SLO Dialogue paper

1. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate
Lucy Mercer-Mapstonea,⁎
, Will Rifkina,d
, Kieren Moffatb
, Winnifred Louisc
a
Sustainable Minerals Institute, St Lucia, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia
b
CSIRO, 1 Technology Court, Pullenvale, Brisbane 4069, Australia
c
School of Psychology, St Lucia, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia
d
Hunter Research Foundation Centre, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Social licence to operate
Dialogue
Stakeholder engagement
Natural resources management
A B S T R A C T
Social licence to operate (SLO) has become an important part of the natural resource management discourse,
particularly in relation to contested arenas. The social accountability constituted by SLO requires engagement
and relationship-building efforts, which are increasingly prescribed to include ‘meaningful dialogue’ as central.
How such dialogue translates into practice has been subject to little research in the SLO context. To examine
explicitly the role of dialogue in strategies to address SLO, we present, using an interdisciplinary lens, a con-
ceptual framework. We characterise two dialogue models relevant to SLO from the literature on dialogue: a
learning model and a strategic model. We then analyse how these models arise in five engagement frameworks
drawn from academic and grey literature. We assess how these frameworks situate, conceptualise, and seek to
operationalise dialogue. This analysis highlights key themes that indicate that dialogue in SLO is predominantly
portrayed as a goal-oriented, strategic process – rather than a learning and relationship-building process, though
in both models dialogue can have a disruptive role. Conceptual clarity is needed, however, as dialogue some-
times refers to a process, sometimes to an outcome, and sometimes to an aspiration. Clarifying what dialogue is
and what it can achieve are needed to guide future research and practice.
1. Introduction
Dialogue has been portrayed as an integral part of attaining and
maintaining a social licence to operate (SLO) (Prno, 2013; Skoldeberg
et al., 2013; Williams and Walton, 2013). It has become a buzzword
with the rise in interest in social accountability for resource develop-
ment projects, such as mining or oil and gas projects. Failure to engage
stakeholders in meaningful ways is seen to be the predominant cause of
social conflict in resource extraction, with the costs of such conflict
running high (Davis and Franks, 2014; Hall and Jeanneret, 2015;
Hindmarsh, 2010; Lloyd, Luke, and Boyd, 2014; Pullin and Knight,
2003).
Pressure from public audiences, the media, government, interna-
tional financial institutions, and non-governmental organisations mean
that industry proponents increasingly are required to show that their
developments are socially acceptable – that they have their ‘social li-
cence’. In this vein, scholarly articles (e.g. Williams and Walton, 2013;
Yates and Horvath, 2013); community engagement toolkits and
guidelines (e.g. American Petroleum Institute, 2014; International
Council of Mining and Metals, 2015); and company and industry re-
ports and guidelines (e.g. International Council of Mining and Metals,
2010; Santos GLNG, 2012) cite the term ‘meaningful dialogue’ as being
core to stakeholder engagement practices. But what does ‘meaningful
dialogue’ look like in relation to efforts to attain SLO? That is an im-
portant question, which can be challenging to answer where the lit-
erature variously refers to dialogue as a process, as an outcome, and as
an aspiration.
Clearer definition is needed as dysfunctional conflict may arise
where dialogue participants come to the table with differing and po-
tentially dissonant ideas and expectations for what ‘dialogue’ might
entail. That has been found to be the case in the dialogue processes at
the Tintaya copper mine in Peru, where Anguelovski (2011) found that
different expectations for dialogue led to resistance that involved
physical protests: “protestors hoped to promote their own model of
dialogue to solve environmental conflicts against a company that had
its own definition of dialogue in restricted selective settings” (p. 396).
Similarly, Walsh et al. (2017) found, in a mining case study in Australia,
multiple and diverging understandings of what should count as ‘con-
sultation’ between and within stakeholder groups – a divergence that
proved to be problematic. The authors concluded that understanding
and meeting the expectations of stakeholders for consultation (as a
predominant mechanism for community engagement) in mining
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.09.007
Received 28 April 2017; Received in revised form 13 September 2017; Accepted 13 September 2017
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: l.mercermapstone@uq.edu.au (L. Mercer-Mapstone).
Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
0301-4207/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
MARK

2. developments was important for avoiding negative community per-
ceptions of central social licence issues. Such negative perceptions in
this case were cited to be based on a lack of two-way dialogue (among
other factors).
These two examples underline the importance of exploring how
different stakeholder groups understand the engagement processes in
which they are involved, and they illuminate the importance of the
expectations attached to those understandings. In both cases, dialogue
was seen to be an engagement mechanism central to the attainment of a
social licence. These examples support our rationale for delving con-
ceptually into the role that dialogue might play within SLO in the ex-
tractives sector. The literature explored in this investigation is diverse,
necessitating use of an interdisciplinary lens that considers the per-
spectives of multiple sectors and stakeholder groups.
2. The rise of dialogue in stakeholder engagement
Potential costs to resources companies can run into the billions of
dollars when stakeholder engagement is not carried out successfully;
expensive delays can result from resistance in the form of protests,
violence, campaigns, or activism (Davis and Franks, 2014). It has been
argued that this contestation can be avoided, or more effectively re-
solved, by engaging stakeholders in an ongoing ‘real dialogue’ (Hall and
Jeanneret, 2015; Kuch et al., 2013). Prno (2013) states that such dia-
logue is one of the foundations for building and maintaining the re-
lationships upon which a stable social licence relies. Oil and gas com-
panies seeking natural gas from Australia's coal seams (coal seam gas,
or CSG), are described by Williams and Walton (2013, p. 1) as at-
tempting to gain a social licence through: “Dialogue that involves
communities, companies and governments … seen as a potential ap-
proach to addressing community expectations in ways that are seen as
legitimate, credible and trustworthy”.
This kind of language is fast becoming the norm in both academic
research and industry practice. A study conducted in 2005 found that
39% of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports from over 1600 of
the world's largest corporations mentioned stakeholder dialogue
(KPMG, 2005). Yates and Horvath (2013), for example, state that social
licence can be achieved through actions that are based on effective
communication and meaningful dialogue. Santos GLNG (2012), in their
Social Impact Management Plan: Community Handbook for their CSG
development, make the commitment: “We will engage in an honest and
open dialogue with the people of Queensland” (p. 6). The gas company
and utility, AGL (2014), in the Sustainability Report: Community under
their ‘Agreed Principles of Land Access’ for their CSG development,
state that, “AGL engages in open and respectful dialogue with land-
holders about operations that may affect landholders’ properties” (p. 2).
