Fostering authentic corporate social responsibility through place-based and relational methodologies in mining governance: a global synthesis

As the world accelerates efforts to decarbonise and shift towards a green economy, the mining sector emerges as a fundamental driver of this transformation (Bridge et al., 2013). By supplying the critical minerals required for renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles and sustainable infrastructure, mining not only enables but also actively propels the transition to low-carbon systems. Simultaneously, this sector must confront its own environmental footprint, addressing high energy consumption, carbon emissions and social impacts in regions where governance structures remain fragile.

The mining sector has been selected as a focal point of analysis in this paper not merely because of its role in the global transition towards low-carbon economies, but because of the particular contradictions it embodies. It is simultaneously indispensable to decarbonisation and among the most socially and environmentally disruptive industries in the world (Ciftci and Lemaire, 2023; González and Snyder, 2023). While the extraction of essential resources is being validated to facilitate a green transition, research reveals a pronounced dichotomy in mining companies’ practices: some generate employment, transfer funds and invest in local economies, whereas others impose their terms on communities, offering minimal economic benefits whilst causing significant socio-environmental harm (González and Snyder, 2023). What further distinguishes mining from other industries is the irreversible nature of its territorial footprint, the long-duration and place-specific character of its operations, and the disproportionate concentration of extraction within Indigenous territories and ecologically sensitive regions. These conditions intensify existing power asymmetries, disrupt relational ties to land, and generate localised conflicts that generic sustainability frameworks are ill-equipped to address (Ordonez-Ponce and Lorca, 2026; Ordonez‐Ponce et al., 2026). At the heart of these conflicting dynamics lie questions of community autonomy and self-determination (Dorn, 2021; Dorn and Gundermann, 2022), which risk undermining the potential benefits of green mining for climate change (Dorn and Peyré, 2020) and highlight the need for fundamentally different approaches to mining-community relations.

Conventional corporate social responsibility (CSR) scholarship has evolved considerably since Carroll’s (1999) foundational pyramid model, which conceptualised corporate responsibilities across economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic dimensions. Subsequent frameworks sought to move beyond compliance and philanthropy towards stakeholder integration, shared value creation and sustainability embeddedness (Porter and Kramer, 2011; Crane et al., 2014; Biswas and Miller, 2022), whilst more recent contributions have further emphasised contextual responsiveness, relational accountability and the co-construction of social legitimacy with affected communities (Wirba, 2024; Saenz, 2024; Fatima and Elbanna, 2023). Yet despite this evolution, a persistent gap remains between the aspirations articulated in CSR discourse and the lived realities of communities affected by extractive operations. Across both earlier and more recent formulations, CSR has tended to remain organisation-centred, oriented towards reputational management, investor expectations and operational continuity, rather than on structural transformations (Banerjee, 2014; Frynas and Yamahaki, 2016). This inadequacy has become increasingly visible as stakeholders recognise that conventional frameworks often fail to address the fundamental power imbalances and territorial impacts inherent in extractive industries (Collins and Kumral, 2021; Deonandan et al., 2024; Blesia et al., 2021, 2023; Zhou and Brown, 2024), leaving issues such as community consent, epistemic exclusion and environmental degradation persistently unresolved.

It is in response to these structural limitations that the concept of authentic corporate social responsibility (referred to in this paper as ACSR) gains particular relevance. ACSR is understood as the perception of genuinely socially responsible activities that express the true beliefs and behaviours of a company within society, whereby what is carried out exceeds what is required by law (Alhouti et al., 2016, cited in Gunawan et al., 2020, pp. 4–5). Unlike conventional CSR, which has frequently functioned as a legitimising instrument oriented towards corporate interests, ACSR is premised on the idea that responsible conduct must be substantive, not performative; it must be embedded in the values, culture and decision-making structures of the organisation rather than appended to them. In extractive industry contexts, this distinction is particularly consequential: the irreversible and place-bound nature of mining operations means that superficial or compliance-driven responsibility frameworks cannot adequately account for the long-term relational and territorial obligations that arise when corporations operate within Indigenous and community territories. ACSR, by contrast, foregrounds genuine accountability, long-term community benefit and the redistribution of decision-making power as constitutive features of responsible corporate conduct rather than aspirational add-ons.

