Silent and Shadow by Zikri

Miftah Zikri

MSc - Business With Management 2009

Silent and Shadow Account of Freeport Indonesia

Miftah Zikri © 2009

Silent and Shadow Report 1

Silent and Shadow report of

Freeport – McMoran Copper & Gold Inc

I. Part A

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) arouses much controversy and

contestation in management. From definition of CSR itself is vary, as expressed

by McWilliams et al (2006) “there is no strong consensus definition for CSR”. But,

CSR definition according to Baker (no date) is about sustainable livelihoods from

establishing capacity building skills of employees, the community and the

government, respect cultural differences and finds the business opportunities.

Based on corporate perspective, the principle of CSR is to create an image of the

company to the public, and another reasons behind that such as to persuade

relationship with local government or stakeholders in order to help and develop

its business processes. Thus, from public or society perspective, the company has

taken some advantages or resources from their areas and the company must give

improvement to society especially in local community area in terms of improving

their quality of life. As explained by Blowfield et al (2005) stated that, for the

reason of commercial viability or to add value to society, business needs to

manage its relationship with wider society.

CSR is an agreement between company and its stakeholders. From two different

perspectives can be argued if the both of parties do not fulfill their pledges. In

order to give information to readers from both parties, the silent and shadow

report is created to describe and discuss clearly from both perspective, which is

company (silent) and public or society (shadow) to CSR issues of the company.

As supported by dev (2007) Silent part that is collected with data published from

organisation concerned or liable. Then, shadow is from non-company resources

and published to public.

1


2. Background of the company

One company has been chosen to be identified some issues in CSR. The company

is Freeport – McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. The company through its wholly

owned subsidiary, Phelps Dodge Corporation (Phelps Dodge) is a copper, gold

and molybdenum mining company. The Company’s portfolio of assets includes

the Grasberg minerals district in Indonesia, which contains single recoverable

copper reserve and the single gold reserve of any mine; significant mining

operations in North and South America, and the Tenke Fungurume development

project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In addition, PT Freeport

Indonesia is a subsidiary company established by Freeport McMoran Copper and

Gold Inc, who own the majority of its shares. PT Freeport Indonesia has

conducted exploration at two sites in the Tembaga Pura region, Mimika Regency,

Papua Province, namely the Erstberg mine (from 1967) and the Grasberg mine

(since 1988)

As of December 31, 2008, consolidated recoverable proven and probable

reserves totaled 102.0 billion pounds of copper, 40 million ounces of gold, 2.48

billion pounds of molybdenum, 266.6 million ounces of silver and 0.7 billion

pounds of cobalt. Approximately 35 % of its copper reserves were in Indonesia,

approximately 31 % were in South America, approximately 28 % were in North

America and approximately 6 % were in Africa. Approximately 96 % of its gold

reserves were in Indonesia, with its remaining gold reserves located in South

America.

3. Problem Identified

On this report the researcher will focus upon the subsidiary in Papua –

Indonesia. Because some issues have been identified such as the environment in

Papua is getting damage. Some demonstrations from societies have been

occurred to claim the company pledges to the society. As reported by

socialfunds.com (16 June 2006), “the Freeport exclusion was based on

allegations that the company has caused extensive environmental damage by

disposing of tailings including arsenic, cadmium, and mercury from its Papua,

Indonesia copper mines into a natural river system. Moreover, some other issues

will be identified at silent and shadow section.

2


Silent and Shadow Report: PT. Freeport

4. Silent and shadow account

Silent Shadow

Environment

Information from Freeport official website stated that, the surrounding environment of its operation is managed and minimized in order to prevent the unfavorable impact. The company is committed by using risk management strategies to reclaiming and revegetating influenced land. Yet, the supports both scientific researches to further comprehend the environments in which it is operated and comprehensive monitoring to determine the effectiveness of management practices. In the course of Environmental Policy, the company commits to reverberation environmental management and practices, to providing adequate resources to fulfill its responsibilities and to continuously improving its environmental performance at every operational site. CSR report 2008 stated that, to evaluate data and make recommendation for operational performance, the company engages with a tailing management system by using a controlled riverine deposition system. Then, deposition area can be reclaimed with natural vegetation or used for agriculture, forestry or aquaculture when the mining is completed.

Environment

News from Indonesia Antara agency (2008) stated that Freeport Ltd had a problem with local community in Papua because of the environmental damage in plant site area. On August 11th, 2008, The leader of tribal of Papua sued PT. Freeport to get compensation from company due to environmental and ecological damage that has been made by company. The Jakarta Post also reported that the company had polluted the Aijkwa River in Kaimana district. . Furthermore in reality, many more rivers that had been polluted that had not been known. The head of community reported, the company had also polluted rivers in Kapiraya Mimika Barat Jauh and Mimika Tengah sub districts, including rivers in Teluk Etna and Poturawae sub districts. Eventually, the regional village communities were now facing water deficiency because the chemical pollutants from the company contaminated their rivers. As described by Amin (2006) Systematic killing toward environment in mining area. Plants, animal, and forest have been extinct because of Freeport.

3



Government

As explained on Annual Report 2006 Pursuant to Section of The securities Exchange Act of 1934 that Freeport Indonesia Ltd has a contract of work agreement with government of Indonesia. Contract of work would involve rights and obligations to taxes, exchange controls, royalties, repatriations and others. Both agreements were protected by Foreign Capital Investment Law. Yet, the company also stated that it has experience no disputes arbitration since 39 years operated in Indonesia. Freeport Indonesia Ltd had regularly been one of the largest taxpayers in the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, it pays royalties on all minerals

Government

In 26 January 2006, Amin (2006) disclosed on Kompas newspaper that, some main problems of Freeport Indonesia Ltd with government as follows:

1. The Government of Indonesia did not know, how many thousands ton of gold and copper concentrate were plundered by the company. Those concentrates were transferred through pipes (100km) from centre mining area to shipping offshore.

2. “Tax Blackout” to government was happened, means that the number of taxes should be paid more but in fact the company

3



removed from the ground. Royalty payments are based on the volumes and prices of minerals sold in accordance with the terms of PT Freeport Indonesia’s Contract of Work.

hided their profit or uncalculated production to reduce the taxes. In addition, there was no good contribution of Freeport to society in Papua. In addition, the people on those areas were still primitive.

Community Development

Freeport Indonesia Ltd CSR Annual Report 2002 described some points to achieve policy in community development. Firstly, build relationship with people in the host country and especially with people indigenous to areas of operations and explorations. Secondly, consult with local populations about important operational issues that will impact to their communities. As supported on annual report Pursuant 2006, in order to support community development in Papua, Freeport Indonesia Ltd formed community development program, which was called The

Community Development

An article from Amnesty.org (2002) described that Freeport Indonesia Ltd has a contract of work that described the company has broad powers over the local original population and resources. The rights to take land and other property and resettle indigenous citizen with provide equitable compensation only for dwelling and other permanent improvements are included. Yet, the article explained The communities especially in Kamoro and Amungme disrespected by agreement that explained the conventional land rights and granted insufficient

3



Freeport Fund for Irian Jaya Development. In 1996, Freeport Indonesia Ltd was in agreement to commit and contribute at least one percent of its revenue. The activities would be included as follows:

Charitable donations Cultural Preservation programs Agricultural assistance programs Several public program, including extensive malaria control Basic education program Comprehensive job training A business incubator program to encourage the local people to

establish their own scale businesses

Moreover, Freeport Indonesia Ltd committed to improve community development in Papua. As mentioned on CSR report 2007, Freeport Indonesia Ltd provided financial support, share knowledge and expertise, and strengthen employee volunteers to lend a hand for communities. The company also said, most effective when focus efforts on understanding the needs of the communities.

protection for their rights to livelihood, adequate housing, food health, and right to practice their cultures. In addition, the article also described, “it also ensures that the Indigenous population had no legally available right of refusal, of informed consent, or to adequate compensation. The contract gave Freeport the right “to take and use” on a tax free basis the water, timber, soil, and other natural resources in the project area and from other parts of the territory. No social or environmental impact assessment of the project was required or conducted. Moreover, the cultural rights of the people and their right to subsistence have been violated as their sacred mountains and religious sites are being destroyed and they are being forced to relocate to make room for the mining operations”.

