single actor. Instead, it is shaped across multiple levels. At the project level, legitimacy is often associated with affected communities, particularly those experiencing direct social and environmental impacts. At the same time, governments hold formal authority through permitting, regulation, and enforcement. Beyond this, wider society—including national publics, faith-based and other civil society organizations, and political actors—can influence whether mining is seen as acceptable or unacceptable. These different sources of legitimacy do not always align. A project may have strong local support but face national opposition, or hold legal approval while lacking broader social acceptance (Bebbington et al., 2019). This helps explain why legitimacy disputes can escalate even when project-level engagement appears robust. The literature increasingly recognizes examples where mining conflicts extend beyond individual projects. In some contexts, mining becomes a national political issue linked to broader debates about development models, environmental protection, inequality, and trust in institutions (Spalding, 2023). When mining governance is politicized at the national level, project-level tools such as SLO and FPIC may have limited influence. Decisions are shaped not only by local impacts, but by public perceptions of government credibility, regulatory fairness, and historical grievances. This helps explain why social acceptance can shift rapidly and why legitimacy challenges are not always resolved through additional consultation or engagement (Eddine, 2025). 2.5 Capacity Building as a Supporting Condition Capacity building appears in the literature as a supporting condition for effective governance and sustainable outcomes. Capacity refers not only to technical expertise, but to the ability of people and institutions to understand information, exercise judgment, build trust, and work across differences (Otoo et al., 2009; Bouckaert, 2012). In mining, capacity gaps exist at multiple levels. Companies may struggle to integrate social and environmental considerations into strategic decisions. Communities may lack resources to participate meaningfully. Governments may face constraints in regulation, enforcement, or coordination (Kaasa & Andriani, 2021; Poelzer & Yu, 2021). Where capacity is limited, principles risk becoming box-ticking exercises and governance processes can appear performative. Conversely, investment in leadership development, institutional learning, and relational skills can improve the ability of actors to manage trade-offs and pursue sustainable outcomes more effectively (Verity, 2007; Otoo et al., 2009). 3. WHAT IS MISSING: THE HUMAN ELEMENT The literature reviewed in Section 2 offers valuable guidance on sustainability goals, principles, governance arrangements, and participation mechanisms in mining. Still, it places far greater emphasis on systems and frameworks than on the people who interpret them. This creates a blind spot. Frameworks do not make decisions. People do. 56
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2