BUSM4690 Global Corporate Responsibility Assessment 3, 2026 | RMIT, Singapore

BUSM4690 Assessment 3

Declaration And Statement Of Authorship

I hold a copy of this work which can be produced if the original is lost/damaged.

• This work is my original work and no part of it has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made.
• No part of this work has been written for me by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned.
• I have not previously submitted this work for this or any other course/unit.
• I give permission for this work to be reproduced, communicated, compared and archived for the purpose of detecting plagiarism.
• I give permission for a copy of my/our marked work to be retained by the school for review and comparison, including review by external examiners.

I understand that:

• Plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as though it is my own. It is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to exclusion from the University. Plagiarised material can be drawn from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data and oral presentations. Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not appropriately cited.
• Plagiarism includes the act of assisting or allowing another person to plagiarise or to copy my work.

1. The Concept of CSR & CSIR

1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (141 words)

CSR is a evolving concept that has no one single definition, its often shaped by various differing existing theoretical perspectives. Friedman’s (2019) shareholder view takes a narrow approach, framing CSR as maximising business profits while meeting legal/ethical boundaries present. Handy’s (2002) perspective challenges it by arguing how businesses focus should be on both profits and creating greater societal value. The shift illustrates how CSR is a business’s broader responsibility goes beyond profits and value creation, further developed in Carroll’s (1991) CSR Framework. It breaks down CSR into 4 levels, integrating both views, recognising a business’s fundamental economic responsibility while emphasising importance of  legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations together. These perspectives suggest CSR’s dynamic nature, it is flexible and contextual, requiring companies to balance profit-driven objectives with broader social/ethical responsibilities and can be viewed as a genuine commitment or a strategic tool.

1.2 Corporate Social IrResponsibility (CSIR) (142 words)

CSIR similarly has no single universal definition, it is also shaped by various perspectives that interpret it differently. Hericher and Bridoux (2022) conceptualises CSIR as a moral judgement that an organisation’s action intently violates ethical standards, causing harm. Taking on a broader perspective, Woon (2023) argues that CSIR are actions that result in disadvantages or harm towards stakeholders, regardless of their intent, suggesting that even without deliberate means of wrongdoing, CSIR can still arise. Nguyen, Brion and Chauvet (2024) supports this view, recognising that CSIR encompasses not just intentional but unintentional behaviours. Collectively, the perspectives similarly pinpoint how CSIR causes harm, however they suggest to us that viewing CSIR solely through intentional harm limits and overlooks various unintentional harm arising from neglect/avoidance. Therefore, CSIR is best viewed as various corporate actions that bring about negative impacts, holding firms accountable regardless of deliberateness.

1.3 Relationship between CSR & CSIR (181 words)

The relationship between CSR and CSIR can be deemed as a complex one that is subjected to a variety of differing interpretations and perspectives. From a conventional view, CSR and CSIR is believed to be opposing, directly reflecting either positive or harmful actions respectively (Strike, Gao and Bansal 2006). However, this view is often criticised for its simplicity that assumes how responsible actions negate irresponsible behaviours.

A differing perspective by Shao et al. (2020) believes that CSR and CSIR can co-exist, suggesting that although firms adopt various socially responsible initiates that do good, they can also simultaneously generate negative impacts. An example illustrating this perspective is Enron, although they consistently engaged in CSR through partnerships with Non-Profit Organisations, they were caught conducting socially irresponsible actives like insider trading (Linthicum, Reitenga and Sanchez 2010).

Although additional perspectives exist, the mentioned perspective suggests that the overall relationship between CSR and CSIR is not just simply oppositional but interdependent in many ways. One key takeaway is the understanding that CSR can function in two ways, a genuine commitment or a response to irresponsible practice.

2. Critical Analysis (1,210 WORDS)

2.1 Key Issues from Marvelous Mining Case Study

2.1.1 Inadequate Stakeholder Engagement (151 words)

Prior agreement was established between MM and the land’s traditional owner’s, despite promising consistent meaningful consultations throughout operations, MM’s efforts led the owners to believe that promises were failed to be uphold (Tödt, 2025). The traditional owners received minimal engagement that lacked both responsiveness and depth, leaving them unclear about relevant project developments that were happening on the land, ultimately leading to the Free, Pior and Informed Consent (FPIC) principles to be undermined (Tödt, 2025). This reflects a departure from effective FPIC implementation that requires consistent, informed and participatory interactions ensuring communities are enabled to hold a meaningful impact on decision regarding their land (FAO, 2016). Highlighted by Fan et al. (2026), effective stakeholder engagement requires transparency, responsiveness and genuine inclusivity which are noted to be absent in MM’s approach. Consequently, failure to engage effectively weakens not only stakeholder trust but sets the foundation for subsequent violation of traditional owners’ rights.