Furthermore, news by Kapanlagi.com on 17 March 2006 stated that Jakarta community Care for Papua Association insists government to facilitate meeting between Freeport Ltd and Papua society. The demonstration was happened due to dissatisfaction of society toward Freeport Ltd contribution.

Employee

As described by an article from mining.com, Freeport Indonesia focus on CSR key issue, which was integrating of ethnic minorities in the workplace and community. Thus audit repot announced that Freeport Indonesia Ltd had a program to enhance in training and employment of the Papuans. The company also committed to increase the number of Papuan employment. Then Freeport also responsible to improve their prospect employment and promotions. Ultimately, the company paid more attention to Papuan. Training program was established in order to

Employee

Beratabui (2007) expressed that; Freeport Indonesia Ltd had around 13,000 Non-Papuans and 5000 Papuans origin who were working. The discrimination was happened toward Papuans as well as Non-Papuans with non-staff position such as firstly, non-staff employees are not allowed to bring their families to live with them in the worker barracks. Secondly, restaurants, shopping centers and kiosks that owned by Freeport were not allowed to use. Moreover their children were not allowed to attend the school owned by multinational company.

3



prepare people technically for their jobs at mine site. Papuans would be treated like “premium class”. They have first preference especially Papuans who from 7 local tribes. In addition, the company would be responsible to create working environment without discrimination in all aspects to Papuans employment.

Source: Human Rights, Employment, and Social development audit report 2005

Only one Papuan (Agus Kafiar) who represented top management level without right to make decision-making was given. Beratabui (2007) also said “Three Papuans are found at the Management level. The first Papuan manager ever at PT Freeport got his position just one year before retiring and therefore with little influence. In addition, according to Christian Evangelical Churches (GKI)’s sources “PT Freeport employs Papuans with poor qualifications in order to minimize their influence. Mrs. L & P stated that even though they had been working for PT Freeport for already ten years they had not been promoted yet”.

3


5. Discussion

Although much has been written on silent and shadow report toward Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR), in the report it has been described about what the

company doing toward its stakeholders. Much less consideration has been paid

to the development of the company to its stakeholder and stated from both

perspectives. This section will discuss the issues from silent and shadow table

and linked to the theories in context of environment, government, community,

and employee.

5.1 Environment

From silent and shadow report can be concluded that the environment

management system by Freeport, does not prevent the risk environmental

damage in Papua. The company said that by tailing management system,

deposition area could be reclaimed with natural vegetation or used for

agriculture, forestry or aquaculture when the mining is completed. But in reality

some rivers is contaminated with chemical pollutants. From this case, the

attitudes of the company toward public concerns should be developed and

crystallized. By maintaining and concern to environmental impact, the company

will improve its efficiency and reduce barriers. As supported by Koch (1979) the

isolations of corporation can be reduced by revitalized sense of corporate

mission for more active and broader role in society and turn around some of the

current negative public attitudes toward business. This theory also supported by

Hunt (1995) the diminishing or removal of trade barriers and persistent search

for improving efficiency will impact to businesses in easier communication,

transport and the growing sophistication and awareness of consumers. In order

to increase its intensity, Company has to deal with environmental concerns in

conjunction with a horde of other pressures. Hunt (1995) also described that a

recognition of the need for environmental integrity as a requirement for

organizational survival and success.

Hunt (1995) said that the level of concern fluctuates from time to time, the

environmental concern on the part of the public at huge scale tends to wax and

wane based on economic condition. The declining of environmental concern as a

7


general issues due to the present recession. There are some factors which the

company should maintain its environment performance according to Hunt

(1995), as follows:

Scientific evidence of specific aspects of environmental damage

Increasing public awareness of environmental issues

Greater satisfaction of basic needs

Increasingly to internalize environmental costs through taxes and charges

Growing emphasis on environmental matters in education

5.1.1 The Importance of Good Environmental Performance

Good environmental performance can give benefits to the company. The

confident approach to environmental issues within an organisation can give

enticement to other parties and aspects, Hunt (1995) expressed:

Table 1.1 The potential benefits of sounds environmental performance and

attitudes

Aspect Potential Benefits

1. Legal Avoidance of litigation, fines and legal costs, clean-up costs, civil

liabilities.

