Why do Mines Fail to Obtain a Social License to Operate?: Insights from the Proposed Kallak Iron Mine (Sweden) and the Prosperity/New Prosperity Gold–Copper Mine (Canada)

To Approve or not to Approve? A Comparative Analysis of State-Company-Indigenous Community Interactions in Mining in Canada and Sweden

“…In the cases with open conflicts (Prosperity and Kallak/Gállok), or significant Indigenous dissatisfaction (Aitik), the proposed mines were located in less sparsely populated areas, and/or in places with documented land use conflicts, and in proximity to villages and population centers with non-Indigenous majority populations, or in culturally or environmentally sensitive locations. The proposed, or expanding, mines in the Prosperity, Kallak/Gállok and Aitik cases threatened sacred sites, areas identified as being of “national interest” and strategic passages for reindeer herding in ways that were perceived as non-acceptable (MacPhail et al, 2022 ; Poelzer, 2023 ). In the Diavik case, where collaboration and partnerships evolved, land use competition was less intense, and the location of the mine was less controversial in terms of its position relative to communities.…”

“…In the conflictual cases (Prosperity and Kallak/Gállok), the interactions between the companies and Indigenous communities never developed to a stage where collaboration could be established and existing CSR policies realized. The initial contacts failed to establish trust or incentives for further engagement, and interactions with the companies were not perceived as meaningful by the Indigenous parties (MacPhail et al, 2022 ). From their point of view, the proposed locations were not suitable for mine development, consultation was not adequate, and the preconditions for further negotiations and collaboration were, therefore, not in place (ibid).…”

“…In the Prosperity case, the environmental and cultural impacts of a mine in the vicinity of Teztan Biny/Fish Lake, an area valued for hunting, fishing, trapping and for ceremonial and spiritual purposes, were deemed unacceptable by the Indigenous community (TNG). TNG advanced a vision for land use based on the values that activities must not unduly harm the land and water (McPhail et al, 2022 , p. 12). Moreover, consultation and negotiation with the company was never established, differences between the provincial and federal governments complicated the mine approval process, and the EA process was not deemed capable of adequately addressing aboriginal title or rights (McPhail et al, 2022 ).…”

“…TNG advanced a vision for land use based on the values that activities must not unduly harm the land and water (McPhail et al, 2022 , p. 12). Moreover, consultation and negotiation with the company was never established, differences between the provincial and federal governments complicated the mine approval process, and the EA process was not deemed capable of adequately addressing aboriginal title or rights (McPhail et al, 2022 ). Issue linkages were antagonistic and competitive and player linkages were weak.…”

“…Altogether nine interviews (three with company representatives, four with the involved Sámi RHCs and two with their legal representatives) were conducted in the Swedish cases. This comparative analysis also drew on the already completed articles in this Special Section exploring the individual cases and their institutional context (Allard and Curran, 2021 ; Wilson and Allard, 2023 ; MacPhail et al, 2022 ; Jackson et al, 2023 ; Poelzer et al, 2023 ; Poelzer, 2023 ). All empirical information was systematically compiled, analyzed thematically in relation to RQ1-3 and compared to identify important similarities and differences between Canada and Sweden generally and the individual Canadian and Swedish cases specifically.…”