2.1.2 Profit Prioritisation over Value (97 words)

MM’s actions suggest that the company prioritised profits over true value, further driving the issue. Following growing global demands, as the board aggressively push to increase output while acquiring new assets lead various internal discussions to be centred around achieving production targets. By doing so, concerns raised by the stakeholder engagement team were repeatedly downplayed to avoid delays (Tödt, 2025). MM’s drive for profits reflects Friedman’s (1970) shareholder and Wright and Nyberg’s (2017) perspectives arguing how businesses’ core purpose is to generate profits while the pressures for economic growth drives resources extraction despite social and environmental costs.

2.1.3 Violation of Traditional Owner’s Rights (127 words)

Ultimately, MM’s expansion operations lead to the destruction of various artefacts and history that belonged to the traditional owners, violating their rights completely. The traditional owners believed that if concerns were taken seriously, this would have been avoided (Tödt, 2025). Sadly, it is a common sight that traditional owners and indigenous communities are always being overlooked as in Australia, they are still seen fighting for their rights to be recognised (Blakemore, 2025). This is also supported from the case as MM’s management believed that there was nothing to worry about, just because it was Australia (Tödt, 2025). Linking to stakeholder salience theory, indigenous communities possess high legitimacy but limited power, this marginalises them from multiple decision-making processes, stripping their land rights from them (Thomas et al. 2015).

2.1.4 The Mining Industry (229 words)

The issues observed reflect broader patterns that can be observed across the mining industry. The industry involves land intensive operations, carrying heavy and direct impact on the local communities they operate within. Despite creating new economic opportunities, they also bring about various social and environmental risks (Nogueira et al. 2024). Despite mining companies having corporate community agreements and corporate community involvement (CCI) initiatives that are aimed at recognising stakeholder interest. Efforts are often criticised as being transactional and insufficient, being only responsive to community needs (Muthuri et al. 2009).

One industry example is the destruction of the indigenous heritage at the Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto similarly had land usage agreements with the native people, in addition they funded various programmes, making it look like structured CCI and effective stakeholder engagement on the outside. However, due to the lacking legal frameworks allowing legal mining on older sites, coupled with the drive for profit, the company chose to disregard the traditional owners concerns that led to the gorge’s destruction (Nagar 2021).

Together, these trends highlight how engagement within the industry often witnesses constraints due to stakeholder power imbalance, profit driven motives and procedural approaches to consultation. Overall, it reveals a gap between company’s corporate commitments towards responsible practices and the reality behind the implemented practices. This raises questions regarding the true effectiveness and authenticity behind current existing approaches.

2.2  How is CSR being utilised?

2.2.1 CSR a Cover Up (294 words)

According to Valente (2017), CSR has a variety of strategic approaches ranging from denial to transformative. MM’s actions reflected a defensive and isolated approach where CSR was acknowledged but yet to be meaningfully integrated into their core processes. Despite initial commitment to human rights, their weak integration suggests that CSR functioned at the periphery, which meant operational priorities override stakeholder concerns. This implies that CSR was not absent but strategically placed to help constrain harmful outcomes, creating possible opportunities for it to serve as a cover-up (Tödt, 2025).

Further reinforced through CSR reporting, despite being aimed at enhancing legitimacy and transparency (Moravčíková, Stefaniková and Rypáková, 2015), its internal nature allows companies to selectively disclose information. For example, MM highlighted various positive achievements such as emission reduction, however such disclosures can potentially obscure unresolved social impacts (Tödt, 2025). This aligns with greenwashing, where favourable narratives are amplified and negative consequences are downplayed or overlooked, ultimately widening the gap between what the corporate claims and what they actually practice (Liu et al. 2024).

Through this Lense, CSR can function as a cover-up when it is selectively implemented and strategically reported. Further supporting this, Nunes et al. (2020) argues that companies may treat CSR as a trade-off, prioritising responsibility in one area while neglecting another. This is evident in MM’s prioritisation of human rights risks in DRC over Australia (Tödt, 2025). Similarly, the Juukan Gorge destruction showcases how despite Rio Tinto maintaining community agreements and donating towards indigenous programmes, they proceeded with the destruction of culturally significant sites under approval (Nagar 2021).

Together, these examples illustrate that when CSR is disconnected from decision making, fragmented and selectively implemented it has potential operating as a cover-up. This also raises the importance of CSR execution over its mere presence.

2.2.2 Embedded CSR (312 words)

However, CSR is not always seen as a cover-up. At times to meet various regulatory, market and institutional pressures, companies are driven to embbedd relevant responsibilities into core operations over treating CSR as simple add-on.

Frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) set expectations for consistent human rights due diligence, stakeholder engagement and remediation. These effectively shapes CSR into a structural recurring process over a symbolic exercise. This shifts CSR from being discretionary to somewhat mandatory, reducing how much companies can actually selectively apply it without scrutiny. However, these frameworks are principle based and not legal requirements, therefore, the ultimate implementation and effectiveness depends on the companies.