The International Council of Mining and Metals (2010) describes their
Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining as “an important
milestone that will benefit the entire industry by promoting meaningful
engagement and dialogue between industry participants and in-
digenous communities” (p. 6). A report compiled by the International
Finance Corporation in collaboration with the International Council of
Mining & Metals (ICMM) and the Brunswick Group states that, “creating
an environment for effective stakeholder dialogue” is the first of five
ways in which communication supports sustainability (Skoldeberg
et al., 2013, p. 3). However, in the relevant section, that report does not
discuss in depth what ‘effective stakeholder dialogue’ looks like, how it
might be operationalised, or the associated challenges or outcomes.
This trend of invoking the terminology of ‘meaningful dialogue’ without
delving into the explicit mechanisms and strategies underlying it ap-
pears to be relatively common in this context. In relation to CSR, for
example, Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) argue that while stakeholder
dialogue is consistently proposed to contribute to engagement activ-
ities, it is rare to see an explanation of how.
Some research does explicitly explore dialogue in the context of
resource extraction – most often with a focus of evaluating practical
engagement initiatives in case study contexts. Faysse et al. (2014), for
example, describe an action research process in Morocco evaluating the
success of dialogue between farmers and staff of public organisations in
identifying strategies to address an agricultural crisis. Social learning
for participants resulting from dialogue was found, in that case, to
improve responses to a crisis that was originally seen to be a result of
weak governance in the area. This example shows dialogue being used
to address land use issues in the African context. Holley and Mitcham
(2016) similarly describe a dialogue process that took place in Alaska
which was designed to involve stakeholders in the decision-making
processes around what and how a gold-copper-molybdenum deposit
should be mined, with dialogue being a key element in a quest to
achieve a social licence. The dialogue process was not completed,
however, as the proponent ceased to participate in response to a dif-
ference of opinion about the level of ‘acceptable risk’ for the project,
and the company failed to achieve their social licence.
We contend that, with this rise in attention to dialogue in the public
discourse around SLO issues, more research that examines how dia-
logue is understood and translates into practice in that context would
be valuable.
3. Social licence to operate and dialogue
The term ‘social licence to operate’ arose from the mining industry
as increased perceptions of social risk highlighted the need for com-
panies to extend their activities beyond governmental and legal con-
cerns into the sector of social accountability (Thomson and Boutilier,
2011). Mining companies sought to recover a positive reputation by
publicly acknowledging the need, and their intent, to increase stake-
holder engagement in the processes involved in resource development,
such as mining or oil and gas development (Hall and Jeanneret, 2015;
Thomson and Boutilier, 2011). Thus, the notion of SLO evolved in the
late 1990s, drawing on concepts from CSR (Thomson and Boutilier,
2011). SLO has become an important part of the discourse on resources
extraction among academics, community engagement practitioners,
and industry executives, with a recent report ranking the need to attain
a social licence as third on a list of the top ten industry challenges (Ernst
and Young, 2015; International Council of Mining and Metals, 2015).
The concept has spread internationally (with a particular focus in
Australia, Canada, and the U.S.), being adopted beyond mining by the
wind industry (Hall, 2014), oil and gas industry (Lacey and Lamont,
2013; Richert et al., 2015), aquaculture (Leith et al., 2014), forestry (de
Jong and Humphreys, 2016), bioenergy (Edwards and Lacey, 2014),
agriculture (Williams and Martin, 2011), and carbon-capture and sto-
rage (Dowd and James, 2014)
SLO has been characterised as existing at multiple levels within
society (Dare et al., 2014) and as being beyond any direct legal or
governmental accountability (Joyce and Thomson, 2000). In this sense,
SLO is a form of ‘soft’ regulation enforced through the beliefs and ac-
tions of relevant stakeholders. While definitions vary, many reflect the
notion that SLO is, according to several authors, an ongoing and fluid
level of acceptance by stakeholders, which may be revoked at any stage of
the project lifecycle based on changes in perceptions, reflecting the re-
lationships between a company and its external stakeholders (Moffat et al.,
2015; Prno and Slocombe, 2012; Thomson and Boutilier, 2011). This
focus on the evolving nature of the value, strength, and stability of
relationships as the foundation of any social licence is gaining mo-
mentum in both academia and in practice (Moffat et al., 2015; Prno and
Slocombe, 2012).
There have been hurdles faced in the translation of the concept of
social licence into practice (Bice, 2014) and criticisms of the concept of
SLO (e.g. Owen, 2016; Owen and Kemp, 2013). It has been argued, for
example, that the original approach taken to gaining a social licence
was one of risk management: viewing stakeholders as a risk that needed
to be managed, often with little understanding of the social context
(Owen and Kemp, 2013). This transactional approach continues to
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
138

3. manifest in some contexts and runs the risk of reinforcing the inherent
power hierarchies and systems of marginalisation that potentially exist
around resource developments (Owen and Kemp, 2013; Williams and
Walton, 2013). A transactional view of social licence runs the risk of
proponents meeting the bare minimum of requirements for stakeholder
engagement and relationship-building, processes that have been argued
to be at the heart of attempts to gain a social licence. Some argue that a
cultural shift is required such that industry uses a constructive approach
to collaboration or engagement with stakeholders – rather than a de-
fensive one (Owen and Kemp, 2013). This movement aligns with the
claim that we need to reconceptualise social licence not as a one-off bid
for approval but as primarily a collaborative, relationship-building
process (Parsons and Moffat, 2014; Prno, 2013).
Though the concept of SLO is contested, it has gained currency in
research and in industry, particularly in the discussion of the extent to
which mining and other extractive industry developments are accep-
table in given settings. Research has found that this social acceptance is
based on factors such as trust, perceived impacts, governance, legiti-
macy, and fairness, among others (e.g. Jijelava and Vanclay, 2017;
Parsons et al., 2014; Zhang and Moffat, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). These
factors are inherently relational and are likely to be developed and
perceived based on the interactions at that crucial company-community
interface. Indeed, Dare et al. (2014) argue that, “Community engage-
ment is critical to achieve a social licence to operate, but its capacity to
influence social licence is not well understood” (p. 188). Moffat and
Zhang (2014) similarly highlight the importance of relational aspects of
social licence – pointing to the quality of contact at the company-
community interface as a driving factor of achieving a social licence.
