DYNAMIC NEGOTIATION FLEXIBILITY IN GREENFIELD MINING PROJECTS: A FRAMEWORK FOR CONFLICT DE-ESCALATION, ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION, AND LEGITIMACY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/reej0k04Keywords:
Dynamic Negotiation Flexibility (DNF), Greenfield Mining Projects, Conflict Escalation, Organizational Adaptation, Cooperative Agreements, Project Legitimacy, Stakeholder Theory, Dynamic Capabilities, Adaptive Governance, Project Implementation SuccessAbstract
Greenfield mining projects operate in politically visible and institutionally complex settings shaped by land acquisition, resettlement and livelihood concerns, environmental risks, regulatory plurality, and competing stakeholder claims. These conditions can generate conflict among project organizations, affected communities, government agencies, civil-society groups, and political actors. Although existing scholarship has emphasized stakeholder engagement, collaborative governance, and social license to operate, it offers limited process-level insight into how project organizations adapt their negotiation practices as conflict dynamics, power relations, and institutional expectations evolve over the project life cycle (Freeman, 1984; Emerson, Naba Tchi, & Balogh, 2012; Prno & Slocombe, 2012). This study investigates Dynamic Negotiation Flexibility (DNF), defined as the capability of project actors to reconfigure negotiation strategies, procedures, and relationships in response to changing conflict dynamics and stakeholder conditions. DNF is provisionally conceptualized through three interrelated dimensions. Strategic flexibility concerns the revision of interests, options, sequencing, and value-creation arrangements. Procedural flexibility concerns the redesign of consultation forums, stakeholder representation, decision rules, and dispute-resolution processes. Relational flexibility concerns the adaptation of communication, trust-building, and relationship-repair practices. Negotiation theory, stakeholder theory, dynamic-capabilities theory, adaptive-governance theory, and legitimacy scholarship provide complementary lenses for examining these activities and processes (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005; Suchman, 1995; Teece, 2007).
References
1.Adams, W. M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., & Vira, B. (2003). Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Pool Resources. VTechWorks (Virginia Tech), 302(5652), 1915–1916. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087771
2.Adanma, U. M., & Ogunbiyi, E. O. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms in promoting environmental sustainability and international relations. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 6(5), 763–791. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i5.1151
3.Adomako-Kwakye, C., & Mensah, R. O. (2023). Social Legitimacy as a Sustainable Tool for Resolving Mining-Induced Conflicts in Ghana (pp. 169–190). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003355717-12
4.Alawattage, C., & Azure, J. D.-C. (2019). Behind the World Bank’s ringing declarations of “social accountability”: Ghana’s public financial management reform. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 78, 102075–102075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.02.002
5.Alawattage, C., & Fernando, S. J. (2017). Postcoloniality in corporate social and environmental accountability. Accounting Organizations and Society, 60, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.07.002
6.Aleksandrov, E. (2024). Accounting and participatory governance for public sector hybridity. In Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks (pp. 47–66). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800888456.00012
7.Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., & Garmestani, A. S. (2010). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019
8.Alosi, A., Annunziata, E., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2022). Conceptualising active management of paradoxical tensions in corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3529–3549. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3314
9.A.M., L., & Barletti, S. (2020). Designing for engagement: Insights for more equitable and resilient multi-stakeholder forums. In Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007593
10.Amoah, P., & Eweje, G. (2021). Barriers to environmental sustainability practices of multinational mining companies in Ghana: an institutional complexity perspective. Corporate Governance, 22(2), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-06-2021-0229
11.Andersen, S. E., & Høvring, C. M. (2019). CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances. 114, 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.030
12.Angotii, M., Ferreira, A. C. de S., Eugénio, T., Branco, M. C., & Queiroz, J. M. (2024). A sustainability assessment modeling-based external account of the impacts of mining activities in Brazil. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 15(6), 1286–1309. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0297
13.Anguelovski, I. (2011). Understanding the Dynamics of Community Engagement of Corporations in Communities: The Iterative Relationship Between Dialogue Processes and Local Protest at the Tintaya Copper Mine in Peru. Society & Natural Resources, 24(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903339699
14.Annesi, N., Battaglia, M., Ceglia, I., & Mercuri, F. (2024). Navigating paradoxes: building a sustainable strategy for an integrated ESG corporate governance. Management Decision, 63(2), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2023-2006
15.Ansu‐Mensah, P., Marfo, E. O., Awuah, L. S., & Amoako, K. O. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement in Ghana’s mining sector: a case study of Newmont Ahafo mines. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-020-00054-2
