Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared

Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining

Jonna Käpylä

Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 8, Tampere, Finland

Keywords: Collaboration, Value Expectation, Value Co-Creation, Shared Value, Mining Industry.

Abstract: This study examines the value of collaboration in the branch of mining and asks what kind of value can be

expected from the collaborative practices of mining, and what are the opportunities and limitations of shared

value creation. The research was conducted as an interview study (n=17) in the Finnish municipality of

Sodankylä that has been a forerunner in Finland in developing collaborative practices with the mining industry.

The study constructs a value typology, which illustrates the expected value of the collaborative practices in

mining, and a framework to evaluate the value of collaboration. The results show that the value of

collaboration consists of different dimensions, and that the value may be process, outputs and outcomes

related, or relate to the productivity of value creation. In addition, the results reveal that there are two different

perceptions of the potential value of collaboration: win-win and trade-off. In conclusion, it appears that the

collaboration process itself can create value for all, but the collaboration cannot meet everyone’s value

expectations related to outputs and outcomes. Therefore, there are opportunities for shared value creation in

the collaborative practices of mining, but it is not possible meet everyone's value expectations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mining activity affects massively to its surroundings:

its economic, ecological and social impacts are large

and manifold. This makes mining a very contested

industry also in Finland. However, different kinds of

collaborative practices between the mining

companies and various affected stakeholders has

potential to alleviate and overcome disagreements

and conflicts between different actors. An agreement-

based collaboration (e.g. in the form of community

development agreements, CDAs, or impact and

benefit agreements, IBAs) offers mining companies a

new form (along with the traditional instruments of

public regulation and voluntary industry initiatives)

to carry out social responsibility and put sustainability

efforts into practice (O’Faircheallaigh 2015).

A northern municipality in Finnish Lapland,

Sodankylä has been a forerunner in Finland in

developing collaborative practices with the mining

industry by aiming for voluntarily initiated

agreement-based collaboration that could be realized

e.g., in the forms of a foundation, a fund and a mining

forum. The municipality has created a mining

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8373-3167

programme that expresses the municipality’s goals

and principles related to mining and provide the

foundations for the collaboration with the mining

industry (Sodankylä 2018). This study focuses on the

expectations of and hopes for the collaboration in

Sodankylä.

The aim of the study is to find out what the value

expectations of different actors from the collaboration

in the branch of mining are, and how the value

expectations overlap and differ from each other.

Based on the identified value expectations, it is

possible to analyse the opportunities for the creation

of shared value and its limits. Thus, the study aims to

answer the research question: What kind of value can

be expected from the collaborative practices of

mining, and what are the opportunities and

limitations of shared value creation based on the

value expectations? The study is part of a research

project “Collaborative remedies for fragmented

societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in

environmental decision-making” (CORE), which

studies and develops collaborative action in

environmental planning and decision-making, and is

188

Käpylä, J.

Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining.

DOI: 10.5220/0010138901880195

In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 188-195

ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9

funded by the Strategic Research Council at the

Academy of Finland (CORE 2018).

The research aims to contribute in three ways.

First, the study constructs a value typology, which

illustrates the expected value of the collaborative

practices in the branch of mining. Thus, the perceived

value of collaboration and related value co-creation is

conceptualized in the environmental decision making

context, where different stakeholders affect

collaboration and are affected by it. Currently, the

research about value co-creation is rather business-

oriented, i.e. the focus has been on the co-creation

practices between a firm and its customers, and the

value and its different dimensions have been

conceptualized based on this view (Sánchez-

Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Busser & Shulga,

2018). This study broadens the perspective to include

different stakeholders of the mining industry, so the

constructed value typology reflects a stakeholder-

oriented (vs. customer-oriented) perspective on the

co-created value in an environmental decision

making context.

Second, by analyzing the expected value of

collaboration, the study provides insights about how

the value of collaboration could be evaluated and

constructs a framework to evaluate and measure the

value of collaboration. Third, the study critically

examines the concept of shared value creation (Porter

& Kramer 2011) in the context of mining industry.

