raisedabout the ability of industry to act as a neutral party when designing projects in which they have astake. In many jurisdictions, companies may simply not be trusted enough by other groups to leadcollaborative partnerships. In addition, mining companies need to be careful not to create situationswhere communities are dependent on the mine for services government should provide. Miners do nothave the skills of development agencies and company-developed community engagement strategiesare typically linked with the life of mine, which may last for several decades but can be as brief asseveral years. As has been noted by other scholars, to be successful in implementing collaborativewater management initiatives, mining companies will need to make organizational changes to treatsustainability and social responsibility as business strategy rather than discretionary spending [43,44].Government seems the natural group to convene and to lead initiatives to protect the sustainabilityof water resources. Yet in both cases examined, government was a supporting partner not aleader. Nevertheless, governments are the guardians of their country’s natural resources and have afiduciary responsibility to citizens to ensure the sustainable use of resources such as water. In somejurisdictions, governments at the national, regional, or even municipal level have embraced this role.For example, in Australia’s Fitzroy basin, the Queensland government has been an active participantin convening broader collective interests between agriculture, industry, research and communitiestowards improving the catchment river health [45]. In the Northwest Territories of Canada, settler andindigenous governments worked together to establish a collaborative partnership-based approachto water stewardship. Regulatory boards, agencies, environmental organizations, the mining andoil and gas industry, and the public came together to develop a strategy and associated action planto address pressure on water supply from large-scale development and from climate change [46].However, there can be instances where government may cede its authority to others for a varietyof reasons. Government’s abdication of its responsibility for the issues such as water governancemay be attributed to lack of financial resources, lack of technical expertise, lack of capacity within thepublic sector, or an interest in securing foreign investment in the extractive sector, which can trumpsustainability concerns.Another group well positioned to take both a convening and leadership role is NGOs, includingenvironmental protection groups, development agencies and faith-based organizations, and groupssuch as the IFC. In both the Peru and Mongolia case, civil society/NGOs played an important role ascatalysts for water stewardship. The perspective of these groups on sustainability is often broader thanthat of the mining industry, meaning that NGOs may be better positioned to identify opportunitiesoutside the “business-as-usual” approach that miners may employ, and to identify opportunities forWater 2018, 10, 1081 12 of 15cross-sectoral initiatives to drive progress on several sustainability targets. Initiatives such as the CEOWater Mandate, the Alliance for Water Stewardship, and non-governmental organizations such as theWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF), are all working to raise awareness of water risks and facilitate collectiveaction on water. For example, these groups are advocating for context-based water targets, those thatare “informed by sustainable thresholds or limits of a given basin based on science; respects the basin’senvironmental, economic, and social needs, and current and future conditions; and supports publicsector objectives such as the Sustainable Development Goals” [47]. Many companies, both within andbeyond the mining sector, acknowledge the important brokerage role that NGOs can play in mediatingcommunity-company tensions and have already established partnerships with various groups. It issuggested that the public perception of NGOs—that their core values are anchored in the commongood, rather than corporate self-interest—has earned many such groups a credibility that industrycan lack.Appreciating that in each collective action initiative there may be unique geographic, governance,and stakeholder considerations, we suggest that the best group to convene and to lead sharedapproaches in sustainable water management is the one that is most trusted in the region. Identifyingthe most trusted party may be challenging. Research shows trust in government, business, industry,and even NGOs, has declined broadly in the past decade [48]. Further complicating the issue ofidentifying the most trusted party is the fact that there are varying amounts of trust in differentregions of the world. For example, in the resource-rich countries of Africa and Latin America,trust in government is significantly lower than trust