In the shadows of social licence to operate: Untold investment grievances in latin America

Abstract

This article critically examines the usability of the concept of 'social licence to operate' (SLO) in the Latin American context as an indicator of the social acceptability granted by local stakeholders to multinational forestry companies. We identify four potential problems (risks of co-optation, structural power imbalances, conflicting worldviews, and the silencing effects of global certification schemes) that emerge when the current practice and literature on SLO is implemented in the context of forestry operations in Global South's rural areas, commonly marked by dynamic and contentious corporate-community relations. Based on empirical material from local communities affected by industrial tree plantations (ITPs) in a setting claimed to have an absence of conflicts (Uruguay) and another where visible conflicts have been present (Chile), we then ask: What does SLO mean to those it is supposed to represent the most, the local communities affected by industrial forestry? The findings illustrate that caution is necessary prior to claiming that a company, investment, or industry has achieved an all-encompassing SLO at the local level. Instead, to understand the dynamic and contentious corporate-community relations we argue for a more nuanced approach to how locals engage with different economic alternatives based on their own placebased capacity to sustain and reproduce life in community.

Corporate reporting and conservation realities: Understanding differences in what businesses say and do regarding biodiversity

“…Even the practices of bigger firms in forestry and salmon farming, and who adhere to the Global Reporting Initiative requirements, demonstrate its limited impact in leveraging change (Milne & Gray, 2013;Rimmel & Jonäll, 2013). Stakeholder accounts indicate that forestry firms-and salmon producers even more so-still struggle for legitimacy at a local level (Boiral, 2016;Ehrnström-Fuentes & Kröger, 2017 Chile. Accordingly, stakeholder engagement might be more structured and/or corporate biodiversity strategies may be more proactive (Vormedal, 2017).…”

“…Integrating stakeholder "counter accounts" can provide information of activities on the ground (Boiral, 2013;Ehrnström-Fuentes & Kröger, 2017) and expose issues and disputes not disclosed by businesses in reports or surveys (Boiral, 2016;Cho et al, 2015;Lähtinen, Guan, Li, & Toppinen, 2016). Contrasting corporate perspectives with stakeholder opinions and experiences can build a more comprehensive understanding of corporate perceptions and drivers to act regarding biodiversity.…”

Confronting extractivism – the role of local struggles in the (un)making of place

“…This also highlights the onto-epistemic mechanisms in play when deliberative systems such as the FSC are used to guarantee responsible forestry practices. The standardisation process converts local grievances into certified practices by relying on particular expert knowledge and standards set by 'stakeholders' other than those actually affected by the operations (see also Ehrnström-Fuentes and Kröger, 2017).…”

Conceptualizing Company Response to Community Protest: Principles to Achieve a Social License to Operate

“…Gaining a strong social license to operate (in other words, positive approval) requires the project to gain credibility and ultimately the trust of local people. Although there are criticisms of the concept [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63], we believe that it is a useful rhetorical device that has taken hold in industry settings. Some international organizations, like the IFC [64], expect that projects have "broad community support".…”