Deliberating or Stalling for Justice? Dynamics of Corporate Remediation and Victim Resistance Through the Lens of Parentalism: The Fundão dam Collapse and the Renova Foundation in Brazil

Abstract

Using the political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) lens of parentalism, this paper investigates the more subtle and less-visible interactional dynamics and strategies of power, resistance and justification that manifest between a multi-stakeholder-governed foundation and victims of a mining corporation’s dam collapse. The Renova Foundation was established to provide remedy through a deliberative approach to hundreds of thousands of victims from Brazil’s worst socio-environmental disaster—the collapse of Samarco Mining Corporation’s Fundão tailings dam. Data were collected from a combination of fieldwork and archival analysis to assess the perceptions of victims, their defenders and foundation executives. The findings reveal 12 dialectical tensions from Renova’s attempts to remedy the victim’s injustices. The case analysis contributes through proposing a dialectical process model of stakeholder resistance and subversion to parentalist PCSR. The case reveals the pivotal use of time via the act of stalling as a strategic resource to exhaust victims and reach settlements. Furthermore, organizations justify their parentalism by blaming delays on the bureaucracy and shared responsibility of multi-stakeholder deliberation. Ultimately, I contend that victims must have an equal voice in the outcome of their remediation and that businesses responsible for causing harm should not decide these matters.

Participation Strategies and Ethical Considerations in NGO Led Community-Based Conservation Initiatives

“…NGOs, despite critiques on their roles and intentions (Srinivas, 2009), engage in CBC initiatives to align with their values and assure the longevity of their projects. They often make development promises to ground-level communities within these initiatives (O'Leary, 2017), though the dynamics of such engagements, as Maher (2022) elucidates, are layered and often contentious. 1 We can draw significant parallels between the literature on social movements and the micro-mobilization initiatives taken by CENGO in a local context to engage communities in conservation issues, even though our context does not specifically equate to a social movement as such.…”

Rightsholder-Driven Remedy for Business-Related Human Rights Abuse: Case of the Fair Food Program

“…The right to access effective remedy in response to human rights abuse is an essential, often neglected aspect of corporate accountability (Baumann-Pauly et al, 2017;Maher 2021;Schormair & Gerlach, 2020). This research conceptualizes the access and provision of effective remedy as an accountability mechanism, as a means for corporations to be held accountable for human rights abuses that they have caused or been linked to.…”

“…In select cases of human rights abuse where remedy is provided, it often fails to address the interests of the rightsholder seeking remedy (Knuckey & Jenkin, 2015). Designing remedial mechanisms without considering the intended recipients and failing to meaningfully engage with rightsholders throughout remedial processes, the rightsholder-centrality called for by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights remains elusive (Maher 2021;Schormair & Gerlach, 2020;Venkatesan 2019;McPhail & Ferguson, 2016;Murphy and Vives 2013).…”

The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

“…In terms of convening DMPs, MSIs may be susceptible to subtle co-optation or domination from powerful actors who may, for instance, advocate for preferred venues or times for deliberations (Maher, 2022). Best practice from DMPs indicates that such co-optation can be reduced by appointing neutral conveners (e.g., with no conflict of interest with the issue[s] at hand) to design and implement the DMPs (Beauvais & Warren, 2019).…”