Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’

摘要: Abstract Recent decades have witnessed growing concern among communities, governments and other stakeholders regarding the adverse social environmental impacts of corporate activity. This has generated various interdiscursive notions, such as responsibility (CSR), citizenship, stakeholder concept, sustainable development (SD), that purport to enable managers manage business in a ‘responsible’ or ‘sustainable’ manner. discursive landscape now commonly includes ‘social licence’ licence operate’, term gained greatest currency minerals industry. Literature on is sparse, but encapsulates diversity notions demands expectations, legitimacy, credibility, trust, free, prior informed consent. Perhaps most fundamentally, concept suggests may threaten company’s legitimacy ability operate through boycotts, picketing, legal challenges. Yet this interpretation does not mean same capacity regulators grant withhold an operation’s right exist. How, then, do within companies under these pressures themselves understand licence? We present findings interviews with 16 industry Australia. explore how conceptualise relation approval, consent, they interpret processes practice, differentiate it from concepts CSR. Managers’ conceptualisations can be categorised into four broad themes: legitimacy; localisation; process continuum; manageability. These suggest that, while potentially represents shift power relations, constrained by legitimise mining operations, restrict issues local level, minimise regulatory impositions, marginalise dissent, reputation. Opportunities for strengthening adapting current understandings are considered.