The increasing stakeholder scrutiny along with rising ESG expectations within the industry further supports this shift. Ensuring operations align with frameworks such as the UN SDGs have made companies demonstrate measurable and verifiable outcomes over relying solely on compliance based disclosures  (Omotehinse and De Tomi, 2023). For example, companies within the industry are slowly shifting towards long-term adaptive community partnership models that ensure engagement is continuous and renegotiated over time instead of being treated as a one-time approval (Palladium 2026). This reflects the transition towards embedded CSR that aligns with strategic philanthropy whereby social objectives are well integrated into a businesses’ overall strategy rather than acting as a peripheral initiative (Porter and Kramer, 2002; 2006; 2011).

Given such conditions, as the sustained pressures require firms to actively identify and mitigate risks before escalating into CSIR, CSR is less likely to function as a cover-up. Instead CSR operates more as a preventative mechanism then a reactive one. However, as previously CSR and CSIR often co-exist. This means that although embedded CSR can certainly reduce the need for CSR as a coverup, the ultimate effectiveness still lies on the company’s commitment and actions to determine whether CSR constrains or conceals CSIR.

3.  Recommendations

3.1 Stakeholder Co-Decision (200 words)

Firstly, to address limitations observed in MM’s engagement approach, companies should equip an integrated stakeholder co-decision mechanism.

The main issue identified was the minimal subsequent engagement that did not lead to meaningful influential outcomes from stakeholders, traditional owners, reflecting how interactions alone are insufficient when decision making is heavily company centred. To solve this, stakeholders such as the indigenous communities, traditional owners, should be incorporated into governance structures. This will be done so through mechanisms like a joint decision-making committee; this ensure that there is early and consistent involvement from stakeholders in project planning while ensuring continuous checks and approval throughout the project.

This recommendation aligns with freeman’s stakeholder theory, recognising stakeholders as active participants in value creation and not solely passive recipients behind corporate decisions. This will also address power imbalances as it enhances stakeholder power, ensuring that concerns will directly shape the outcomes. Furthermore, ensuring that there is stakeholder influence inside of the governing process will help shift CSR from a symbolic engagement to one that will create a substantial influence that can reduce the likelihood of harm and ultimately improving the accountability from companies.

However, there are challenges associated with this recommendation. Firstly, by redistributing decision making power, the company’s managerial control may be constrained. It can also lead to potential delays and longer project timelines while also creating conflict between stakeholder expectations and the company’s business objectives. Therefore, this strategy can help to influence and strengthen the company’s overall CSR effectiveness however it needs companies to balance not only operational efficiency but inclusive governance along with it.

3.2 Embedding ESG Accountability (200 words)

To address the gap observed between CSR Commitments and the actual practise seen from MM, CSR should instead be embedded into strategic decision making through the enforcement of ESG accountability mechanisms.

From the case, despite the acknowledgement of CSR commitments along with human rights considerations, they did not hold value on the final operational outcome. They were overshadowed by priorities in profitability and expansion during decision making. This highlights the need to shift CSR into a core factor in project approval along with capital allocation.

Once ESG accountability is embedded into companies they require firms to consider human rights due diligence along with stakeholder impact pointers into pre project evaluation process. These ensure how operations are not to proceed until various associated risks are being adequately addressed.

In addition, by doing so it aligns well with the UNGP on business and human rights that emphasises a need for proactive risk identification as well as showcasing a transition towards an embedded CSR strategy (Valente 2017). Furthermore, when ESG is being connected to performance and approval, companies then internalise responsibility, turning CSR from a mere communication tool to a constraint on corporate misbehvaiour.

Some challnges that come along with integrating ESG into strategic decision making processes are reduced short term profitability and increased conflict between financial objectives and sustainability gaols. Moreover, as social impact measurement remains complex, risks of mere compliance through simplified esg metrics also ecsists. However despite such limitation, accounting for esg is essential in ensuring CSR meaningfully shapes corporate actions over just reflecting it.

Conclusion (120 words)

In conclusion, this analysis shows us that CSR is not just a cover up or genuine but flexible/changebale based on how it is actually executed. While the case study on MM as well as broader mining indtsry example show to us how CSR can be selectively implemented to help mask CSIR, they also highlight to us that they stem from weak integration and priorities on profit over CSR itself.

If CSR is sidelines, it risks becoming symbolic that can in turn lead to lost stakeholder trust , however with the recoomendations such as embbeding CSR into stakeholder co-decission structure and the decission making process, it then will ultimately function as a meaning strategy that is accountable and impactful. Ultimately, the tru effectiveness and authenticness of CSR depends on company’s ability to ensure CSR is a influencial factor in actions that ultimately decide if it conceals or constrains CSIR.