16.Arai, T. (2025). Implications of Functional Coexistence for Conflict Intervention and Peacebuilding (pp. 36–59). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032702605-4
17.Arenas, D., Albareda, L., & Goodman, J. (2020). Contestation in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Enhancing the Democratic Quality of Transnational Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(2), 169–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.29
18.Arhin, G. E. (2025). Same project, different responses: Unravelling varied community consent to mining-induced displacement in Ghana’s lithium sector. The Extractive Industries and Society, 24, 101716–101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2025.101716
19.Assche, K. V., Valentinov, V., & Verschraegen, G. (2021). Adaptive governance: learning from what organizations do and managing the role they play. Kybernetes, 51(5), 1738–1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-11-2020-0759
20.Azam, R. M. U. (2025). The Integrated Environmental Justice ADR Paradigm: Institutionalizing Equity and Reciprocity in Transboundary Conflict Resolution. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 43(3), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.70010
21.Baba, S., & Brunet, M. (2023). Project legitimacy: Towards a theoretical framework. European Management Review, 21(4), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12620
22.bailey, denis. (2026a). “The Geometry of De‑Escalation: A Manifold‑Based Theory of High‑Risk Negotiation.” In Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). European Organization for Nuclear Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18513326
23.bailey, denis. (2026b). “The Geometry of De‑Escalation: A Manifold‑Based Theory of High‑Risk Negotiation.” In Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). European Organization for Nuclear Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18513327
24.Bakker, F. G. A. de, Rasche, A., & Ponte, S. (2019). Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives on Sustainability: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Research Agenda for Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3), 343–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.10
25.Bamdad, S. (2025). Advancing sustainability in complex systems: integrating environmental strategy with statistical modelling. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06878-0
26.Banerjee, S. B. (2017). Transnational power and translocal governance: The politics of corporate responsibility. City Research Online (City University London), 71(6), 796–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717726586
27.Banna, H., Mostafiz, M. I., Ahmed, F. U., & Tarba, S. Y. (2024). Social Innovation and the Financial Risk of EMNCs - The Contingent Role of Institutional Legitimacy. Management International Review, 64(3), 489–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-024-00545-5
28.Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D., & Manetti, G. (2019). Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting. Portsmouth Research Portal (University of Portsmouth), 32(5), 1467–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-09-2017-3158
29.Benkert, J., Eversole, R., & Dembek, K. (2025a). Towards Authentic Engagement with Indigenous Peoples: Lessons from Negotiated Agreements in the Pilbara, Western Australia. PubData. https://doi.org/10.48548/pubdata-3215
30.Benkert, J., Eversole, R., & Dembek, K. (2025b). Towards Authentic Engagement with Indigenous Peoples: Lessons from Negotiated Agreements in the Pilbara, Western Australia. Business & Society, 65(4), 978–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251376892
31.Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning. Sustainability, 9(7), 1232–1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232
32.Berti, M., & Simpson, A. V. (2019). The Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208
33.Bhaumik, S. K., Estrin, S., & Narula, R. (2023). Integrating host-country political heterogeneity into MNE–state bargaining: insights from international political economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 55(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00651-w
34.Bianchi, L., Caruana, R., & Shivji, A. K. (2024). Engaging Marginalized Stakeholders: Towards a Dialogical Theorization of Effective Corporate-Rightsholder Remedy. Journal of Business Ethics, 201(3), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05879-6
35.Billon, P. L., & Spiegel, S. J. (2021). Cleaning mineral supply chains? Political economies of exploitation and hidden costs of technical fixes. Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh), 29(3), 768–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2021.1899959
36.Boateng, F. G., & Klopp, J. M. (2024). The electric vehicle transition: A blessing or a curse for improving extractive industries and mineral supply chains? Energy Research & Social Science, 113, 103541–103541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103541
37.Böhling, K., Murguía, D. I., & Godfrid, J. (2017). Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector: Exploring Its Symbolic Nature. Business & Society, 58(1), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317703658
38.Bond, C. J. (2013). Sustainable peace: An added dimension to social sustainability in the mining context. RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2898538
39.Bontempi, A., Bene, D. D., & Felice, L. J. D. (2021). Counter-reporting sustainability from the bottom up: the case of the construction company WeBuild and dam-related conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04946-6
40.Boutilier, R. G. (2014). Frequently asked questions about the social license to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.941141