The idea of creating shared value has gained a lot of

recognition in the literature and has also been

contested (Crane et al. 2014; de los Reyes et al. 2017;

de los Reyes and Holz 2019) but applying the concept

to the mining industry has been rare (Devenin 2018;

Fraser 2018; 2019). This study identifies

opportunities and limitations for shared value

creation in the context of mining collaboration.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2

introduces a short theoretical background of the study

by explaining the concepts of value and shared value

creation. Then, Section 3 describes how the research

was conducted. Section 4 presents the results. The

expected value of collaboration in mining is discussed

and a value typology and a framework to evaluate the

value of collaboration are presented. Furthermore, the

opportunities and limits of shared value creation are

discussed based on the found-out differences and

similarities in value expectations. Finally, Section 5

presents discussion and conclusions.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGOUND

In this study, the collaboration is seen as a potential

value co-creation process where value is created for

different actors and creating shared value is possible.

This study focuses especially on the expected value

of collaboration, and not on the realized value. The

value expectation is defined as expected (or desired)

benefits minus expected (or potential) costs.

2.1 Concept of Value

Value as a concept can be understood in different

ways, for example, as a preference and a principle

(Wallace & Jago 2017). In this study, value is

understood as a preference and a desired end state

rather than as a principle, ideal, or norm that defines

preferences. The value can be defined simply: the

perceived benefits minus the perceived costs, which

reflects a one-dimensional perspective on the value.

This means that value is not just benefits, but benefits

relative to costs (Porter & Kramer 2011). A value can

also be understood multidimensionally to consist of

different dimensions and elements. In this case, the

perceived value is described using different value

typologies (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo

2007).

Value creation has typically been approached in

the research literature from the perspectives of the

company and the customer, with the focus being on

business value and the value experienced by the

consumer. For example, the typology of perceived

value presented by Holbrook (1999) includes eight

types of consumer value: efficiency, excellence,

status, esteem, play, aesthetics, ethics and spirituality.

Business value has been conceptualized, for example,

by Park et al. (2010), who identify four ways by

which the blended environmental and economic value

can be created: cost reduction, revenue generation,

resiliency, and legitimacy and image.

Typologies show that perceived value can be

based on many different factors and that it is possible

to take different perspectives on the rather vague and

subjective concept of value. This study aims to

contribute to this stream of research by providing an

understanding of the value of collaboration in the

context of mining that is a very complex

environmental decision making context involving

many stakeholders.

2.2 Creating Shared Value

Vargo & Lusch (2016) define value co-creation as

“the actions of multiple actors, often unaware of each

Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining

189

other, that contribute to each other’s wellbeing”.

Thus, value co-creation happens in collaboration

where different actors interact with each other.

However, there may also be challenges associated

with value co-creation. The value creator may not be

able to capture value in the long run and the value

may slip to other parties (Lepak et al. 2007).

Furthermore, the co-creation of value does not

necessarily lead to an increase in joint value, but the

consequences can also be negative, i.e. value co-

destruction (Plé & Cáceres 2010).

Related to the concept of value co-creation, Porter

& Kramer (2011) have introduced the concept of

creating shared value (CSV) as a strategic tool for

businesses to redesign their purpose for the service of

society. The concept of shared value can be defined

“as policies and operating practices that enhance the

competitiveness of a company while simultaneously

advancing the economic and social conditions in the

communities in which it operates” (Porter & Kramer

2011, p. 6). The strategy aims for win-win-solutions

in three ways: by reconceiving products and markets,

by redefining productivity in the value chain and by

enabling local cluster development. Porter & Kramer

(2011) argue that CSV is integral to a company’s

profitability and competitive position and thus, differs

from corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions.

In their broad critique, Crane et al (2014) have

contested the value of the CSV strategy. One of the

key critiques is that the concept does not take into

account the tensions between social and economic

goals and may lead to “islands of win-win projects in

an ocean of unsolved environmental and social

conflicts” (Crane et al. 2014, 139). Thus, Crane et al.

