{"title":"Understanding and defining the social license to operate: Social acceptance, local values, overall moral legitimacy, and ‘moral authority’","authors":"Hugh Breakey , Graham Wood , Charles Sampford","doi":"10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>‘Social licence to operate’ (SLO) has become a widely used term in discussions of corporate ethics and social responsibility, both in scholarship and lay discourse. Despite this, the term has no settled meaning. Early definitions referred simply to ‘social acceptance’ by relevant stakeholders, specifically those who were directly impacted, or could directly impact on, the operations. Other understandings of SLO highlight the key drivers of acceptance, and still others refer directly to moral values. In this conceptual framework paper, we draw on parallel distinctions that arise with the term ‘legitimacy’, to provide definitions of each of these three ways of understanding SLO. However, there is a further, more unique sense of SLO that implies that operations <em>should have</em> community acceptance. We suggest this version of SLO refers to a community's acceptance of operations in a case where that community holds a ‘moral authority’ over those operations. We show how these four distinct understandings of SLO usefully direct attention to different yet important social and ethical dimensions of industry operations, and help to clarify the complex relationship between social acceptance and overall moral legitimacy. We also discuss cases where equivocation between different meanings can be problematic.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20970,"journal":{"name":"Resources Policy","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 105488"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420725000303","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
‘Social licence to operate’ (SLO) has become a widely used term in discussions of corporate ethics and social responsibility, both in scholarship and lay discourse. Despite this, the term has no settled meaning. Early definitions referred simply to ‘social acceptance’ by relevant stakeholders, specifically those who were directly impacted, or could directly impact on, the operations. Other understandings of SLO highlight the key drivers of acceptance, and still others refer directly to moral values. In this conceptual framework paper, we draw on parallel distinctions that arise with the term ‘legitimacy’, to provide definitions of each of these three ways of understanding SLO. However, there is a further, more unique sense of SLO that implies that operations should have community acceptance. We suggest this version of SLO refers to a community's acceptance of operations in a case where that community holds a ‘moral authority’ over those operations. We show how these four distinct understandings of SLO usefully direct attention to different yet important social and ethical dimensions of industry operations, and help to clarify the complex relationship between social acceptance and overall moral legitimacy. We also discuss cases where equivocation between different meanings can be problematic.
“社会经营许可证”(Social licence to operate,简称SLO)已成为学术界和非专业人士讨论企业伦理和社会责任时广泛使用的术语。尽管如此,这个词并没有固定的含义。早期的定义仅仅是指相关利益相关者的“社会接受度”,特别是那些直接影响或可能直接影响运营的人。对SLO的其他理解强调了接受的关键驱动因素,还有一些人直接提到了道德价值观。在这篇概念框架论文中,我们利用与“合法性”一词相关的平行区别,为理解SLO的这三种方式中的每一种提供定义。然而,还有一种更深入、更独特的SLO含义,即操作应该得到社区的接受。我们认为,这个版本的SLO指的是一个社区在对这些行动拥有“道德权威”的情况下对这些行动的接受。我们展示了对社会责任的这四种不同理解如何有效地引导人们关注行业运营中不同但重要的社会和伦理层面,并有助于澄清社会接受度与整体道德合法性之间的复杂关系。我们还讨论了不同含义之间的歧义可能会产生问题的情况。
期刊介绍:
Resources Policy is an international journal focused on the economics and policy aspects of mineral and fossil fuel extraction, production, and utilization. It targets individuals in academia, government, and industry. The journal seeks original research submissions analyzing public policy, economics, social science, geography, and finance in the fields of mining, non-fuel minerals, energy minerals, fossil fuels, and metals. Mineral economics topics covered include mineral market analysis, price analysis, project evaluation, mining and sustainable development, mineral resource rents, resource curse, mineral wealth and corruption, mineral taxation and regulation, strategic minerals and their supply, and the impact of mineral development on local communities and indigenous populations. The journal specifically excludes papers with agriculture, forestry, or fisheries as their primary focus.