Place-based and relational methodologies provide the conceptual and practical architecture through which ACSR can be operationalised in mining contexts. Place-based approaches prioritise the specific social, cultural and environmental conditions of a location, seeking to embed decision-making within particular territorial realities rather than imposing standardised solutions (George and Reed, 2017). Relational approaches, grounded in relational ontologies, further emphasise reciprocity, the co-production of knowledge and accountability, and position affected communities as genuine partners in decision-making rather than stakeholders to be managed (Verrier et al., 2022; Aguilar et al., 2025; Himes et al., 2025; Kellner, 2025; Kobluk et al., 2024; Littlewood, 2015; Mbah et al., 2024; West et al., 2020, 2024). Together, these approaches address what conventional CSR has consistently failed to deliver: a mode of corporate engagement that is territorially sensitive, relationally grounded and oriented towards structural transformation rather than operational continuity.

Mining, as a sector characterised by irreversible territorial impacts, contested sovereignties and enduring community relationships, presents a critical site for examining how place-based and relational methodologies can move governance beyond extractive logics and towards regenerative, community-empowered models of ACSR. Mining sector’s dual role, acting as both an indispensable enabler of clean energy futures and a sector under pressure to transform, positions it at the core of debates on sustainability, technological innovation and equitable development. This study advances existing knowledge by examining precisely how this movement occurs and what conditions make it possible.

The transition towards ACSR in the mining sector requires critical examination of the methodological and relational foundations that underpin governance practices. Compliance-led CSR frameworks in the extractive sector have been critiqued for their transactional nature, often prioritising company interests and risk management over genuine community empowerment and long-term well-being (Rathobei et al., 2024; Samkin et al., 2024). In response, relational methodologies foreground reciprocity, mutual benefit and the integration of diverse knowledge systems, particularly Indigenous and place-based knowledges that have historically been marginalised in mining governance.

Furthermore, the concept of authenticity has emerged as a crucial lens through which to evaluate CSR initiatives represent substantive transformation or merely performative compliance (Lim and Zhang, 2025). Equity based approaches have similarly gained prominence, recognising that justice and inclusion must be foundational principles rather than peripheral considerations in mining governance. Together, these interconnected themes provide the analytical framework through which this review examines the evolution of CSR practices and their capacity to foster genuinely regenerative outcomes in mining contexts.

By aligning with stricter climate policies, international standards and responsible governance frameworks, mining fosters the transition, reinforcing its role as both a supplier of critical resources and a partner in building sustainable and equitable green economies (Amegboleza and Ülkü, 2025). Unlike compliance-led frameworks treating communities as stakeholders to be managed, place-based approaches recognise them as knowledge holders whose territorial expertise is fundamental to sustainable governance (Klepac et al., 2023; Fitzpatrick et al., 2024). Mining exemplifies tensions between profit imperatives and demands for genuine community participation, with Mancini and Sala (2018) observing that whilst generating vital economic inputs, mining creates social and environmental impacts compromising public acceptance, revealing the urgent need for authentic responsibility grounded in trust and reciprocity rather than transactional governance.

The critical importance of social licence has become increasingly apparent in this transformation. As Hurst and Johnston (2021, p. 1) establish, “the notion of an organisation or industry having a social licence to operate (SLO) and needing to consider their social impact has never been more important”, positioning SLO as central to public relations theory and mining governance. They further argue that “social licence and social impact have utility for public relations theory, as organisational decisions have intended and unintended impacts on communities” (Hurst and Johnston, 2021, p. 1), emphasising the need for authentic stakeholder engagement that moves beyond superficial consultation processes.

This transformation towards ACSR, forms the focus of this literature review. ACSR inherently involves regenerative governance, understood as systems grounded in living systems principles that enable purpose alignment, resilience, and continuous evolution of vitality and well-being across interconnected social, ecological and economic systems (Gibbons, 2020). This requires moving beyond firm centric transactional approaches towards reciprocity frameworks that first understand community needs and aspirations, fostering local development to genuinely compensate for resource extraction (Baba et al., 2021). Evidence demonstrates that such approaches prove effective at achieving thriving living systems while addressing both inner dimensions, such as worldviews and values, and outer dimensions, including governance systems and resource flows (Gibbons, 2020). Our central research question explores:

This overarching question is examined through three interconnected sub-questions:

To address the central research question, the paper proceeds in six sections. Section 2 outlines the methodology, including the research design and analysis of the selected articles. Section 3 presents the literature analysis across five themes: theoretical foundations of relational and place-based approaches; Indigenous rights and relational governance; social licence and community engagement; regenerative and circular economy approaches; and place-based governance and local development. Section 4 synthesises these findings to examine how ACSR can be advanced through relational and place-based methodologies. Section 5 discusses key barriers and pathways to transformation, and Section 6 concludes by reflecting on the implications for mining governance.

