The Social License: Empowering Communities and a Better Way Forward

Abstract

The term social license is generally understood as an intangible representation of ongoing approval or acceptance of a project by affected communities, which can be withdrawn at any time, distinct from a legal or regulatory license granted by a government. This paper looks at the concept through the lens of the extractive sector in the developing world and explores the history of violations of land and human rights of indigenous and rural communities living around these resources. While corporate actors often maintain that acquiring a social license is voluntary and different from obtaining consent, this paper suggests instead that the idea of a license that can be withdrawn represents an assertion of power by people whose land and human rights have been consistently violated, and a recognition of that power by the corporate sector. This article will explore the relationship between the need for a social license and institutional characteristics related to land rights; the FPIC and CSR constructs as responses to such issues and their limitations; and whether and why the social license construct may be used as an empowerment tool for communities to assert their rights and obtain the protection they have been long denied.Juliette Syn is a legal and international development professional who specializes in human rights and development. Her areas of emphasis include natural resource management, customary and statutory land tenure, administration and reform, social justice and legal empowerment, and equitable economic development. She has worked on these issues in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Liberia, and South Sudan. Correspondence to: Juliette

Editorial for the special issue on social networks in construction

“…Morrison, 2014;Syn, 2014), have shown that strategic interventions aimed at managing these risks in projects could be facilitated by greater understanding of the structure and dynamics of stakeholder networks. They argue that not all stakeholders are equally important and strategic interventions should be aimed at the stakeholders with higher influence.…”

Social License to Operate and Adaptive Co-Marketing: Exchange, Social Capital and Community-Based Social Marketing

“…The first recorded reference to SLO comes from a 1996 Paper Industry Manufacturing Association Magazine article [25], which proposed that the paper industry needed to maintain environmental standards beyond that set by government in order to obtain an SLO from the public for their operations. Nevertheless, many articles credit Jim Cooney, a Canadian mine executive for coining the term in relation to the need of the mining industry to develop better relations with communities so as to be able to reduce opposition to mining even when the company had met its legal requirements [2,5,6,11,13,24,[26][27]. The term was simultaneously being applied to mining companies in Australia, where the concept was picked up by the Western Australian Technology & Industry Advisory Council, in a report on Western Australia's Minerals and Energy Expertise [28]; as well as in reference to the operation and expansion of multinational companies in Latin America and the pressures they faced in being "good environmental actors" [29].…”

“…While this may be the case, the reality of SLO lies in the recognition that the need for a SLO did not come from the "goodness of the corporate heart", but instead from the actual or potential objection or rejection of business projects and products by communities [2] (p. 318). The adoption of SLO therefore provides companies with the opportunity to not only prevent rejection by communities, and their potentially significant economic and reputational costs, but also to claim compliance or legitimacy without the approval of governments or legal bodies that enforce regulations [2,8].…”

“…While this may be the case, the reality of SLO lies in the recognition that the need for a SLO did not come from the "goodness of the corporate heart", but instead from the actual or potential objection or rejection of business projects and products by communities [2] (p. 318). The adoption of SLO therefore provides companies with the opportunity to not only prevent rejection by communities, and their potentially significant economic and reputational costs, but also to claim compliance or legitimacy without the approval of governments or legal bodies that enforce regulations [2,8]. SLO is therefore a significant mechanism for managing economic and reputational risk through formal and informal corporate actions [3,[9][10][11][12][13][14], while it has been claimed that companies that promote SLO have improved competitiveness and corporate reputation, ongoing resource access, experience reduced regulation, strengthened stakeholder relationships and a more positive workforce [11,[15][16].…”

“…The term is used to suggest that a "social contract" exists between businesses, often with a project that has significant environmental change associated with it, and the various communities of interest that are or will be affected by the project. While companies are required to abide by legal permits, regulation and licence, SLO is the less tangible aspect of social acceptance, which ensures a company is not at risk or, at least, reduces the corporate risk of community conflict or protests with its projects and/or products [1][2][3]. It has been suggested that the application of SLO is meant to encapsulate particular activities, ideals and values, that allow for successful business operations [4].…”