Carefully constructed lexical collocations and sentential patterns mediated the content in the three reports. A salient strategy of disguising the company’s activity was redirecting one’s attention to the polished surface of mining presented as
desirable,
admirable,
beneficial and
inevitable. Naming/coining concepts central to the topic, renaming the common and stale content through innovative lexicon to embellish the field (e.g., local people and employees as “Traditional Owners”), relexicalizing familiar words by dressing them up with altered meanings (e.g.,
value used in diverse contexts whose meaning was meant to be self-evident although in reality it remained obscured), using euphemisms (e.g.,
creating value for ‘making money’) and depending on recurrence of set phrases and prominent keywords (e.g.,
performance), have been the trusted strategies employed to transform and ameliorate the reality and effects of the mining industry (see [
22,
48] for impression management).
At the same time, renaming, euphemizing and using clever lexical collocations enabled estrangement and distancing not only from the mining activity but also the people and cultures most directly affected by mining. Thus, the very concept of
mining was renamed into “sourcing responsibly”,
mining company into “a natural resource company” and
mining the commodities into “sourcing the commodities”. To put a positive spin on the destructive action of mining,
natural resources were turned into “a commodity that advances everyday life”, as freely accessible and waiting to be used up. Although meanings gained by means of renaming pretend to be self-evident (since they are mediated through familiar words), they are ambiguous and unclear. In order to redirect one’s perception and alter the original meanings, they relexicalize what is commonly understood and could be said simply and plainly. The desired and cumulative effect of the refurbished lexicon is a change in one’s mental representation of the activity and its agents [
4,
5]. Examples of renaming the content of words and phrases are given throughout the analysis of the three topics and in particular, the topic social values and concerns.
Topic 1: Relexicalizing Values and Concerns at the Time of COVID-19
Although the side effect of “safe operations”, “business values” and “financial returns” has been subordination and exploitation of Indigenous and other local communities, the mining companies have, nevertheless, managed to build the discourse of their presence being socially beneficial to the communities and create an image of local benefactors for themselves. “social values” and care of people, communities, employees and shareholders not only frame and introduce the reports where they serve as a cover-up for financial power but also dominate the entire narrative (see
Table 4 for examples of frequent relexicalizations). All the reports detail the mechanics of the COVID-19 response, controls and protocols that were instituted (e.g., travel restrictions, social distancing, increased personal hygiene, managing fatigue and stress) and measures taken to manage the spreading virus (such as “rapid screening to reduce risks of transmission to vulnerable communities near our operation”). The goal is to let the shareholders know that “social values are embedded in the business plan” (RT AR). Aside from “making profit”, the companies rationalize continuous operation by continuing “to contribute to communities and economies” and “to support” them. The companies show that they have taken upon themselves the role of benefactors protecting communities, being engaged in benevolent activities and preventing disasters befalling upon people “hosting” them (Effectively, the benefits cause a split of communities into the employed and the jobless, the talented, young, ambitious and the complacent. The very language addressing people, employees and communities causes fractioning of their identity and subordination. The favored participants who engaged actively with the companies obtained privileges and means to provide short-term support to the community and families, and to enter the global world of their employers without becoming aware of occupying subordinate positions. At the same time, the company engagement distances them from their neighbors who belong only to the local rather than global world).
By discussing frequent usage of
values and
safety in various collocations, we show how the companies align company values with local values to display commitment and assume responsibility, and thus
legitimize their own presence. According to the legitimacy theory, companies seek “to gain or restore organizational legitimacy by seemingly aligning the firm’s norms and values with that of society, particularly in situation where firms face legitimacy threats. Firms engage in symbolic management to give the impression that their activities are congruent with society’s norms and values” [
22]. Their values are also chosen to resonate with shareholders’ expectations that are partial to the business discourse of “smart management”. The COVID-19 crisis thus became an opportunity to display initiatives demonstrating ingenuity and the pioneering spirit for which the companies have been supposedly known. It also established a context for a self-advertising campaign whose promises and suggestions appeared legitimate and in line with the discourse of diversity and integration.