in business, yet in Asia trust in governmentis very high [49]. In countries such as China, where the NGO sector has been repressed, trust is low;North Americans place a lot of trust in NGOs. Two groups uniformly trusted across all geographiclocations are science and academic institutions [48], suggesting these groups could be respected leaderson collaborative sustainability projects. While academic institutions did not play a significant role inthe cases examined it is suggested that future partnerships would benefit from involving academiafor credibility. It is also relevant to note that each successful project should build trust amongst thepartners and provide a foundation for future collaboration.In both cases examined, effective stakeholder engagement was found to be a critical determinantof success for developing multi-stakeholder collaborations. Collaborative partnerships are neededbecause while mining has an important role to play in addressing water supply and quality issues,industry will not be successful acting unilaterally. In fact, there are very sound arguments againstmining companies taking ownership of water issues. As noted, this includes concerns that businessmay undermine the role of government or international development agencies, as well as potentialstakeholder unease about a company’s willingness to set aside corporate economic self-interest.5. ConclusionsThe premise investigated in this paper is that shared approaches to water management arerequired for sustainable outcomes. The two case studies helped to illustrate the determinants of successwhen planning a shared approach to water management: effective stakeholder engagement, conveningpower, financial resources, local knowledge, technical expertise, effective communication skills, and awillingness for each party in the collective action to play to its strengths. Trust, amongst partners andwith the broader set of stakeholders, is argued to be the most important attribute. Given low trustlevels in the mining industry and government, there appears to be a role for third-party groups suchas civil society, multi-lateral institutions, and academia to adopt leadership positions. Leadership isimportant because without it projects are at risk of becoming paralyzed due to lack of decision-makingand competing agendas, or the self-interests, of collaborators.The fact that there are significant mineral resources in water-stressed countries suggests there areopportunities for mining companies and communities to take a shared approach to sustainable waterstewardship. The two case studies highlight the positive outcomes possible when mining companiesseek the nexus between the needs of business and those of society.Water 2018, 10, 1081 13 of 15For companies, there is a clear return on investment that can be quantified (for example, no lostdays of production due to protests, securing the water supply required for production, earning asocial license to operate, reducing risk to shareholders). Society also benefits through the advancementof more sustainable water management. Furthermore, successful collaborative partnerships onwater projects creates an opportunity to build trust and reputation capital for all convening parties,thereby creating an enabling environment for future projects.Mining is one of the many businesses and industries that suffer from a lack of public trust.One reason trust is declining is a failure on the part of business to contribute to the greater good [9].This suggests there is an opportunity for mining to earn public trust by working collaboratively withother interested parties to address issues of equal interest to business and society. According to researchdone by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development [50] collaborative partnershipsprovide opportunities to realign the objectives of industries such as mining with the values of societywhile also creating economic gain.Questions remain about who should convene and who should lead collective action initiatives.Nevertheless, we argue there is no question that these initiatives are needed to address critical socialand environmental issues, such as clean water and sanitation. When mining companies take along-term, strategic approach to water management, the outcome can be collective action to deliversustainable business and social value.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.F.; Methodology, J.F. and N.C.K. Validation J.F. and N.C.K.; FormalAnalysis, J.F. and N.C.K.; Investigation, J.F. and N.C.K.