This study contributes to the existing CSR literature by synthesising relational and place-based methodologies into a coherent framework for mining governance, moving beyond philanthropic, compliance-led, and reputational CSR models that prioritise risk management and community investment while leaving underlying power relations and decision-making structures largely unchanged. It highlights how Indigenous knowledge, territorial embeddedness and relational accountability can address power asymmetries, while identifying gaps in linking these approaches to measurable regenerative outcomes.

To address the research questions, this study employed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2009) to systematically analyse place-based and relational methodologies in mining governance literature. This protocol ensures methodological transparency and reproducibility in synthesising diverse scholarship (Page et al., 2021). The review proceeded through three phases:

1. article identification and retrieval;

2. eligibility determination and quality evaluation; and

3. selection, synthesis and thematic analysis.

Articles were selected based on three inclusion criteria:

1. explicit engagement with place-based and relational concepts in mining contexts;

2. empirical and theoretical contributions to understanding governance transformations; and

3. relevance to ACSR.

The review ultimately analysed 77 key articles that met all inclusion criteria, supplemented by additional sources for contextual understanding. Data extraction focused on theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, empirical findings and governance implications. The analysis employed thematic synthesis to identify patterns across the literature, with particular attention to how different studies conceptualise and operationalise place-based and relational approaches. This systematic approach enabled the identification of five key themes that illuminate how these methodologies could transform mining governance, whilst also revealing critical gaps requiring future research.

The review encompassed publications from January 2015 to September 2025. This ten-year timeframe was selected in line with established practice in qualitative and systematic literature reviews, where a focused and recent window is used to ensure analytical coherence and contemporary relevance while capturing the most active and evolving body of scholarship (Snyder, 2019; Tranfield et al., 2003; Webster and Watson, 2002). The choice of 2015 as a starting point does not suggest that social responsibility emerged with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); rather, the SDGs represent a widely recognised institutional inflection point that reshaped global debates on corporate accountability, particularly in extractive industries. This makes 2015 a defensible and methodologically coherent boundary for capturing the development of place-based and relational approaches, alongside increasing recognition of Indigenous territorial rights in mining contexts (Owen and Kemp, 2017). At the same time, foundational contributions predating 2015 are incorporated where necessary to establish the theoretical lineage of the study.

Google Scholar was selected as the primary database due to its broad interdisciplinary coverage and capacity to index literature across environmental governance, political ecology, sustainability science, development studies and extractive industry research; fields that are often dispersed across disciplinary boundaries and not fully captured within single-index databases. Its inclusive search architecture enables the identification of recent and cross-cutting scholarship, including publications and journals that may not yet be comprehensively indexed elsewhere. To enhance rigour and ensure completeness, supplementary searches were conducted in Web of Science and Scopus to validate coverage, refine results and confirm the inclusion of high-impact and indexed peer-reviewed studies. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles to maintain academic quality and reproducibility, excluding books, conference proceedings and theses.

Two search strategies were employed to maximise retrieval through Google Scholar:

Search Strategy 1: “place-based” AND “relational” AND (“methodologies” OR “approaches”) AND “mining sector” AND (“corporate social responsibility” OR “CSR” OR “regenerative governance” OR “community engagement” OR “sustainability”) AND “global” – yielding 911 results.

Search Strategy 2: “place-based” relational methodologies OR approaches “mining sector” “corporate social responsibility” OR CSR OR “regenerative governance” OR “community engagement” OR sustainability global OR international OR transnational – yielding 828 results.

The combined searches produced 1,739 initial results. After removing 423 duplicates, 1,316 unique articles underwent screening. Supplementary searches in Web of Science and Scopus using adapted search strings added 187, creating a pool of 1,503 articles. Title and abstract screening eliminated 981 articles addressing technical mining operations or environmental assessments without explicit governance dimensions. Full-text review of the remaining 522 articles excluded 445 papers lacking explicit place-based or relational frameworks, insufficient methodological rigour, or focus on extractive industries without mining relevance. This screening process yielded seventy-seven articles meeting all inclusion criteria for in-depth analysis (Figure 1).

