Abstract
The concept of community-based health and wellness center of the mining company is a convergence of three innovations.  The mining company is in fact a product of economic innovation and technological innovation, which over a long period of time has progressed to what the state of art of mining, is today.  If it embarks on a community-based center, then it would be a testimony to the dynamism of social innovation, which probably has lagged behind the economic and technological innovation. Because of related environmental issues that directly harm and endanger the community in which mining operations take place, it is imperative that mining companies embark towards social innovation.  The framework for Community-based health center is based on: 1. CSR, CSV and CSI of companies that move from philanthropic endeavors to shared values with the beneficiaries and sustainable programs in the community. 2. Social work principles that developed communities through OD community organizing which is community centered to social innovation through entrepreneurial social development and financially sustainable communities using sweat equity of the powerless.

1.    Social Innovation
If mining companies envision a sustainable economic operation, it must venture into social innovation as a necessary component of its current technological and economic innovations which has lead to its successful mining operations thus far.

The history of social innovation started in 1297 as Innovation, 1500 as Novateur (innovator, trail blazer, avant-garde), 1529 as Innovator, 1803 as Social innovation, 1805 as Social Innovator, 1808 as Innovation sociable and 1834 as Novateur sociale.

In The Businessman as Social Innovator published in 1975, K. McQuaid compared Nelson O. Nelson, an
American reformer of the late nineteenth-early twentieth century who was not in step with the trends of his time, to Richard Owen. Nelson had launched cooperative plans and shared profits with his employees; organized rurally-based answers to city problems, cooperative credit societies, industrial education projects; and launched a chain of grocery stores to serve the inhabitants of New Orleans’ poorer wards (McQuaid, 1975).

According to Godin (2012) after 1789, social innovation gradually achieved a positive connotation and was gradually seen as positive taking its preeminence in discourses due to moral uses. By the 19th century, socialism has made social innovation mainstream.  The recent use or explosion of social innovation in related literature re-emerged as something new in a positive light in the second half of the 20th century. In the 21st century, it is resurrected as a political reaction to technological innovation and to the hegemonic discourses on technology. Significantly, social innovation today shows alternatives to established solutions to social problems or needs, namely to technological innovation and State or government-supported social reform (Godin, 2012a).

Sargant (1809-1889), English businessman, political economist and educational reformer said, “The present generation is distinguished by an honorable desire to promote the well-being of the most numerous, and least fortunate, classes of society”. “By bettering artificially the condition of the poor, [political economy] encourage[s] an undue increase in numbers” (Sargant, 1858, iii-v). To Sargant, “health of the body and of mind” are “obtained not by ease, not by indulgence, but by active participation” (p. 7). His conclusion is: Work is better aid than welfare.

In 1859, an anonymous British writer made a comment against social innovators.  He said, “The first and most universal characteristic of the social innovator is a profound ignorance, and often a violent abhorrence, of political economy”(Anonymous, 1859, pp. 344-45).  In short, the social innovators “ignore the limits imposed on social arrangements by economic laws” (Godin, 2012a, p.12).

In 1886, Rizal published his first novel, Noli Me Tangere (The Social Cancer), a passionate exposure of the evils of Spanish rule in the Philippines. A sequel, El Filibusterismo (The Reign of Greed (1891) the corruption of Manila Spanish society and stimulated the movement for independence. Rizal, as social reformer and in one sense an innovator used his literary talent to change Hispanic society and by 1898, Emilio Aquinaldo initiated a political innovation by leading the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish regime.

According to Godin (2012) social innovation came to be equated with political revolutions and revolutionaries. His  model was  the English political revolution of 1649. After 1789, the iconic image of violent political revolution was the French revolution. And almost 100 years later, this was exported to the Philippines in as much as propagandists like Rizal lived and studied in Europe as children of the European revolution. Greeley introduced the concept of social innovation and applied it to all those who have “vanquished Pauperism and Servitude”, among them the Shakers (Greeley, 1845).