(2014) argue that the strategy does not go beyond

trade off thinking but ignores it. Furthermore, de los

Reyes et al. (2017) claim that the CSV does not work

as a standalone strategy but need to be accompanied

by ethical frameworks. De los Reyes and Holz (2019)

claim that you should not count on CSV to extinguish

destructive business, because even though the

strategy can improve sustainability performance up to

a point it does not question the underlying premises

behind legacy businesses and fails to generate

transformative innovations. The criticism points out

convincingly that implementing the strategy in

practice may be challenging and may require

supporting strategic guidelines. Porter & Kramer

(2011) themselves note that shared value creation

requires managers to develop new skills, such as

ability to collaborate broadly and to develop a deeper

understanding of societal needs and heightened forms

of collaboration.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

The research was conducted as an interview study

(n=17) in June–August 2018 in the Finnish

municipality of Sodankylä. The purpose of the

interviews was to generate an understanding of the

views of the different parties about the expected value

of collaboration. Thus, the focus of the interviews

was on finding out what value is expected and desired

from collaboration in mining. Alongside this,

experiences about the value of the collaboration that

has already taken place were examined.

Judgmental and volunteer sampling were used to

select the interviewees. The aim was to include

representatives from the two key parties, i.e. the

municipality and the mining companies, and as

diverse as possible group of representatives of

different stakeholders. All the interviewees had some

experiences about the collaboration in mining, but the

scope and the nature of the collaboration varied.

The selected interviewees represent the following

bodies: the municipality (4), mining companies (2),

reindeer herding (3), nature conservation (3),

municipal council (2), entrepreneurs (2) and fishing

(1). In the analysis, the answers of the representatives

of the municipal council, entrepreneurs and fishing

were combined into the category “Others”. The set of

interviewees therefore includes the main parties and

key stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders are

represented: for example, the opinions of the youth,

tourism industry and different villages of the

municipality are missing from the data.

All interviews took place face-to-face, except for

one, which was conducted over the phone. The

duration of the interviews ranged from 35 minutes to

99 minutes, with an average of 66 minutes. Each

interview was transcribed, and a summary of the

transcription was made, which was sent to the

interviewee either by e-mail or post for review and for

possible additional comments. The interviews

produced a total of 270 pages of transcription material

and a total of 107 pages of summary material.

Data was analyzed inductively. The first phase of

the analysis was based on categorization, which is a

process to classify and label units of data (Spiggle

1994). So, in the first phase, data was classified by

coding. Transcriptions and summaries were read and

expectations of benefits, expectations of costs and

risks, and views on limitations of value co-creation

were identified. Each identified value expectation

(expected benefit, expected cost, limitation) was

given a name and it was tabulated with the associated

data unit (typically a piece of text of a few sentences).

This resulted in tables of the expected benefits,

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

190

expected costs, and value creation constraints

experienced by each party.

In the second phase, these identified categories

were compared and combined: some of the categories

remained the same, some were changed. The third

phase was based on abstraction, i.e. grouping

empirically grounded categories into higher-order

conceptual constructs (Spiggle 1994). A more

abstract and theoretical level was sought, and the

identified categories were grouped into more general

conceptual constructs (i.e. value dimensions).

4 RESULTS

4.1 Expected Value of Collaboration in

Mining

The results show that value expectations for

collaboration are diverse and consist of different

dimensions. Altogether eleven value dimensions

were identified (Table 1). In addition, it was

discovered that value expectations were either related

to the collaborative process itself (process related), to

the direct and concrete, hoped-for consequences of

the collaboration (outputs related) or to the more

abstract, hoped-for impacts and changes (outcomes

related). Table 1 summarises the results of the

expected value of collaboration and includes both

expected benefits (+) and expected costs/risks (-). The

results show that the potential benefits of

collaboration are highlighted in relation to its costs

and risks.

Table 1: Expected value of collaboration.

