In response to these challenges, companies and governments have invested heavily in governance arrangements, standards, and consent-based mechanisms intended to manage social risk and improve accountability. The prevailing assumption is that stronger processes—more consultation, clearer rules, and improved disclosure—will produce legitimacy. Nevertheless, experience across multiple jurisdictions suggests otherwise. Disputes persist even where formal requirements are met, and procedural compliance often coexists with declining trust, polarization, and institutional fragility (Hall et al., 2015; Brueckner & Eabrasu, 2018). This paradox raises important questions. When formally “responsible” practices fail to secure acceptance, leaders must navigate competing expectations from communities, governments, and wider society under conditions of uncertainty. Decisions to proceed, adapt, pause, or withdraw from projects shape not only operational outcomes, but also perceptions of fairness, inclusion, and responsibility (Franks et al., 2014; Pierre & Peters, 2020). Research suggests that legitimacy breakdown is rarely about outcomes alone. It is closely tied to how decisions are made, who participates, and whether institutions are perceived as credible and responsive. Studies of mining conflicts show that communities often focus on process, power, and trust rather than solely on material impacts (Eddine, 2025; Moffat & Zhang, 2014; Saenz, 2019). Despite growing attention to these issues, much of the existing literature remains centered on frameworks and mechanisms. Less attention has been given to how these tools operate in practice when legitimacy is contested, or why similar governance arrangements produce different outcomes across contexts. This article synthesizes recent research to argue that legitimacy challenges in mining stem less from missing frameworks than from how decisions are made under pressure—particularly in low-trust and politicized environments. 2. WHAT WE KNOW 2.1 Sustainable Development and the Mining Paradox Literature broadly agrees on one basic point: mining is not sustainable in a strict ecological sense. Mineral resources are finite and non-renewable, which means extraction cannot continue indefinitely (Bridge, 2004; Hilson, 2012). This creates a long-standing tension between mining and sustainable development. To address this, sustainability in mining is usually defined not by the resource itself, but by how mining is carried out and what remains once mining ends. In practice, sustainability refers to environmental protection, social responsibility, and the ability of mining activities to contribute to development outcomes that last beyond the life of a mine (Gifford et al., 2010; ICMM, 2025). Within this framing, sustainable development in mining is commonly described as the combined pursuit of economic growth, social sustainability, and environmental protection (ICMM, 2018). Community development plays a central role in this understanding. Many mining projects 53
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2