A systematic thematic synthesis was employed to integrate the diverse qualitative and conceptual studies included in the review, as this approach is well suited to interdisciplinary literature where methodological heterogeneity precludes statistical meta-analysis (Coatsworth-Puspoky et al., 2025). All selected articles were read in full and subjected to inductive coding, generating initial open codes related to governance practices, relational dynamics, Indigenous knowledge integration, and reported socio-environmental outcomes. These codes were progressively grouped into descriptive categories and refined into higher-order analytical themes through iterative comparison and abstraction (De Cassai et al., 2025). Coding decisions were documented to ensure transparency, and a subset of articles was reviewed by a second co-author to enhance internal reliability and refine thematic boundaries. This process enabled the development of both descriptive mappings and interpretive frameworks examining how place-based and relational methodologies reshape CSR in mining contexts Tables 1 and 2.

To operationalise this approach, a structured three-stage coding framework was applied, encompassing initial concept identification, pattern coding to establish relationships, and integrative coding to synthesise overarching themes. Extracted data were organised in a structured Excel matrix using established systematic review techniques (Thomas and Harden, 2008). The matrix captured publication characteristics, theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, geographic contexts, governance mechanisms, community outcomes, implementation barriers and policy implications. Coding discrepancies were resolved through iterative discussion among co-authors to ensure consistency. For instance, terms such as “territorial governance” and “place-based management” were harmonised under a unified place-based methodology category following definitional alignment.

Publication patterns and thematic distributions were analysed quantitatively, with findings structured according to five emergent themes addressing the research questions. These themes emerged through a qualitative meta-synthesis approach applied to the seventy-seven studies, whereby systematic coding identified recurring patterns in how studies conceptualise and operationalise place-based and relational approaches to mining governance. Through iterative analysis across diverse global mining contexts, five transformative themes crystallised: a paradigm shift from extractive to regenerative relationships, Indigenous knowledge systems as innovative governance mechanisms, place-based contexts as critical determinants of success, relational trust-building prioritised over transactional compliance, and multi-stakeholder networks enabling systemic change.

Before turning to the thematic analysis, it is worth reflecting on what the body of evidence collectively reveals. Across the literature reviewed, a consistent pattern emerges: the persistent failures of CSR in mining contexts are not primarily technical or procedural, but ontological. They stem from a foundational incompatibility between the corporate logics underpinning conventional CSR and the place-bound, relationally constituted realities of the communities within which mining operations are embedded. The findings converge on the insight that no refinement of existing CSR instruments can resolve this incompatibility without a prior shift in how corporations conceptualise their relationship to place, community and knowledge. It is this overarching finding that gives coherence to the thematic patterns discussed below.

Place-based CSR centres governance within territorial, institutional and community contexts, emphasising that social responsibility must be embedded within local socio-ecological systems rather than imposed through standardised, compliance-led frameworks (Sadler and Lloyd, 2009).

Place-based responsibility represents a theoretically distinct departure from conventional CSR insofar as it grounds corporate obligation not in universal standards or transferable frameworks, but in the particular ecological, cultural and social characteristics of the territories within which corporations operate (George and Reed, 2017). This theoretical orientation draws on a body of scholarship that understands place not merely as a physical location but as a constituted social reality shaped by history, identity and relational practice (Escobar, 2001; Massey, 2004). In mining contexts, this has direct implications for how responsibility is conceived: it cannot be adequately discharged through generic social investment programmes or standardised community engagement protocols, because these instruments are inherently indifferent to the place-specific conditions that give rise to the obligations in the first place. The theoretical case for place-based responsibility therefore rests on the claim that meaningful accountability must be territorially embedded from the outset, rather than retrofitted to local conditions after operational decisions have already been made.

This theoretical foundation carries significant practical consequences for how concepts such as social licence to operate are understood and pursued. Rather than treating social licence as a procedural outcome achieved through consultation, a place-based perspective situates it as a continuously negotiated, territorially specific relationship. Hurst et al. (2020) articulate this distinction clearly, arguing that stakeholder engagement constitutes the foundation of the organisational relationships and reputation upon which social licences are built and constantly renewed, positioning legitimacy as relational capital rather than a transactional threshold. This understanding aligns with George and Reed (2017) framework for just sustainability, which operationalises place-based responsibility through three imperatives: comprehensive contextual understanding, genuine community empowerment, and outcomes defined by and for local communities. Their comparative analysis demonstrates that organisations embedding these principles within local governance structures consistently achieve more equitable outcomes than those applying standardised CSR models across different contexts.

