2384 Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards, International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) Performance Expectations, Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM), and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Mining Sector Standard (IFC, 2012; ICMM, 2018; IRMA, 2018; MAC, 2021; GRI, 2023). Together, these instruments reflect growing agreement on core principles such as environmental stewardship, respect for human rights, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. They are principles-based rather than rule-based. They describe desired outcomes while allowing flexibility in how those outcomes are achieved. Literature highlights both strengths and risks in this approach. Principles-based systems can encourage learning and adaptation, and they also risk becoming symbolic when adoption is not matched by meaningful implementation or accountability (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009). A consistent theme is that principles do not apply themselves. Standards only gain meaning through how people interpret and apply them. The same principle may build trust in one setting and generate resistance in another, depending on local values, historical relationships, and power dynamics (Bäckstrand, 2006; Bartz & Bartz, 2018). How principles are translated into practice is therefore closely linked to leadership priorities and organizational culture (Salancik et al., 1978). 2.3 Social License to Operate and FPIC: What They Offer—and Their Limits Within this principles-based landscape, the Social License to Operate (SLO) and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) are two of the most widely discussed approaches to addressing legitimacy concerns in mining. SLO refers to the ongoing acceptance of mining activities by communities and stakeholders beyond formal legal approval (Owen & Kemp, 2013; Thomson & Boutilier, 2011). Research shows that trust, fairness, and the quality of engagement strongly influence whether projects are accepted (Gifford et al., 2010; Moffat & Zhang, 2014). Communities often respond not only to outcomes, but to how decisions are made and communicated. At the same time, the literature identifies clear limitations. SLO lacks formal definition and legal authority, and it is frequently treated as a reputational or risk-management concept rather than as a guide for substantive decision-making (Boutilier, 2014; Hall et al., 2015). Strong relationships at the local level do not always prevent broader opposition. FPIC, in contrast, is grounded in international human rights law and establishes specific rights for Indigenous peoples regarding projects affecting their lands and resources (United Nations, 2007; Doyle, 2015). FPIC aims to address historical power imbalances and ensure meaningful participation in decisionmaking. However, studies show that FPIC is unevenly implemented. Disagreements over what consent means in practice, combined with power asymmetries and weak institutions, can reduce FPIC to a procedural exercise with limited influence on final decisions (Szablowski, 2019; Thorpe, 2020). Evidence from Latin America indicates that procedural compliance alone does not guarantee social acceptance, particularly where institutional trust is low (Penafiel & Li, 2017). Both SLO and FPIC provide important safeguards and insights, but they do not fully explain why legitimacy is maintained in some contexts and lost in others. 2.4 Governance, Trust, and Legitimacy Governance refers to the systems through which decisions are made and authority is exercised, including laws, institutions, political processes, and accountability mechanisms (Pierre & Peters, 2020; Weiss, 2012). In mining, governance determines who decides, whose voices count, and how conflicts are managed. The literature consistently links good governance with trust and legitimacy. Transparency, accountability, participation, and procedural fairness are associated with greater acceptance of mining activities (Sheng, n.d.; Bouckaert, 2012). Where governance systems are perceived as credible, conflicts are
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2