41.Boutilier, R. G., & Bahr, K. (2020). A Natural Language Processing Approach to Social License Management. Sustainability, 12(20), 8441–8441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208441
42.Brand, T., Blok, V., & Verweij, M. (2019). Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.21
43.Breakey, H., Wood, G., & Sampford, C. (2025). Understanding and defining the social license to operate: Social acceptance, local values, overall moral legitimacy, and ‘moral authority.’ Resources Policy, 102, 105488–105488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105488
44.Bristol-Alagbariya, B., Ayanponle, L. O., & Ogedengbe, D. E. (2024). Advanced strategies for managing industrial and community relations in high-impact environments. International Journal of Science and Technology Research Archive, 7(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.53771/ijstra.2024.7.2.0069
45.Broccardo, L., & Mauro, S. G. (2023). The path towards sustainability: The role of internal stakeholders and management accounting in a dialogic perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3), 2496–2513. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2697
46.Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic Accountings for Stakeholders: On Opening Up and Closing Down Participatory Governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12153
47.Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2020). Accounting for non-financial matters: technologies of humility as a means for developing critical dialogic accounting and accountability. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-01-2020-0692
48.Bruijn, K., Georgallis, P., Albino‐Pimentel, J., Kourula, A., & Teegen, H. (2023). MNE–civil society interactions: a systematic review and research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 55(2), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00649-4
49.Brunet, N. D., & Longboat, S. (2023). Local Communities and the Mining Industry. In Econstor (Econstor). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182375
50.Buchanan, S. (2018). Turning lead into gold: How conflict shapes field settlements in Canadian mining. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 17183–17183. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2018.17183abstract
51.Burch, S., & Bella, J. D. (2021). Business models for the Anthropocene: accelerating sustainability transformations in the private sector. Sustainability Science, 16(6), 1963–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01037-3
52.Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). CSR, Co-optation and Resistance: The Emergence of New Agonistic Relations Between Business and Civil Society. Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull), 115(4), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1830-z
53.Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2018). Performing business and social innovation through accounting inscriptions: An introduction. Accounting Organizations and Society, 67, 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.002
54.Byl, C. A. V. der, & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575047
55.Cai, T., & Hong, Z. (2024). Exploring the structure of the digital economy through blockchain technology and mitigating adverse environmental effects with the aid of artificial neural networks. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1315812
56.Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping With Paradox. Business & Society, 42(1), 7–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302250505
57.Calzada, L., Schneider, L., & Figueroa, F. (2025). Local perspectives and institutional bricolage around conservation and development: Sembrando Vida and the Maya Train in the Southern Yucatán Peninsula. Regional Environmental Change, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-025-02458-x
58.Campbell, B., Sayer, J., & Walker, B. (2010). Navigating Trade-Offs: Working for Conservation and Development Outcomes. Ecology and Society, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03380-150216
59.Cantino, V., Devalle, A., Cortese, D., Ricciardi, F., & Longo, M. (2017). Place-based network organizations and embedded entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(3), 504–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-12-2015-0303
60.Carlisle, K. M., & Gruby, R. L. (2017). Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212
61.Castelló, I., & López‐Berzosa, D. (2021). Affects in Online Stakeholder Engagement: A Dissensus Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1), 180–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.35
62.Castelló, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). Communicative Dynamics and the Polyphony of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Network Society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1954-1
63.Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06824-190356
64.Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Ryan, M., Şerban, A., Bennett, N., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández‐Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. A., Goldstein, B. E., Haller, T., Hill, R., Múnera‐Roldán, C., Nel, J., Österblom, H., Reid, R. S., Riechers, M., Spierenburg, M., … Rondeau, R. J. (2021). Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. ANU Open Research (Australian National University), 72, 102422–102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422
65.Chapin, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., Olsson, P., Stafford‐Smith, M., Walker, B., Young, O. R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J. M., Naylor, R. L., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W., & Swanson, F. J. (2009). Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008