Building on these foundations, more recent scholarship has begun to examine how place-based values can be sustained and communicated without being diluted or abstracted beyond recognition. Himes et al. (2025) introduce the concept of horizontal portability as a mechanism for translating place-based relational values across different contexts whilst preserving their territorial specificity and meaning. Taken together, these contributions construct a coherent theoretical architecture for place-based responsibility: one that begins with the ontological primacy of place, extends through the relational constitution of legitimacy, and arrives at governance frameworks that are accountable to the particular communities and ecologies from which corporate obligations arise. In the mining sector, where operational decisions leave permanent territorial imprints, this architecture is not merely theoretically appealing but practically indispensable.

The evolution of social licence to operate demonstrates how place-based engagement shapes legitimacy. Zhang et al. (2015) show that perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness determine acceptance across Australia, China and Chile. However, Mayes (2015) illustrates how SLO may function as a multi-scalar mechanism connecting local consent to global production networks, reducing community engagement to a reputational strategy.

Conde and Le Billon (2017) demonstrate that communities with strong cultural and spiritual ties to land resist mining regardless of benefit-sharing, indicating that territorial identity outweighs transactional incentives. Collins and Kumral (2021, p. 1) argue that SLO rhetoric can reduce complex Indigenous injustices to “risk reduction exercises focussed on continuing mine operations”, while Deonandan et al. (2024) contend that SLO operates as a form of private regulation allowing corporations to claim legitimacy without binding obligations.

Despite the hurdles, positive examples do exist. Mononen and Sairinen (2021, p. 7) show that “realistic expectations” and a “respectful attitude to local residents’ worries” generated genuine trust in Finland. In Brazil, Cruz et al. (2021) document measurable improvements through procedural fairness and relationship-building, while Pimenta et al. (2021) identify environmental protection as central to trust in Amazonian contexts. Nonetheless, structural legacies, such as those documented by Nyembo and Lees (2020) in South Africa, continue to undermine authentic engagement.

The translation of mineral wealth into equitable development depends on institutional quality and local capacity. Konte and Vincent (2021, p. 2) demonstrate that “quality of local governance and capability of local communities and Indigenous knowledge holders to raise and capture revenues” determines whether mining benefits communities. Poor governance, they show, diminishes developmental outcomes.

Guerisoli and Mandirola (2024) further reveal how neo-extractivism in Latin America combines territorial displacement with financial incorporation, reproducing colonial hierarchies. Effective place-based governance, therefore, requires multi-level coordination. Klepac et al. (2023) identify cross-sectoral conditions for successful place-based approaches, while Morisson and Doussineau (2019) highlight the role of regional innovation agencies in coordinating governance across scales. Nowakowska et al. (2021) and Weller et al. (2024) demonstrate that place-based policies can support just transitions, provided institutional capacity and coordination mechanisms are strengthened.

Relational CSR shifts the focus from territorial embeddedness to governance grounded in reciprocal relationships, epistemological pluralism and power redistribution. It foregrounds the ethical and ontological dimensions of responsibility, particularly through Indigenous governance.

Indigenous epistemologies offer transformative pathways for relational CSR that extend beyond consultation to co-governance. Brondízio et al. (2021) show how Indigenous environmental governance is grounded in reciprocal territorial relationships. Aguilar et al. (2025, p. 2) argue that transformative mining relationships must operate at “the speed of trust”, centred in Indigenous histories and cultural frameworks.

West et al. (2024, p. 1) describe relational governance as “walking together in a world of many worlds”, respecting diverse ontologies while creating collaborative arrangements. Dobinson et al. (2024, p. 639) illustrate how Australian mining narratives often produce “divergent values” by trivialising Indigenous articulations of permanence and care. Leyton-Flor and Sangha (2024, p. 1) further demonstrate that Indigenous ecosystem services embedded in kinship systems cannot be commodified within philanthropy-driven CSR models that leave governance structures intact.

