Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

This article analyses the ways in which major, multinational mining companies operating within Australia understand sustainable development and articulate their "social licence to operate". The article contributes a novel perspective to ongoing discussions about the social licence by exploring the ways in which leading Australian mining companies define and assert their social licences through sustainable development discourse. A content and discourse analysis of 18 sustainability reports across a four year period, supplemented by qualitative interview data, draws out these issues. While most companies use these reports to confirm beliefs in the necessity of a social licence, the ways in which the licence is specifically defined and maintained are not generally made explicit. Additionally, key theoretical criteria required for a social licence, such as free, prior and informed consent, appear to be overlooked. In conclusion, the article suggests ways in which criteria for a social licence within the mining industry could be defined more clearly and raises consequent questions to shape future research.

In the past decade, the extractive sector has embraced social responsibility. Despite this, broad-based support for many extractive projects and operations remains elusive. Community opposition to resource projects appears to be increasing, even where compliance-based social impact assessments (SIAs) and generous benefits are in place. In seeking to understand this, the authors explore unintended contradictions in the implementation of regulatory SIA and the social development programmes (SDPs) being pursued by many extractive companies. Communities continue to mistrust extractive companies in the face of escalating regulation and offsetting development agendas. The authors contend that trust can only be attained by mobilising a company's core competencies, achieving credibility through total transparency, and maintaining appropriate roles and responsibilities of companies, governments and communities. The article presents an alternative approach, centred on the trust-building necessary to a social licence to operate. Such an approach involves 'collaborative moderation', aligns with the 'creating shared value' concept advocated by Porter and Kramer, utilises best practice SIA and uses SDP only where appropriate.