This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the 'mess' of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.

No abstract

The study sought to draw new perspectives on how corporate social responsibility (CSR) is shaped and created within the resource sector. The study focused on examining the role of external stakeholders in influencing the CSR strategies implemented by Australian resource companies. Data were gathered by semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders involved with 25 resource companies located in South Australia, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory.Consistent with sociological theories of CSR, stakeholders such as business and community leaders, non-government organizations (NGOs), and government employees were able to influence CSR by empowering communities to participate in CSR, bridging cultural divides between companies and communities, and linking companies to key society standards. This was facilitated by the expression of personal ethical values and knowledge sets by stakeholders and where relevant those of their organization.A range of stakeholders were active agents of change, bringing in new ideology, skills, and expertise, and, at times, challenging existing corporate practice. This process was underlined by relationship building and trust. Stakeholders effectively introduced higher ethical values to concepts of public accountability, environmental sustainability, and social justice in line with personal and organizational ethics.The study also identified factors which promoted stakeholder influence and gave stakeholders power within CSR. This included a range of institutional-level factors such as regulatory and legal frameworks, company policy, and cultures, but also interpersonal skills and abilities of the individuals involved.The study highlights the strategic benefits of stakeholder involvement in CSR within the Australian resource sector and discusses implications for the broader resource industry.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an evolving concept that reflects various views and approaches regarding corporate relationships with broader society. This study examines the meanings and values attached to CSR within the Australian resource sector where various interests shape the implementation of CSR programs. The study was based on in-depth interviews with industry practitioners, business leaders, environmental and social specialists, government representatives and community leaders, including representatives from Indigenous groups. CSR was found to be a complex, multi-dimensional concept that was highly individualised with a variety of aspects highlighted during interviews. To make sense of this complexity, meanings of CSR were mapped according to Carroll's four dimensions, namely Corporate, Legal, Ethical, and Philanthropic. However, a further CSR dimension was also required to capture the full spectrum of meanings. Referred to as 'CSR interaction', this dimension focuses on CSR meanings that align with the concept of CSR creating social change and improving the dynamics between companies and local communities and stakeholders. This study also identified some key social processes or drivers which helped explain how and why CSR meanings and approaches are adopted and delivered. These drivers also increased understanding of the wide diversity of CSR meanings and their distribution across the different stakeholder groups. Drivers included not only individual-level influences such as background, life experience, cultural and ethical values, but also broader influences such as organisational and institutional context. The implications of this for CSR practice were explored. The study sought to provide guidance for developing a working definition of CSR within the given context, through identifying the key integral requirements for CSR incorporating different perspectives and interests. The intent is that this can help support evaluation of the future success of CSR programs within the Australian resource sector.

No abstract