Social innovation appeared after the French revolution. It meant many things then. The two main representations of social innovation were socialism (radicalism) and social reform (humanism, egalitarianism). The association between social innovation and socialism was first made by the socialists themselves in France in the 1830s and 1840s. But critics like the political economists and some Christian writers turned the concept into a pejorative category, contrasting innovation to reform (Godin, 2012).

Social innovation is “new ideas that work in meeting social needs” and more specifically, “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan, 2007, p. 8).  This definition can be used with reference to the creation of community-based health center as a matter of social responsibility of mining companies.

2.    Social Responsibility and Mining Companies
If the mining companies would take the challenge of doing social innovation, it must learn to understand the development of corporate social responsibility which advanced the notion of stakeholder theory.  Stakeholder theory calls for responsibility to all concerned within the corporation and be equally concerned with people and environment outside the corporation.

The origins of CSR. The history of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is almost as old as the existence of companies. The excesses of the East India Company were common in the 17th century when the sun never set on UK and her colonies. But there were benevolent capitalism in the UK for over 150 years. The Quakers [Barclays and Cadbury] and socialists [Engels and Morris] who experimented with socially responsible and values-based business. Thus, Victorian philanthropy could be said to be responsible for considerable portions of the urban landscape of older town center in UK today (Henriques, 2005).

In the late 18th century, the British completed the first industrial revolution; modern enterprises have fully developed, but the concept of corporate social responsibility has not yet appeared. In practice, corporate social responsibility was limited to the owners’ of personal moral behavior. The starting point of the corporate social responsibility idea was Adam Smith’s (1904) “invisible hand”.  Based on the theory of classical economics, it was  believed that society through the market can best determine the need, if an enterprise as far as possible,  has efficient use of resources to provide products and services, and the consumer who is willing to pay the price. In this sense, the enterprise make its own social responsibility.
At the end of the 18th Century, the social responsibility of the Western enterprises began to have a delicate change; the performance for small business owners  often contributed monetary support to the school, the church and the poor.

At the beginning of the 19thCentury, the Industrial Revolution brought about the great leap of social productive forces, the development of enterprises in the number and the scale of greater degree of development. This period is affected by the influence of “social Darwinism”, where many enterprises did not take the initiative to undertake social responsibility. The enterprise was closely related to suppliers and the employees were exploited in the face of a strong social competition.

In the latter part of the 19th Century the enterprise system gradually recognized that the working class has their own rights. During this period, the U.S. government issued a series of “antitrust law” and “consumer protection law” to suppress unlawful behavior of the enterprises. At this time, the concept of corporate social responsibility appeared to be inevitable (www.cssn.cn). With the economic and social progress, the enterprise is not only responsible for the profit, but also responsible for the environment, and assume the corresponding social responsibilities (Baidu, 2015).

By the end of the 20th century, the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) was made prominent by Archie Carroll (1991; 1999) whose CSR pyramid of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic activities is now considered a classic framework for CSR practitioners. The basis of what we consider to be the modern definition of CSR is rooted in Archie Carroll’s “Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.”

This pyramid has four types of responsibilities. The first and most obvious is the economic responsibility to be profitable. The second is the legal responsibility to obey the laws set forth by society. The third is closely linked to the second, is the ethical responsibility. The fourth is the philanthropic responsibility. It is also called the discretionary responsibility; it is best described by the resources contributed by corporations towards society. This contribution is based on the stakeholder’s theory, which includes for the community.

Kanter (1999) perceived “all social problems are economic problems.” She noted that “companies…are moving beyond corporate social responsibility to corporate social innovation. These companies are the vanguard of the new paradigm. They view community needs as opportunities to develop ideas and demonstrate business technologies, to find and serve new markets, and to solve long-standing business problems. They focus their efforts on inventing sophisticated solutions through a hands-on approach.”   She initiated the term “corporate social innovation” but was overrun by corporate social initiatives (CSI).

