THE EMERGING FIELD OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS:PROFILING THE PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVE*

THE EMERGING FIELD OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS:

PROFILING THE PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVE*

Deanna Kemp

PhD Student, University of Queensland and

Independent Consultant

Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining

CSRM is a member of the Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland.

www.csrm.uq.edu.au

* This paper was presented at the Inaugural Minerals Council of Australia Global Sustainable

Development Conference, Melbourne, November 2004.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................3

Survey Design and Distribution .........................................................................................................................3

Industry Profile of Responses.............................................................................................................................4

Respondent Demographics .................................................................................................................................6

The General Nature of Community Relations Work .......................................................................................7

Organisational Arrangements............................................................................................................................7

What’s it like for Workers?..............................................................................................................................11

Professional Development.................................................................................................................................13

What Practitioners Want..................................................................................................................................15

Summary of Findings........................................................................................................................................16

INTRODUCTION

Community relations work is an emerging field of practice in the minerals industry and

involves a wide range of activities and responsibilities. Different sites and companies may

use other terms, but for the purposes of this paper, the term ‘community relations’ is used

broadly to indicate work that involves facilitating and/or managing relationships and

interaction between minerals sites and local communities.

Surprisingly little research has been undertaken about people employed by minerals

operations to do community relations work. The ‘voice’ of community relations practitioners

seems hidden amongst broader debates about the minerals industry, its social and

environmental impacts, and progress towards sustainable development. Given the significant

effort the industry has expended on responding to external stakeholders, local to global, it is

important to understand the perspective of community relations practitioners, as they hold

one of the many keys to unlocking the industry’s potential for achieving enhanced corporate

social performance on the ground.

This paper presents key findings of an industry survey undertaken in 2004 of community

relations practitioners in the Australian and New Zealand minerals industries. It aims to build

a profile of this occupational group and stimulate discussion about the nature of corporate

community relations from a worker perspective. It also aims to document some of the

practical challenges that workers face day-to-day, both personally and professionally. The

survey represents Phase 1 of a two-phase study of site-based community relations

practitioners.

SURVEY DESIGN AND DISTRIBUTION

The survey comprised primarily closed response questions covering different dimensions of

community relations work, including: work activities, site context, organisational

arrangements, occupational background and professional knowledge. These were also several

open-ended questions about the challenges of community relations work. The survey was

designed in consultation with corporate representatives, community relations practitioners

and academic advisers. Quantitative analysis was undertaken via the software program

SPSS

, primarily through the descriptive statistics function, while the Nvivo software

program and manual coding was used for qualitative analysis.

The survey targeted personnel working in the Australian and New Zealand Minerals

industries whose role included a significant level of responsibility for community relations

1.

At the time of undertaking the survey a consolidated industry list of community relations

practitioners did not exist. Neither the Minerals Council of Australia, its counterpart body in

New Zealand, nor state industry bodies held such a list. Thus, corporate offices of Australia

and New Zealand’s largest mining companies were contacted to create a distribution list. This

strategy was based on the assumption that major companies were more likely to employ

community relations practitioners than small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Several

SMEs and individual sites were contacted directly and included in the list, however responses

came primarily from larger companies. External consultants were not included in the sample.

1

For clarification a definition of community relations work was provided on the top of the survey.

4

While the distribution list was broad, there would have been people undertaking community

relations work who did not receive the survey.

The survey set out to capture the perspective of site-based practitioners working in physical

proximity to communities in which minerals operations are based. However, as some regional

and corporate office-based workers were included in company lists, they also received the

survey. While the responses of these groups are relevant to the research, significant parts of

this paper focuses primarily on presenting data about the perspective of site-based

respondents in particular.

The survey was posted in hard copy to 162 people, 152 of whom were located in Australia

and 10 in New Zealand. Hard copy distribution allowed for a greater degree of confidentiality

for respondents than electronic return via a corporate email system. Two companies elected

to mail the survey to employees themselves. In every case the survey was returned directly to

the author at the University of Queensland via a reply-paid envelope. A period of six weeks

was provided to complete and return the survey.

