Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges that mining companies face in gaining and maintaining a social license to operate in Finnish Lapland

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Mineral Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Social License to Operate (SLO) concept is significant precisely because it is bringing social issues and local communities to the forefront of the mining discourse. Although the concept of SLO has taken root in Lapland, and there are success stories of its implementation, challenges to gaining and maintaining it still remain. For example, to gain SLO, when speaking about community acceptance, the “community” must be clearly defined, as there may be heterogeneous groups claiming to be “locals,” such as out-migrated descendants or summer-cottage owners. Historical experience poses another challenge as residents remember their inability to affect the outcome of large-scale public works projects that exploited natural resources after the Second World War. That history carries over into present situations when new mining projects are proposed. But, challenges also provide opportunities for learning and for new solutions, and the good practices espoused by the mining companies reveal an adaptive attitude and a responsiveness to local community concerns.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While there may be no legal foundation for SLO, there is an interesting parallel to indigenous law and its FPIC, which can perhaps serve as a model for the future integration of SLO into legislation.

  2. The companies include Lapland Hotels, Ahma Environment Group, Kemijoki Oy, Gold Fields Arctic Platinium Oy, Innopower Ltd., wpd, Taalaeritehdas, Yllaksen Matkailu Ltd., Arctia Shipping Ltd., Vapo Oy, Agnico Eagle Finland Oy, Northland Mines Oy; the EIA consultants include Pöyry Finland Oy, Sito Ltd., and Ramboll Ltd.; the business associations include the Reindeer Herders’ Association and FinnMin – Kaivannaisteollisuus ry; the government officials include ELY Centre Lapland and Municipality of Kittilä; and finally the NGOs are the Finnish Nature Conservancy and Kemi-Tornion lintuharrastajat Xenus ry.

  3. A total of 14 companies, seven (7) EIA consultants, one (1) business association, two (2) government officials, and five (5) NGOs were consulted.

  4. http://www.outokumpu.com/en/company/history/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed June 12, 2016).

  5. http://www.outokumpu.com/en/company/history/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed June 12, 2016).

  6. http://www.agnicoeagle.com/en/operations/northern-operations/kittila/pages/default.aspx (Accessed June 12, 2016).

  7. http://www.agnicoeagle.com/en/Sustainability/Pages/Our-Approach.aspx (Accessed on October 17).

  8. Research obtained from the Tekes First-In EIA project as Northland Resources was one of the companies interviewed numerous times for the project.

  9. http://www.agnicoeagle.fi/en/media/newsreleases/Pages/expanding-co-operation.aspx) (Accessed June 1, 2016).

  10. http://www.euromines.org/news/newsletters/1-2013/kittila-mine-important-player-development-finnish-lapland (Accessed June 1, 2016).

  11. Tekes interview with Northland Resources on August 15, 2013.

  12. 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization, or exploitation of mineral, water, or other resources. 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural, or spiritual impact.

  13. Interview with Agnico Eagle on August 7, 2013.

  14. Email exchange with Pellervo Economic Research, September 2015.

  15. Interview with the Reindeer Herders’ Association May 4, 2013.

References

  • Anaya J (2013) Guidelines on Business and Human Rights. UN Doc. A/HRC/24/41

  • Bankes N (2015) The social license to operate: mind the gap. University of Calgary Faculty of Law Blog on Developments in Alberta Law

  • Bice S (2014) What gives you a social license? An exploration of the social license to operate in the Australian mining industry. Resources 3:62–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier R, Thomson I (2011) Modelling and measuring the social license to operate: fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice. http://socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Franks D, Brereton D, Moran C (2013) The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource region. Resources Policy 38:640–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman AL, Miles S (2002) Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 39:1–21

  • Hajkowicz S, Heyenga S, Moffat K (2011) The relationship between mining and socio-economic well-being in Australia’s regions. Resources Policy 36:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R (2015) Lecture entitled Social License to Operate: the good, the bad, and the ominous. University of Alberta

  • Heikkinen H et al (2013) Challenges in acquiring a social license to mine in the globalizing Arctic. Polar Record. doi:10.1017/S0032247413000843

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (2011) Theoretical foundations. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM (eds) New developments in social impact assessment. Conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, GloucesterK, pp. 78–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Jartti T, Rantala E, Litmanen T (2014) Sosiaalisen toimiluvan ehdot ja rajat. Uudenmaan, Pohjois-Karjalan, Kainuun ja Lapin maakuntien asukkaiden näkemykset kaivannaistoiminnan hyväksyttävyydestä. [Preconditions and limits of the social license to operate: views of residents of Uusimaa, North Karelia, Kainuu and Lapland on the acceptability of mining] SoPhi, Jyväskylä

  • Jokinen M (2016) Nature-based tourism meets mining industry. Win-win situation or unhappy arranged marriage? Presentation in a workshop entitled ‘Social sciences research on mining and sustainability in the North’ for the Interreg Nord project Sustainable mining in the Northernmost Europe – Lessons learned and practices developed. Haparanda, Sweden

  • Koivurova T, and Stepien A (2008) Reforming mining law in a changing world with special reference to Finland. Juridica Lapponica (34)

