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 decision-making. 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 more likely to be managed constructively. Governance is not only about formal rules. Laws and procedures are interpreted and applied by people operating within political and organizational constraints. Research shows that discretionary decisions—such as how permits are issued, how grievances are handled, or how opposition is framed—can have greater legitimacy impacts than written rules themselves (Kemp & Owen, 2013; Taarup-Esbensen, 2019). In all this, trust plays a central role. Studies distinguish between trust in institutions and trust built through relationships between companies and communities (Levi et al., 2009). Importantly, legitimacy and trust do not always move together. Formal authority may exist alongside low trust, while trust can erode even when legal approvals remain in place. An important insight from the literature is that legitimacy in mining is not held by a 55
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2