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, J.F.; Writing-Review &Editing, J.F. and N.C.K.Funding: This research received no external funding.Acknowledgments: Thanks are due to the UBC Public Scholar’s Initiative, to the Canadian International ResourceDevelopment Institute for support for the Peru case, and to the Peruvian interview participants for their timeand expertise. The authors would also like to thank their colleagues and reviewers for comments that improvedthe work.Conflicts of Interest: Nadja C. Kunz wishes to declare that she gathered field data while working as a consultantfor the South Gobi Water and Mining Industry Roundtable, the Mongolian case study discussed in this manuscript.Jocelyn Fraser declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection,analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.References1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary forPolicymakers. IPCC. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2017).2. United Nations. Water for a Sustainable World. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2017).3. Côte, C.; Moran, C.; Hedemann, C.; Koch, C. Systems modelling for effective mine water management.Environ. Modell. Softw. 2010, 25, 1664–1671. [CrossRef]4. Metcalf, A. Water Scarcity to Raise Capex and Operating Costs, Heighten Operational Risk. Available online:http://op.bna.com.s3.amazonaws.com/env.nsf/r%3FOpen%3Davio-94wss7 (accessed on 31 July 2017).5. Northey, S.; Mudd, G.; Werner, T.; Jowitt, S.; Haque, N.; Yellishetty, M.; Weng, Z. The exposure of global basemetal resources to water criticality, scarcity and climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 109–124.[CrossRef]6. Bebbington, A.; Williams, M. Water and Mining Conflicts in Peru. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 190–195. [CrossRef]7. Water, Mining and Communities: Creating Shared Value through Sustainable Water Management.Discussion Paper. International Finance Corporation. Available online: https://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Water-Mining-and-Communities-Discussion-Draft.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2017).8. Fraser, J. Mining companies and communities: Collaborative approaches to reduce social risk and advancesustainable development. Resour. Policy 2018. [CrossRef]Water 2018, 10, 1081 14 of 159. Shared Water, Shared Responsibility, Shared Approach: Water in the Mining Sector. Available online:http://www.icmm.com/shared-water-shared-responsibility (accessed on 31 July 2017).10. Kunz, N.; Moran, C. Sharing the benefits from water as a new approach to regional water targets for miningcompanies. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84, 469–474. [CrossRef]11. Kemp, D.; Owen, J. Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”. Resour. Policy2013, 38, 523–531. [CrossRef]12. Franks, D.M.; Davis, R.; Bebbington, A.; Ali, S.; Kemp, D.; Scurrah, M. Conflict translates environmental andsocial risk into business costs. PNAS 2014, 111, 7576–7581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]13. Eccles, R.G.; Newquist, S.C.; Schatz, R. Reputation and its risks. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 104–116. [PubMed]14. Henisz, W.; Dorobantu, S.; Nartley, L. Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement.Strat. Manag. J. 2013, 35, 1727–1748. [CrossRef]15. Kunz, N.C.; Moran, C.J. The utility of a systems approach for managing strategic water risks at a mine sitelevel. Water Resour. Ind. 2016, 13, 1–6. [CrossRef]16. Gao, L.; Bryan, B.A.; Liu, J.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Liu, R.; Barrett, D. Managing too little and too much water:Robust mine-water management strategies under variable climate and mine conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,162, 1009–1020. [CrossRef]17. Kunz, N. Catchment-based water management in the mining industry: Challenges and solutions.Extr. Ind. Soc. 2016, 3, 972–977. [CrossRef]18. ICMM. A Practical Guide to Consistent Water Reporting. Available online: http://www.icmm.com/water-disclosure-standard (accessed on 31 July 2017).19. UN Global Compact. Post 2015 Agenda and Related Sustainable Development Goals Issue Focus: Water andSanitation and the Role of Business. Available online: http://ceowatermandate.org/files/Post2015_W&S_Issue_Brief.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2016).20. Kytle, B.; Ruggie, J.G. Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: A Model for MultinationalCompanies. Available online: https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_10_kytle_ruggie.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2017).21. Hilson, G. An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy 2002, 19, 65–73.[CrossRef]22. Jenkins, H. Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: Conflicts and constructs. Corp. Soc.Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 23–34. [CrossRef]23. Kemp, D.; Owen, J.; Gotzmann, N.; Bond, C. Just relations and company–community conflict in mining.J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 101, 93–109. [CrossRef]24. Zhang, A.; Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Wang, J.; González, R.; Uribe, K.; Cui, L.; Dai, Y. Understanding the sociallicence to operate of mining at the national scale: A comparative study of Australia, China and Chile.J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1063–1072. [CrossRef]25. