Sustainability reporting in the mining sector: Why institutional dynamics of reporting disappoint beliefs in its potentials for increased corporate accountability

There is general understanding that mining operations may cause significant damages to the natural environment, pose threats to the livelihoods of local communities and public health, violate human rights, and undermine democracy. For a long time, these concerns were ignored. The mining industry has nonetheless become a leader in social and environmental reporting. Yet, reporting practice in the mining sector indicates that endorsement of sustainability reporting has fallen short of its intent to strengthen corporate accountability. Hence, the more fundamental question rises why sustainability reporting gained ground although its credibility is subject to on-going criticisms. This paper seeks to address this question by looking at institutional dynamics in its ‘evolutionary logic.’ Sustainability reporting in the mining sector grew at the intersection with institutionalized rules about economic globalization, development promises of export-led industrialisation in the global South, and ‘cultural scripts’ about the power of markets in solving social and environmental problems. Its market-based model, in addition to instrumentalised stakeholder dialogues, tendency for organizational narcissism in glossy sustainability reports, and adherence to a low-performance, high-persistence organisation explain why sustainability reporting in the mining sector disappoints beliefs in its potential for increased corporate accountability.