While a ‘picture’ of community relations workers has emerged through the survey, the

method had limitations. It was not possible to get ‘deep’ insight into the experiences of

workers, clarify or validate responses, or understand the full context of answers. These

limitations have been addressed in Phase 2 of the project, through the use of ethnographic

methods, which have involved workplace observation and in-depth interviewing with seven

specialist site-based community relations practitioners. Despite its limitations, the survey

does provide important context for the field research, especially given the lack of available

information about community relations workers as an occupational group. Phase 2 has been

completed, and results are currently being analysed.

The survey did not inquire about the salary range of community relations workers to enable

comparison with other occupational groups and professionals. It may be useful for

subsequent research to investigate salaries, and refine the sampling frame.

INDUSTRY PROFILE OF RESPONSES

In total, 91 responses were received from 13 different companies. This represents a response

rate of 56 per cent, which is considered satisfactory given that the distribution list was broad

and exploratory rather than narrow and targeted.

The largest proportion of responses was from Queensland (39%), then Western Australia

(24%) and New South Wales (11%). There was a small response from New Zealand (3%),

Northern Territory (3%) and Tasmania (1%). Responses from South Australia (2%) and

Victoria (11%) were primarily from corporate and/or regional offices.

5

Figure 1: Respondents by State

SA 2%

Tas 1%

NT 3%

NZ 3%

NSW 11%

WA 24%

Vic 11%

Unknown

6%

Qld 39%

n=91

Respondents worked across a range of commodities, with many involved in more than one.

The dominant commodities represented were coal (37%) and gold (22%). Iron ore had a 9 per

cent representation. Some respondents indicated involvement in bauxite, alumina, aluminium,

nickel, copper/lead/zinc and manganese operations. People from corporate offices also

indicated involvement in diamonds and natural gas

2.

Given this profile, the coal industry on the east coast of Australia appears to have been oversampled,

with iron-ore under-sampled, particularly in Western Australia. Responses from the

Northern Territory were also low considering the state’s resource profile. It is unlikely that

this has significantly influenced results, other than in specific areas such as Indigenous

Affairs.

Of the total sample, 64 per cent were site-based workers. This group is the primary focus of

this study. Around 29 per cent were located off site, primarily in corporate and/or regional

offices. A small percentage of respondents (6%) stated that they were located both on and off

site, sharing time between the two.

Figure 2: Location of respondents

Both on and

off site 6%

At a minerals

site 64%

Unknow n

1%

Off site

29%

n=91

2

Some of this was outside Australia and New Zealand

6

The majority of site-based workers covered one site (71%). Not surprisingly, the vast

majority of off-site workers covered more than one site. Workers who covered more than one

site account for the multiple answers to many of the survey questions in this study.

Most site-based respondents were involved in operating mines or plants (95%). Some also

worked in other stages of the minerals life cycle, from exploration and construction, to

production and closure, but only a very small percentage worked exclusively in these other

areas.

Site-based workers primarily worked in rural locations, either closely settled (29%) or

sparsely populated (22%). About one third worked on a remote site (36%), with a minority

working in an urban

3 context (16%).

The majority of site-based workers said that the workforce in their location lived locally to

the operation (64%), with a minority being camp-based

4 (21%), or a combination of

residential and camp-based (16%).

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Few workers were in the upper and lower age groups. There was a fairly even spread

between the three middle age ranges of 26-35 (32%), 36-45 (35%) and 46-55 (25%).

Figure 3: Age Range

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and over

n=91

There were more males (60%) than females (40%). However, compared to the industry norm,

this area of work appears to have a significantly high representation of women.

3

In very close proximity to a city or regional centre

4

Most likely fly-in/fly-out or drive-in/drive-out.

7

Figure 4: Gender Representation

Female

40%

Male

60%

n=91

There were few indigenous respondents (6%) possibly due to WA and the NT being underrepresented

in the sample.

THE GENERAL NATURE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK

Respondents were asked to indicate all their main community relations-type activities. A list

of 12 activities was provided. Responses suggest that workers undertake a broad spread of

activities, with a mean of six activities nominated. Table 1 shows the pattern of responses.

