Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Social License to Operate Toward a Just Transition

Lessons from the Extractive Industries

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Social License to Operate and Energy Transitions

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Energy Transitions ((PSET))

  • 50 Accesses

Abstract

Mining has undergone notable shifts in governance, largely aimed at improving the environmental and social performance of the sector. These shifts have broadened the range of governing actors, with civil society and local communities now regularly sharing governing duties with the state. This phenomenon has led to the rising concept of social license to operate (SLO), which sees local communities deeply involved in the decision-making process in the extractive sector. This research aims to analyze how this concept is being significantly strengthened to the point of considering local communities as a legal entity and the SLO as a legal instrument with which mining companies can enter into legally binding agreements. As a matter of fact, the interest of this research is mainly focused on the different levels which have contributed to its evolution so far: the international and national legal developments and the investment arbitration practice. The obvious conclusion is that the SLO development is just started, and its importance in legal terms will constantly increase. This is mainly because of its close link to issues of social and energy justice. Ignoring the SLO means ignoring the energy justice needs in a society moving toward the energy transition.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Philip Peck, Knud Sindin. ‘Environmental and social disclosure and data richness in the mining industry’ (2003) 12(3) Business Strategy and the Environment 131–146.

  2. 2.

    Nicolás M Perrone, ‘The International Investment Regime and Local Populations: Are the Weakest Voices Unheard?’ (2016) 7(3) Transnational Legal Theory 383–405. On SLO definitions in various contexts and sectors, see also generally, Jędrzej Górski and Christine Trenorden, ‘Social License to Operate (SLO) in the Shale Sector: A Contextual Study of the European Union’ (2020) 18(1) 115, Appendix IV at 114–115.

  3. 3.

    Paul Bowlesa, Fiona MacPhaila, Darcy Tetreaultb, ‘Social licence versus procedural justice: Competing narratives of (Il)legitimacy at the San Xavier mine, Mexico’ (2019) 61 Resources Policy 157–165.

  4. 4.

    Anthony Knox, ‘“Social Licence” Concepts and Canadian Mine Development’ (Mining Prospects, 21 May 2008) <https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/mining-prospects/social-licence-concepts-and-canadian-minedevelopment> accessed 19 May 2021.

  5. 5.

    Raphael J Heffron and others, ‘The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?’ (available online 24 October 2018) Resource Policy ID: 101272, 1–16.

  6. 6.

    Raphael J Heffron and Kim Talus, ‘The evolution of energy law and energy jurisprudence: insights for energy analysts and researchers’ (2016) 19 Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 1–10.

  7. 7.

    Heffron n (5)

  8. 8.

    Darren McCauley and others, Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: Exploring key themes in the social sciences (2018) HYPERLINK “https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03062619/233/supp/C” 233–234 Applied Energy 916–921.

  9. 9.

    ibid.

  10. 10.

    Kathleen M Wilburn and Ralph Wilburn, Achieving Social License to Operate using Stakeholder Theory (2011) 4 Journal of International Business Ethics 3–16.

  11. 11.

    C169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).

  12. 12.

    Australian Government, ‘The Enduring Value Framework is the Australian Minerals Industry framework for sustainable development’ (ipaustralia.gov.au, 2009) <https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/tools-resources/certification-rules/1259716> accessed 20 May 2021.

  13. 13.

    United Nations global compact, ‘The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact’ (UnGlobalCompact.org, 2000) <https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles> accessed 31 December 2020.

  14. 14.

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (UN 2007) <https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html> accessed 19 May 2021.

  15. 15.

    Uzuazo Etemire, Public Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerian Legislation with International Best Practice (2014) 3(1) Transnational Environmental Law 149–172.

  16. 16.

    ‘The Equator Principles, A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in projects’ (July 2020) <https://equator-principles.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/The-Equator-Principles-July-2020-v2.pdf> accessed 20 May 2021.

  17. 17.

    International Finance Corporations (IFC), ‘Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability’ (IFC 2012) <https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/24e6bfc3-5de3-444d-be9b-226188c95454/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jkV-X6h> accessed 21 May 2021.

  18. 18.

    The Equator Principles n (17).

  19. 19.

    Mauro Barelli, ‘The Role of Soft Law in the International Legal System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2009) 58 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 957–983.

  20. 20.

    Daria Shapovalova, ‘Indigenous Rights and Resource Extraction: One Step Forward Two Steps Back’ (7 December 2020) <https://environmentalpolicyandlaw.com/news-blog/indigenous-rights-and-resource-extraction-one-step-forward-two-steps-back> accessed 20 May 2021.

  21. 21.

    Julian Arato, ‘Corporations as Lawmakers’ (2015) 56 Harvard Intl LJ 229–295.

  22. 22.

    Gudrun M Zagel, ‘Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives in International Investment Law’ in Julien Chaisse, Leila Choukroune and Jusoh Sufian (eds), Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy (Springer 2020) 1–55.

  23. 23.

    ibid.

  24. 24.

    Arato (n 22).

  25. 25.

    Caroline Findlay, ‘Canadian Aboriginal Rights and Mineral and Energy Development: Risks and Related Strategies’ (Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, 2010) Proceedings of 56th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute <https://www.rmmlf.org/publications/digital-library/canadian-aboriginal-rights-and-mineral-and-energy-development-risks-and-related-strategies> accessed 21 May 2021.

  26. 26.

    Haida Nation v. British Columbia, [2004] 3 SCR 511 [Haida]; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, [2004] 3 SCR 550 [Taku River]; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 SCR 388 [Mikisew Cree].

