A real options approach to implementing corporate social responsibility policies at different stages of the mining process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of “optionality” of corporate social responsibility programs in the mining sector. It is postulated that the degree of commitment and implementation varies with the different stages of the mine life cycle. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology/approach applied in this paper follows that of complex systems theory. The authors recognize that elements of CSR do not function/occur in isolation but rather operate in a complex and dynamic system. Findings – The findings presented in the paper indicate that there is a not a single “silver bullet” approach to CSR but rather one that ebbs and flows with not only the technical stage of development of a mine but also those extra- economic modifiers that influence a mine's performance and survivability in a competitive global market. Research limitations/implications – The limitations of this particular paper/research is the inability to get a complete set of cost data from any single mining operation. This is due to the highly confidential and proprietary nature of this data, hence a hypothetical/theoretical case is presented. Practical implications – The practical implications of this research include recognizing the different stages of the mine life cycle cause different applications of CSR policy development and implementation. The authors present a view of a flexible and reflective CSR application. Originality/value – This is the first and novel attempt to consider the actual value and commercial implication of CSR using the methods of real options within the broader theoretical framework of complex systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".