The most common community relations-type activity was consultation and engagement

(68%), followed by public relations (66%), sponsorship and donations (57%), then

community programs (53%) and dealing with community complaints (52%).

Table 1: Community Relations Activities Undertaken by Respondents

Activity %

(n=91)*

Community consultation and engagement 68

Public relations (e.g. local media liaison, publicity, community events etc.) 66

Sponsorships and donations (including in-kind assistance) 57

Community programs (e.g. community development, capacity building etc.) 53

Community complaints 52

Employee communications re: sustainable development 47

Government relations 45

Indigenous affairs 44

Issues management and crisis communication 43

Community education about the minerals industry 37

Cultural heritage management 35

Other 12

*Multiple responses permitted

8

ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

(a)

Formalisation of Responsibilities

The survey findings suggest that some workers may benefit from greater formalisation

of their community relations responsibilities. Of the total sample, the majority of

respondents said their community relations activities and responsibilities had been

formalised in their job description. About one third (33%) said their responsibilities

had either not been formalised, or were only partially formalised.

(b)

Departmental Location

More than one-third of respondents were associated with more than one department,

suggesting a complex set of organisational arrangements

5. Table 2 shows the pattern

of responses. Workers were most commonly located in a stand-alone community

relations department (29%). The second most common location was within Public

Relations/External Affairs (27%), followed by a combination of Environment and

Community Relations (14%) and then Environment (13%) and Human Resources

(13%).

Table 2: Departmental Location

Department %

(n=91)*

Community Relations 29

Public Affairs/External Relations 27

Environment 13

Environment and Community Relations 14

Human Resources 13

Indigenous Affairs

Other 14

Executive Office (e.g. General Manager or Mine Manager etc.) 9

Exploration 3

Production 1

Legal -

*Multiple responses permitted

The survey results raise questions about the human resource commitment being made

to community relations as compared to other disciplines, particularly in light of the

strong corporate commitments being made in this area. Only a minority of the total

sample (36%) said they worked exclusively in community relations. Thus, the

majority were not a dedicated resource, with about half (51%) also working in

environment, and one-third in human resources (33%). Those people who also worked

in other areas, spent an average of 28 per cent of their time on community relations.

(c)

Types of Practitioners

The survey results point to four broad ‘types’ of practitioners: specialist practitioners

in a dedicated department, and those also working in Public Relations/External

Affairs, Environment or Human Resources. Further studies might examine this more

5

However, some may have been indicating their sub-department and ‘parent’ department.

9

closely to understand whether organisational location is related to how practitioners

see their role.

The frequent location of community relations within Public Relations/External Affairs

departments, and the large proportion of respondents undertaking public

affairs/external affairs activities may help explain why community relations is

perceived by some stakeholders as ‘just PR spin’.

(d)

Reporting Arrangements

About half of the site-based respondents (48%) reported directly to a site-based

General Manager and 21 per cent to a corporate manager, with 28 per cent of the

remainder reporting to another site-based manager. The majority (45%) of those

workers located partly or wholly off site reported to a corporate manager and 27 per

cent reported to a site-based manager or General Manager. Further research may seek

to understand these reporting arrangements, and whether greater or lesser degrees of

complexity in reporting exist in other disciplines.

(e)

Professional Isolation

Of the total sample, about one third (31%) indicated that they were sole professionals,

that is, there were no other people working in a professional capacity in community

relations in their location. For site-based workers the figure was 40 per cent.

Professional isolation may be an issue for some sole professionals given that they

would be working amongst other well-populated occupational and professional

groupings (e.g. technical trades, engineering, geology etc.) that would offer collegial

support.

(f)

Management Responsibility

The majority of respondents in the total sample (78%) said that the community

relations function was represented at a senior management level in the location where

they worked. The majority of respondents (59%) also indicated that management

attached a high level of importance to community relations. While there is still

opportunity for improvement, these findings are encouraging from both a worker and

a community perspective.

Figure 5: Level of Management Support

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

None Low Neutral Some High

n=91

10

(g)

Building a Profile

People undertaking community relations work in the minerals industry are generally

well educated and have considerable industry experience. However, the survey results

show that the majority has not been tertiary educated in a directly relevant discipline.