The literature cited here suggests that dialogue represents one po-
tential mechanism through which to develop key relational factors,
such as trust, which contribute to SLO. This focus on dialogue – despite
varied definitions – is a progression from the traditional unidirectional
‘dissemination of information’ approach previously taken to community
engagement in the extractives sector, or for CSR more generally. This
shift from scholars’ understanding of dialogue as more than unidirec-
tional communication has not always, however, been reflected in
practice on the ground by companies (Bowen et al., 2010; Cheney et al.,
2002; Williams and Walton, 2013). To examine more explicitly the role
of dialogue in contributing to a social licence, we present next a con-
ceptual framework derived from the academic and grey literature,
which suggests two models of dialogue likely to be relevant in the
context of SLO.
4. Understanding dialogue
As we have argued, recent years have seen a shift from a pursuit of
social licence through a transactional approach to building the re-
lationships with stakeholders and toward an approach involving col-
laboration – ‘doing with’ stakeholders, rather than ‘doing to’. Engaging
in dialogue over resource extraction issues increasingly is being ap-
preciated as one approach for stakeholders to co-create a vision of their
future that takes into account local values in the context of exogenous
global forces – such as demand for coal to provide electricity in de-
veloping countries (e.g. Measham et al., 2012; Stoll-Kleemann and
Welp, 2006; Williams and Walton, 2013). And yet, Bowen et al. (2008)
argue, there still exists a lack of clarity or coherence about community
engagement processes in regard to what, how, and when such processes
are appropriate or successful. Companies are continuing to grapple with
“the need to evolve from ad-hoc and reactive communication to a more
proactive and structured model, to enable engagement in dialogue with
stakeholders and anticipate issues before they appear” (Skoldeberg
et al., 2013, p. 7).
This evolution may be aided by a deeper examination of dialogue
itself. The following sections explore how dialogue is conceptualised in
different fields of thought. Five specific engagement frameworks are
analysed to assess the extent to which their elements reflect either one
of the overarching models of dialogue or the other. This array of models
and frameworks then reveals how dialogue is variously portrayed as a
process, as an outcome, or as an aspiration.
4.1. Two models of dialogue
Dialogue is an age-old concept that has been characterised in a
multitude of multifaceted ways. Here we draw on two predominant
conceptualisations of dialogue to form two models that the literature
suggests may apply in the context of SLO in the resource extraction.
4.1.1. A model of learning dialogue
Dialogue has been characterised as fundamentally about learning –
social learning as both a process itself that is facilitated through dia-
logue and learning as an outcome for participants involved in the dia-
logue process. This model is founded in a notion of dialogue articulated
by the physicist, David Bohm, but with elements traceable to Socratic
dialogue. Bohmian dialogue is a group activity where a number of
people come together with no agenda, theme, topic, or direction and
engage in free-flowing conversation while suspending – or at least at-
tempting to suspend – personal opinions, beliefs, impulses, and judg-
ments (Bohm, 1996). Participants do not try to arrive at something in
common through conversation, but, rather, they seek to create some-
thing new by aiming for a ‘collective coherence’ (Bohm, 1996).
Westoby (2014) articulates a rationale for the relevance of Bohmian
dialogue to seemingly intractable social challenges, what some might
call ‘wicked problems’:
Recognising that people can get stuck within their own pre-
suppositions and perspectives, Bohm suggests it is only through
genuine group dialogue that people can disrupt their individually
oriented, entrenched thought. Yet, to consider creative ways to re-
spond to difficult and intractable social challenges requires this kind
of disruption. (p. 77)
In some instances, SLO within the aim of sustainable resource ex-
traction can represent such an ‘intractable social challenge’ in that it
often involves parties with different values and commitments, different
personal and organizational histories, and different aspirations. A re-
source extraction activity may be felt to incur harm in one location
(e.g., a wind farm resisted by nearby residents), but it may be valuable
globally, such as in addressing climate change (Colvin et al., 2016). The
care, or disregard, taken by the company extracting the resource, and
existing tensions within the region, such as between wealthy land-
owners and those on more modest incomes, can add complexity. In such
circumstances, SLO may benefit from the co-learning that may occur
through unstructured dialogue.
There is precedence for this value of social learning as both a pro-
cess that occurs throughout and can result from dialogue in other, re-
levant contexts. Faysse et al. (2014), for example, highlight the value of
collaborative, social learning that resulted from dialogue processes re-
garding agricultural issues, particularly in bridging differences between
stakeholders with opposing views. Similarly, in an agricultural context
in western Africa, Akpo et al. (2015) report on multi-stakeholder pro-
cesses including dialogue that encouraged social learning by in-
corporating the areas of knowledge of different stakeholders in a way
that resulted in co-ownership of project outcomes among initially dis-
parate groups. Garmendia and Stagl (2010) state the importance of
dialogue for including diverse public participation in sustainability
appraisal methods in domains such as energy policy. The process of
social learning in that context is expected to be key in improving the
quality of such appraisals.
The learning model of dialogue – where learning of the kind de-
scribed in the above examples is the focus of engagement processes –
can be recognised as a way to incorporate the diverse perspectives that
are integral and relevant to social licence challenges. Despite this pro-
mise, the unstructured nature of Bohmian dialogue means that it can be
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
139

4. difficult to apply in situations where there exists a specific topic or
purpose relevant to one or more parties (van der Sanden and Meijman,
2008)
4.1.2. A model of strategic dialogue
A second main conceptualisation of dialogue arises from the chal-
lenges of gaining SLO for an extractive industry, where a specific out-
come is desired other than solely mutual learning.
In such situations, such as in the consideration of new technologies
that can have a large impact on society, and where factors of un-
certainty, risk, and contention arise, van der Sanden and Meijman
(2008) indicate that a modified version of Bohmian dialogue can be
particularly useful. In such a context where given parties have in mind a
particular goal or pre-existing theme, they argue that it can be highly
beneficial to employ aspects of Bohmian dialogue, such as the absence
of a ‘winner’, suspension of judgement, and the development of shared
meaning (van der Sanden and Meijman, 2008).
This more contextually applied – and goal oriented – structured
approach to strategic dialogue aligns with what the philosopher, Martin
Buber (1947), labelled ‘technical dialogue’. Dialogue processes can be
used with the conscious intention to communicate or connect in the
context of a certain field, discipline, agenda, or scenario – for example,
as a tool for developing a definition and shared understanding of a
given problem or to resolve conflict.
