Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper

Abstract

The authors have many people to thank for their contributions to this paper. In particular, thanks are owed to participants at the Canadian Network for Energy Policy Research and Analysis stakeholder workshop held in Calgary in January 2015, and Kaleidoscope Training and Consulting for their excellent facilitation of the workshop. We also wish to thank participants at the Canadian Network for Energy Policy Research and Analysis' Conference on Public Acceptance of Energy Projects held in Ottawa in September 2015 for their comments and discussion of the paper. We especially thank Blaine Favel, Marie-José Fortin, Rowland Harrison, Ian Lee and Herb Emery for reading and commenting on a draft version of the paper. Thanks are owed to Frankie Lau for his excellent logistical support during both the workshop and the conference, and to Kinga Starzyk-Dramowicz for her logistical support during the team's initial working meeting. We wish to thank Jordan Carlson and Sophie Lorefice for excellent research assistance. Last but not least, the author team would like to acknowledge Dylan Morgan's efforts in coordinating the monthly conference calls and compiling the various components of the paper into a single document.

The emergence of social licence necessitates reforms in environmental regulation

“…Each model stems from different origins and illustrates different aspects of the concept (see Appendix 1), but all are underpinned by the common concepts of trust and legitimacy (Colton et al 2016). The pyramid model suggests there are four different stages in attaining SLO: withdrawal, acceptance, approval, psychological identification (Boutilier and Thomson 2011, unpublished manuscript).…”

“…There is large consensus that the meaning of SLO is unclear, amorphous, and at times, confusing, it is "... not easy to find, difficult to measure, and capricious and dynamic in nature" (Douglas 2014:1). This has led some authors to suggest that regulators, policy makers, and politicians should refrain from using the term without a clear understanding of the implications (Colton et al 2016). Arguably, defining SLO can be a futile enterprise: "We can't neatly define social license, but we know it when we see it" (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart 1964, as cited in Douglas 2014:1)…”

“…However, such crossexamination, and indeed the entire regulatory proceeding, must also reflect the anticipated magnitude of impacts of the ultimate decision (Colton et al 2016). The Ralphs Bay project (MacDonald and Feehely 2010) was denied and the final decision accepted by proponents because the arbitrators were seen as being at arm's length from the government.…”

Social license to operate: Legitimacy by another name?

“…Third, it is important to understand how the implications of social license to operate are evolving in the context of Indigenous engagement in regulatory processes and policy‐making. On the one hand scholars have pointed out that First Nations are rightsholders who legally must be consulted (Colton et al ). Thus, Indigenous communities already hold a legal status in regulatory and permitting processes that exists independent of concerns related to an organization's social license to operate.…”

“… Portions of the research reported in this article were originally prepared for a report by the Canadian Network for Energy Policy Research and Analysis entitled: “Energy Projects, Social License, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper” (Colton et al ). Financial support for this article was provided in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.…”