operate in regions with limited economic diversification and weak public infrastructure. In these settings, mining can create jobs, support local businesses, and contribute to social services and infrastructure. As a result, sustainability claims in mining are often tied to expectations that projects will leave communities better off over the long term (Gifford et al., 2010). However, the literature also shows that these outcomes are uneven. Where governance is weak, development benefits may be short-lived, poorly distributed, or undermined by environmental damage and social disruption (Helwege, 2015; Spalding, 2023). This has led scholars to emphasize that sustainability in mining is not only a technical or economic issue, but also a governance and decision-making challenge, shaped by institutional quality and long-term planning capacity (Poelzer & Yu, 2021). 2.2 Principles and Standards: Defining Responsible Mining Over the past two decades, a wide range of international standards, codes, and voluntary initiatives have emerged to define what responsible mining is expected to look like. These include the International 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 54
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2