This structured approach to strategic dialogue seems to be the more
commonly operationalised genre of dialogue discussed thus far in the
social licence literature. In the SLO literature, dialogue is portrayed as
an applicable process or tool. Rooney et al. (2014), for example, state
that, “Discourse, dialog, engagement, and negotiation are clearly im-
portant elements of the SLO process” (p. 214). They indicate that the
process of dialogue has a specific role to play – likely with a specific
strategic intention attached. Similarly, Holley and Mitcham (2016) re-
port that dialogue was used as one mechanism to achieve a social li-
cence through the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making
processes for a proposed mine in Alaska. Literature on multi-stake-
holder collaboration, for example, also paints a picture of dialogue as a
means to solve challenging sustainability problems, such as negotia-
tions between multi-national corporations and non-governmental or-
ganisations, such as environmental groups (Huijstee and Glasbergen,
2008). Structured dialogue has also been applied to address complex
problems, such as those related to community development, through a
method called ‘dialogical community development’ (Owen and
Westoby, 2012; Westoby and Dowling, 2013).
4.2. Comparing the two models of dialogue
Both models of dialogue rely on one of the greatest strengths of
dialogue: the synergy allowed by a collaborative approach resulting in
the acknowledgement that “individuals gain insights that could not be
achieved individually” (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2006, p. 26). That is,
a novel outcome is co-created or something new is learned. Thus, dia-
logue in both models involves and inspires processes of creation, and
potential social and personal transformation, through the disruption of
perspectives and experiences (Bohm, 1996; Buber, 1947; Freire, 1972;
Gadamer, 1975). This disruption of ingrained perspectives that can
result in co-learning is of particular relevance to SLO in resource con-
texts, where being inclusive and mindful of stakeholders’ diversity of
perspectives is key.
There also arises an inherent tension between these two con-
ceptualisations of dialogue, particularly within the context of SLO.
Westoby (2014), drawing on multiple fields involved in dialogue
thought, addresses this tension in the applied context of community
development. On one hand, Westoby (2014) explains, dialogue can be
an open-ended process of value in its own right or a strategic endeavour
with technical aspects that provide purpose and structure to the dia-
logue within the scope of achieving desirable outcomes for the parties
involved. That is, there is a tension between a purist dialogue as a
learning process and structured dialogue driven by multiple exogenous
factors – which necessitate achieving a practical outcome in a particular
context. This tension is not necessarily problematic, but it will be an
important consideration when dialogue as a concept is being translated
into practice. We explore this tension in the following sections by ex-
amining existing engagement frameworks in relation to how they re-
flect one or the other, or both, of these models of dialogue.
5. Frameworks for considering engagement and dialogue
Two models of – or ways of thinking about – dialogue are apparent
across the literature as being relevant in the context of SLO: learning
dialogue and strategic dialogue. We now explore what role these
models seem to play in frameworks that are designed to structure the
implementation of engagement or dialogue, situating our analysis in the
context of SLO. These five frameworks come from a diversity of sources,
practitioner and academic; represent a range of fields - public partici-
pation, community engagement, community relations, and corporate
communications; and reflect multiple aspects of engagement practice -
company-company, company-community, and company-public. These
dimensions provide an initial set of parameters to enable addressing key
aspects related to engagement in pursuit of SLO.
5.1. Framework one: from conflict to collaboration
A stage-based notion of different ‘degrees’ of dialogue was devel-
oped by engagement practitioners from Twyfords Consulting (2008,
used with permission; pers. com.) (2008) – presented in Table 1. This
framework ‘From Conflict to Collaboration’ was developed based on
more than two decades of work by the consultancy's partners in ad-
dressing planning and environmental disputes at the local, regional,
and state level as well as in providing training through the International
Association for Public Participation. The framework paints a picture of
dialogue based on the focus of a needed conversation between two
parties, a conversation that their experience suggests occurs across
three stages.
The first ‘degree’ or step in dialogue within this framework involves
a ‘positions-focussed’ engagement, where each party is polarised in
Table 1
Twyford Consulting (2008) ‘From Conflict to Collaboration’.
Degrees of dialogue Status / Behaviours
Positions-
focused
Intractable War conflict is now unmanageable
focus on ideology not issues
vindictive behaviours aimed to
destroy opposition
Fighting the Enemy cold and self-righteous
willing to humiliate and hurt the
other party
need to win ‘on principle’
Interests-
focused
Disagreeable
Dialogue
insufficient attempts to understand
other(s)
issues are mixed up with
personalities
key information often withheld
Challenging
Perspectives
hard work to share each other's
interests
tendency to assign motives to other
party without understanding
assumptions made are often wrong
Values-focused Problem Solving focus on what's important, not
positions
issues and problem are clarified early
OK to challenge ideas
Solution Focused current and future focus
openness to change views
safe environment created
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
140

5. position, there are high levels of dysfunctional conflict, and the focus is
on ideology not issues. The second degree of dialogue is ‘interests-fo-
cussed,’ in which there is a lack of honesty, assumptions are being
made, and there is a lack of understanding of the other. The final degree
of dialogue is ‘values-focussed’, which involves problem-solving,
openness, and creation of a safe environment for functional conflict.
The focus at this stage is on important issues rather than positions.
The spectrum across which this engagement occurs moves from no
dialogue to full dialogue. Dialogue is portrayed as an approach akin to
collaborative governance – “a strategy used in planning, regulation,
policy-making, and public management to coordinate, adjudicate, and
integrate the goals and interests of multiple stakeholders” (Levi-Faur
and Ansell, 2012, p. 1).
This framework suggests that an ‘ideal’ version of values-based
dialogue emerges from dialogue involving dysfunctional conflict rather
than being something that can be initiated in any setting at any time. As
the title suggests, the ultimate outcome of such degrees of dialogue is
collaboration that is ‘solutions-focussed’. This framework thus paints
dialogue as a process or mechanism that encourages solutions-focussed
engagement to achieve a certain goal or outcome – whether than out-
come is to solve a problem or to engage in constructive dialogue itself.
Outcomes related to learning are portrayed as contributing to steps
toward this instrumental goal.
5.2. Framework two: a typology of community engagement
Bowen et al. (2010) identified three types of community engage-
ment through a review of the community engagement literature that
has been widely cited since publication. Those types involve what the
authors term ‘transactional’, ‘transitional’, and ‘transformational’ en-
gagement strategies (Table 2). These strategies are portrayed as existing
along a continuum of community engagement from one-way to two-
way communication. They suggest that any one strategy can be ap-
propriate depending on the context and purpose of the engagement.
Transactional engagement strategies are primarily one-way com-
munications, such as information dissemination – requiring low levels
of trust and being intermittent in nature. Transitional strategies depart
from one-way strategies in being more collaborative with the aim of the
company to understand community opinions and to consider such
feedback in decision-making processes. Transformational strategies are
portrayed as a joint learning process for collaborative governance,
which builds relationships based on trust and mutual understanding.
