IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v74y2021ics0301420721002488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social licence to operate model: Critical factors of social acceptance of mining in the Brazilian Amazon

Author

Listed:
  • França Pimenta, Adriano Augusto
  • Demajorovic, Jacques
  • Saraiva de Souza, Maria Tereza
  • de Carvalho Pedro, Samara
  • Pisano, Viviane

Abstract

The Social Licence to Operate (SLO) has been identified as one of the main risks to the mining business and is a growing topic in academic publications. Quantitative studies have modelled and measured the critical elements of SLO, but most of this research is concentrated on developed countries, indicating the importance of extending studies into the distinct reality of developing countries. The objective of this research was to propose a model for measuring the critical factors of Social Acceptance to evaluate SLO, to test it on a Brazilian mining operation, and critically discuss its results within the context of the high social vulnerability of local communities. The Social Acceptance measurement model was tested with a questionnaire applied to communities in the municipality of Parauapebas/PA, in the Brazilian Amazon, where one of the largest mining reserves in the world is found. The results confirmed that Procedural Fairness, Distributional Fairness, Relationship, and Environmental Protection affect Trust, which in turn has a positive relationship with the Social Acceptance of the mining company in the Brazilian context. The most significant variable in the model was Environmental Protection, which was included due to the territory being located in the Amazon region, and on account of the recent environmental catastrophes involving mining in Brazil. However, even when considering the validity of the proposed model, a contextual analysis of the results obtained indicates the importance of understanding the influence of local vulnerability on the results achieved. The low level of trust and of other constructs, associated with the perception of high wealth generation and low welfare, may, at any moment, turn into community dissatisfaction, and increase the risks to the business in this specific case.

Suggested Citation

  • França Pimenta, Adriano Augusto & Demajorovic, Jacques & Saraiva de Souza, Maria Tereza & de Carvalho Pedro, Samara & Pisano, Viviane, 2021. "Social licence to operate model: Critical factors of social acceptance of mining in the Brazilian Amazon," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:74:y:2021:i:c:s0301420721002488
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420721002488
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nam Foo & Harry Bloch & Ruhul Salim, 2017. "Assessing the timing of mining investment under tax policy uncertainty: the case of the Asia-Pacific region," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 30(2), pages 117-139, July.
    2. Choumert Nkolo, J., 2018. "Developing a socially inclusive and sustainable natural gas sector in Tanzania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 356-371.
    3. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Adamson, David & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2020. "Is social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    5. Boateng, Mark K. & Awuah-Offei, Kwame, 2017. "Agent-based modeling framework for modeling the effect of information diffusion on community acceptance of mining," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Sarstedt, Marko & Ringle, Christian M. & Smith, Donna & Reams, Russell & Hair, Joseph F., 2014. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 105-115.
    7. Lacey, Justine & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Zhang, Airong & Eglinton, Kelvyn & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 245-254.
    8. Armstrong, Margaret & Petter, Renato & Petter, Carlos, 2019. "Why have so many tailings dams failed in recent years?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Santiago, Ana Lúcia & Demajorovic, Jacques & Rossetto, Dennys Eduardo & Luke, Hanabeth, 2021. "Understanding the fundamentals of the Social Licence to Operate: Its evolution, current state of development and future avenues for research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    11. Zhang, Airong & Moffat, Kieren, 2015. "A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 25-34.
    12. van der Plank, Sien & Walsh, Bríd & Behrens, Paul, 2016. "The expected impacts of mining: Stakeholder perceptions of a proposed mineral sands mine in rural Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 129-136.
    13. Lavdmaa Dagvadorj & Bolorchimeg Byamba & Mamoru Ishikawa, 2018. "Effect of Local Community’s Environmental Perception on Trust in a Mining Company: A Case Study in Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Meesters, Marieke Evelien & Behagel, Jelle Hendrik, 2017. "The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 274-282.
    15. Demajorovic, Jacques & Lopes, Juliana Campos & Santiago, Ana Lucia Frezzatti, 2019. "The Samarco dam disaster: A grave challenge to social license to operate discourse," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 273-282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    2. Heydari, Mehrnoosh & Osanloo, Morteza & Başçetin, Ataç, 2023. "Developing a new social impact assessment model for deep open-pit mines," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    5. Heffron, Raphael J. & Downes, Lauren & Ramirez Rodriguez, Oscar M. & McCauley, Darren, 2021. "The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.
    7. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    8. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    9. Ryan D. Bergstrom & Afton Clarke-Sather, 2020. "Balancing Socio-Ecological Risks, Politics, and Identity: Sustainability in Minnesota’s Copper-Nickel-Precious Metal Mining Debate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Santiago, Ana Lúcia & Demajorovic, Jacques & Rossetto, Dennys Eduardo & Luke, Hanabeth, 2021. "Understanding the fundamentals of the Social Licence to Operate: Its evolution, current state of development and future avenues for research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    12. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    13. Svobodova, Kamila & Yellishetty, Mohan & Vojar, Jiri, 2019. "Coal mining in Australia: Understanding stakeholder knowledge of mining and mine rehabilitation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 421-430.
    14. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    15. Toni Eerola, 2022. "Territories of Contention: The Importance of Project Location in Mining-Related Disputes in Finland from the Geosystem Services Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Cronshaw, Ian & Quentin Grafton, R., 2016. "A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 253-263.
    17. Amoako, Kwame Oduro & Lord, Beverley R. & Dixon, Keith, 2021. "Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: An old defence against a new threat?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Valente José Matlaba & Maria Cristina Maneschy & Jorge Filipe dos Santos & José Aroudo Mota, 2019. "Socioeconomic dynamics of a mining town in Amazon: a case study from Canaã dos Carajás, Brazil," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 32(1), pages 75-90, April.
    19. Balza, Lenin H. & Diaz, Lina M. & Gomez-Parra, Nicolas & Manzano M., Osmel E., 2023. "The unwritten license: The societal SLO in Latin America’s extractive sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    20. Beland Lindahl, Karin & Suopajärvi, Leena & Tulilehto, Mari & Poelzer, Gregory & Eerola, Toni, 2023. "Factors affecting local attitudes to mineral exploration: What's within the company's control?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:74:y:2021:i:c:s0301420721002488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.