2. Image Enhanced organizational pride, corporate image/PR and

attractiveness as employer.

3. Financial Increased confidence of regulators, investors and insurers.

4. Management Improved “peace of mind”, consistency on issues and time utilization

5. Business Enhanced performance from product differentiation, ‘eco-label’

recognition, improved market share, improved margins, sound and

opportune investment, improved cost control and sound acquisition

and divestment.

Source: Environmental Management System by David Hunt

Related case to Freeport Indonesia ltd, the company did not consider how the

important of the environmental concern is. As stated by the Jayapura-based

environmental organization (YALI) and the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (LBH)

1999, indicated that five local indigenous Papuans had died as a result of copper

poisoning incurred from eating mollusks and other living organisms from the

8


river system affected by Freeport tailings. Two years earlier, Kamoro

communities affected by mine tailings had written a letter to PTFI management,

calling attention to the serious environmental and health impacts of the

company's mining operations. The document, signed by 77 people from the

Negeripi and Nawaripi communities, states: "The 87 families and 300 people of

our villages who have suffered from the disposal of mining wastes and

environmental damage caused by Freeport for over thirty years in this area

protest to company strongly about the continuous pollution and devastation of

our tribal land” (Abrash 2002).

5.2 Government

From the Annual Report 2006 Pursuant to Section of The securities Exchange Act

of 1934 stated that the governmental issues between the government of

Indonesia and Freeport Ltd have been bonded with contract agreement and

foreign investment law protected it. From this contract agreement both of

parties must be disclosed in order to underpinning the agreement. But in this

case, Amin (2006) stated that there are some main problems between the

company and government, firstly the company plundered gold and copper

concentrate. Secondly, tax blackout was occurred, means that the company hides

its production and profit in order to reduce taxes. This problem had not been

disclosed before, according to Shakely (1977) lack of disclosure will create

several problems. The problem between government and the company will give

impact to the company’s performance and public, news from earthtime.org by

DPA (11 July 2009) stated, unknown sniper shot one of Freeport’s Australian

worker when he was driving a car in Papua. This problem was caused because of

fraud and injustice by Freeport and seeks government’s attention, as cited from

www.menkokesra.go.id.

5.2.1 Government Policies for CSR and its Relationship

As expressed by Moon (2008) there is a relationship between CSR and particular

patterns of business-government-civil society relations. Basic theory the

relationship between CSR and government was found by Schmitter and

Lehmbruch (1979), they stated that government normally partner with business

to formulate and implement public policy. In addition, Heclo (1979) the

9

http://www.menkokesra.go.id/


government also officials informally involve business and other interests in

defining policy objective and assisting their implementation.

CSR performance by company actually can be stimulated through establishing

policy and institutional framework. For instance, the UK government (1990s)

said that, “our approach is to encourage and incentives the adoption of CSR,

through best practice guidance and where appropriate, intelligent regulation and

fiscal incentives”. This is the old command regulatory model, which was the

government described governance issues without mandating behaviour and

specifying penalties for non-compliance (Vogel, 2008). But related to the case,

this old model is not appropriate to be applied because, the company has

disobeyed the rule, which was tax blackout and so on. Punishment can be the

good way to improve corporate responsibility to government and public. Moon

(2008) said “government as a driver for CSR”, means that government has ability

to make a rules and policy in order to reduce mistreatment from company in

doing its expertise. According to Levy (1999) give and take is the new context

model in modern business regulation, means that the government gives its

responsibility and take the sources, or if the company does not give do not take

it. In addition, Burchell (2000) said, “by locating rule at the heart of our

theoretical formulations, we can trace and assess the processes of governance

wherever they may occur. That is, through focusing on rule systems we will not

be confined to the world of states and will be empowered to explore issues and

processes in terms of the way in which authority is created, dispersed,

consolidated or otherwise employed to exercise control with respect to the

numerous issues and processes that states unable or unwilling to address.

To conclude governmental issues discussion, disclosing or being honest between

parties to the public and government, is the way to improve company

performance. Disclosing will recover their trust and reduce conflict. If the conflict

is happened, business failure or collapse will may be happened.

