Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Systems-Based Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Determinants of a Social License to Operate in the Mining Industry

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of a “social license to operate” (SLO) was coined in the 1990s and gained popularity as one way in which “social” considerations can be addressed in mineral development decision making. The need for a SLO implies that developers require the widespread approval of local community members for their projects to avoid exposure to potentially costly conflict and business risks. Only a limited amount of scholarship exists on the topic, and there is a need for research that specifically addresses the complex and changeable nature of SLO outcomes. In response to these challenges, this paper advances a novel, systems-based conceptual framework for assessing SLO determinants and outcomes in the mining industry. Two strands of systems theory are specifically highlighted—complex adaptive systems and resilience—and the roles of context, key system variables, emergence, change, uncertainty, feedbacks, cross-scale effects, multiple stable states, thresholds, and resilience are discussed. The framework was developed from the results of a multi-year research project which involved international mining case study investigations, a comprehensive literature review, and interviews conducted with mining stakeholders and observers. The framework can help guide SLO analysis and management efforts, by encouraging users to account for important contextual and complexity-oriented elements present in SLO settings. We apply the framework to a case study in Alaska, USA before discussing its merits and challenges. We also illustrate knowledge gaps associated with applications of complex adaptive systems and resilience theories to the study of SLO dynamics, and discuss opportunities for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Use of the concept of ‘governance’ implies not only that recent shifts in the way society is governed have occurred, but that solutions to contemporary societal issues can (and should) be achieved through the collective involvement of government, industry, and civil society actors.

  2. Whether or not a project proceeds can be the result of both government decisions (e.g. the granting of regulatory approvals) and company decisions (e.g. the choice to proceed with a project even in the face of community opposition). Outcomes may also differ over time as the actions of government and corporate actors change.

  3. This isn’t to say that broader societal acceptance (i.e. beyond that of local communities) can’t be granted for a project even though a local community is not supportive of it. Local communities may also accept the presence of a mine without acceptance occurring at the regional or national scales. However, the focus of this research has been specifically on communities located near mining projects.

  4. However, we again acknowledge that it may be in the interest of some local communities to halt or not commence mining operations in the first place.

  5. ‘NANA’ historically referred to Northwest Arctic Native Association.

  6. An administrative region with the same boundaries as the NANA region. The Borough receives about 60 percent of its revenue from Red Dog.

  7. For example, local (i.e. NANA) ownership of the mineral resource makes the Red Dog case somewhat unique in the field of mining case studies. Elsewhere, significant (negative) power differentials often exist between communities, companies, and the state that can make it difficult for communities to have their issues heard and addressed. Power, generally, plays an important role in crafting natural resource management outcomes (e.g. Cleaver 1999; Raik et al. 2008). NANA’s ownership of the mineral resource has helped strengthen its negotiating position with the mine operator and narrow what may otherwise be considered a power “gap.” NANA’s influence and representative role in the region has arguably also led to some local variables (as identified in Fig. 1) playing out at the broader regional scale.

  8. Some scholars opt for use of the term ‘resilience thinking’ rather than “resilience theory.” For example, Carpenter and Brock (2008, p. 40) note “Resilience is a broad, multifaceted, and loosely organized cluster of concepts, each one related to some aspect of the interplay of transformation and persistence. Thus, resilience does not come down to a single testable theory or hypothesis”. We have used the term resilience ‘theory’ in this paper in a general sense, to describe the broad set of principles it offers to explain how and why social-ecological systems persist, adapt, and transform.

References

  • Adger N (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27:629–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard C, Banks G (2003) Resource wars: the anthropology of mining. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:287–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton B (2002) Underlying concepts and theoretical issues in public participation in resources development. In: Zillman D, Lucas A, Pring G (eds) Human rights in natural resource development: public participation in the sustainable development of mining and energy resources. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 77–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington AJ, Bury JT (2009) Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability in Peru. PNAS 106:17296–17301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Introduction. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. PNAS 99:7280–7287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier R (2011) A stakeholder approach to issues management. Business Expert Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge G (2004) Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:205–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne AL, Stehlik D, Buckley A (2011) 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. Local Environ 16:707–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant R, Wilson G (1998) Rethinking environmental management. Prog Hum Geogr 22:321–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) (2003) The social licence to operate. Business for Social Responsibility, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell B (2003) Factoring in governance is not enough: mining codes in Africa, policy reform and corporate responsibility. Miner Energy Raw Mater Rep 18:2–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2008) Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecol Soc 13:40