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2010.26. Peru: An Overview. Engineering and Mining Journal. Available online: https://www.e-mj.com/(accessed on 2 August 2018).27. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4nd ed.; SAGE Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.28. Goldstein, J. A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. J. Confl. Resolut. 1992, 36, 369–385. [CrossRef]29. Compliance Advisor Ombudsman. Available online: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/default.aspx?region_id=1 (accessed on 2 August 2018).30. IFC. South Gobi Water and Mining Industry Roundtable. Available online: https://www.commdev.org/south-gobi-water-and-mining-industry-roundtable/ (accessed on 25 June 2018).31. Maxwell, J. A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research; SAGE Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.32. Meesters, M.; Behagel, J. The social license to operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm.Resour. Policy 2017, 53, 274–282. [CrossRef]33. Rao, M.; Davi, N.; D’Arrigo, R.; Skees, J.; Nachin, B.; Leland, C.; Lyon, B.; Wang, S.; Byambasuren, O. Dzuds,droughts, and livestock mortality in Mongolia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 074012. [CrossRef]34. E&Y. Peru’s Mining and Metals Investment Guide 2017–2018. Available online: http://www.bergbau-peru.com/fileadmin/ahk_peru_bergbau/PDF/EY-Peru-mining-metals-investment-guide_2017-2018.pdf(accessed on 29 March 2018).Water 2018, 10, 1081 15 of 1535. Budds, J.; Hinojosa, L. Restructuring and rescaling water governance in mining contexts: The co-productionof waterscapes in Peru. Water Altern. 2012, 5, 119–137.36. Annual Bulletin of Mining and Geology Mongolia. Available online: https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Zusammenarbeit/TechnZusammenarb/Downloads/mongolei_MRAM_AnnualBulletin2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed on 31 July 2017).37. McIntyre, N.; Bulovic, N.; Cane, I.; McKenna, P. A multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the impactsof mines on traditional uses of water in Northern Mongolia. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557, 404–414. [CrossRef][PubMed]38. Independent Research Institute of Mongolia. Baseline Community Perceptions Survey for InternationalFinance Corporation. Available online: https://www.commdev.org/baseline-community-perceptions-survey-for-international-finance-corporation-final-report/ (accessed on 31 July 2017).39. Oyu Tolgoi. Oyu Tolgoi to Be One of the Most Water Efficient Mines in the World. Available online:http://ot.mn/s-631/ (accessed on 31 July 2017).40. Minerals Council of Australia. A Water Accounting Framework for the Minerals Industry. Available online:https://www.minerals.org.au/water-accounting-framework-australian-minerals-industry (accessed on25 June 2018).41. IFC. IFC Promotes Responsible Water Management in Mongolia’s Mining Sector.Available online: https://ifcextapps.ifc.org/ifcext%5Cpressroom%5Cifcpressroom.nsf%5C0%5C568FBDE07DF71B1785257F54005FD28B (accessed on 2 August 2018).42. Ashton, W.S.; Bain, A.C. Assessing the “short mental distance” in eco-industrial networks. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012,16, 70–82. [CrossRef]43. Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127.[CrossRef]44. Social Risk as an Agent of Change. Available online: https://www.ausimmbulletin.com/feature/social-risk-as-an-agent-of-change/ (accessed on 2 March 2017).45. Fitzroy Partnership for River Health. Available online: http://riverhealth.org.au/about/ (accessed on30 July 2017).46. Government of the Northwest Territories. About Water Stewardship. Available online: http://www.nwtwaterstewardship.ca/introduction (accessed on 28 July 2017).47. Exploring the Case for Corporate Context-Based Water Targets. Available online: https://www.ceowatermandate.org/files/context-based-targets.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).48. Edelman. Trust Barometer Global Report. Available online: http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/(accessed on 9 February 2017).49. Globescan. Saints, Sinners and Change Makers: Making NGO Sentiment to Inform Stakeholder Engagementand Track Corporate Reputation. Available online: http://www.globescan.com/images/webinars/GlobeScan-SIGWATCH-GeneralMills-Webinar-27July2017.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2017).50. Better Business, Better World. Business and Sustainable Development Commission. Available online:http://report.businesscommission.org/ (accessed on 27 February 2017).© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Water
Mining
Collaborative partnerships
Stakeholder engagement
Stewardship
Sustainable development
Water Stewardship: Attributes of Collaborative Partnerships between Mining Companies and Communities
Text