Corporate Social Initiative (CSI). In the 21st century, corporations are challenged to involve themselves in community projects (Alperson, 1996; Hess, Rogovsk, and Dunfee, 2002, Habaradas, 2013). More than mere philanthropic dole outs CSR must have sustainable projects to address social needs (Hess & Warren, 2008).

In the Philippines, The Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) founded in 1970 has involved 260 large, medium-scale and small businesses to alleviate poverty.  It has benefited 4.5 million Filipinos and has assisted over 6,200 social development projects through more than PHP 7 billion in grants and development loans. (www.pbsp.org.ph).

The League of Corporate Foundations (LCF) founded in 1996 is promoting CSR among 78 corporation members whose foundations and institutions (Del Rosario, 2008). Homintz (2013) study indicates that the LCF are creating shared value (CSV) with the community in the Philippines. He says, “Implementing such cultural values would speed up the integration process while at the same time allow companies to become more in touch with what the community needs…to eventually create a synergetic effect in which both the company and society will benefit” (Tomintz, 2013).

Habardas (2012b) observed that “a company’s primary motive for undertaking philanthropy can shift over time, and this results into a corresponding change in its philanthropic approach. In the case of Shell in the Philippines, its philanthropic activities started with altruistic motives, but were later designed to legitimize its presence in communities in which it operates”.

CSV according to Porter & Kramer (2011) puts social issues at the heart of corporate concern.  Like CSI, it is driven by competitiveness of a company that serves and creates socio-economic synergy.  This vital link between societal and economic progress has the power to unleash the next wave of global growth and to redefine capitalism.

Pfitzer, Bockstette and Stamp (2013) studied Dow Chemical, Nestle, Norvatis, Mars, and Intel as examples CSV application.  Their CSV model requires corporations to have: 1.social purpose, 2. defined need, 3. measurement, 4. right innovation structure, and 5. co-creation modality. They concluded that the degree to which the potential for shared value can be anticipated and aligned with the company’s financial criteria determines the optimal innovation structure forth social venture.”

CSR’s three theaters. The CSR of the future is based on five principles: creativity, scalability, responsiveness, glocality and circularity and forms the basis for a new DNA model of responsible business, built around the four elements of value creation, good governance, societal contribution and environmental integrity (Visser, 2012).

Rangan, Chase, and Karim (2015) in their research involving 142 managers studied for four years suggest that operationalizing CSR involves three areas: Theater one: focusing on philanthropy, Theater two: improving operational effectiveness, and Theater three: transforming the business model.  They suggested developing a unified practice platform for CSR by 1. Pruning and aligning Programs within theaters. 2. Developing metrics to gauge performance. 3. Coordinating programs across theaters. 4. Developing an interdisciplinary CSR Strategy.

Colonized Asia needs to update its legal framework into the 21st century to meet the challenges of a globalized and regionalized ASEAN interdependent business climate where laws passed in decades were influenced by and patterned after Western colonial models. It is about time that Asia connects itself to its Asian traditions to anchor and enrich their respective CSR practices.

Sharma (2013) observes that meaning and nature of CSR in the region from the “unique cultural identity, such as the danwei in China; the Gandhian notion of “trusteeship” in India; the 17th century mercantilist responsibility as defined in the Shuchu Kiyaku in Japan; the concept of bayanihan in the Philippines; gotong-royong in Indonesia and the Buddhist dharma in Thailand (p. 13). But it is interesting to note that the emerging CSR in China and India is not going to be philanthropic; they are making CSR mandatory in order to address their enormous poverty issue (Afsharipour & Rana, 2014). But institutionally, Catholic business schools in the Philippines are vanguards of the global Catholic social teachings that promote social justice and humanistic management (Hudtohan, 2015).

Catholic Philippines colonized for more than 400 years has not fully explored bayanihan as corporate CSR value driver.  Christian charity has been a hallmark for philanthropic sharing and giving that continues to encourage mendicancy and life-long poverty (Hudtohan, 2014).

