Understanding and defining the social license to operate: Social acceptance, local values, overall moral legitimacy, and ‘moral authority’

IF 10.2 2区 经济学 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Resources Policy Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105488
Hugh Breakey , Graham Wood , Charles Sampford
{"title":"Understanding and defining the social license to operate: Social acceptance, local values, overall moral legitimacy, and ‘moral authority’","authors":"Hugh Breakey ,&nbsp;Graham Wood ,&nbsp;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":"2025-02-03","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":"","PubModel":"","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Resources Policy
Resources Policy ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
23.50%
发文量
602
审稿时长
69 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Sustainable contributions of the use of phosphorus, potassium, coal and natural stone mine wastes in soil improvement and agriculture – A review Artisanal and small-scale mining, institutional arrangements and vulnerability of cocoa farmers in the Wassa Amenfi East and West Districts, Ghana Social license to operate of Tulu Kapi Gold Mining, Western Ethiopia Responsibility of the private sector to fossil fuels transition through ESG awareness Tracing gendered and classed dimension of formalization of artisanal and small-scale mining efforts in Mozambique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1