Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Resources Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol Corporate social responsibility in resource companies – Opportunities for developing positive benefits and lasting legacies Anne Elizabeth Fordham a, ⁎ , Guy M. Robinson b , Boyd Dirk Blackwell c a University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia b University of Adelaide, Department of Geography, Environment and Population, School of Social Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia c University of New England, Principal Research Leader (Enduring Community Value from Mining), CRC for Remote Economic Participation, University of New England Business School, Trevenna Rd, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility Enduring Community Value Sustainability Resource development Community development Indigenous affairs ABSTRACT A key aspiration for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the resource sector is to leave behind a lasting and positive legacy for local and regional communities, which is referred to here as Enduring Community Value (ECV). This paper examines the capacity of resource companies to create ECV for local communities within three jurisdictions in Australia drawing on perspectives from resource company employees and key stakeholders including individuals and groups in local communities. The capacity to implement ECV was tracked through the planning, governance, implementation and evaluation phases of CSR for companies of different sizes, stage of mining life-cycle and degree of remoteness of mining operations. ECV was found to be a critical value of CSR for resource company employees and stakeholders, providing a common ground for engagement and cooperation. Company employees, also saw ECV as a necessary tool to help navigate the complexities of CSR within a local community context. Personal moral and ethical values of resource employees and stakeholders, including motivations to improve local community outcomes and to achieve sustainability drove the adoption of ECV. This was supported to varying degrees by resource companies’ culture and goals, organisational values of stakeholder organisations, regulatory and legislative frameworks, guidelines and standards. Through the application of Giddens’ structuration theory it was identified that there was a high reliance on human agency to drive outcomes, with a lack of consistent institutional structures and relevant processes being in place. This meant that planning for ECV often occurred late in the mine life-cycle, reducing the potential benefits. Further institutional support, such as through robust planning tools, guidelines and standards and resourced stakeholder forums where lessons, experiences and assessments are shared, could help drive outcomes more clearly toward ECV. The implications of models for CSR and sustainable development perspectives are also presented. 1. Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to a company's commitment to contribute towards the wellbeing of wider society. It is a highly contested term without an agreed unifying definition, but definitions primarily contain five key dimensions: social (relationship with business and society), environmental (natural environment), economic (socio-economic and financial), voluntary (actions not pre- scribed by law) and stakeholder (stakeholder or stakeholder groups) (Dahlsrud, 2008). In recent decades, the scope of CSR has grown to incorporate new aspects with changing societal expectations forcing corporations to alter previously poor practice (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). A case in point is the resource sector, which has developed specific standards and behaviours worldwide, particularly after 2003 when industry frame- works aligned CSR more closely to principles of sustainable develop- ment (International Council on Mining and Metals, 2016). As a result, resource company CSR programs in many countries are now relatively sophisticated with dedicated staff and projects focusing on company-wide relationships with local communities and stake- holders (Lacey and Lamont, 2014). These approaches are closely aligned to the requirement to gain a Social License to Operate (SLO), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.04.009 Received 21 November 2016; Received in revised form 24 April 2017; Accepted 25 April 2017 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: afordham@internode.on.net (A.E. Fordham), guy.robinson@adelaide.edu.au (G.M. Robinson). Resources Policy 52 (2017) 366–376 0301-4207/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. MARK