Preconditions for social licence: The importance of information in initial engagement

Abstract Building on the knowledge that procedural fairness of and trust in mining companies, as well as confidence in governance, are key determinants of social licence to operate (SLO), the present research aims to examine how these preconditions of SLO are affected by the terms of engagement set out in initial letters sent to residents. Through an experimental study, quasi-experimental methodology was employed with four experimental conditions, where participants read an initial letter introducing a hypothetical mining proposal issued by a fictitious mining company (Nortor Mining Corporation – NMC) and then answered a number of questions regarding procedural fairness of and trust in NMC, as well as confidence in its governance. Condition 1 (i.e. a basic overview of the project) was modelled on a notice from a real mining company outlining opportunities for community engagement. Conditions 2 (Condition 1 plus commitment to engage), 3 (Condition 2 plus adherence to government requirements), and 4 (Condition 3 plus community’s opportunity to contribute) were established through systematically and accumulatively adding information on NMC’s detailed community engagement plan, the government assessment process, and opportunities for community involvement. The findings suggest that Condition 3 and Condition 4 resulted in higher scores for all three preconditions of SLO. The results demonstrate that the information presented in an initial community engagement letter can significantly influence community members’ attitudes toward a proposed mining development, highlighting the importance of mining companies having concrete community engagement plans in place and demonstrating strong commitment to regulatory requirements right at the beginning.

[1]  Kieren Moffat,et al.  The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining $ , 2014 .

[2]  P. Driessen,et al.  Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? , 2013 .

[3]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Being good neighbours: current practices, barriers, and opportunities for community engagement in Australian plantation forestry , 2013 .

[4]  J. Lacey,et al.  Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’ , 2014 .

[5]  Roberto González,et al.  Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a comparative study of Australia, China and Chile , 2015 .

[6]  T. Eerola.  Uranium exploration, non-governmental organizations, and local communities. The origin, anatomy, and consequences of a new challenge in Finland , 2008 .

[7]  P. McManus,et al.  Engaging Communities for Success: social impact assessment and social licence to operate at Northparkes Mines, NSW , 2013 .

[8]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Social impact assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[9]  P. Billon,et al.  Why do some communities resist mining projects while others do not , 2017 .

[10]  Deanna Kemp,et al.  Social licence and mining: A critical perspective , 2013 .

[11]  B. Head.  Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms? , 2007 .

[12]  W. Eberhard Falck.  Social licencing in mining—between ethical dilemmas and economic risk management , 2016 .

[13]  Giorel Curran.  Social licence, corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: framing the new political dynamics of contestation , 2017 .

[14]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[15]  John Rolfe,et al.  Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia , 2008 .

[16]  D. Bloomfield,et al.  Deliberation and Inclusion: Vehicles for Increasing Trust in UK Public Governance? , 2001 .

[17]  Thomas Ejdemo,et al.  ‘Social license to operate’: a relevant term in Northern European mining? , 2015 .

[18]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Public participation in commercial environments: critical reflections on community engagement methods used in the Australian plantation forestry industry , 2012 .

[19]  F. Vanclay,et al.  Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of a Social Licence to operate: An analysis of BP’s projects in Georgia , 2017 .

[20]  Simone Carr-Cornish,et al.  The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont’s Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand , 2017 .

[21]  L. Beevers,et al.  The doing and un-doing of public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya , 2009 .

[22]  C. O’faircheallaigh.  Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making , 2010 .

[23]  Kieren Moffat,et al.  A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia , 2015 .

[24]  S. Larson,et al.  Genuine community engagement in remote dryland regions : natural resource management in Lake Eyre Basin , 2011 .

[25]  Darren George,et al.  SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference , 1998 .

[26]  W. Boyd,et al.  Unconventional Gas Development: Why a Regional Community Said No , 2014 .

[27]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  The Language of Science and Social Licence to Operate , 2017 .

[28]  Tapio Litmanen,et al.  Refining the preconditions of a social licence to operate (SLO): reflections on citizens’ attitudes towards mining in two Finnish regions , 2016 .

[29]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus Convention , 2005 .