Bowen et al. (2010) contend that, of the three, transformational en-
gagement strategies are the least understood and least implemented
form of engagement. Transformational strategies seem most aligned
with concepts of dialogue being examine here in that they appear to be
oriented toward building the trust and relationships that are said to
form the foundation of a stable SLO.
Bowen et al. (2010) categorise dialogue as being an ‘illustrative
tactic’ used in transitional community engagement strategies. The au-
thors also place two-way dialogue at the highest level of engagement on
their continuum of community engagement. In doing so, the authors
seem to conceptualise dialogue as being both (1) a method to be used as
part of a larger engagement strategy as well as (2) an aspiration or goal
for deep, two-way, community engagement. For them, transformational
engagement relies on authentic dialogue. However, dialogue is seen as
forming part of both transitional and transformational community en-
gagement strategies. So, dialogue is a method at two of their levels of
engagement as well as being an aspiration for their highest level of
engagement.
5.3. Framework three: a typology of public engagement
Rowe and Frewer (2005), in the field of public participation re-
search, highlight challenges of the term ‘public participation’, citing a
level of ambiguity similar to that found in our examination of dialogue
in the context of SLO. They contend that the breadth and diversity of
definitions employed raise questions about what constitutes ‘public
participation’, arguing that the term leaves too much room for inter-
pretation.
In addressing this issue, they propose public participation as being
one of three types of the broader domain of ‘public engagement’ with
public communication and public consultation comprising the other
two types. The authors differentiate between the three types of pubic
engagement based on the nature of the flow of information between
‘sponsor’ (the group advocating for a project, e.g., proponent or com-
pany) and the public/community – shown in Table 3. For them, public
communication and consultation imply a unidirectional flow of in-
formation. Public participation, however, has a two-way flow that they
note is potentially inclusive of dialogue:
In public participation, information is exchanged between members
of the public and the sponsors. That is, there is some degree of
dialogue in the process that takes place (usually in a group setting),
which may involve representatives of both parties in different pro-
portions (depending on the mechanism concerned) … Rather than
simple, raw opinions being conveyed to the sponsors, the act of
dialogue and negotiation serves to transform opinions in the mem-
bers of both parties … (p. 255)
This inclusion of dialogue as part of their notion of public partici-
pation conceptualises dialogue as an act or process that has a specific
goal (to exchange information and transform opinions) that is one part
of the larger public engagement practice. The act of dialogue is painted
as being carried out through multiple engagement mechanisms or
methods that go beyond the base goal – information exchange – to fulfil
a broader potential, transforming opinions of both parties involved. As
Table 2
Bowen et al. (2010) The three community engagement strategies.
Transactional engagement Transitional engagement Transformational engagement
Corporate stance community investment community involvement community integration information
Illustrative tactics giving back, charitable donations, building local
infrastructure employee volunteering, information
sessions
stakeholder dialogues, public consultations,
town hall meetings, cause-related marketing
joint project management, joint decision-
making, co-ownership
Communication one-way: firm to community two-way: more firm to community than
community to firm
two-way: community to firm as much as
firm to community
Number of community
partners
many many few
Frequency of interaction occasional repeated frequent
Nature of trust limited evolutionary relational
Learning transferred from firm most transferred from firm, some transferred
to firm
jointly generated
Control over process firm firm shared
Benefits and outcomes distinct distinct joint
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
141

6. in other frameworks, dialogue represents a different sort of engagement
than that of one-way communication, one that involves greater input/
feedback from public audiences.
5.4. Framework Four: Company-community interaction in mining
community relations
Kemp (2010), building on Kelly and Burkett (2008), presents four
models of ‘work’ for describing tasks involved in company-community
interaction and relationships in the mining industry (Table 4). The four
models presented by Kemp (2010) progress from traditional engage-
ment strategies – which are well established and accepted community
relations work done by large companies, to emergent – which are
portrayed as more recently developed or established and relatively less
common in the mining industry (Kelly and Burkett, 2008). They explain
that traditional models focus on media, communication, or public re-
lations activities that occur predominantly within the company – pri-
marily driven by perceptions of risk. They articulate that emergent
models focus on interdisciplinary or community development activities
that occur within and across both company and community – driven by
risks and pursuit or protection of rights.
The emergent model three is where dialogue is considered: “com-
pany representatives are focused on understanding community per-
spectives through dialogue” (p. 5). This operationalisation of dialogue
paints it as a process enacted by companies to achieve a certain out-
come or goal. Kemp (2010) further situates dialogue within the broader
context of community relations as one of three dimensions of practice.
These dimensions include: “working for the company to understand
local community perspectives; bridging community and company per-
spectives to generate dialogue and mutual understanding; and facil-
itating necessary organizational change to improve social performance”
(p. 1).
Interestingly, this emergent model paints dialogue as an outcome –
“to generate dialogue”, which suggests that Kemp portrays dialogue as
both an aspirational outcome and as a process used to achieve certain
goals. Further, dialogue is represented as facilitating organizational
change; it is something that changes the company's practices rather
than dialogue being something pursued merely to shift attitudes among
stakeholders. This opportunity for a shift by both company and com-
munity aligns nicely with Bohm's notion of dialogue requiring all par-
ticipants to suspend assumptions and predispositions. That is, learning
dialogue can be seen to ‘work’ when conflicting parties are ready to
move: the potentially disruptive potential of dialogue.
5.5. Framework Five: Corporate dialogue between non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and companies
Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) developed two ideal types of cor-
porate dialogue practice for use between multinational companies and
NGOs (Table 5). They articulate five key elements of corporate dia-
logue: “the drivers for the practice; its position in the organizational
structure; the selection procedures for dialogue topics and partners; the
different types of dialogue and the outcomes of stakeholder dialogues”
(Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008, p. 299). These elements are framed by
two perspectives identified from a literature review – one of strategic
management and the other focused on sustainability. A sustainability
perspective on corporate stakeholder dialogue conceptualises dialogue
as an instrument for a mutual learning process among stakeholders used
to inform CSR efforts aimed at addressing sustainability issues. A stra-
tegic management perspective focuses “on the strategic value of sta-
keholder dialogue, emphasizing the role of stakeholder management in
long-term business continuity” (Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008, p. 300).
This typology frames dialogue as an instrument designed to achieve
certain outcomes. The typology articulates the value that such dialogue
might have – ideally – within corporate culture, one outcome being
learning for the company and the other being management of stake-
holders.