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll AB, Shabana KM (2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. Int J Manage Rev 12:85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Folke C, Kofinas GP (2009a) A framework for understanding change. In: Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 3–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Olsson P, Abel N, Biggs R, Naylor RL, Pinkerton E, Stafford Smith M, Steffen W, Walker B, Young OR (2009b) Resilience-based stewardship: strategies for navigating sustainable pathways in a changing world. In: Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 319–337

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J, Wang H (2009) Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strateg Manag J 30:895–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver F (1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. J Int Dev 11:597–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DJ (2010) The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Soc Nat Resour 23:1135–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis R, Franks DM (2011) The costs of conflict with local communities in the extractive industry. Paper presented at SRMining 2011: first international seminar on social responsibility in mining, Santiago, Chile, 19–21 October 2011

  • Diamond J (1999) Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit A, Galaz V (2008) Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance theory. Governance 21:311–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit A, Galaz V, Eckerberg K, Ebbesson J (2010) Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob Environ Change 20:363–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst and Young (2012) Business risks facing mining and metals 2012–2013. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Business-risk-facing-mining-and-metals-2012-2013/$FILE/Business-risk-facing-mining-and-metals-2012-2013.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2012

  • Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 352–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockstrom J (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15:20–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks DM, Cohen T (2012) Social licence in design: constructive technology assessment within a mineral research and development institution. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:1229–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC (2007) Managing for stakeholders: survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz V, Olsson P, Hahn T, Folke C, Svedin U (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young O, Schroeder H, King L (eds) Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 147–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring T, Oberthur S (2008) Interplay: exploring institutional interaction. In: Young O, Schroeder H, King L (eds) Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 187–223

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 24:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham N, Kagan RA, Thornton D (2004) Social licence and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc Inquiry 29:307–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta J (2008) Global change: analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In: Young O, Schroeder H, King L (eds) Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 225–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haarstad H, Floysand A (2007) Globalization and the power of rescaled narratives: a case of opposition to mining in Tambogrande, Peru. Polit Geogr 26:289–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haley S, Fisher D (2012) Shareholder employment at Red Dog Mine. ISER Working Paper 2012-1. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage

  • Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood G (1995) Windy Craggy: an analysis of environmental interest group and mining industry approaches. Resour Policy 21:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial M (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ Manage 24:449–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) (2010) Good practice guide: Indigenous peoples and mining. ICMM, London

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Environment and Development and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (IIED and WBCSD) (2002) Breaking new ground: The report of the mining, minerals, and sustainable development project. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce S, Thomson I (2000) Earning a social license to operate: social acceptability and resource development in Latin America. Can Min Metall Bull 93:49–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp D (2010) Community relations in the global mining industry: exploring the internal dimensions of externally oriented work. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp D, Boele R, Brereton D (2006) Community relations management systems in the minerals industry: combining conventional and stakeholder-driven approaches. Int J Sustain Dev 9:390–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerin EJ, Lin HK (2010) Fugitive dust and human exposure to heavy metals around the Red Dog Mine. In: Whitacre DM (ed) Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 206. Springer, New York, pp 49–63

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch S (2007) Indigenous movements and the risks of counterglobalization: tracking the campaign against Papua New Guinea’s Ok Tedi mine. Am Ethnol 34:303–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick T, Forstater M, Monaghan P, Sillanpaa M (2005) The stakeholder engagement manual, vol 2: the practitioners handbook on stakeholder engagement. AccountAbility, United Nations Environment Programme, and Stakeholder Research Associates

  • Kurucz EC, Colbert BA, Wheeler D (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility. In: Crane A, McWilliams A, Matten D, Moon J, Seigel D (eds) The Oxford handbook on corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 83–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey J, Parsons R, Moffat K (2012) Exploring the concept of a social licence to operate in the Australian minerals industry: results from interviews with industry representatives. CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch-Wood G, Williamson D (2007) The social licence as a form of regulation for small and medium enterprises. J Law Soc 34:321–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald A, Gibson G (2006) The rise of sustainability: changing public concerns and governance approaches toward exploration, chap 8. Society of Economic Geologists Special Publication 12

  • Marin A, Wellman B (2011) Social network analysis: an introduction. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE Publications, London, pp 11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy DD, Tsuji L, Whitelaw GS (2010) The Victor Diamond Mine environmental assessment and the Mushkegowuk Territory First Nations: critical systems thinking and social justice. Can J Native Stud 30:83–116

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeman R (2010) On the origins of environmental migration. Fordham Environ Law Rev 20:403–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH (2008) In: Wright D (ed) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction

  • Mitchell B (2002) Resource and Environmental Management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffat K, Zhang A (2013) The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour Policy 39:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen JL (2006) Social licence to operate. Int J Min Reclam Environ 20:161–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen J, Scoble M (2006) Social licence to operate mines: issues of situational analysis and process. Department of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. http://www.mining.ubc.ca/files/SocialLicense/Final%20MPES%20Paper.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2011

  • Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104:15181–15187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Owen JR, Kemp D (2013) Social licence and mining: a critical perspective. Resour Policy 38:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce TD, Ford JD, Prno J, Duerden F, Pittman J, Beaumier M, Berrang-Ford L, Smit B (2011) Climate change and mining in Canada. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 16:347–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pring G, Noe SY (2002) The emerging international law of public participation affecting global mining, energy, and resources development. In: Zillman D, Lucas A, Pring G (eds) Human rights in natural resource development: Public participation in the sustainable development of mining and energy resources. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 11–76

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prno J (2013) An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resour Policy 38:577–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prno J (forthcoming) Establishing a social licence to operate amidst complexity: issues and opportunities for mining industry governance. PhD Thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo

  • Prno J, Slocombe DS (2012) Exploring the origins of ‘social licence to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour Policy 37:346–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prno J, Bradshaw B, Lapierre D (2010) Impact and benefit agreements: are they working? Paper presented at the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum annual meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 9–11 May 2010

  • Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) (2013) e3 plus: a framework for responsible exploration. http://www.pdac.ca/e3plus/. Accessed 28 Jan 2011

  • Raik DB, Wilson AL, Decker DJ (2008) Power in natural resources management: an application of theory. Soc Nat Resour 21:729–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees C, Kemp D, Davis R (2012) Conflict management and corporate culture in the extractive industries: a study in Peru. Corporate social responsibility initiative report no. 50. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge

  • Resilience Alliance (2010) Assessing resilience in social–ecological systems: workbook for practitioners, version 2.0. http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php. Accessed 28 Nov 2012

  • Sagebien J, Lindsay NM (2011) Systemic causes, systemic solutions. In: Sagebien J, Lindsay NM (eds) Governance ecosystems: CSR in the Latin American mining sector. Palgrave MacMillan, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shepheard ML, Martin PV (2008) Social licence to irrigate: the boundary problem. Soc Altern 27:32–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater W, Moar R, Lemieux-Tremblay J (2011) Building relationships and capacity with First Nation communities affected by mine closure. Paper presented at the Mine Closure 2011 conference, Lake Louise, Alberta, 18–21 September 2011

  • State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (2001) Public health evaluation of exposure of Kivalina and Noatak residents to heavy metals from Red Dog Mine. October 25, 2001. Prepared by Environmental Public Health Program, Section of Epidemiology, Alaska Division of Public Health

  • Storey K, Hamilton LC (2003) Planning for the impacts of megaprojects: Two North American examples. In: Rasmussen RO, Koroleva NE (eds) Social and environmental impacts in the north: Methods in evaluation of socio-economic and environmental consequences of mining and energy production in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 281–302

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tetra Tech Inc (2009) Red Dog Mine Extension—Aqqaluk Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, vol 1. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2009

  • Thomson I, Boutilier RG (2011) The social licence to operate. In: Darling P (ed) SME mining engineering handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Littleton

    Google Scholar 

  • Veiga MM, Scoble M, McAllister ML (2001) Mining with communities. Nat Resour Forum 25:191–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Meyers JA (2004) Thresholds in ecological and social-ecological systems: a developing database. Ecol Soc 9:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Salt D (2012) Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function. Island Press, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Carpenter SR, Anderies J, Abel N, Cumming G, Janssen M, Lebel L, Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchard R (2002) Resilience management in social–ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv Ecol 6:14–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Carpenter SR, Rockstrom J, Crepin A, Peterson GD (2012) Drivers, “slow” variables, “fast” variables, shocks, and resilience. Ecol Soc 17:30

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber Scannel P (2005) Comparison of mainstem Red Dog Creek pre-mining and current conditions. Scannell Technical Services, March 2005. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/habitat/03_2005.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2013

  • Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, Lambin E, Sendzimir J, Banerjee B, Galaz V, van der Leeuw S (2011) Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO 40:762–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Canada Graduate Scholarship Program, the Government of Canada’s Northern Scientific Training Program, WLU graduate scholarships, the WLU TransCanada Pipelines Award, and the Dr. John McMurry Research Chair in Environmental Geography. We would also like to thank the Red Dog Mine for arranging an insightful three day site tour, and NANA Regional Corporation and the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research for providing in-kind support and assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada

    Jason Prno & D. Scott Slocombe

Authors
  1. Jason Prno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Scott Slocombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Prno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S. A Systems-Based Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Determinants of a Social License to Operate in the Mining Industry. Environmental Management 53, 672–689 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0221-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0221-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation