The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia

Meesters, Marieke Evelien; Behagel, Jelle

doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006

Cited by 64 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

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

Vanclay

Hanna

2019

Land

106

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To gain a social license to operate and grow, companies should have effective community engagement activities, social impact assessment processes, environmental and social impact management procedures, and human rights-compatible grievance redress mechanisms in place. In this way, environmental impacts and social impacts would likely be identified and addressed before issues escalate and social risk amplifies. Companies also need to treat communities with respect and be mindful of local culture. Where these things are not done, there will be no social license to operate. Protests are mechanisms by which affected communities express their concerns and signal there is no social license. As argued in our previous work on conceptualizing social protests, protests are warning signs, as well as opportunities for companies to improve. Rather than let protest actions escalate, leading to violent confrontation and considerable cost and harm, companies should engage in meaningful dialogue with protesters. Unfortunately, company response is often inadequate or inappropriate. In this paper, we identify around 175 actions companies might take in relation to community protest, and we discuss how these actions variously have the potential to escalate or de-escalate conflict, depending on whether the company engages in appropriate and genuine interaction with protesters or if repressive measures are used. While effective engagement will likely de-escalate conflict, ignoring or repressing protests tends to provoke stronger reactions from groups seeking to have their concerns heard. When companies address community concerns early, their social license to operate is enhanced. We also outline the primary international standards companies are expected to comply with, and we identify the key environmental, social, and governance issues (ESG principles) that should be respected.proactively undertake actions to address the issues of concern and reduce the likelihood of protest. In this paper, we examine the wide range of reactive and proactive actions companies might take in relation to community protest, and we reflect on how these actions might affect the level of conflict with their host communities and the company's and project's social license to operate.Companies need to consider their actions and reactions carefully. If company reaction leads to escalation, this increases the amount of community protest and/or changes the type of protest action, which could lead to harmful outcomes to the company and community. Furthermore, communities and individuals have rights, and should companies use repressive actions, companies run the risk of violating the rights of local people, which could lead to reputational harm and legal action against the company well into the future [5][6][7]. The many legal actions the oil company, Shell, has had to face because of its actions (and inaction) in Nigeria in the 1990s is proof of this [8]. The negative publicity surrounding conflict can be harmful to the company's reputation and social license to op...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

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

Vanclay

Hanna

2019

Land

106

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As formas pelas quais as empresas acreditam que podem obter e manter sua licença social para operar estão consistentemente ligadas às suas definições e conceituações do desenvolvimento sustentável (Bice, 2014). Se estes forem deficientes, as empresas podem empregar técnicas de neutralização de discursos opositores no seu processo de construção da LSO ampliando a confiança local em suas atividades ao mesmo tempo em que situações de risco ou mesmos impactos negativos de suas ações são encobertas (Meesters & Behagel, 2017).…”

Section: Fundamentação Teóricaunclassified

Licença Social Para Operar E Impactos Ambientais: Uma Revisão De Literatura

Franco

Sampaio

Almeida

2020

RGSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Licença Social para Operar (LSO) é uma percepção da comunidade e sua aceitabilidade em relação a uma empresa e suas operações locais. Essa espécie de autorização informal fornecida pela sociedade à empresa tem se mostrado importante, uma vez que ambos saem ganhando: a população local, ao se sentir inserida na empresa e em tomadas decisões, e a empresa, em termos de confiança e aceitação para que esta inicie ou continue com suas atividades. A fim de contribuir para futuros trabalhos e discussões, foi realizada uma revisão bibliográfica sistemática com o objetivo de analisar como a literatura tem tratado o tema. A procura pelos trabalhos foi feita nas bases Scopus e Web of Science, sendo aplicados alguns critérios pré-estabelecidos para busca e triagem. Os resultados encontrados mostram que é um tema recente, com a maioria das publicações nos últimos 5 anos, sendo a metodologia de estudo de caso a mais utilizada e sua aplicação voltada, principalmente, para empreendimentos de mineração. A Austrália se destacou tanto como o país de origem das instituições de maior parte dos primeiros autores como dos estudos de caso trabalhados. A literatura retrata que a prática da LSO tem enfrentado desafios, como a distância entre teoria e prática, devido a contextos mutáveis, e o perigo de que a ferramenta seja usada de forma equivocada, não trazendo benefícios à comunidade. Assim, o tema LSO mostra-se emergente nas pesquisas científicas e significativo para os pesquisadores, sendo a revisão sistemática realizada relevante para pesquisas futuras.

show abstract

“…The concept of social license to operate (SLO) appeared in the 1990s, calling companies to act beyond legal compliance, addressing stakeholder concerns and representing a kind of "soft" regulation initiated by local communities [10] (p. 138). Today, SLO has become complementary to legal compliance and it is socially recognized that companies have to gain SLO in order to avoid risks and minimize conflicts [11]. Companies themselves acknowledge that SLO became part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies, ensuring reputational benefits [12][13][14].…”

Section: Benefit Sharing and Social License To Operatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…SLO has direct linkages with both benefit sharing and Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is part of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. However, if FPIC is granted prior to the start of the project, SLO does not end with project approval by the community; it can be lost, gained, and renegotiated over the course of the mineral extraction [11]. SLO is context bound and community specific depending on community needs, expectations, culture, and values [14] (p. 584).…”

Section: Benefit Sharing and Social License To Operatementioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit Sharing in the Arctic: A Systematic View

Petrov

Tysiachniouk

2019

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefit sharing is a key concept for sustainable development in communities affected by the extractive industry. In the Arctic, where extractive activities have been growing, a comprehensive and systematic understanding of benefit sharing frameworks is especially critical. The goal of this paper is to develop a synthesis and advance the theory of benefit sharing frameworks in the Arctic. Based on previously published research, a review of literature, a desktop analysis of national legislation, as well as by capitalizing on the original case studies, this paper analyzes benefit sharing arrangements and develops the typology of benefit sharing regimes in the Arctic. It also discusses the examples of various regimes in Russia, Alaska, and Canada. Each regime is described by a combination of principles, modes, mechanisms, and scales of benefit sharing. Although not exhaustive or entirely comprehensive, this systematization and proposed typologies appear to be useful for streamlining the analysis and improving understanding of benefit sharing in the extractive sector. The paper has not identified an ideal benefit sharing regime in the Arctic, but revealed the advantages and pitfalls of different existing arrangements. In the future, the best regimes –in respect to sustainable development would support the transition from benefit sharing to benefit co-management.

show abstract

The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia

Cited by 64 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Licença Social Para Operar E Impactos Ambientais: Uma Revisão De Literatura

Benefit Sharing in the Arctic: A Systematic View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About