A critical perspective on social license to operate terminology for Canada's most vulnerable mining communities

Abstract

“Social license to operate” (SLO) terminology was developed to improve the reputation of the mining industry and to minimize the risks of communities interfering with mining activities. The conception of the social license term has succeeded in bringing local social challenges into the consciousness of mining proponents, but unfortunately has provided little direction to solve them. In Canada, SLO terminology sometimes conflates dire social issues of many Indigenous communities into a risk reduction exercise focussed on continuing mine operations. After generations of cultural genocide across Canada, Indigenous communities have finally gained some influence with mineral development decisions through impact and benefit agreements and during the environmental assessment process. This article investigates three case studies to understand the application of social license and social risk terminology with mineral development in Canada. This investigation gleans a diversity of issues in Canada through the selection of mines in three different jurisdictions which have unique histories, communities, and lands. This research demonstrates that mining companies operating in Canada should have tailored, comprehensive, and collaborative approaches to create symbiotic relationships with communities and should avoid using general terminology such as social risk and social license to operate.