  27. 27.

    ibid.

  28. 28.

    Carmen Diges, ‘Sticks and Bones: Is Your IBA Working? Amending and Enforcing Impact Benefit Agreements’ (McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP, 2008) <https://mcmillan.ca/Files/128102_Sticks%20and%20Stones%20-%20Combined.pdf> accessed 21 May 2021.

  29. 29.

    Kristi Disney Bruckner, ‘Community Development Agreements in Mining Projects’ (2016) 44 Denv J Int’l L & Pol’y 413.

  30. 30.

    Nils Muižnieks, ‘Multinationals Seem Too Big For Accountability Switzerland May Change That’ (27 November 2020) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/11/multinationals-seem-too-big-for-accountability-switzerland-may-change-that/> accessed 21 May 2021.

  31. 31.

    ibid.

  32. 32.

    Jessica Davis Plüss, ‘Switzerland: Responsible Business Initiative rejected at ballot box despite gaining 507% of popular vote’ (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 30 November 2020) <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/switzerland-responsible-business-initiative-rejected-at-ballot-box/> accessed 1 January 2021.

  33. 33.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]) 575 UNTS 159.

  34. 34.

    Álvarez y Marín Corporación S.A. and others v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/14; South American Silver Limited v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013–15.

  35. 35.

    Lee Swepston, ‘A New Step in the International Law on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: ILO Convention No 169 of 1989’, 15 Oklahoma City University Law Review (1990) 677–714, 690.

  36. 36.

    S James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP 1996), 48.

  37. 37.

    Jon M Van Dyke, Carmen Di Amore-Siah and Gerald W Berkley-Coats, ‘Self-Determination for Non-SelfGoverning Peoples and for Indigenous Peoples: The Cases of Guam and Hawaii’ (1996) 18 (2) University of Hawaii Law Review 623–642, 636.

  38. 38.

    Lee Swepston, ‘The ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No.169): Eight Years After Adoption’, in Cynthia P Cohen (ed), Human Rights of lndigenous Peoples (Transnational Publishers, New York, 1998) 23.

  39. 39.

    Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/14/21, Award (30 November 2017) https://www.italaw.com/cases/2848 20 May 2021

  40. 40.

    Investment Policy Hub, Bear Creek Mining v. Peru, <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/589/bear-creek-mining-v-peru> accessed May 2021.

  41. 41.

    Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru (signed 28 May 2009, entered into force 1 August 2009) (Canada–Peru FTA).

  42. 42.

    Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (international.gc.ca) <https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/peru-perou/fta-ale/info.aspx?lang=eng> accessed 20 May 2020.

  43. 43.

    Jorge E Viñuales, ‘Sovereignty in Foreign Investment Law’ in, Zachary Douglas et al (eds), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (OUP 2014) 326–328.

  44. 44.

    Sedco Inc v National Iranian Oil Co, 9 Iran-US CTR (1985) 248, 275.

  45. 45.

    Santiago Legarre, ‘The Historical Background of the Police Power’ 9(3) J Constitutional L (2007) 745.

  46. 46.

    Canada- Peru FTA (n 42).

  47. 47.

    Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/14/21, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Professor Philippe Sands QC (12 September 2017), para 1 (Bear Creek Partial Dissenting Opinion).

  48. 48.

    Jean M Marcoux and Andrew Newcombe, ‘Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru: Two Sides of a ‘Social License’ to Operate (2018) 33 ICSID Review 3, 653–659.

  49. 49.

    ibid.

  50. 50.

    Kirsten Jenkins, Raphael J Heffron et al., ‘Energy justice: a conceptual review’ (2016) 11 Energy Research & Social Science 174–182.

  51. 51.

    Darren A. McCauley, et al., ‘Advancing energy justice: the triumvirate of tenets’ (2013) 32(3) International Energy Law Review 107–116.

  52. 52.

    Benjamin K. Sovacool, Raphael J. Heffron et al., ‘Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns’ (published 6 May 2016) 1 Nature Energy ID 16024, 5.

  53. 53.

    Jonathan P Doh, Pawan Budhwar and Geoff Wood, ‘Long-term energy transitions and international business: Concepts, theory, methods, and a research agenda’ (2021) 52 J Int Bus Stud 951–970.

  54. 54.

    Nigel Bankes, ‘The Social Licence to Operate: Mind the Gap’ (University of Calgary Faculty of Law, 2015) <https://ablawg.ca/2015/06/24/the-social-licence-to-operate-mind-the-gap/> accessed 8 January 2021.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Sciences “Jean Monnet”, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy

    Luigi Maria Pepe

Authors
  1. Luigi Maria Pepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Maria Pepe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer in Energy and Environmental Law, School of Law, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Geoffrey Wood

  2. Dept. of Asian and International Studies, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

    Jędrzej Górski

  3. Research Fellow, SEI Headquarters – Energy & Industry Transition Team, Linnégatan, Stockholms Län, Sweden

    Gokce Mete

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Pepe, L.M. (2022). The Social License to Operate Toward a Just Transition. In: Wood, G., Górski, J., Mete, G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Social License to Operate and Energy Transitions. Palgrave Studies in Energy Transitions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74725-1_4-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74725-1_4-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74725-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74725-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    The Social License to Operate Toward a Just Transition
    Published:
    24 March 2023

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74725-1_4-2

  2. Original

    The Social License to Operate Toward a Just Transition
    Published:
    02 June 2022

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74725-1_4-1

Search

Navigation