10


5.3 Community Development

Freeport Indonesia Ltd committed to build relationship and consult about

operational issues to local origin people (Freeport annual report 2002). But

some cases were happened due to Freeport disrespected the agreement (see

silent and shadow account). According to (Welford 2002; Utting 2002; Blowfield

and Frynas 2005; Frynas 2005), business continuously prefers profit than

making a sensible contribution to development, which deserves expenses that

not related to its profit. They also expressed that contribution to community

development is unlikely done through CSR recently, because company judges it is

a voluntary nature. They suggested that, although it is a voluntary nature, there

is a need a commitment to establish voluntary nature to community

development, which is commitment to society from responsibility to

accountability through legally tied by international regulations that grip

accountability of MNC for its practices in overseas.

Blowfield (2004, 2005) and Jenskins (2005) expressed that contribution to

development was not set out through CSR, CSR issues especially international

development and poverty reduction recently disheveled. An example as

suggested by Vires (2004) that the character of CSR development should be done

by private sector, and it can be a supplement to the development efforts of

governments and institutions that concerned to community development.

Related to case, Freeport Indonesia should pay attention to community

development program, because community development is an investment to

company to support its business. Manager of Byblos (2006) said, “We realize that

we operate within a bounded space and that giving back to the community is

paramount and investing in the community implies a better environment to

conduct our business”. Freeport Ltd should maintain its relationship with local

community with establish well-prepared real community development program

not only development program solely, but through win-win solutions between

community and Freeport or give more benefits to society. In the event of

community development program must involves engagement, transparency and

11


benefit to the society. According to Common Ground Consultation Inc (2007) the

benefit of community development should cover:

Construct comprehensive system for employment service and maximizing

quality of life with consultation or agreement to community.

Enhance for maximizing local employment and training, have a

preference to local services and suppliers, stimulate the creation local

business to provide services.

Underpinning and strengthening local community institutional social

program.

Assist the community in liaison with regional and national authorities.

If there is a potential society and wish to work, assisting the community

to have connection and access to have an appropriate training in order to

be qualified for the position in the mining.

Community development program may help company to increase its profit. As

explained by Burchel (2008) CSR is the notion business response to underpin the

challenge of sustainable development. Community development can be

improved through company knowledge and skills to improve social Condition

especially in mining area.

To conclude, if the company respects to the community development agreement

and commit to contribute to improve standard quality of community’s life, the

business can reduce its risk to society impact and help the company to increase

its profit as explained by scholars above. Weeds

5.4 Employee

The problem on employee issues has been highlighted on silent and shadow

account. Discrimination in the workplace was happened in the Freeport

Indonesia. As proved by Beratabui (3007) Freeport Indonesia Ltd had around

13,000 Non-Papuans and 5000 Papuans origin who were working at. In addition,

only one Papuan who represented top management level without right to make

decision-making was given. Then, employees had not been promoted yet

although working more than 10 years. But audit report argued that Freeport

12


Indonesia had a program to enhance in training and employment of the Papuans.

In additions, mining.com expressed that Freeport Indonesia focus on CSR that

integrate of ethnic minorities in the workplace and community. As expressed on

direct.gov.uk, there are some types of discriminations related to these issues.

Which are, Direct discrimination is happened when an employer treat a worker

differently with other employees with less favourably can be called as direct

discrimination. Then Indirect discrimination, can be happened when a condition

in the workplace or rules difficulty one group of people than another. Indirect

discrimination is illegal, it is done based on particular purpose. This is illegal way

to get business work and the way to achieving in improper way.

F. Conclusion

Four main issues have been identified, which are these issues related

improvement to its stakeholder. CSR is an agreement between company and its

stakeholders or particular. It like a “give and take”, which means company gives

its obligations or voluntarily to its stakeholders. Then stakeholders must give

opportunities to company to maximise the resources to be developed and

generated profit to improve the quality of its stakeholder in ethical behaviour.

According to Windsor (2006) ethical behaviour that represent burly corporation

with self-control, philanthropic duties and spacious public policy to toughen

stakeholder rights.

II. Part B

1. Book review

The book that has been chosen is the corporation – the pathological pursuit of

profit and power by Joel Bakan, the book tells us about the corporation issue

related to corporate social responsibility problems. Particularly, examine the

nature, the evolution impacts, and the possible future of the modern business

corporations.