Value

dimension and

its elements

Value expectations: process related

(P), outputs related (OP) and

outcomes related (OC)

Ecological

value

Nature

protection

(biodiversity,

water quality)

Minimization of

environmental

impacts

+ No ore prospecting or mining in

nature conservation areas (OP)

+ Securing the water quality: taking

into account the effects of mining on the

water system and the combined effects

of different mines, more frequent and

varied measurements (OP)

+ Improving the operations of the

mining companies and preventing the

worst-case scenarios (OP)

+ Consideration of environmental

issues and sustainable development in

mining (OC)

+ Preserving biodiversity (OC)

Economic

value

– Takes time: no compensation or

reward for the time spent (P)

Use of time

Money

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Competitive

advantage

+ More efficient use of time (P)

+ Money from the mining companies:

economic benefits for the municipality

(OP)

+ Increase in funding from the mining

company (OP)

+ A permanent mechanism for the

accumulation of money (OP)

+ Guarantee fund for risks and the time

after the mine closure (OP)

+ Investments of mining companies

(e.g. in housing production) (OP)

– Costs / money spent on funding (OP)

+ More rational allocation of money

(where it is most beneficial; identifying

targets that maximize benefits) (OP)

+ More efficient use of money

(financing bigger targets) (OP)

+ Smooth and rapid progress of

business in the mining companies (by

avoiding conflicts) (OP)

+ Efficiency benefits from cooperation

between mining companies (e.g. joint

monitoring and reporting) (OP)

+ Wide-ranging municipal economy

(OC)

+ Competitive advantage to mining

companies from responsibility (OC)

+ Municipality attractive to mining

companies (OC)

+ More benefits for the community

from mining (OC)

Ethical value

Transparency

Honesty

Factuality

Responsibility

+ Transparency and openness in

collaboration (P)

+ Communication based on facts and

researched information (P)

+ Honesty and getting the right facts

(also the bad news) from the mining

companies and municipality

+ The initiative of municipality to

negotiate with mining companies and

the firmness to make justified demands

(P)

+ Impartiality, transparency and

reliability of discharges monitoring,

and possibility to participate in the

monitoring of water discharges if

desired (OP)

+ Transparent channeling of money,

and public and transparent management

of the possible fund (OP)

- Increase in bureaucracy and in the

exercise of power with the fund (T)

+ Exceeding legal requirements in

safety and environmental issues (OP)

+ The use of best available technology

in mining companies (OP)

+ Commitment of the mining

companies to act responsibly (OC)

Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining

191

Table 1: Expected value of collaboration (cont.).

Value

dimension and

its elements

Value expectations: process related

(P), outputs related (OP) and

outcomes related (OC)

Existential

value

Protecting and

securing the

living

environment

and livelihoods

+ Securing the reindeer husbandry

industry (OC)

+ Securing the right to one's own living

environment (OC)

+ Securing the local economy, local

industries and local culture (OC)

Functional

value

Regular and

coordinated

collaboration

Commitment

and continuity

Extensive

participation

Communication

Joint planning

Influencing

Various forms

of cooperation

and win-win

solutions

+ Systematic form of collaboration:

coordinated, structured and regular

collaboration (P)

+ Commitment and continuity in

collaboration (P)

+ Participation and broadly inclusive

collaboration (P)

+ Participation of young people (P)

+ Participation of all ore exploration

and mining companies in the region (P)

+ Joint planning (mining companies and

the municipality) (P)

+ Influencing and empowerment (P)

+ Communication and constructive

dialogue (P)

– Changes in collaboration practices as

the managers of mining companies

change (P)

– Being involved in collaboration

contributes to the promotion of mining

projects (OP)

+ Joint monitoring and reporting within

different mining companies (OP)

+ Implementing different forms of

cooperation and related win-win

solutions (OP+OC)

+ Maximizing the benefits of mining at

the municipal level, i.e. local

exploitability of mining (OC)

Knowledge

Access to

information

Knowledge of

other parties'

interests

Creating new

knowledge and

understanding

+ Access to information (correct factual

and up-to-date information in an

understandable form) (P)

+ Emergence and disclosure of different

views and interests (P)

+ Growth of one's own experience,

knowhow and competence (P)

+ Identification of common benefits and

interests (OP)

- Creation of excessive, over-optimistic

expectations (OP)

+ Creating an understanding of the

municipality's interests in mining (OP)

+ Creating a better overall picture of

mining and mineral exploration

activities in the municipality (OP)

Legitimacy

– Seeing collaboration as an action of

insiders (P)

Legitimacy of

collaboration

Peaceful

working

conditions

Trust

+ Peaceful working conditions in the

mining companies (OP)