The transformative potential of relational governance becomes evident where Indigenous institutions assert territorial sovereignty. Torres-Wong and Jimenez-Sandoval (2022) show how the Community Assembly in Capulálpam de Méndez halted mining through collective governance, representing responsibility emerging from below rather than being granted from above. Leroy’s (2025) review of Central American conflicts reveals how Indigenous communities deploy resistance strategies against entrenched power structures, highlighting that ACSR requires confronting structural inequalities.

However, implementation faces persistent challenges. Blesia et al. (2021, 2023) demonstrate how formal agreements may mask ongoing “asymmetries and imperialism”, with Indigenous organisations remaining financially dependent on corporations, while Ordonez-Ponce and Lorca (2026) suggest the existence of a symbiotic relationship between mining companies and Indigenous peoples. Mbah et al. (2024, p. 436) argue that authentic relational governance requires “collaboration, trusting and reciprocal relationships, flexibility, relational data, and reflexivity” that reconfigure authority and decision-making power.

The literature demonstrates that place-based approaches reconfigure CSR by embedding responsibility within territorial contexts, institutional capacities and locally defined development priorities. Rather than positioning CSR as an external corporate initiative layered onto existing operations, place-based governance situates mining within specific socio-ecological systems and power structures. As Veltmeyer and Ezquerro-Cañete (2023) argue, this shift challenges the historical foundations of extractivism by questioning assumptions about property, value and development embedded within mining economies. Vilani et al. (2024, p. 1) illustrate this through Brazilian mining-free territories framed as “community-based strategy in dialogue with decolonial theory”, where growth-centred development models are explicitly rejected in favour of territorially grounded alternatives. Similarly, Cornejo Puschner (2024) shows how Chilean Community Development Agreements reveal tensions between short-term economic gains and long-term sustainability, underscoring that ACSR must respond to place-specific struggles rather than abstract corporate standards. In this sense, place-based approaches highlight that legitimacy is constructed through sustained engagement with local governance institutions, development trajectories and ecological limits.

Relational approaches, by contrast, foreground the ethical and epistemological dimensions of governance, centring reciprocity, accountability and power redistribution. The literature shows that ACSR requires more than improved consultation or benefit-sharing; it demands restructuring relationships between corporations, communities and territories. Indigenous-led governance models, community assemblies and relational accountability frameworks demonstrate that responsibility emerges through trust, mutual recognition and shared authority rather than transactional exchange. This relational reorientation challenges philanthropy-driven, compliance-led and risk-management-oriented CSR models that prioritise operational continuity over structural transformation. Instead, it positions CSR as an ongoing process of co-governance in which legitimacy is continuously negotiated through respect, reciprocity and responsiveness to community-defined values.

Taken together, place-based and relational approaches provide complementary foundations for ACSR in mining. Place-based methodologies embed governance within territorial and institutional realities, while relational methodologies reconfigure the underlying power relations and normative assumptions shaping extraction. Their integration moves CSR beyond reputational management towards a model grounded in territorial embeddedness, epistemological pluralism and shared authority. The combined evidence suggests that ACSR cannot be achieved through incremental reform alone, but requires a reimagining of mining’s social purpose, aligning extraction, where it occurs, with regenerative development pathways defined in partnership with affected communities.

Implementing ACSR faces formidable structural and conceptual barriers embedded within mining’s political economy. Power imbalances remain fundamental. Zhou and Brown (2024, p. 1) reveal that over half of critical mineral projects occur “on or in close proximity to Indigenous peoples’ lands”, yet community influence over strategic decisions remains minimal. This spatial injustice intersects with sociocultural risks (Matanzima and Loginova, 2024) and entrenched epistemic exclusions, where Indigenous knowledge systems continue to be marginalised within formal governance arrangements. Institutional limitations further constrain transformation. Nwapi (2017, pp.203–204) documents “inadequate attention to the issue of representativity of communities and to the need for community capacity building to enable meaningful community participation” in Community Development Agreements, while Howse (2022) demonstrates how historical legacies of exclusion erode the trust necessary for sustained relational governance. Mining conflicts analysed by Samanlangi et al. (2024) illustrate how these structural weaknesses repeatedly destabilise claims of social licence.

The financialisation of extractive economies compounds these tensions. Guerisoli and Mandirola (2024) show how processes of credit expansion and conditional inclusion in Latin America generate new forms of dependency alongside territorial dispossession. Arias-Loyola et al. (2025) similarly identify contradictions within “green extractivism”, where projects framed as environmentally progressive reproduce colonial patterns of inequality. These dynamics indicate that incremental adjustments to corporate practice are insufficient when underlying political-economic structures remain unchanged.

