Social licence: power imbalances and levels of consciousness – two case studies. Issue 4 (20th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hitch, Michael; Lytle, Murray; Tost, Michael
• Is Part Of: International journal of mining, reclamation and environment. Volume 34:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 238
• Page End: 246
• Publication Date: 2020-04-20
• Subjects: Impact and benefit agreements -- social licence -- power imbalance -- Nunavut natural resource development -- world view -- Tambogrande; Mining engineering -- Periodicals; Mineral industries -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Abandoned mined lands reclamation -- Periodicals; 622.292
• DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2018.1530582
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-0930

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Social licence to operate (SLO) is a term that is finding increasing acceptance in a number of industries. Like all new terms, its precise meaning and implications are still being investigated. Using data from previous studies, this paper offers an analysis of the SLO of two case studies with each study being viewed separately through the grid of a distinct theoretical framework. Case study 1 looks at the development of differential social licence negotiated in the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, as a result of an impact and benefit agreement negotiated between Tahera Diamond Corp. and the Kitikmeot Inuit Organisation in 2004. The study demonstrates that general acceptance of resource development can be uneven and reflect an unequal distribution of decision-making power. In case study 2, stakeholders of a failed mineral development project were queried across time about the specifics of the proposed mine development and were queried about resource development across different levels of consciousness. Perhaps, SLO is variable across different levels of consciousness. The paper concludes with observations about the variable nature of SLO acceptance across populations and across levels of consciousness within individuals. Perhaps, the concept of SLO is, in fact, complex, difficult to define and measure and, at this point, of limited utility as a measure of resource development acceptance.