– Seeing the support of the mining

companies as bribery and as buying of

social license (OP)

+ Trust and acceptance of the mining

activity (OC)

Psychological

value

Mental welfare

– Creating a negative mood: fear of how

mining will affect your own life and

livelihood, and the uncertainty about

whether one has ability to influence (P)

Social value

Understanding

the other parties

Relations

Status

Jobs and new

companies

Welfare

+ Understanding the other parties (P)

+ Fostering personal relationships (P)

– Stigmatization: belonging to a pro-

mining / anti-mining camp (P)

+ Employment of local residents and

entrepreneurs, and creation of new jobs

and businesses (OP)

+ Investments in the well-being of local

people (e.g. noise barriers, quiet

asphalt, pedestrian and bicycle ways)

(OP)

+ Improving municipal services: more

diverse and better services (OC)

+ Improving the welfare of local people

living in the vicinity of the mine (OC)

+ Securing recreational use of areas

(OC)

+ Welfare in the municipality (OC)

+ The viability and attractiveness of the

municipality (OC)

Strategic value

Holistic

perspective

(broad, long

term and

alternative

thinking)

Win-win

thinking

Action in line

with the

sustainability

values and

strategy

+ Taking a long term and

comprehensive perspective (P)

+ Consideration of alternative strategies

to mining (P)

+ Setting goal status high and

promoting win-win thinking (P)

+ The success of the mines and the

success of the municipality go hand in

hand (OC)

+ Acting in line with the company

strategy (and related sustainable values)

(OC)

Sustainability

Social

sustainability

The rights of the

future

generations to

natural

resources and

pure nature

+ Social sustainability: lower extraction

volumes and longer duration of mining

(OP)

+ Mining companies’ participation in

developing the municipality (OP)

+ Preservation of pure nature for future

generations (OC)

+ Future generations' rights to

nonrenewable resources (OC)

+ Prevention of adverse effects of the

structural change (OC)

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

192

Table 1: Expected value of collaboration (cont.).

Value

dimension and

its elements

Value expectations: process related

(P), outputs related (OP) and

outcomes related (OC)

Long term

development

and coping with

the structural

change

+ Sustainable development and the

welfare of future generations (OC)

Based on the results about the expected value of

collaboration in mining, a framework was constructed

to evaluate and measure the value of collaboration

(Figure 1).

Figure 1: Evaluation framework for the value of

collaboration.

The framework illustrates how the value of

collaboration is multidimensional – it is not only

about the success of the process or the successful end

results. The value expectations of collaboration may

be process, outputs and outcomes related, or relate to

the productivity of value creation. Because

collaboration takes time, the benefits of collaboration

are weighed against the time spent (and other

potential inputs). Thus, the framework also illustrates

what needs to be considered when planning a

collaboration process. Process, outputs and outcomes

related value as well as productivity of value creation

are components of the realized or expected value.

4.2 Opportunities and Limits of Shared

Value Creation

There are both similarities and differences in value

expectations between different actors. The

municipality and stakeholders expect more money

from mining companies while mining companies

expect more rational allocation of money. Mining

companies emphasize the development of the

collaboration model, where shared interests could be

found (related to e.g., availability and training of

labor) and indirect economic benefit for the whole

region, whereas other actors also hope for direct

economic benefit. The shared value expectation is

that mining would benefit the municipality and its

residents more. All actors also aspire welfare in the

municipality and wide-ranging municipal economy.

However, actors have opposing views on the means

to achieve these effects. Value expectations can thus

be congruent at the level of outcomes and opposite at

the level of outputs.

Although many of the value dimensions, such as

ethical value, sustainability, social value, knowledge

and economic value are mentioned as expected value

by many of the actors, different value dimensions are

emphasized by different actors. For the mining

companies, the key expected value dimensions of

collaboration are functional value, legitimacy and

strategic value, along with economic value.

Municipality especially highlights economic value,

functional value and social value. Existential value is

emphasized among the representatives of reindeer

herding, and ecological value and sustainability

among nature conservation representatives.