66.Chenhall, R. H., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2013). Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts. Accounting Organizations and Society, 38(4), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.06.002
67.Chester, M., Miller, T. R., Muñoz‐Erickson, T. A., Helmrich, A., Iwaniec, D. M., McPhearson, T., Cook, E. M., Grimm, N. B., & Markolf, S. A. (2023). Sensemaking for entangled urban social, ecological, and technological systems in the Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustainability, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00120-1
68.Chester, M., Underwood, B. S., Allenby, B., Garcia, M., Samaras, C., Markolf, S. A., Sanders, K. T., Preston, B. L., & Miller, T. R. (2021). Infrastructure resilience to navigate increasingly uncertain and complex conditions in the Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustainability, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00016-y
69.Chowdhury, R., Kourula, A., & Siltaoja, M. (2018). Power of Paradox: Grassroots Organizations’ Legitimacy Strategies Over Time. Business & Society, 60(2), 420–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816954
70.Christensen, D. (2018). Concession Stands: How Mining Investments Incite Protest in Africa. International Organization, 73(1), 65–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818318000413
71.Ciftci, M. M., & Lemaire, X. (2023). Deciphering the impacts of ‘green’ energy transition on socio-environmental lithium conflicts: Evidence from Argentina and Chile. The Extractive Industries and Society, 16, 101373–101373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101373
72.Cilliers, P., Biggs, H., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., Hofmeyr, J. S., Jewitt, G., & Roux, D. J. (2013). Complexity, Modeling, and Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05382-180301
73.Clausen, E., & Sörensen, A. (2022). Required and desired: breakthroughs for future-proofing mineral and metal extraction. Mineral Economics, 35, 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-022-00328-0
74.Coning, C. de. (2020). Adaptive Peace Operations: Navigating the Complexity of Influencing Societal Change Without Causing Harm. International Peacekeeping, 27(5), 836–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2020.1797500
75.Contrafatto, M., Thomson, I., & Monk, E. (2015). Peru, mountains and los niños: Dialogic action, accounting and sustainable transformation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.009
76.Correggi, C., Toma, P. D., & Ghinoi, S. (2024). Rethinking dynamic capabilities in light of sustainability: A bibliometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 7990–8016. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3901
77.Cosens, B. (2013). Legitimacy, Adaptation, and Resilience in Ecosystem Management. Ecology and Society, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05093-180103
78.Costa, E., Pesci, C., Andreaus, M., & Taufer, E. (2022). When a sector-specific standard for non-financial reporting is not enough: evidence from microfinance institutions in Italy. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 13(6), 1334–1360. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-06-2021-0253
79.Craig, R. K., Garmestani, A. S., Allen, C. R., Arnold, C. A., Birgé, H. E., DeCaro, D. A., Fremier, A. K., Gosnell, H., & Schlager, E. (2017). Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08983-220203
80.Creutzig, F., Simões, S. G., Leipold, S., Berrill, P., Azevedo, I., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Fishman, T., Haberl, H., Hertwich, E. G., Krey, V., Lima, A. T., Makov, T., Mastrucci, A., Milojevic-Dupont, N., Nachtigall, F., Pauliuk, S., Silva, M., Verdolini, E., Vuuren, D. P. van, … Wilson, C. (2024). Demand-side strategies key for mitigating material impacts of energy transitions. IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis), 14(6), 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02016-z
81.Dabelko, G. D., Barnhoorn, A., Bell, N., Bell-Moran, D., Broek, E., Eberlein, A., Gadnert, A., Remling, E., Staudenmann, J., Alvarado, J., Bogner, C., Eklöw, K., Horn, B., & Kim, K. (2022). Navigating a just and peaceful transition: Environment of Peace (Part 3). https://doi.org/10.55163/bhyr7656
82.Dall-Orsoletta, A., Ferreira, P., & Dranka, G. G. (2022). Low-carbon technologies and just energy transition: Prospects for electric vehicles. Energy Conversion and Management X, 16, 100271–100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100271
83.Darnhofer, I., Schermer, M., Steinbacher, M., Gabillet, M., & Daugstad, K. (2017). Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely? Land Use Policy, 68, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.005
84.Davis, R., & Franks, D. M. (2011). The costs of conflict with local communities in the extractive industry. Queensland’s Institutional Digital Repository (The University of Queensland), 1–13.
85.Dawkins, C. E. (2015). Agonistic Pluralism and Stakeholder Engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2015.2
86.Dembetembe, G. G. (2025). Organizational Responses to Institutional Complexity in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Field. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06130-6
87.Denedo, M., Thomson, I., & Yonekura, A. (2019). Ecological damage, human rights and oil: local advocacy NGOs dialogic action and alternative accounting practices. Durham Research Online (Durham University), 43(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1589904
88.Devlin, J. F. (2023). CSR, SLO and local mining communities (pp. 17–37).
89.Dillard, J., & Brown, J. (2015). Broadening out and opening up: an agonistic attitude toward progressive social accounting. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-09-2014-0055