The corporations nowadays become dominant, and strengthened by law

protections. Which is the products or services of the corporations give impacts to

human life especially people. The book expressed that the corporation is a legal

13


person, which is some of people who have invested their money and got rights

what they want by incorporating. Then by legal status the corporations harm

and exploit on this earth such as, low wages, environmental damage, oppressing

the society, then other corporate fraudulences and crimes.

The corporations have created the problems and they feel no guilty for that.

Because the corporation’s mind set is about profit, profit, and profit. They find

out the way how to get more profit by reducing cost or increase their sales

without concern to social matters. For instance, some of products have been

produced with the high price but the cost or wages for the workers is very low.

This is a kind of matter that faced by people not for the corporations, because the

corporations do not concern to social life. The books also expressed the

corporation concern to health and safety in the organisation. Some of examples

were illustrated regarding the corporate misconduct to safety measure and cost

of benefits. Then Bakan demonstrated how the corporations were approaching

to its stakeholders through donations and lobbying, because they were in a

threaten condition. On this book he also proposed a kinds of improvement and

restructuring to power of corporation back to people, this kind of the claim to the

modern corporations because of their harm to the human life.

In conclusion, Bakan presented the argument to the corporations why it is an

appropriate entity of business involvement, he brought the readers to see the

idea of the corporation focused on that the shareholders with some kind values

of ownership and authority to conduct and control through impunity and

accountability regardless.

2. Learning gained from the reading

The book and documentary movie are worth reading. The book gives the reader

especially me to think the corporation’s purpose is not only for some people or

legal but how the corporations give positive impacts and influence to human life.

Concerned to the society is the most important factor to be learned, because

many corporations that mentioned on the book misconduct their rights to

society. They have got their right but only for the individual or some of people

14


purposes only. From this book, I also learned how the impact of the future

corporation if the company will not contribute or concern to the society and

environment. People will be like in the colony era and environment will be

extinct.

III. References

Abrash, A. (2002) Human Rights Abuses by Freeport Indonesia. Mineral Policy Institute [Online]. Available at: www.mpi.org.au/campaigns/rights/human_rights_abuses_freeport_indo/ (Accessed: 18 July 2009).

Amnestyusa.org (2002) Amnesty International’s Annual Report 2002. [Online]. Available at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/justearth/indonesia.pdf (Accessed: 14 August 2009).

Baker, M. Definition of CSR. [Online]. Available at: www.mallenbaker.net (Accessed: 18 July 2009).

Beratabui, C. [Online]. Available at: http://www.west-papua-netz.de/upload/racial_discrimination_papaua.pdf (Accessed: 13 July 2009).

Bernstein, A. (2005) Freeport's Hard Look At Itself [West Papua] [Online]. Available at: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/679002 (Accessed: 19 July 2009).

Blowfield (2004)(2005) in Idemudia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Blowfield (2005) 'Understanding The Concept of CSR', in Burchell, J. (ed.) The Corporate Social responsibility Reader. Great Britain: Routledge, p. 80.

Business-humanrights.org Case profile: Freeport-McMoRan lawsuits (re West Papua). [Online]. Available at: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Lawlawsuits/Lawsuitsregulatoryaction/LawsuitsSelectedcases/Freeport-McMoRanlawsuitsreWestPapua (Accessed: 19 July 2009).

Businessweek.com (2005) Freeport's Hard Look At Itself: The mining giant's gutsy human-rights audit may set a standard for multinationals [Online]. Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_43/b3956122.htm (Accessed: 19 July 2009).

Business-wire (1999) U.S. Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Dismissal Of Beanal Lawsuit; Freeport-McMoRan's Mining Operations Do Not Violate International Law. [Online]. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Dec_1/ai_57876395/.

15


Byblos-Manager (2006) 'CSR Domain', in Jamali, D. (ed.) Journal of Business Ethics: CSR theory and practice in a developing country context. Lebanon: Springer, pp. 252-253.

Direct.gov.uk Type of discrimination. [Online]. Available at: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026557 (Accessed: 26 July 2009).

Djmbp.esdm.go.id [Online]. Available at: http://www.djmbp.esdm.go.id/modules/news/index.php?_act=detail&sub=news_minerbapabum&news_id=574 (Accessed: 17 July 2009).