Due to the disaster of blowing up the caves used by local communities as places of worship, the Rio Tinto report admitted that it was necessary to “improve approach to communities and stakeholders globally” and embed “a more inclusive approach that strengthened our overall thinking” in order to become “more in tune with the world we serve” ([
2] pp. 13, 14, 22) (The data gathered through in-group communication revealed both the locals’ shock over the monuments’ destruction (to which the company responded by apologizing and admitting a need for a stronger focus on cultural heritage) and their pride in working for Rio Tinto, at the same time. The destruction became an important component not only of Rio Tinto’s remorse but also its self-advertising presentation [
49]). The company stressed that they would “elevate our approach to social performance, including respect for cultural heritage” and “engage respectfully and effectively with “Traditional Owners” and other “First Nations groups”. Rio Tinto’s response to COVID-19 permeated the entire Report. The pandemic was presented as an unforeseeable challenge that the company “managed” while ensuring continued growth and “delivering value” in spite of COVID-19 costs and the reduction of prices that the crisis caused across the board. Above all, Rio Tinto pointed out to have managed an effective and rapid response to COVID-19 without needing to furlough any employees without pay. The company claimed their ability to turn the crisis into an opportunity to “improve communications”, “modernize”, “innovate”, “accelerate and expand our digital solutions”, and “be at the forefront of coordinating international efforts” (Rio Tinto made evident its awareness of how difficult the lives of employees and communities became, due to the experience with the cave disaster). It evaluated the response strategy as “clear and nimble using a hierarchy of controls to manage the risks and keep people safe”. Although resources had to be “adjusted” and “controls instituted to minimize the risks” and “keep people safe and healthy”, the Report unambiguously highlighted that the company managed the operations so that they could run safely and smoothly, generate cash flow and retain stable production. Rio Tinto report acknowledged the fact that COVID-19 significantly altered the ways of working and traditional ways of engaging with employees. The report addressed the needs of “people” and employees ([
2] p. 75) by prioritizing “commitment to the safety” and employee well-being, compared the challenge and impact of COVID-19 to financial crisis and focused on reducing the “risk of transmission from our employees to the remote and vulnerable communities near our operations”, “social distancing” and “care for vulnerable people in isolated communities” by limiting contact with employees (Rio Tinto, [
2] pp. 11, 15–16).
Throughout the reports, the concept of taking care of “our” people at the time of the COVID-19 virus pandemics became interrelated with that of company operations and mediated through verbal collocations such as “adopting measures”, “innovating the technology”, “maintaining social distance” and “taking responsibility”. The companies turned the COVID-19 “challenge” into an “opportunity” (e.g., “The crisis challenges us to think differently”) and highlighted its success of innovating ways to “remain connected”, for instance, by “conducting focus groups” (to listen to employees), introducing “direct leader engagement” and “employee assistance program” (to better support people), “deploying surveys”, implementing “safety”, “testing” and “preventive measures”, and offering “mental health training and counseling”. Employee consultation was deemed to be “transparent, inclusive and culturally appropriate” (see also Hooghiemstra 2000) [
50]. For instance, the Glencore created a Community Support Fund to show “commitment” and protect safety and health of the people in their “host communities” during the pandemic, and also collected statistics, conducted webinars and implemented “health protection measures”. In the Glencore report, the term
values collocated commonly with “priorities and beliefs” and referred to “safety, integrity, simplicity, responsibility, openness and entrepreneurialism” being the concepts central to both the social and environmental domains.
Discussion of the COVID-19 situation was typically mediated through “measures”, “preventive practices” and “management” in the reports. The pandemic was mostly referred to as a challenge and thus understood as something to be overcome, and one in which they managed to overcome. In its 2020 annual report, Glencore described COVID-19 as a challenge to which the company responded quickly in order to support and protect their people and communities. Glencore reported difficult decisions at operations assessed as “uneconomic” and admitted their “collateral impact” on employees and communities suggesting that local employees were let go to sustain business and satisfy stakeholders, i.e., Glencore “managed the COVID impact” so that operations could remain “effective and robust”. It “reacted appropriately” while adhering to its standards and “strategic priorities”.
Similarly, BHP reported that steps of supporting local communities that “rely on our business” during the pandemic helped to “keep our operated assets running safely”. It detailed “initiatives focused on prevention”, “covering up pay” where people were removed from jobs and concern about proximity of Indigenous people. The report described the response to COVID-19 as targeted, rapid, global and technologically savvy, monitored and managed through teams and “advanced communication tools”. The response consisted of providing finances to establish funds “to support hospitals, clinics and public health organizations serving the communities surrounding Australian operations”, mentoring programs and campaigning for sanitation to reach out to “vulnerable communities” and securing IT equipment for an Aboriginal corporation, for instance. BHP has operated in close proximity to several remote and regional Indigenous communities globally. Despite developing “leadership skills of Indigenous employees” and addressing “barriers” to career progression of the employees, the discourse sidelined the values of local cultures that were not interconnected with company values and careers. The company focused on Indigenous populations that were turned into employees and became committed to local mining. While responding to the COVID-19 crisis, the BHP report noted “social distancing” and isolation of Indigenous communities that were recognized as “vulnerable” and “particularly susceptible to COVID-19”, and responded in a “supportive and coordinated” manner. However, the critical point is that describing the communities as vulnerable and particularly susceptible rendered them weak and dependent on the mining companies.
Both Rio Tinto and BHP used the term “traditional owners” to rename people near the companies and their employees (Rio Tinto showed 73 occurrences and BHP 185 occurrences of the term). According to the discourse, they owned the assets and, subsequently, the companies desired to “strengthen partnership” with them. Due to the “partnership”, indigenous people would become proud and faithful employees aligned culturally with company values and sharing its perspective on mining, which interviewing them supposedly revealed. In the BHP discourse, local communities depended on business of the company that in turn assumed the responsibility of sustaining its operations throughout the crisis. The company promised to “increase the economic benefits that flow to their communities from employment, skills, training and business development”. The Owners supposedly “recognize the social and economic benefits that mining brings to their communities” but are “concerned” about relationships and “indicated that traditional agreements have not met the aspirations of partnership”. The reports failed to mention that the companies caused dependence of the local owners and communities on the mining industry and deprived them of the freedom of choice and cultural maintenance.
Rio Tinto articulated plans to create an Indigenous Advisory Group in order to “accelerate the career development of Indigenous Australians in our business” and create “a more inclusive work culture”. To create an “inclusive work culture”, the report followed equal employment discourse in which it promised to “develop our leaders’ cultural awareness, through training and diversity in leadership”, “improve ability to communicate with locals”, “increase Indigenous leadership” and “improve the representation of women”. “Creating partnerships” and “integrating” people became the terms aimed to entail that places in company management would be reserved for local employees. This discourse and the talk of equal rights, social mobility and diversity could serve to legitimize company activities but would hardly resonate with values of local communities.
Topic 2: Relexicalizing Financial Returns and Company Values
All the companies claimed to prosper for the sake of their stakeholders and employees with the goal to secure financial returns benefitting them. The Rio Tinto summarized the strategy backing up its activity as creating “superior, sustainable value for shareholders, in partnership with stakeholders, by meeting customers’ needs, maximizing cash from world-class assets and allocating capital with discipline” ([
2] p. 22). However, doing business in order to yield a major profit from mining was relexicalized as
resourcing host communities, mining the commodities as
sourcing the commodities, mining company as a
natural resource company and the mining business as
operations,
resources,
progress,
values,
assets,
investments,
cash flow,
financial returns,
activities, etc. (additional examples of relexicalization are provided in
Table 5). To put a positive spin on the destructive action, natural resources were turned into “a commodity that advances everyday life”.
The companies claimed to have recognized global issues and problems as well as geopolitical, social and technological complexity of today’s world (Rio Tinto AR, [
2] p. 20). While they could not respond to all its needs, they have been able “to provide superior cash returns to shareholders” because they operated with “world-class assets” and a “very strong balance sheet” ([
2] (p. 29). The strategy to meet the mining challenge was relexicalized as
a globally shared commitment aimed at meeting company values and financial goals, satisfying stakeholders and ensuring their continued investments. They detailed financial measures and performance to acknowledge that the trade flow was disrupted by COVID-19 restrictions and supply disruptions, which severely impacted the demand, but the company’s resilience was supposedly demonstrated by its continual performance and delivery. The BHP report followed the tune and emphasized
continuity,
reliability,
continued growth,
cash return and
community support. The prominently used nouns of
performance,
management or
value, etc., were typically described by adjectives such as
superior,
resilient,
financial,
effective,
empowered,
positive,
strong,
responsible,
sustainable or
safe.