For the mining companies, the key expected

benefit is the identification of common interests,

implementing different forms of cooperation and

related win-win solutions. Key motivation for the

collaboration is the building of trust and the approval

of mining, and related peaceful working conditions

and smooth and rapid progress of business when

conflicts are avoided. In addition, acting in line with

the company strategy (and related sustainable values),

gaining competitive advantage from responsibility,

and efficiency benefits from cooperation between

mining companies are important value expectations.

For the mining companies, the risk of

collaboration is that the collaboration creates over-

optimistic expectations, which can lead to the

experience of betraying promises. They also see the

risk that collaboration will appear as an action of

insiders or as a bribery and a way to buy a license to

operate. However, the potential benefits of

collaboration are highlighted in relation to its

potential costs and risks.

For the municipality, the key value expectations

are regular and systematic collaboration and the

related financial benefits. It is interesting that in their

argumentation, the representatives of the

municipality also think about the value of

collaboration from the point of view of the mining

companies. Like mining companies, they also aim for

finding the common interests and win-win-solutions.

Representatives of reindeer herding value

expectations relate especially to the investments in

the well-being of local people and to the securing of

reindeer husbandry industry. However, they are

rather skeptical whether the collaboration provide any

Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining

193

real benefits: it is just something you must be

involved with in order to gain something. The

obvious cost of collaboration is the time it takes. A

key constraint on value creation is perceived to be the

displacement of reindeer herding by mining activity,

and the fact that there are no ways to reduce adverse

effects, even if there is a common will for that.

The most important value expectation of nature

conservation representatives is that the mining

agreement prohibits mineral exploration and mining

in protected areas. In addition, the strong

consideration of environmental issues, such as water

impacts, is desired, as well as looking at things in a

long-term and comprehensive way.

Overall, actors have two different perceptions of

the potential value of collaboration: win-win and

trade-off. Some strongly emphasize the possibility of

finding common needs and interests through

collaboration, the so-called win-win situations, while

some see collaboration more as a minimization of

harm: due to incompatible goals, not everyone can

win (trade off). Mining companies clearly represent a

win-win approach to collaboration. Representatives

of the municipality are more moderate in their win-

win thinking. Stakeholder representatives have a

more trade-off approach to collaboration and they see

more limitations of value creation, such as the fact

that mining companies commit on a voluntary basis

and their actions are tied to goodwill.

Based on the results it seems that the collaboration

process itself can create value for all (process related

value). However, the value expectations related to

outputs and outcomes differ in some respects

significantly from each other and there is probably a

limited possibility for collaborative action to resolve

some of these differences (the value of outputs and

outcomes). Therefore, there are both opportunities for

shared value creation as well as limitations.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The study asked: What kind of value can be expected

from the collaborative practices of mining, and what

are the opportunities and limitations of shared value

creation based on the value expectations? The results

show that the value of collaboration in general can be

diverse and consist of different dimensions. The

analysis revealed eleven value dimensions: 1)

ecological value, 2) economic value, 3) ethical value,

4) existential value, 5) functional value, 6)

knowledge, 7) legitimacy, 8) psychological value, 9)

social value, 10) strategic value, and 11)

sustainability. These value dimensions reflect the

different motivations to participate in collaboration.

The costs and risks of collaboration were not

emphasized in relation to the potential benefits.

The results revealed that the value of

collaboration can be related to the collaborative

process itself (process related), or to the direct and

concrete consequences of the collaboration (outputs

related) or to the more abstract impacts and changes

(outcomes related). Thus, collaboration and

communication can be valuable by themselves, but

they are also instruments to produce other values.

As concluded in the previous section, there are

both opportunities for shared value creation as well as

limitations. Some value expectations are mutually

exclusive, and it is not possible to create value for

everyone. For example, expectations about the

smooth and rapid progress of business in the mining

companies and the delimitation of ‘no ore prospecting

or mining in nature conservation areas’ are partly

mutually exclusive value expectations.

It is good to note that actors have two different

perceptions of the potential of collaboration to create

value for all. Win-win ideas can appear as empty talk

without a realistic basis for those whose perception is

based on trade-off thinking. Mining companies want

to strengthen the benefits of mining, i.e. how mine

would benefit the locals even more. However,

strengthening the benefits of mining cannot directly

eliminate the risks or harms of mining. As this is not

possible, some stakeholders do not believe that

collaboration will generate significant value.