Comparison of the above five frameworks reveals emerging trends
about how researchers and practitioners are situating dialogue within
broader contexts relevant to SLO. Resonance is evident between these
frameworks and facets of the models of dialogue presented earlier. Also
emerging are some of those tensions between the strategic and learning
models of dialogue in that there is a dissonance between pragmatic and
aspirational conceptualisations of dialogue.
5.6. Synthesis of frameworks
Insights from a comparison of the above five frameworks are evi-
dent according to the following themes:
1. Whether, and if so, how frameworks conceptualise dialogue in
alignment with the learning model of dialogue and the structured
model of strategic dialogue;
2. What outcomes dialogue seems aimed at achieving;
3. Whether a framework depicts dialogue as consisting of stages (as a
developmental process);
4. Whether a framework depicts dialogue as an outcome to be achieved
or a means to an end;
5. Whether a framework situates dialogue as one mechanism in a
larger process or a process in its own right.
Table 6 illustrates this comparison, which suggests certain im-
portant trends.
5.7. Dialogue as mechanism in a larger process
All but one of the five frameworks portray dialogue as a mechanism
Table 3
Rowe and Frewer (2005) Typology of public engagement.
Type of public engagement Flow of information
Public communication Sponsor to Public Representatives
Public Consultation Public Representatives to Sponsor
Public Participation Two-way between Sponsor and Public
Representatives
Table 4
Kemp (2010) Models of work in company–community interaction in mining.
MODEL Primary
driver
Dominant work ‘space’ Main disciplinary
orientation
Key aim Main methods
Traditional 1 risk within company media and communication target audience message
consumption
information production and dissemination
2 public relations protect and promote corporate
reputation and goals
control and contain issues, problem solving
and positive profiling
Emergent 3 risks and
rights
within and across
community and company
interdisciplinary mutual understanding and
organizational change
inclusive dialogue, relationship building, and
influencing within the organisations
4 within community community development benefit sharing and empowerment developmental processes, participation
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
142

7. within a larger process. Those processes include collaboration, com-
munity relations, public participation, and community engagement.
Only one of the frameworks addresses dialogue as an end in itself.
Portrayal of dialogue as an element in a larger process can be seen to
emerge from these frameworks being drawn from bodies of literature
that are situated within a broader context – not specific to dialogue.
That is, the authors are not solely writing about dialogue; rather, they
are focusing on broader contexts that can be inclusive of dialogue as
one practice – such as company-community interaction.
It is perhaps a realistic necessity that, in contexts as complex as
resource extraction, dialogue will always be considered one aspect of a
larger process, such as attaining a social licence. Our analysis revealed,
however, that it was relatively rare for authors, within their broader
contexts, to define what they meant by dialogue. It is easy to assume a
meaning given the use of the term in common language; however, as
illustrated with the Alaska case study example outlined in Section 2
above from Holley and Mitcham (2016, p. 26), making such an as-
sumption comes with high-cost risks.
Across the descriptions of the five frameworks above, various out-
comes of dialogue are described. Additionally, in multiple instances,
authors cite the potential for learning or transformation. It might be
concluded that, in contexts relevant to SLO, both models of dialogue –
strategic and learning – may be of relevance for the design, im-
plementation or evaluation of practice within broader engagement
strategies and frameworks, either concurrently or in isolation.
5.8. Explicit structures around dialogue
Only one of the frameworks (Twyfords Consulting, 2008) paints
dialogue as consisting of stages or degrees. This one framework por-
trays dialogue as necessarily emerging from pre-dialogue stages, rather
than being something that can be initiated in any setting at any time to
replace a lack of sufficient engagement. The other four frameworks do
not represent dialogue as a stage in a developmental process – it is
rather something that is ‘done’ within a broader engagement strategy.
This apparently more prevalent view is understandable in the con-
text of broader engagement research, where dialogue is not the direct
focus. Such an avenue of thought does, in practice, however, run the
risk of dialogue being applied in an ad hoc manner. That sort of ap-
plication may lend itself to a more one-way, ‘transactional’ approach
that has the potential to disengage or marginalise stakeholders.
Alternatively, it may give rise to dysfunctional conflict should a mis-
alignment of expectations for what constitutes ‘meaningful dialogue’
arise among the stakeholders involved.
Stoll-Kleemann and Welp (2006), Westoby and Dowling (2013), and
Sigurdson and Danielson (2005) have provided examples of how dia-
logue as a concept can translate into practice framed by explicit
structures and processes. While none of these works are situated within
the context of SLO for extractives projects specifically, the insights
offered resonate with the complex set of issues presented by SLO in
resource contexts.
One can conclude that there are differences in perspective about
whether dialogue is best considered as a ‘tool’ to slot into a community
engagement process or as a staged process that unfolds over time. There
is no apparent reason that dialogue cannot productively be both, but
conceptual development in the relevant fields has not yet melded the
two views.
5.9. Dialogue as a goal-oriented process
All five frameworks conceptualise dialogue as a goal-oriented pro-
cess rather than as solely a learning process. Each model indicates a
particular aim, goal or outcome for dialogue, such as collaboration
(Twyfords Consulting, 2008), addressing community expectations
(Bowen et al., 2010), exchanging information or transforming opinions
(Rowe and Frewer, 2005), understanding community perspectives
(Kemp, 2010), or informing CSR initiatives, managing relationships,
and obtaining market information (Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008).
While learning is not the sole intent for dialogue in aiming to achieve
these outcomes, it is interesting to note that for each of these outcomes
to be achieved, some level of learning must take place.
These varied aims indicate that the structured model of strategic
dialogue tends to have had greater uptake (at least as recorded in the
academic and grey literature in this area) than the reflective model of
learning dialogue. This trend might make sense in light of the difficulty
in deploying the learning model of dialogue, with its provisional and
emergent nature, in the resource extraction context (van der Sanden
and Meijman, 2008), which is driven by timelines, decisions, and out-
comes. Another more insidious explanation may be that companies are
viewing stakeholders as posing a risk that needs to be managed, often
with insufficient understanding of the social context (Owen and Kemp,
2013; Williams and Walton, 2013). Such a risk-based view can result in
the aforementioned ‘transactional’ approach to engagement – meeting
the bare minimum of requirements for stakeholder engagement and
relationship-building, processes at the heart of attempts to gain a social
licence.