3.    Community Development Models
Finally, if the mining companies would like to seriously address the stakeholder that are directly affected by its operation, then it must create within its organizations structure a unit responsible for the sustainable development of the community within its area of responsibility.

Mining companies who are considering a community-based CSR program can learn from Filipino social scientists whose community development approach may strengthen their programs.  For the past three decades social work in the Philippines has progressed from charitable-dole outs to the financially less empowered to community work through organizational development (Cura, 1986) of Asian Social Institute to community organization (Buenviaje, 2005) of International Rural Reconstruction Institute, Phils. Then Netario Cruz (2014) introduced a social entrepreneurship model specifically addressing the funds of a sustainable enterprise.  Meloto (2014) broke away from the inclusive spiritual development of Couples for Christ and embarked on a social innovation using sweat equity as capital for Gawad Kalinga (give care) whose mission is to end poverty for 5 million families by 2024.

Organization Development in community. In 1986, Dr. Nenita did a study among the Filipino fishermen and she developed an organizational development model for community development. The five stages are 1. Apathy where the beneficiaries feel there is no Problem in their midst; Stage 2: Dependency where they recognize they are part of the problem but the solution must come from the outside; 3. Pre-critical stage where there is recognition that they are part of the problem; 4. Liberation when they build local alliance and link with global assistance.

Community Organization. Dr. Orly Buenviaje (2005) recognized that the heart of community development is a long process of awakening the beneficiaries.  Phase 1 is Pre-entry where the community organizer is an outsider who is doing Pakikibalita (finding out what is going on); Phase 2 is  Entry into the community where the CO penetrates the outer layer through Pakikiramdam (gut feeling and empathy); Phase 3 where the CO undergoes Immersion with the people, penetrating the inner layer through Pakikiramdam (fellowship); Phase 4 is  Community Organization proper where the CO enters the middle layer through  Pakiki-alam (intervention); and  Phase 5 is Phase-over when the CO succeeds in getting the community involved Pakikisangkot (committed action)

Gawad Kalinga Model.  Tony Meloto started the Gawad Kalinga (GK) in 1995.  The Enchanted Farm Social Innovation adopts the Middle Brother Model with the following three components, namely:  a) The “Kuya” composed of Business, Government and the Academe, b) The “Diko” consisting of the Social Entrepreneurs, and c) The “Sangko” who compose the GK Enchanted Farm Community Residents. This group composes the army who are fully committed to eradicate poverty in the Philippines (Ocampo, 2014).

Social Optimum Development. Jean Netario Cruz, a certified integrative well-being coach, created the Social Optimum Development Quadrant of Sustainability combines is a social entrepreneurship approach to social development. The approach involves the partnership of social entrepreneurs, social investors, and the participating community.  The key initiative realistically identifies funding that will roll out a seed project for human development. (http://sodqos. weebly.com/about-the-author.html).

4.     Proposed Community-based Center:
The mining companies venturing into a community-based health center may use the DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment Strategy) model.  It believes that:

1.    Health Promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and improve their health. It involves the population as whole in the context of their everyday life, rather than focusing on people at risk from specific diseases.

2.    Health promotion aims to generate living and working conditions that are safe, stimulating, satisfying and enjoyable. Changing patterns of life, work, and leisure have significant impact on health. Work and leisure should be source of health for people. The way communities organize work should help create healthy society.

3.    The responsibility for health promotion in health services is shared among individuals, community groups, health professionals, health service institutions, and governments. They must work together towards healthcare system which contributes to the pursuit of health.

4.    The needs of individuals and communities for healthier life, and open channels between the health sector and the broader social, political, economic, and physical environmental components. Standards and guide lines are also needed for the delivery of specific programs, packaging of health services, and innovative strategies to make the health programs more responsive to the needs of the people in particular communities.