In addition to the value of collaboration, its

expected and desired benefits, it is also justified to

critically consider the conditions and limitations of

shared value creation. The pursuit of certain values in

collaboration does not guarantee that they will be

realized if the means or resources to achieve them are

lacking. Both realization and non-realization of

expected benefits in collaboration is possible.

The value typology and the analysis of the

potential of shared value creation is based on the

study about perceived value expectations and not on

the experiences of realized value. Studying the

expected value of collaboration is important because

value expectations or aspirations affect how the value

of collaboration is ultimately perceived. Furthermore,

value expectations tell about the motives for

collaboration: why do the different actors want to

participate. Understanding the motives also helps to

develop the collaboration further and actualize the

expectations into realized values. In the future

research it would be interesting to study the realized

value of collaboration and compare whether, how and

why it would differ from expectations.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

194

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the Finnish Cultural

Foundation and the Strategic Research Council at the

Academy of Finland for funding this research, as well

as the CORE project team for supporting the conduct

of this study.

REFERENCES

Busser, J.A., Shulga, L.V. 2018. Co-created value:

Multidimensional scale and nomological network.

Tourism Management 65, pp. 69-86.

CORE 2018. Collaborative remedies for fragmented

societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in

environmental decision-making. Available at:

http://www.collaboration.fi/EN/.

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J., Matten, D. 2014.

Contesting the Value of ”Creating Shared Value”.

California Management Review 56(2), pp. 130-153.

de los Reyes, G., Scholz, M.N., Smith, C. 2017. Beyond the

“Win-Win”: Creating Shared Value Requires Ethical

Frameworks. California Management Review, Vol.

59(2), pp.142-167.

de los Reyes, G., Scholz, M. 2019. The limits of the

business case for sustainability: Don’t count on

‘Creating Shared Value’ to extinguish corporate

destruction. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.

221(1), pp. 785-794.

Devenin, V. 2018. Collaborative community development

in mining regions: The Calama Plus and Creo

Antofagasta programs in Chile. Resources Policy.

Fraser, J. 2018. Mining companies and communities:

Collaborative approaches to reduce social risk and

advance sustainable development. Resources Policy.

Fraser, J. 2019. Creating Shared Value as a Business

Strategy for Mining to Advance the United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals. The Extractive

Industries and Society, Vol. 6 (3), pp. 788-791.

Holbrook, M.B. 1999. Introduction to Consumer Value. In:

Holbrook (ed.) Consumer Value. A Framework for

Analysis and Research. Routledge, London, pp. 1-28.

Lepak, D.P., Smith, K.G., Taylor, M.S. 2007. Value

creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective.

Academy of Management Review 32(1), pp. 180-194.

O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2015. Social equity and large mining

projects: Voluntary industry initiatives, public

regulation and community development agreements.

Journal of Business Ethics 132, pp. 91-103.

Park, J., Sarkis, J., Wu, Z. 2010. Creating integrated

business and environmental value within the context of

China’s circular economy and ecological

modernization. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(15),

pp. 1494-1501.

Plé, L., Cáceres, R. C. 2010. Not always co-creation:

Introducing interactional co-destruction of value in

service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing,

24(6), pp. 430–437.

Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R. 2011. Creating Shared Value.

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 (1-2), pp. 62-77.

Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.À. 2007. The

concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the

research. Marketing Theory 7(4), pp. 427-451.

Sodankylä 2018. Sodankylä Municipality’s Mining

Programme 2018–2021. Available at:

https://www.kaivos.fi/en/sodankyla-municipalitys-

mining-programme-2018-2021/.

Spiggle, S. 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative

Data in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer

Research, 21(3), pp. 491-503.

Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. 2016. Institutions and axioms: an

extension and update of service-dominant logic.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(5), pp.

5-23.

Wallace, K.J., Jago, M. 2017. Category mistakes: A barrier

to effective environmental management. Journal of

Environmental Management 199, pp. 13-20.

Value of Collaboration: The Opportunities and Limits of Shared Value Creation in the Collaborative Practices of Mining

195