  • Koivurova T et al (2015a) Legal protection of Sami traditional livelihoods from the adverse impacts of mining: a comparison of the level of protection enjoyed by Sami in their four home states. Arctic Review on Law and Politics 6(1):11–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova T et al (2015b) Social license to operate: a relevant term in northern European mining? Polar Geography 38(3):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko K et al (2015) Sustainable mining, local communities and environmental regulation. Barents Studies 2(1):51–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunnari M (2013) Kaivoksiin suhtautuminen paikallisyhteisöissä. Different Land-Use Activities and Local Communities (final seminar in Rovaniemi). http://www.ulapland.fi/loader.aspx?id=5dcbb527-e1ee-475e-b223-e44c3b93352f. Accessed 26 May 2016

  • Litmanen T, Jartti T, Rantala E (2016) Refining the preconditions of a social license to operate (SLO): reflections on citizens’ attitudes towards mining in two Finnish regions. The Extractive Industries and Society 3 (3):782–792.

  • Lockie S et al (2009) Coal mining and the resource community cycle: a longitudinal assessment of the social impacts of Coppabella coal mine. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:330–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massa I (1994) Pohjoinen luonnonvalloitus. Suunistus ympäristöhistoriaan Lapissa ja Suomessa. [Northern conquest of nature. Orienteering to the environmental history of Finland and Lapland]. Gaudeamus Helsinki

  • Moffat K, Zhang A (2014) The paths to social license to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy 39:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäki-Hakola M, Toivonen R (2002) Metsäsektorin merkitys aluetalouksissa. Maakunnat vertailussa. [The role of the forest sector in regional economies in Finland. With English abstract] Pellervo Economic Research Institute. Working Papers 60. http://ptt.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/tp60_09080610.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2016

  • Mäki-Simola E (2014) Metsätilastotiedote Teollisuuspuun hakkuut alueittain 2013 Metsäntutkimuslaitos. http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/tilasto/julkaisut/mtt/2014/hakpoi13.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Northland Mines Ltd. (2013) Hannukainen mining project. Environmental impact assessment report. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7B86117285-9C83-4FC0-A656-EDDB47A66853%7D/77577. Accessed 27 May 2016

  • Nygren A (2014) Eco-imperialism and environmental justice. In: Lockie S, Sonnenfeld D, Fisher D (eds) Routledge international handbook of social and environmental change. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 58–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen J, Kemp D (2013) Social license and mining: a critical perspective. Resources Policy 38:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons R, Lacey J, Moffat K (2014) Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: how the minerals industry understands its ‘social license to operate’. Resources Policy 41:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regional Council of Lapland (2011) Väestömuutokset Lapin maakunnassa 1951–2011 [Population changes in the county of Lapland 1951–2011] http://www.lappi.fi/lapinliitto/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=52584&name=DLFE-7502.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Satokangas P (2013) Matkailulla maakunta menestyy. Matkailun tulo- ja työllisyysvaikutukset 12 lappilaisessa kunnassa vuonna 2011. [The study on economic impacts of tourism in 12 municipalities in Lapland in 2011.] https://luc.finna.fi/ulapland/Record/juolukka.346395. Accessed 26 May 2016

  • Suopajärvi L (2003) Competing industries and contested nature in Finnish Lapland after the second world war. In: Möller F, Pehkonen S, Encountering the North. Ashgate, p 203–220

  • Suopajärvi L (2015) The right to mine? Discourse analysis of the social impact assessments of mining projects in Finnish Lapland in 2000s. Barents Studies 1(3):36–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Suopajärvi L, Poelzer GA, Ejdemo T, Klyuchnikova E, Korchak E, Nygaard V (2016) Social sustainability in northern mining communities: a study of the European north and Northwest Russia. Resources Policy 47:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiainen H, Sairinen R, Novikov V (2014) Mining in the Chatkal Valley in Kyrgyzstan – challenge of social sustainability. Resources Policy 39:80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilastokeskus (2016) Kesämökit (2014) http://www.stat.fi/til/rakke/2014/rakke_2014_2015-05-28_kat_001_fi.html. Accessed 26 April 2016

  • Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D (2015) Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International Association for Impact Assessment. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2016

  • Wilson E, Stammler F (2016) Beyond extractivism and alternative cosmologies: Arctic communities and extractive industries in uncertain times. The Extractive Industries and Society 3:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yara Finland Ltd (2009) Sokli mining project. Environmental impact asssessment report. http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Asiointi_luvat_ja_ymparistovaikutusten_arviointi/Ymparistovaikutusten_arviointi/YVAhankkeet/Soklin_kaivoshanke_Savukoski. Accessed 27 May 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

    Pamela Lesser & Timo Koivurova

  2. Avenue Louise 379, Boite 5, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Pamela Lesser

  3. Department of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

    Leena Suopajärvi

Authors
  1. Pamela Lesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leena Suopajärvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timo Koivurova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Lesser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lesser, P., Suopajärvi, L. & Koivurova, T. Challenges that mining companies face in gaining and maintaining a social license to operate in Finnish Lapland. Miner Econ 30, 41–51 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-016-0099-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-016-0099-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation