Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 147

147 Arctic Yearbook 2015 development, but not as local community issues. Russia has also emphasized the need to increase technological as well as research and development within the industry. There has been active public discussion on the social acceptability of mining, but the themes have been slightly different in each country. In Finland, the social acceptability of mining was somewhat assumed until 2011 when water issues were raised to the public domain due to the environmental accidents at the Talvivaara mine. Economic growth and employment also play a role in Finnish mining policy but, similarly to Sweden, it is from the perspective of regional development rather than purely national economic growth. In Greenland, the main issues concerning the public acceptance have been employment and economic benefits as well as the need for a more transparent and inclusive decisionmaking processes. Compared with the other case countries, Russia stands apart with the social acceptance of mining not being a particularly political issue. Considering the responsibilities and roles of different actors in promoting sustainable Arctic mining, the Finnish policy acknowledges the role of both the private and public sector. Correspondingly, the Swedish policy sees that sustainable development is to be business-driven. Greenland places more emphasis on the role of industry in comparison with Finland and Sweden, by having stricter regulatory tools for ensuring direct benefits of mining to the society. In Russia, business actors are likely to take on enhanced responsibilities in promoting sustainable development on the regional level. During the past decade, the Russian government has emphasized the need for closer cooperation between industry and local authorities in implementing various social projects, shifting part of the responsibility for regional socio-economic development from the state to private actors. Compared to Finland and Sweden, Russia is more unstable from a regulatory perspective, especially in the development and implementation of environmental policies. Greenland is still in the process of developing its policy framework and therefore the functioning of the process cannot yet be compared to the other countries. But in all countries, the EIA is an obligatory process for acquiring a permit for mining. Also alike, public participation is a key aspect of the procedures concerning EIA. SIA is most actively developed in Finland and Greenland. CSR in the mining sector is under development in all four focus countries and even more notably in their Arctic regions. The historical contexts in each country also make differences in how CSR is being developed and implemented in each jurisdiction. It appears that the role of the state or government influences the practices and expectations of CSR. The Nordic welfare states seem to have a different perspective than Russia and Greenland on CSR. In Finland, the mining industry and the Government have placed emphasis on the development of responsibility strategies after the incidents at the Talvivaara mine. The increased presence of international companies has also contributed to the development. In Sweden, the industry has been slow to address issues related to social acceptance and local communication. There has not been nation-wide critical debate on mining as in Finland. Often, companies with a long history in Sweden have gained the social acceptance over time and are only starting to face pressures for new types of responsibilities in terms of communication and social aspects. However, Finland and Sweden share the trend of international companies bringing new practices, and in both countries, there is a need to modify CSR to fit the Nordic welfare state model. Tiainen, Sairinen & Sidorenko