**External stakeholders**


(Source: Zimplats Stakeholder Engagement Policy [23]).

Although there are various internal and external stakeholders, **Figure 1** shows the Zimplats multi-stakeholder model based on the findings from this study.

**Figure 1** shows a simplified multi-stakeholder engagement model used by Zimplats. A closer look at the diagram shows that whilst there are links between the company and its stakeholders the community seems far away from the mining company. As will be discussed later in this paper, this is a reflection of the nature of the company and community relations. The stakeholder salience approach is real and evident in the Mhondoro-Ngezi community. Despite the community being a strong legitimate stakeholder, the company treats it differently from the way that

#### **Figure 1.**

*Zimplats multi-stakeholder model. Source: A Printout of a diagram derived from the survey data and findings in Mhondoro-Ngezi Community.*

other stakeholders are treated. The issue of power differentials exposes the idea that the less powerful stakeholders usually occupy the peripheral areas of the stakeholders' engagement model. Powerful and influential stakeholders with the capacity to halt or affect the operations and stability of the firm are kept close to the company as there seems to be interdependence between the firm and these stakeholders.

Both qualitative and quantitative data from the study show that despite the company stating its use of a stakeholder engagement policy, the engagement is characterised by unequal power relations and the company retains the power to unilaterally identify the stakeholders to engage with at a particular time. An important point to note when analysing stakeholder engagement processes is the issue of how the corporation goes out to meet its stakeholders or how it interacts on issues relating to CSR. From the study, it was noted that since the commencement of mining operations in Mhondoro-Ngezi community, the company has always maintained its engagement processes with key stakeholders such as the government, Rural District Council (RDC), traditional leaders and the ever-present Member of Parliament (MP). Interview extracts show that these key stakeholders have deliberated on various issues on CSR by engaging the mining company. One stakeholder indicated the following:

*As the Member of Parliament for Mhondoro-Ngezi community I have been involved in development projects that concern my constituency. So I cannot say there is something that was done without my knowledge or input. Well I can say there are two issues here. Firstly like I said, the company has its own community responsibility projects. On those ones, consultations are made with the relevant stakeholders such as the council, MP, local leaders and chiefs. What I can say is that the company controls those discussions. It determines what it wants to do and how much it is willing to commit. (Semi-structured interview with MP, April 2013)*

The RDC official confirmed the engagement process between the mining company and its stakeholders, saying:

*Between Outcomes and Processes: Revisiting the Discourse on Corporate Social Responsibility… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94476*

*There is consultation with stakeholders who are involved in community activities. The RDC as the administrator of the district is in constant contact with the mining company on matters of community development. The company through its various surveys and research identifies the projects that need attention and they disburse funds through our office. We then take it from there and implement the agreed projects. (Semi-structured interview with RDC official, April 2013).*

The above accounts indicate that the mining company extends a friendly hand to its key stakeholders to debate matters related to community development. Both stakeholders indicated that traditional chiefs also form part of the group of stakeholders who engage the mining company. A striking absence from the stakeholder list is community representatives. While traditional chiefs are considered as part of the community, they stand in their capacity as leaders of the local governance structure. Community members in Mhondoro-Ngezi lamented their neglect and lack of representation when it comes to crucial matters on CSR. Local leaders such as politicians, who represent the entire community in the legislative house, cannot carry the whole burden of community needs and priorities. FGD discussions were dominated by community members who complained about the nature of engagement between the mining company and the community.

Results from the FGDs indicate the community's concern with Zimplats' community engagement processes. Some of the concerns of community members are indicated below by two respondents who stated the following:

*Over the years the company has always worked together with the RDC, community leaders such as the chiefs, the MP and partly with the community. Its communication with the community members was minimal as it preferred to negotiate with the local leaders who it said represented the community. However, one has to understand that since the mining company rolled out CSR projects voluntarily it had the control of all the decision making process based on what their budget says. Zimplats has always worked with the local government officials in Mhondoro-Ngezi. It has been carrying various research surveys to assess what are the critical needs for the community. (FGD No. 3, Interviewee No. 3, April 2013).*

*Previously with its own CSR models, Zimplats usually made consultations with the council, local leaders as chiefs or the MP. We hardly saw a mining representative consulting people on issues of development etc. (FGD No. 1, Interviewee No. 2, April 2013).*

A closer look at the above interview extracts shows a crisis faced by community members with regard to the company–community engagement process. While other stakeholders enjoy participation in matters related to community initiatives, community members are only recipients of the finished products. The utility and impact of such initiatives is questioned because without elaborate community discourses on development needs there is no way they can address their intended goals. From the FGDs, the researchers also wanted to understand the perceptions of the wider community so as to come to a conclusion on the community– company engagement process. A key characteristic from this study is that while the researchers relied extensively on in-depth qualitative data, the quantitative aspect came in to confirm and complement the initial qualitative findings. The following tables show that despite community members being considered as legitimate under Zimplats' voluntary CSR policy, they were often bypassed on crucial matters that concern them, with other stakeholders having to negotiate on their behalf.

Calvano ([27], p. 776) argues that despite business taking an interest in stakeholder engagement, communities still remain marginalised relative to other stakeholders. The above table present the views of the wide community with regards to Zimplats CSR engagement processes. **Table 1** shows that community members rejected the idea that CSR activities were carried out after wide consultations with the community members. The statistics presented from **Table 1** show that about 54% of the respondents disagreed with this idea while 29.3% of respondents agreed. The neglect of community members from the consultation process on CSR matters puts the whole community in jeopardy. Successful CSR initiatives must take into considerations the voices and views of the intended beneficiaries in the decision-making process. This presents the limitations of the stakeholder theory in that, despite it being an approach in which firms consider their social obligations towards the society, it also limits the participation of other stakeholders. Vial ([28], p. 37) acknowledges that the stakeholder theory advocates for the firm to accommodate all stakeholders into the firm's decisions regarding CSR matters. The failure of CSR initiatives in Mhondoro-Ngezi comes down to the issue of the CSR process. A focus on processes involving stakeholders reminds us of the need to put into consideration the values, motives and choices of those real people who are supposed to benefit from CSR initiatives.

Although Newell ([6], p. 552) argues that we have to acknowledge that "not all members of a community can participate in public hearings, meetings and legal processes but best placed leaders can represent a community", there still needs to be a point where community members' views are incorporated into the CSR agenda of the corporation. Without input from community members, community development initiatives are bound to be a failure because they do not address the needs of communities.