5.    Target groups in TB Control Program: Health Promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and improve their health. Involves the population as whole in the context of their everyday life, rather than focusing on people at risk from specific diseases. Health promotion aims to generate living and working conditions that are safe, stimulating,

6.    Satisfying and enjoyable. Changing patterns of life, work, and leisure have significant impact on health. Work and leisure should be source of health for people. The way communities organize work should help create healthy society.

7.    The role of the health sector must move increasingly in health promotion direction, beyond its responsibility for providing clinical and curative services. Health services need to embrace an expanded mandate that is sensitive and that respects cultural needs. This mandate should support the needs of individuals and communities for healthier life, and open channels between the health sector and the broader social, political, economic, and physical environmental components. Standards and guidelines are also needed for the delivery of specific programs, packaging of health services, and innovative strategies to make the health programs more responsive to the needs of the people in particular communities.

Target Groups in the Promotion Health and Wellness:

1.    Health workers to: a. Disseminate Correct and Timely information on health and wellness, b. be more proactive in case finding, and c. promote the community-based health program.

2.    Local chief executives and other legislators to: a. provide policy, financial, logistical, and human resource   support to the health program.

3.    Health care Practitioners to: assist in the promotion of community health ad wellness.

4.    Community members who have symptoms of diseases from mining to  seek immediate Consultation

5.    Mining Patients to remain under the care of the Community-based health and wellness center.

6.    Media to Disseminate Correct information in support of the Community-based health and wellness program.

7.    Community organizations/groups to participate in case detection, treatment, and prevention activities to sustain the health and wellness of the mining community.

Community-based Health Promotion and Wellness Programs:

1.    Medical Health Insurance benefits for all employees and their family
2.    Hospitalization privileges for all regular employees
3.    Satellite clinics composed of physicians of different specializations providing free consultations to immediate dependents of all regular employees.
4.    Conduct of annual of flu, pneumonia, cervical cancer, and hepatitis B vaccinations.
5.    Regular Medical Check-up
6.    Education on herbal medicines
7.    Signatory of the MOA on TB at the workplace
8.    Free dental and EENT services
9.    Free laboratory examination services
10.     Free clinic and outpatient services
11.    Maternal and Child Healthcare and Nutrition

Other Community Programs:
1.    Environment protection
2.     Hygiene and sanitation
3.     Green workplace
4.    waste management and waste segregation
5.    Sports and leisure
6.    Spirituality of workers – faith-related activities (religious services)
7.    Labor education seminars integrating value formation for union members/spouses as well as for managerial employees
8.    Advocacy on Gender Issues and Gender equality -Programs on gender equality, anti-sexual harassment and educational advancement
9.    Stress management programs
10.    Income generation, livelihood and cooperatives

Conclusion
The DOTS model has been a tested model in getting the community to participate and become gatekeepers of their own health.  If the mining companies will take seriously their social responsibility for the community, then it is a must that they invest in setting up a health and wellness center for all stakeholders.  The internal stakeholders are the members of the mining company and the external stakeholders are members of the community when the mine is operating.

The community-based wellness model involves partnership of the mining company with the community and with the government agency. It is expected that the community-based health center be approached from the viewpoint of the mining community.  This requires community organizing.

The mining company must move from a philanthropic CSR to corporate social initiatives (CSI), if it desires to have a sustainable impact on community wellness.

