Original articleVirtuous natural resource development: The evolution and adaptation of social licence in the mining sector
Introduction
A social license to operate (SLO) refers to the level of acceptance or approval by local communities and stakeholders of organisations and their operations. The concept of SLO has evolved fairly recently from the broader and more established notions of “corporate social responsibility” and “social acceptability”. Though not that old, social license to operate has long been understood to play a vital function in society whereby social norms can precede and supersede legal rules (Thomson and Boutilier, 2011; Gehman et al., 2017). In fact, local communities and other affected stakeholders have emerged as particularly important governance actors demanding that companies align themselves more closely with the tenets of sustainable and environmentally friendly development, of which increased community participation in decision making is a central goal.
On the other hand, it is increasingly evident for the mining industry sector that just obtaining an official mining license from the authorities and meeting the regulatory requirements is no longer sufficient (Prno and Slocombe, 2012; Moffat and Zhang, 2014). Characteristic examples of advanced exploration projects and early mining projects being delayed, interrupted and even shut down due to social arguments and public opposition have been extensively discussed in the past (Browne et al., 2011; Davis and Franks, 2011; Thomson and Boutilier, 2011; Prno and Slocombe, 2012; Boutilier and Thomson, 2018).
At the same time, mining has also undergone notable changes in governance and in exploitation strategies towards the optimisation of mining operations, the minimisation of risks and the preservation of the environment, with a constant view to the new era of digitalisation.
However, mining remains a conservative industry following a slow pace in changing, while the changing conditions are not the same for mining projects in different environments and countries around the world. Correspondingly, the optimisation of mining operations, the updating of the regulation frameworks and the adoption of SLO in local mining industry sectors around the globe is not evenly done. There is an evidently different approach of the social license concept and its implementation in North American, African, Asian, Australasian or European countries.
Section snippets
Evolution of a metaphor
Since the beginning of civilisation, mining has been considered an integral part of our everyday life, enabling the continuous development of mankind and making possible the high-tech world that we live in today. Everything from the miniaturisation of electronics, to enabling green energy and medical technologies among others is based on the properties of minerals and metals. This acceptance in a global range, however, is not necessarily met at a local level, where the social license is rooted
Evolution of a metaphor
As indicated above, the exact definition of SLO has remained elusive and even possibly diffuse. This is not a bad thing, in a theoretical sense. SLO has become mainstream in the lexicon of most participants and affected communities of interest dealing with natural resource development. The ambiguity and lack of an agreed upon definition has created confusion and uncertainty on one hand, but on the other has effectively provided a platform for dialogue and conversation where perhaps historically
SLO in the eye of the beholder
The papers in the volume now move into the realm of describing how SLO presents itself in several distinct global geographic regions. As discussed above, much of the emergent elegance of describing or defining SLO comes from the diversity of political, social and regulatory regimes where it happens, the worldview of the affected communities of interest right down to the mineral products considered (Hitch and Lytle, 2017). Collins and Kumral (2020) review how changing the ‘language’ of social
SLO as complex power relationships
SLO has been criticised as something that lack utility and lacking any legitimate management framework. In our final paper of this volume, Robert Boutilier discusses the politicisation of social license. Boutilier (2020) highlights the fact that the notion of SLO has suffered because of its apparent lack of hard boundaries; those things that define it as something that is measurable and immediately apparent. Much like the dissolution of the term ‘sustainability’, and definitions and
Concluding remarks: reflecting upon the journey
Through the papers in this special volume, we have seen how the original usage of the term ‘social licence’, used to describe the challenge of building relationships with communities located around mining projects and corporate behaviour and corporate social responsibility, has evolved into a condition that implies community support for mining operations. Today, the term has become a prescriptive norm that industrial actors aspire to achieve. Due to the fact that ‘social licence’ lacks the
References (43)
- et al.
Societal acceptance of wind farms: analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies
Energy Policy
(2013) - et al.
Miners and mendicants: a cautionary tale
Extract. Ind. Soc.
(2019) - et al.
The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining
Resour. Policy
(2014) - et al.
Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories
Resour. Policy
(2012) Community Engagement and Development: Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry
(2006)- et al.
Insertion of the social license to operate into the early evaluation of technical and economic aspects of mining projects: experiences from the Norra Kärr and Bokan Dotson rare earth element projects
Extract. Ind. Soc.
(2020) The social licence as a framework for managing cumulative impacts: a case study of the Upper Hunter mining dialogue
From metaphor to political spin: understanding criticisms of the social license
Extract. Ind. Soc.
(2020)- et al.
The Social License: The Story of the San Cristobal Mine
(2018) - et al.
Social licences to operate: for better not for worse; for richer not for poorer? The impacts of unplanned mining closure for “fence line” residential communities
Int. J. Justice Sustain.
(2011)
A critical perspective on social license to operate terminology for Canada's most vulnerable mining communities
Extract. Ind. Soc.
Reflections on the 20th anniversary of the term ‘social licence
J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law
Social Licence to Operate, Minerals Down Under
The Costs of Conflict with Local Communities in the Extractive Industry
Can't climb the trees anymore: social licence to operate, bioenergy and whole stump removal in Sweden
Soc. Epistemol.
Social license needs business strategy
Extract. Ind. Soc.
Timber Giant Gunns felled by the ‘Perfect Storm
Social license to operate: legitimacy by another name?
New Front.
From public relations to mob rule: media framing of social licence in Canada
Can. J. Commun.
Social license and environmental protection: why business go beyond compliance
Law Soc. Inq.
Cited by (17)
Social License to Operate (SLO): Private governance and barriers to community engagement
2024, Extractive Industries and SocietyExploring broad value creation in mining - Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management in practice
2024, Extractive Industries and SocietyEvaluation of green mine construction level in Tibet based on entropy method and TOPSIS
2024, Resources PolicyThe role of intercultural differences and challenges faced in negotiating active mine sites'rehabilitation objectives from Africa to Europe
2023, Extractive Industries and SocietyPipeline conflicts, coalitions, and strategic action: A review of the literature
2023, Extractive Industries and SocietyGreen hydrogen: Pathways, roadmap, and role in achieving sustainable development goals
2023, Process Safety and Environmental Protection