In addition, the group has a low level of prior experience in community relations-type

work, either within or outside the industry. The industry does not seem to be

recruiting people from other industries or sectors, as results indicated a low level of

lateral entry. Those entering the field from within the industry tend to come from

technical disciplines, rather than ‘people professions’.

(h)

General Industry Experience

Respondents appeared to have considerable experience within the minerals industry.

The average time worked within the industry was 12.5 years, ranging from a couple of

months to 37 years. On average, respondents had worked in their current position for

about three years. The minimum time worked was less than one month, and the

maximum 20 years.

(i)

Prior Community Relations-type Experience

Of the total sample, the majority (62%) said they had no experience in community

relations-type work outside the minerals industry. About 43 per cent of the total

sample said they had no prior experience in community relations-type work within the

industry.

Of the total sample, around two thirds (67%) had worked in the minerals industry in

another capacity prior to taking up their role in community relations, many in more

than one area. Table 3 shows that of those who said they had previously worked in

another capacity, the vast majority (90%) had been employed in technical and natural

science disciplines, such as environment (33%), geology (20%), engineering (16%),

production (16%), metallurgy (3%) and information technology (2%). About 23% had

some prior experience in human resource management.

Table 3: Background of Respondents With Prior Experience in the Industry

Previous Area of

Work

Prior Experience %

(n=60)*

Environment 33

Geology 20

Engineering 16

Production 16

Metallurgy 3

Technical/Natural

Science

IT 2

Human Resources 23

Administration 12

Supply 5

Finance 2

Humanities/Social

Science/Other

Legal -

* Multiple responses permitted.

11

(j)

Qualifications and Education

About 84 per cent of the total sample held tertiary qualifications. Indicative of their

prior work experience, the majority of respondents (60%) held undergraduate

qualifications in technical and natural science disciplines, that is, the ‘hard’ sciences.

About one quarter (27%) of respondents held qualifications in the ‘soft’ sciences,

including arts, communication, sociology, archaeology and education. A significant

proportion of respondents had pursued postgraduate qualifications, most of which

appeared to be in the same discipline as their undergraduate degree, or in

management, such as an MBA.

Table 4: Tertiary Qualifications of Respondents

Discipline Qualifications %

(n=75)

Science/Applied

Science/Chemistry/Environmental

Science/Geography/

48

Engineering (Mining, Civil etc.) 11

Technical/

Natural Science

IT

Total Technical/Natural Science

1

60

Arts/Humanities/Social

Science/Sociology/ Archaeology/

Anthropology

23

Humanities/

Social Science

Education

Total Humanities

4

27

Other Business/Commerce/ Management 13

TOTAL 100

Note: Table excludes respondents who did not have tertiary qualifications.

WHAT IS IT LIKE FOR WORKERS?

Several survey questions sought insight into the workplace reality of community relations

practitioners to understand what it was like to do this work. The following section starts to

form such a picture. Phase 2 of the research builds on this.

(a)

What Attracts Workers

Workers were asked an open-ended question about what attracted them to community

relations work. Responses revealed two dominant themes of attraction. Firstly,

workers were in various ways attracted because the work involved working and/or

interacting with people. Secondly, it enabled them to achieve positive outcomes for

the community, and in many cases this included the company. Words like ‘creative’,

‘diverse’, ‘passion’, ‘exciting’, ‘interesting’, ‘variety’ and ‘rewarding’ featured

prominently in these explanations. Around 15 per cent of respondents indicated that

they were not working in community relations because they were attracted to it, but

rather, the function ‘came with the role’, or had been imposed upon them.

12

(b)

Work Priorities

Respondents were asked to mark on a continuum what influenced their work priorities

– the community or the company. Most respondents indicated that they were more

influenced by corporate than community priorities (Figure 6). About 33per cent

marked the midpoint between the company and the community.

Figure 6: Source of Work Priorities

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Community

determined

Equally

determined

Company

determined

n=89

(c)

Challenges

Respondents were asked to describe some of the key challenges they faced working in

community relations in the minerals industry. Answers were analysed thematically,

rather than quantitatively.

