Table 1. Categories and subcategories of... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1.

Categories and subcategories of engagement in a mining context

Category	Sub-category	Description	Theoretical foundation
Information flow	Unilateral	Communication originates with the proponent (company) and is directed to the public	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Consultation	Information flows from the public to the proponent, conveying opinions or concerns	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Bidirectional	Participation–interactive dialogue between the proponent and stakeholders	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Transactional	Ongoing negotiation that seeks to build relationships with multiple stakeholder groups	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017)
Engagement context	Mandatory dialogue	Does not amount to effective engagement; it merely fulfils legal requirements	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Holley & Mitcham (2016)
	Compensatory dialogue	In light of negative externalities, the proponent seeks to demonstrate its contribution to social, environmental, and economic development	Cesare & Maxwell (2003)
	Voluntary dialogue	Engagement is motivated not by regulation but by the pursuit and maintenance of the social license to operate/close (SLO/SLC)	Holley & Mitcham (2016)
Scope of engagement	Community	Aims for public or community acceptance when objectives have been defined prior to engagement with specific community segments	Hurst et al. (2020); Raman & Mohr (2014)
Scope of engagement	Stakeholder diversity	Articulates diverse perspectives – including marginalized or vulnerable groups – across local communities and other interested parties	Hurst et al. (2020); Raman & Mohr (2014)
Type of engagement	Information-based	Emphasizes persuasion through advocacy and selective stakeholder participation to foster acceptance of a viewpoint or favorable representation of the organization	Edgett (2002); Hurst et al. (2020); Johnston (2018)
Type of engagement	Dialogue-based	Collective action, shared knowledge, or reflexive/experiential interaction with a broad array of stakeholders in search of mutual benefits and continuous relationships	Edgett (2002); Hurst et al. (2020); Johnston (2018)
Critical elements of social acceptance	Procedural justice	Having a legitimate “voice” in decision-making is central to community perceptions of social justice	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Everingham et al. (2018); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018); Prno & Slocombe (2012)
	Trust	Trust drives social acceptance and can be captured through integrity, benevolence, and credibility	Everingham et al. (2018); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018)
	Strong company–community relationship	Frequent face-to-face communication underpins interpersonal bonds; positive dialogue experiences strengthen perceptions of mutually beneficial relationships	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Everingham et al. (2018)
	Governance	Involves private, public, and civil-society actors in negotiation, cooperation, and alliance-building, giving stakeholders greater representation in decision-making	Prno & Slocombe (2012); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018)

Category	Sub-category	Description	Theoretical foundation
Information flow	Unilateral	Communication originates with the proponent (company) and is directed to the public	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Consultation	Information flows from the public to the proponent, conveying opinions or concerns	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Bidirectional	Participation–interactive dialogue between the proponent and stakeholders	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017); Rowe & Frewer (2005)
	Transactional	Ongoing negotiation that seeks to build relationships with multiple stakeholder groups	Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017)
Engagement context	Mandatory dialogue	Does not amount to effective engagement; it merely fulfils legal requirements	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Holley & Mitcham (2016)
	Compensatory dialogue	In light of negative externalities, the proponent seeks to demonstrate its contribution to social, environmental, and economic development	Cesare & Maxwell (2003)
	Voluntary dialogue	Engagement is motivated not by regulation but by the pursuit and maintenance of the social license to operate/close (SLO/SLC)	Holley & Mitcham (2016)
Scope of engagement	Community	Aims for public or community acceptance when objectives have been defined prior to engagement with specific community segments	Hurst et al. (2020); Raman & Mohr (2014)
Scope of engagement	Stakeholder diversity	Articulates diverse perspectives – including marginalized or vulnerable groups – across local communities and other interested parties	Hurst et al. (2020); Raman & Mohr (2014)
Type of engagement	Information-based	Emphasizes persuasion through advocacy and selective stakeholder participation to foster acceptance of a viewpoint or favorable representation of the organization	Edgett (2002); Hurst et al. (2020); Johnston (2018)
Type of engagement	Dialogue-based	Collective action, shared knowledge, or reflexive/experiential interaction with a broad array of stakeholders in search of mutual benefits and continuous relationships	Edgett (2002); Hurst et al. (2020); Johnston (2018)
Critical elements of social acceptance	Procedural justice	Having a legitimate “voice” in decision-making is central to community perceptions of social justice	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Everingham et al. (2018); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018); Prno & Slocombe (2012)
	Trust	Trust drives social acceptance and can be captured through integrity, benevolence, and credibility	Everingham et al. (2018); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018)
	Strong company–community relationship	Frequent face-to-face communication underpins interpersonal bonds; positive dialogue experiences strengthen perceptions of mutually beneficial relationships	Cesare & Maxwell (2003); Everingham et al. (2018)
	Governance	Involves private, public, and civil-society actors in negotiation, cooperation, and alliance-building, giving stakeholders greater representation in decision-making	Prno & Slocombe (2012); Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2018)

Source(s): Elaborated by the authors