DPA (2009) Australian shot dead at Freeport mine in Indonesia's Papua. [Online]. Available at: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/277031,australian-shot-dead-at-freeport-mine-in-indonesias-papua.html (Accessed: 22 July 2009).

Fcx.com Education and training. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fcx.com/envir/ed_train.htm#case_study (Accessed: 16 July 2009).

Fcx.com Environmental Performance. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fcx.com/envir/envir_perf.htm (Accessed: 15 July 2009).

Fcx.com Volunteerism. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fcx.com/envir/volunteer.htm#volunteers (Accessed: 16 July 2009).

Freeport (2002) Real People Real Commitment. Papua: Freeport Indonesia [Online]. Available at: www.fcx.com (Accessed: 22 July 2008).

Freeport (2006) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. U.S: [Online]. Available at: http://www.fcx.com/ir/downloads/FCX200610K.pdf (Accessed: 20 July 2009).

Frynas (2005) in Idemudia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Heclo (1979) 'CSR, Government and Civil Society', in Moon, J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. United States: Oxford University Press, p. 305.

Hedman, E.-L. E. (2007) [Online]. Available at: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/PDFs/RSCworkingpaper42.pdf (Accessed: 16 July 2009).

Hunt, D. (1995) Environmental Management System: Principles and Practice. UK: McGraw-Hill.

Jenkins (2005) in Idemedia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Kapanlagi.com [Online]. Available at: http://www.kapanlagi.com/h/0000107739.html (Accessed: 16 July 2009).

Koch, F. (1979) The New corporate Philanthropy. New York and London: Plenum Press.

16


Laohamutuk.org Human Rights Abuses by Freeport in Indonesia. [Online]. Available at: http://www.laohamutuk.org/Oil/LNG/Refs/002AbrashFreeport.pdf (Accessed: 14 July 2009).

Leith, D. Freeport's trouble future. [Online]. Available at: http://insideindonesia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453&Itemid=29 (Accessed: 15 July 2009).

Levy, R. (1999) Give and Take: A Candid Account of Corporate Philanthropy. US: Harvard Business School Press.

Magazine.mining.com Freepoort Indonesia Issues. [Online]. Available at: www.magazine.mining.com/issues/0810/PTFreeportIndonesia.pdf (Accessed: 20 July 2009).

McWilliams (2006) 'CSR as A Field of Academic Inquiry: Definitions and Boundaries', in Crane, A. (ed.) the Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. UK: Oxford University Press, p. 5.

Menkokesra.go.id (2009) The reason of violence in Papua because of freeport injustice. [Online]. Available at: http://www.menkokesra.go.id/content/view/11859/1/ (Accessed: 22 July 2009).

Reuters.com Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (New York Stock Exchange). [Online]. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=FCX.N (Accessed: 17 July 2009).

Rosenau (2000) 'Global Governance: Towards a new world order', in Held, D. (ed.) The Corporate Social Responsiblity: Globalization. New York: Routledge, p. 21.

Schmitter (1979) 'CSR, Government, and Cilvil Society', in Moon, J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. United Stated: Oxford University Press, p. 305.

Shakely, J. (1977) 'Corporate Disclosure: Let the Sun Shine In', in Koch, F. (ed.) The New Corporate Philanthropy. New York and London: Plenum Press, p. 23.

Sociafunds.com (2006) Norwegian Government Pension Fund Dumps Wal-Mart and Freeport on Ethical Exclusions. [Online]. Available at: http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2034.html (Accessed: 20 July 2009).

Uthiny (2002) in Idemudia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Vires (2004) in Idemudia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Welford (2002) in Idemedia, U. (ed.) Conceptualising the CSR and developing debate: Bridging existing analytical gaps. Canada: York University, pp. 92-93.

Windsor (2006) 'Corporate Social Responsibility Theories', in Mele, D. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. US: Oxford New York Press, p. 48.

17


Zen (2006) Strikes and book launch keep Freeport-Rio Tinto in the news. [Online]. Available at: http://dte.gn.apc.org/73mi2.htm (Accessed: 14 July 2009)

18

Documents

Silent and Shadow by Zikri