Challenges articulated by respondents were numerous and varied, although there were

some commonalities. Respondents suggested that balancing different priorities was a

key challenge, for example: the community’s desire for cash donations and the

company’s desire to move towards sustainable contributions; or the company’s desire

for a profit and the community’s desire to preserve their way of life. Other competing

priorities included dealing with: production vs community goals; strategic vs

immediate issues; internal vs external focus; individual vs collective priorities; rural

vs urban priorities; indigenous vs non-indigenous concerns; and a PR vs a community

relations focus.

Several respondents indicated that corporate policies had limited local relevance and

did not come with clear guidelines for implementation. Many listed

communication/engagement processes as a challenge as there were different

requirements and different methods to choose from. Other respondents indicated that

understanding the community posed a challenge, particularly in terms of complexity,

divisions, emotions, conflict, politics and diversity. Some said that dealing with the

industry’s poor image was a constant challenge, as was dealing with government,

particularly regarding provision of services. Respondents also indicated that they

often had limited control over their work and ended up ‘fixing’ problems as a result of

past practices. In addition, many said they had limited time and resources to do all that

was required of them.

There were several organisational issues that posed challenges for workers, including:

internal politics; limited support from middle management; limited understanding of

13

their work by others; and not being perceived as ‘professional’. Many respondents

said they had limited career options, and had been provided with little in the way of

training or professional development.

On a personal level, several respondents indicated their biggest challenge was living

and working in the local community. Several of the indigenous respondents said that

working with indigenous people came with its own set of issues that were seldom

recognised.

In essence, community relations work appears to be complex, diverse and filled with

tension on several levels, including: the conceptual, organisational, professional, and

personal. It is important that workers are equipped to deal with these challenges if

minerals operations are to achieve enhanced social performance in line with corporate

and site policies and community expectations.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

(a)

Knowledge Sources

On the whole, respondents did not appear to be consciously accessing or drawing on

established knowledge in sociology, social science, development or other related

disciplines in undertaking their work. Instead, they worked largely from a personal

orientation, rather than one grounded in social research or theory. This might go some

way to explaining why other occupational groups may not regard community relations

work as ‘professional’ in the traditional sense.

Workers were asked what they draw on in undertaking their work and were provided

with a list of 12 sources. The average number of sources nominated was 6-7. The

most common were personal and professional experience (84% and 82%

respectively), followed by personal beliefs and values (71%) and personal knowledge

(68%). The next most common cluster was corporate and/or site policies (63%) and

corporate values (55%). Theoretical knowledge and knowledge generated from

research did not rate highly compared to other categories.

Table 5: Knowledge Sources Utilised by Respondents

Knowledge Source %

(n=91)*

Personal experience 84

Professional experience 82

Personal beliefs/values 71

Personal knowledge 68

Corporate and/or site policy 63

A colleague 57

Corporate values 55

Research 34

Theoretical knowledge 34

A practice framework(s) 31

A mentor 24

Spiritual orientation 8

Other 3

* Multiple responses permitted

14

(b)

Knowledge Rating

Despite the limited use of research, theory and practice frameworks and significant

reliance on the personal domain, most respondents rated their knowledge about

community relations fairly highly. On a scale of 1 – 5, (1 being the lowest), 80 per

cent rated their knowledge as either ‘reasonable’ or ‘good’. About 18 per cent rated

their knowledge as ‘very good’ and another very small proportion rated their

knowledge as either 1 or 2.

Figure 7: Self-rated Knowledge of the Community Relations Field

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

V. poor Poor Reasonable Good V. good

n=91

(c)

Training and Development

One of the most notable findings of the survey was that workers had received limited

professional development opportunities specific to community relations. The majority

(57) of all respondents indicated that they have

never been offered training specific to

community relations in the minerals industry. Only one third (33%) had completed

such training

6. Of those who had completed training, all said it had been either helpful

(83%) or partially helpful (17%) to their work.

While community relations work may be a new and developing field of practice, the

pace of professional development does not seem to be keeping pace with the emphasis

the industry is placing on corporate social performance. Whilst it is acknowledged

that site-based community relations work is only one dimension of corporate social

performance, it appears that the professional development needs of workers may

require greater attention.