More broadly, the frameworks also specify a goal or outcome for the
process of engagement (with community, public or otherwise) of which
dialogue is seen as forming a part. If the umbrella under which dialogue
sits is goal-driven, then dialogue can be understood in that way also. In
other words, if the goal of companies aiming to achieve an SLO is to
foster perceptions of social acceptance, then dialogue in that context
may be more commonly contextualised as a goal-driven process, as
portrayed in the frameworks analysed here. Much of the research on
SLO investigates the extent to which companies are perceived to ‘be’
certain things: trustworthy, legitimate, credible, or fair. Gaining those
perceptions can also be seen as a driving force for undertaking dialogue.
This focus on strategic dialogue in aiming to achieve product-
Table 5
Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) Two ideal-types of the corporate dialogue practice.
Elements of dialogue practice Sustainability model Strategic management model
Drivers Search for ways to limit negative environmental impact and/or
enlarge contribution to environmental sustainability
search for ways to limit/avert damage to reputation and/or to take
advantage of business opportunities
Position of stakeholder
management in
organization
Stakeholder dialogues are part of CSR management stakeholder dialogues are part of risk management/external
communication/research and development
Selection of dialogue topics and
partners
Topics for dialogue relate to key environmental sustainability
aspects of the firm's activities; partners are selected for their
expertise and knowledge on these topics
dialogue topics are connected to issues related to corporate risk/
business opportunities; partners are selected for their potential negative
impact on the company or for the information they can provide on the
business environment
Types of dialogue dialogues are held to stimulate learning from CSR purposes dialogues are held to manage relationships and obtain market
information
Dialogue outcomes Dialogue provides expert knowledge and innovative ideas to limit
environmental impact or promote environmental sustainability
dialogue diminishes the risk of damage to reputation or provides
strategic information for market/product development
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
143

8. oriented goals, such as agreement to undertake a social impact assess-
ment, may limit its ability to foster more relational processes and out-
comes, such as mutual understanding and social learning. Perhaps,
within such product-oriented processes, understanding and learning
may be seen as intermediate or tangential outcomes that occur along-
side the achievement of other pre-specified goals. With this contra-
diction between a goal orientation and a learning process, one might
wonder whether purist versions of the learning model of dialogue will
ever gain much presence in the resource extraction and SLO domain.
That acknowledged, there may be lessons from that learning model of
dialogue that can, in these contexts, foster a more open approach to
dialogic practice that is strategically focussed.
6. Conclusion
Dialogue relates to SLO in the context of resource extraction as a
process that is founded on developing relationships. There has been a
rise in discourse around ‘meaningful dialogue’ as a core aspect of SLO
engagement strategies, though space remains for more empirical re-
search that explores how this rhetoric might be translated into practice.
To prepare for that examination, we have here tried to provide greater
clarity about what has been meant when the term ‘dialogue’ arises in
the literature in relation to SLO and engagement strategies, particularly
as relevant to the extractives sector.
Two models of dialogue relevant to SLO have emerged: a model of
learning dialogue: dialogue as a learning exercise with no particular
form, agenda, or expected outcome; and a structured model of strategic
dialogue: which acknowledges that there can be a strategic element to
dialogue in a structured form with specific outcomes, for example,
considering dialogue as a tool to resolve conflict. The latter con-
ceptualisation seems to predominate in the academic and grey litera-
ture considered here. It aligns with how social licence literature oper-
ationalises the term ‘dialogue’ – as a step to be taken to gain a social
licence. In an environment such as resource extraction, where outcomes
are corporate if not government economic imperatives, this structured
strategic approach to dialogue can be seen to make sense, and that may
be why it predominates. While certain affordances are allowed by the
strategic conceptualisation, challenges also arise. Dialogue that is goal
driven and time constrained can limit opportunities for learning and
relationship building.
These two overarching models were explored here in terms of how
they emerge in five engagement frameworks in the fields of public
participation, community engagement, community relations, and cor-
porate communications. None of these frameworks conceptualises
dialogue as a learning process in its own right without a specified
outcome or goal. This result suggests that fields of thought relevant to
SLO are currently aligning dialogue strongly with a strategic model,
rather than a learning model. The ‘second-rank’ status of the learning
model can be seen to undermine the potential for dialogue processes to
be disruptive – as that might be perceived as representing a threat to
achieving a goal that has been preconceived by powerful economic
forces.
Nonetheless, dialogue may continue to have appeal as an aspiration,
such as a being a key element in a continuing mutual learning re-
lationship. However, its pragmatic ability to deliver outcomes is pro-
moted most in the literature. Despite that pragmatic appeal, portrayal
of steps needed to implement or achieve ‘meaningful’ dialogue pro-
cesses were not widely discussed in the literature reviewed here. This
focus on implementation of meaningful dialogue may be an area of
value for future research, particularly within the highly context-specific
arena of SLO in the extractives sector.
We hope that the conceptual framework that we have presented will
aid others in explicitly considering the role of dialogue in the processes
around attaining and maintaining a social licence. This framework may
provide a useful conceptual frame of reference for future work – both
research and practice – that seeks to recognise and embed dialogue as
Table6
Synthesisoffiveextantengagementframeworksinregardtohowtheysituate,operationaliseorunderstand‘dialogue’,includingalignmentwithtwomodelsofdialogue(learningandstrategic).
FromConflictto
Collaboration(Twyford)
Threecommunityengagement
strategies(Bowenetal.)
Typologyofpublic
engagement(Roweand
Frewer)
Company–communityinteraction
(Kemp)
Corporatedialoguepractice(Huijstee
andGlasbergen)
StructuredmodelofstrategicdialogueYes–aimstoachieve
collaboration
Yes–aimstoaddresscommunity
expectations
Yes–aimstoexchange
informationandtransform
opinions
Yes–aimstounderstandcommunity
perspectives
Yes–aimstostimulatelearningforCSR
andtomanagerelationshipsandobtain
marketinformation
Dialoguedepictedasamechanismortool
usedtoachievespecifiedgoal(s)/
outcome(s)
LearningmodelofdialogueNoNo–butdoesdiscusswherelearning
happensinthelargerengagementcontext
(notspecifictodialogue)
NoNoNo
Dialoguedepictedasalearningprocess
withoutapre-determinedoutcome
Dialoguedepictedasconsistingof
stagesordegrees
YesNoNoNoNo
Dialoguedepictedasanoutcome,goal,
aimoraspiration
Yes–toptierof‘degreesof
dialogue’
Yes–increasinglevelsofengagementfrom
one-wayinformationsharingthrough
two-waydialogue
NoYes–bridgingcommunityandcompany
perspectivestogeneratedialogue
No
Dialogueissituatedasonepartor
mechanismofalarger
(engagement)process
Yes–collaborationYes–communityengagementYes–publicengagementYes–company-communityinteractionNo–considersdialogueinitsownright
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
144

9. an integral part of SLO engagement strategies. The hope is that it
provides greater common understanding and clearer expectations
around dialogue given that dialogue necessarily involves the inclusion
of multiple and diverse perspectives.
