Original article
Virtuous natural resource development: The evolution and adaptation of social licence in the mining sector

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100902Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Exploring the origins and the evolution of the social license to operate concept.

  • Implementation and significance of the social license to operate in decision making.

  • Evaluating the balance between the need for raw materials and the protection of the environment and society.

  • Social license as both a metaphor for trust and a placeholder in the virtue of goodwill.

Abstract

This paper introduces a collection of manuscripts compiled for a special section of The Extractive Industries and Society on the Embedding of Social Licence and Social Licence to Operate (SLO). Our introduction paper positions these pieces within a framework of what the original intended notion of SLO was from its conception, to how the term has adapted to different regional and local conditions and finally, what are the challenges and potential limitations are going forward. By its very nature of something that is intangible, SLO is a metaphor characterising a relationship between affected communities of interest, while at the same time it inculcates a type of virtue as goodwill, shared amongst them. How the metaphor and the virtuous goodwill plays out, presents the emergent nature of SLO and opens the opportunity for it to blossom.

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)

  • B.C. Collins et al.

    A critical perspective on social license to operate terminology for Canada's most vulnerable mining communities

    Extract. Ind. Soc.

    (2020)
  • J. Cooney

    Reflections on the 20th anniversary of the term ‘social licence

    J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law

    (2017)
  • Social Licence to Operate, Minerals Down Under

    (2013)
  • R. Davis et al.

    The Costs of Conflict with Local Communities in the Extractive Industry

    (2011)
  • P. Edwards et al.

    Can't climb the trees anymore: social licence to operate, bioenergy and whole stump removal in Sweden

    Soc. Epistemol.

    (2014)
  • Ernst and Young (2020) Top 10 Business Rsiks and opportunities- 2020....
  • J. Fraser et al.

    Social license needs business strategy

    Extract. Ind. Soc.

    (2020)
  • F. Gale

    Timber Giant Gunns felled by the ‘Perfect Storm

    (2012)
  • J. Gehman et al.

    Social license to operate: legitimacy by another name?

    New Front.

    (2017)
  • S. Gunster et al.

    From public relations to mob rule: media framing of social licence in Canada

    Can. J. Commun.

    (2018)
  • N. Gunningham et al.

    Social license and environmental protection: why business go beyond compliance

    Law Soc. Inq.

    (2004)
  • Cited by (17)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text