References

Afsharipour, A. & Rana, S. (2013-2014) The Emergence of New Corporate Social Responsibility Regimes
in China and Inda. UC Davis Business Law Journal[Vol. 14(1).
Anonymous. (1866), Anthropology and Social Innovation, Popular Magazine of
Anthropology, 1 (3), 92-97.
Buenviaje, Orlando. (2005). The heart of community organizing.
Carroll, Archie B. (1999), Corporate Social Responsibility. Business and Society.  38(3).
Cruz, Jean Netario. (n.d.). Social Optimum Development  Quadrant of Sustainability.
http://greenmindedinc.weebly.com/initiatives.html
Cura, Nenita. (1986). The Role of Organization Development Involving a Model of Social Liberation
Amongst the Fishermen in Rizal.  A doctoral dissertation, Asian Social Institute, Manila.
Godin, B. (2012a). Innovation in Post-Revolutionary France, Project on the Intellectual
History of Innovation, INRS: Montreal.
Godin, B.  (2012). Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present. Montréal,
Quebec Canada: Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 11 2012.
Greeley, H. (1845), The Idea of Social Reform, The Universalist Quarterly, 3,136-347. In Godin, B. Social
Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present. Montréal,
Quebec Canada: Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 11 2012.
Habaradas, Raymund. (September 2012).  Shifting Philanthropic Motives: Shell’s Corporate Social
Initiatives in the Philippines.  International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(17).
Henriques, A. (May 26, 2005). Ten things you always wanted to know about CSR (but were afraid to ask);
Part One: A brief history of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Ethical Corporation Magazine.
Hess. D., Rogovsky, N., Dunfee, T.W. (2002). The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement:
Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review. 44(2).
Hess, D. & Warren, D. E.(2008). The Meaning and Meaningfulness of Corporate Social Initiatives.
Business & Society Review, 113, 2.
Hudtohan, E.T. (July 28, 2014). A nation of mercy and compassion.  Greenlight. Manila Standard Today.
Hudtohan, E.T. (2015).  Spiritually-driven Management in the 21st Century. For publication in San Beda
College Graduale School Journal of Business and Development.
McQuaid, K. (1975), The Businessman as Social Innovator. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
34 (4), 411-22.
Mulgan, G. (2007).  Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated, SKOLL
Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Oxford, Said School of Business.
Ocampo, T. (2014). Case Study Research on Social Innovation.  A paper presented as a requirement for a
DBA course in Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, Management Organization
Department, De La Salle University, Manila.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V. and Stamp, M. (September 2013). Innovating for Shared Value. Harvard
Business Review.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1)
Rangan, V.K., Chase, L. & Karim, S. (January–February 2015). The Truth about CSR. Harvard Business
Review.
Sargant, W. L. (1858). Social Innovators and Their Schemes. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Sharma, B. (2013). Contextualising CSR in Asia: Corporate Social Responsibility in Asian economies.
Singapore: Lien Centre for Social Innovation
Tomintz.  Harald Eustachius Alvarado. (2013). Shared Value in the Philippines: A Study on the Efforts of the                      League of Corporate Founds. Masteral thesis in International Business and Law,  Management Center Innsbruck.    Austria.
USAID and TBlinc. (2008). The Health Promotion Handbook
Visser, W. (2012). The Future of CSR: Towards Transformative CSR, or CSR 2.0. Kaleidoscope Futures
Paper Series, No. 1.

Dr. Jeanne T. Valderrama, MD is currently physician of Assumption College, San Lorenzo, Makati City, Philippines and a consulting physician of Barangay San Lorenzo. She is a pulmonary medicine and tuberculosis

control consultant. She was former director of the Field Operations Division of Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.   and served as Tuberculosis Control Specialist of USAID funded “Health Promotion and Communications” Project in the Philippines. She has participated in International Medical Symposia as lecturer on TB Control. She is a director of AcademiX2Business Consultancy, Inc.

Dr. Emiliano T. Hudtohan, EdD is a retired professor of De La Salle University, Manila College of Business; he currently teaches at the De La Salle Araneta University, Malabon Graduate School, San Beda College Graduate School and De La Salle College of St. Benilde Graduate School. His field of interest and expertise is business ethics and corporate social responsibility. He has delivered papers on mining sustainability and corporate social responsibility at the international seminar held in Unaaha, Konawe and recently a paper on Asean economic integration and corporate social initiatives at Halo Oleo State University, Kendari, Sulawesi, Indonesia. He was a columnist of Manila Standard Today. He is president and co-founder of AcademiX2Business Consultancy, Inc.