Yet pathways to transformation do emerge. Fitzpatrick et al. (2024, p. 1) demonstrate how participatory methodologies translate “abstract concepts like emergence and plurality” into practical governance insights. Amoah and Eweje (2023, p. 5611) argue that multinational corporations operating within institutional voids cannot justify limited responsibility; rather, “the pursuit of private morality and social legitimacy” becomes essential for organisational survivability. Nonetheless, significant gaps remain in linking relational and place-based methodologies to measurable outcomes. As Butters (2025, p. 9) observes, much scholarship remains focused on diagnosing problems rather than generating “transformation knowledge”. Addressing this gap is critical if ACSR is to move beyond normative aspiration towards empirically grounded, structurally embedded change.

This synthesis of seventy-seven studies demonstrates that advancing ACSR in mining requires fundamental transformation rather than incremental improvements to compliance-led, philanthropic or risk-management-oriented CSR models. A substantial body of literature shows that such approaches are structurally limited, often prioritising corporate legitimacy and risk mitigation while failing to address entrenched power imbalances and socio-ecological harms (Banerjee, 2014; Frynas and Yamahaki, 2016; Collins and Kumral, 2021; Blesia et al., 2021, 2023; Deonandan et al., 2024; Zhou and Brown, 2024; Rathobei et al., 2024; Samkin et al., 2024). These limitations arise in part because communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, are framed as stakeholders to be managed, rather than recognising mining territories as complex socio-ecological systems characterised by interdependent, reciprocal and accountable human–nature relationships (Berkes et al., 2000). Place-based and relational methodologies address these shortcomings by foregrounding territorial embeddedness, epistemological pluralism and the meaningful redistribution of decision-making power.

ACSR emerges through five interconnected mechanisms: the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems alongside broader community knowledges; responsiveness to specific territorial contexts; relational accountability extending beyond procedural compliance to intergenerational obligations; paradigm shifts from extractive to regenerative relationships; and multi-stakeholder networks capable of enabling systemic change. These mechanisms are consistent with, and supported by, emerging scholarship that positions ACSR as a more transformative and context-sensitive alternative to conventional CSR (Littlewood, 2015; Alhouti et al., 2016, as cited in Gunawan et al., 2020; George and Reed, 2017; West et al., 2020, 2024; Verrier et al., 2022; Kobluk et al., 2024; Mbah et al., 2024; Aguilar et al., 2025; Himes et al., 2025; Kellner, 2025). Collectively, these studies demonstrate ACSR’s capacity to confront the territorial injustices and power asymmetries that conventional CSR instruments have been unable to resolve.

The theoretical implications are significant. The findings reposition CSR from a corporate governance tool to a relational and place-embedded practice grounded in ethics of care, co-governance and socio-ecological interdependence. Practically, the evidence suggests that mining companies must embed community capacity-building, shared authority and long-term relational investment within core operational strategies rather than relegating them to peripheral CSR functions. From a policy perspective, regulatory frameworks must move beyond disclosure and voluntary standards towards embedding territorial participation rights, institutional capacity support and accountability mechanisms that recognise Indigenous sovereignty and local governance systems.

This systematic review is not without limitations. The synthesis draws primarily on peer-reviewed English-language scholarship, which may underrepresent locally published or non-English research in key mining regions. Furthermore, although the literature provides strong conceptual and normative support for relational and place-based transformations, empirical evidence linking these approaches to measurable long-term regenerative outcomes remains limited. Future research should prioritise longitudinal and comparative studies to assess how relational governance models influence environmental performance, community well-being and conflict reduction across diverse mining contexts. There is also a need to develop more robust indicators capable of capturing relational quality, power redistribution and intergenerational responsibility.

The path forward requires confronting colonial legacies, profit-maximisation paradigms and institutional inertia that continue to shape extractive governance. Transformation demands coordinated action across scales, from territorially grounded innovations redistributing authority to international governance reforms that retain contextual sensitivity. The evidence confirms that mining can evolve from extractive depletion towards regenerative practice when place-based wisdom and Indigenous knowledge systems converge with relational governance innovation. Achieving this vision requires a fundamental reimagining, one that transforms not only management practices but the underlying purpose and political economy of mining itself.