The Role of Benefits, Impacts and Community Trust in Predicting Mining Operational Acceptance in the Community

Main Article Content

Noven Surya Pratama
Lindrianasari
Usep Saipuddin

Abstract

Mining activities are one of the activities that make a positive contribution to community life. However, in addition to making a positive contribution to mining activities, it also has a negative impact on society and the environment. This study was conducted to try to determine the role of benefits, impacts and community trust in influencing community acceptance of mining operations carried out by the company. This research will be carried out using questionnaires and conducting a question and answer directly to the people who live in the area around the mine. The population of this research is the entire community living around the mining area with a sample of about 210 community respondents living around the mining area in Lampung. The renewal of this study is that this study will add diversity and sample criteria compared to previous studies, such as people who live around the mine but also work in related mining companies, environmental activists, and civil servants who work in services that benefit from mining activities. company.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Surya Pratama, N., Lindrianasari, & Saipuddin, U. . (2019). The Role of Benefits, Impacts and Community Trust in Predicting Mining Operational Acceptance in the Community. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 7(12), 236-245. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss12.2043
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Lindrianasari, University of Lampung, Indonesia

Faculty of Economics and Business

Usep Saipuddin, University of Lampung, Indonesia

Faculty of Economics and Business,

References

[1] Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.

[2] Chen, JC, & Roberts, RW (2010). Toward a More Coherent Understanding of the Organization – Society Relationship: A Theoretical Consideration for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 651-665.

[3] Emerson, R., 1972. Exchange theory, partI: a psychological basis for social exchange. In: Berger, J., Zelditch Jr, M, Anderson, B (Eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

[4] Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., Moran, C. J.,2010. Managing the Cumulative Impacts of Coal Mining on Regional Communities and Environments in Australia. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 284,299–312.

[5] Homans, G.C., 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York.

[6] Lesmana, Y., & Tarigan, J. (2014). The Effect of Sustainability Reporting on the Financial Performance of Public Companies in the Ratios Asset Management Side. Business Accounting Review, 101-110.

[7] Lindblom, CK (1994). The Implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure. Paper Presented at the Critical Perspectives at Accounting Conference, New York.

[8] Litmanen, T., & Litmanen, Jartti, Rantala, T. (2016). Refining the preconditions of a social license to operate (SLO): reflections on citizens' attitudes towards mining in two Finnish regions. The Extractive Industries and Society 3, 782-792.

[9] Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social license to operate: An integrative model of explaining community acceptance of mining. Commonwealth ScienceOrganizationand Industry Research, 61-70.

[10] Owen, J. R., Kemp, D., 2012. Social Licence and Mining: A Critical Perspective. Resources Policy 38, 29–35.

[11] Prno, J., Slocombe, D. S., 2012. Exploring the Origins of ‘Social License to Operate’ In the Mining Sector: Perspectives From Governance and Sustainability Theories. Resource Policy 37,346–357.

[12] Roarty, M., 2010. The Australian Resources Sector - Its Contribution to the Nation, and a Brief Review of Issues and Impacts. Retrieved on January 20, 2015, from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parlia mentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/AustResources.

[13] Siegrist, M., Connor, M., Keller, C., 2012. Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments. Risk Anal. 32, 1394–1403.

[14] Suchman, MC (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 571–610.

[15] Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D. D. L., 2010. Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trust worthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 16, 173–186.

[16] Weng, Z., Mudd, G. M., Martin, T. ,Boyles, C. A.,2012. Pollutant Loads From Coal Mining in Australia: Discerning Trends from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). Environ.Sci.Policy19-20,78–89.

[17] Zhang, A., & Moffat, K. (2015). A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts, and confidence in governance in predicting the acceptance of mining in Australia. Resources Policy 44, 25-34.

[18] Zhang, A., Measham, TG, & Moffat, K. (2018). Preconditions for social license: The importance of information in the initial engagement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1559-1566.