6

Respondents were asked to list the course they attended. It was not clear that these courses were necessarily

specific to the minerals industry, but they were community relations orientated.

15

WHAT PRACTITIONERS WANT

The majority of respondents (80%) volunteered suggestions about what was needed to better

support community relations workers. Additional training and professional development was

listed by almost half (45%) of all people who responded to this question. Several respondents

also indicated that professional networking and mentoring would assist them (16%). There

was an indication that some workers (20%) were seeking greater support from middle

management. Workers also suggested that they needed greater resources, both financial and

human (15%) and would be more effective if the community relations function was more

firmly embedded in organisational systems and processes (10%).

Table 6: Additional Support Needs Identified by Respondents

Suggestion %

(n=73)*

Training and development 45

Access to Professional Networks/Mentoring Opportunities 16

Greater support from management and other employees 16

More resources 15

Further embed community relations considerations in policy and

practice

10

Greater clarity and direction 9

Better access to knowledge/information/literature in the area 9

Greater rewards and recognition 5

Stronger policies and commitments to support community

relations activities

5

More experienced professionals in the area 5

* Multiple responses permitted.

Workers were clearly asking for training and development above all else. However, it should

be noted that implementing training solutions without addressing systemic issues, such as

recruitment and selection, professional support, organisational arrangements, management

commitment and organisational culture , may not be an effective strategy.

Meeting individual training needs will always be challenging considering the diversity of this

occupational group in terms of their prior qualifications and experience, work activities and

path of entry into the field of practice, site context and characteristics of the local community.

Flexible and individualised training may be necessary, along with other solutions.

There have been recent moves within some of the major companies to identify community

relations competencies. While this is an encouraging development, competencies must not

become the only focus, as an over-emphasis in this area may relegate community relations to

a technical vocation rather than a professional discipline that fosters critical thinking and

awareness of the complex arrangements within which community relations takes place.

Workers must be provided opportunities to develop not only skills and competencies, but also

their knowledge of the social sciences, along with flexible and critical thinking that enables

them to build their capacity to understand, respond to and deal with the complexity, diversity

and tensions inherent in their work.

16

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Nature of the Work

•

Community relations practitioners work within a complex set of reporting and

organisational arrangements.

•

The general nature of community relations work is diverse. The most common

community relations activities identified by the survey were: consultation and

engagement, public relations, sponsorship and donations, community programs and

responding to community complaints.

Gender

•

There is much greater involvement of women in community relations work than in the

industry as a whole.

Organisational Arrangements

•

Some workers would benefit from greater formalisation of their community relations

responsibilities.

•

Practitioners can be grouped into: 1) specialist practitioners in a dedicated department,

and these who work in 2) Public Relations/External Affairs, 3) Environment or 4)

Human Resources.

•

There was quite a large proportion of ‘sole practitioners’. Professional isolation may

be an issue for some of these practitioners.

•

The majority or respondents indicated that community relations was a management

priority in their location, however a number expressed concern about the lack of

support from the human resources area.

Experience and Education

•

Community relations practitioners are, on the whole a well-educated group, although

most were not tertiary educated in a directly relevant discipline.

•

Practitioners have considerable industry experience, but on the whole have low levels

of prior experience in community relations, either within or outside the industry.

•

The industry has tended to recruit from ‘within’, with limited lateral entry from other

industries or sectors.

•

Those entering the field from within the industry tend to come from technical

disciplines, rather than ‘people professions’.

Challenges

•

Common challenges listed by workers included: balancing different priorities, limited

local relevance of corporate policies, understanding the community, limited human

and financial resources, dealing with the industry’s poor image. Organisational

challenges included internal politics, limited support from middle management,

17

limited understanding of community relations work by others, and not being

perceived as ‘professional’.

Professional Development

•

The majority of respondents had never been offered training specific to community

relations in the minerals industry.

•

Only a minority of respondents had completed training specific to community

relations in the minerals industry.

•

Workers indicated that they wanted more training and professional development.

•

Workers also indicated that they wanted access to professional networks, greater

clarity and direction, better support from middle management, and further embedding

of community relations in policy and practice.