Acknowledgements
This paper forms part of a project that is supported by an Australian
Government Research Training Program Scholarship, a Commonwealth
Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Postgraduate
Top-up Scholarship, and a University of Queensland, Centre for Coal
Seam Gas Top-up Scholarship.
References
AGL, 2014. Sustainability Report: Community. Retrieved from 〈http://agl2014.
sustainability-report.com.au/community/community-engagement〉.
Akpo, E., Crane, T.A., Vissoh, P.V., Tossou, R.C., 2015. Co-production of Knowledge in
Multi-stakeholder Processes: analyzing Joint Experimentation as Social Learning. J.
Agric. Educ. Ext. 21 (4), 369–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.
939201.
American Petroleum Institute, 2014. Community Engagement Guidelines. Retrieved from
ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3: 〈http://www.api.org/~/media/files/policy/exploration/
100-3_e1.pdf〉.
Anguelovski, I., 2011. Understanding the dynamics of community engagement of
Corporations in communities: the iterative Relationship Between dialogue processes
and local Protest at the Tintaya copper mine in Peru. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24 (4),
384–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920903339699.
Bice, S., 2014. What Gives You a Social Licence? An Exploration of the Social Licence to
Operate in the Australian Mining Industry. Resources (Basel), 3(1), 62-80. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources3010062.
Bohm, D., 1996. On Dialogue. Routledge, London.
Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., Herremans, I., 2008. Engaging the Community: A
Systematic Review. Retrieved from 〈http://nbs.net/knowledge/stakeholder/
stakeholder-engagement/systematic-review/〉.
Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., Herremans, I., 2010. When suits meet roots: the
Antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. J. Bus. Ethics 95
(2), 297–318. (Retrieved from). 〈http://www.jstor.org/stable/40785088〉.
Buber, M., 1947. Between Man and Man. Routledge Classics, London.
Cheney, H., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., 2002. People, Power, Participation: a Study of Mining-
Community Relationships Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
Colvin, R.M., Witt, G.B., Lacey, J., 2016. How wind became a four-letter word: lessons for
community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia. Energy
Policy 98, 483–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.022.
de Jong, W., Humphreys, D., 2016. A failed Social Licence to Operate for the neoliberal
modernization of Amazonian resource use: the underlying causes of the Bagua tra-
gedy of Peru. Forestry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw033.
Dare, M., Schirmer, J., Vanclay, F., 2014. Community engagement and social licence to
operate. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32 (3), 188–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2014.927108.
Davis, R., Franks, D.M., 2014. Costs of Company-Community Conflict in the Extractive
Sector. (66). Retrieved from Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School:.
Dowd, A.-M., James, M., 2014. A Social Licence for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage:
how Engineers and Managers Describe Community Relations. Social. Epistemol. 28
(3–4), 364–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922639.
Edwards, P., Lacey, J., 2014. Can’t Climb the Trees Anymore: social Licence to Operate,
Bioenergy and Whole Stump Removal in Sweden. Social. Epistemol. 28 (3–4),
239–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922637.
Ernst & Young, 2015. Business Risks Facing Mining and Metals 2014–2015. Retrieved
from 〈http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-Business-risks-facing-
mining-and-metals-2014%E2%80%932015/$FILE/EY-Business-risks-facing-mining-
and-metals-2014%E2%80%932015.pdf〉.
Faysse, N., Nicolas, F., Mostafa, E., Amar, I., Hassane, K., 2014. Paving the way for Social
learning when Governance Is Weak: supporting dialogue Between stakeholders to
face a groundwater crisis in Morocco. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27 (3), 249.
Freire, P., 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books, London.
Gadamer, H.G., 1975. Truth and Method. The Seabury Press, New York.
Garmendia, E., Stagl, S., 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning:
concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 69 (8),
1712–1722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027.
Hall, N.L., 2014. Can the “Social licence to operate” concept enhance engagement and
increase acceptance of renewable energy? A case study of wind farms in Australia.
Social. Epistemol. 28 (3–4), 219–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.
922636.
Hall, N.L., Jeanneret, T., 2015. Social licence to operate: an opportunity to enhance CSR
for deeper communication and engagement (doi). Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 20 (2),
213–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2014-0005.
Hindmarsh, R., 2010. Wind farms and community engagement in australia: a critical
analysis for policy learning. East Asian Sci., Technol. Soc. 4 (4), 541–563. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s12280-010-9155-9.
Holley, E.A., Mitcham, C., 2016. The pebble mine dialogue: a case study in public en-
gagement and the social license to operate. Resour. Policy 47, 18–27. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.11.002.
Huijstee, M., Glasbergen, P., 2008. The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multi-
nationals and NGOs. Corp. Social. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (5), 298–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.171.
International Council of Mining & Metals, 2010. Making Progress Through Dialoue:
Annual Review 2010. Retrieved from 〈http://www.icmm.com/publications/pdfs/
1581.pdf〉.
International Council of Mining & Metals, 2015. Understanding Company-Community
Relations Toolkit. 〈http://www.icmm.com/document/9670〉 Retrieved from
〈http://www.icmm.com/document/9670〉.
Jijelava, D., Vanclay, F., 2017. Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of
a social licence to operate: an analysis of BP's projects in Georgia. J. Clean. Prod. 140
(Part 3), 1077–1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.070.
Joyce, S., Thomson, I., 2000. Earning a Social licence to operate: Social acceptability and
resource development in Latin America. Can. Min. Metall. Bull. 93 (1037), 49–52.
Kelly, A., Burkett, I., 2008. Building the People Centred Approach: dialogue for
Community Engagement Workbook. Centre for Social Response. Brisbane.
Kemp, D., 2010. Community relations in the global mining industry: exploring the in-
ternal dimensions of externally orientated work. Corp. Social. Responsib. Environ.
Manag. 17 (1), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.195.
KPMG, 2005. International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility 2005. Retrieved
from 〈http://oldwww.wbcsd.org/web/publications/news/kpmg2005.pdf〉.
Kuch, D., Ellem, G., Bahnisch, M., Webb, S., 2013. Social License and Communications
Report. Retrieved from Australian Council of Learned Academies: 〈http://www.
acola.org.au/PDF/SAF06Consultants/CSRER%20ATSE%20-%20Social%20License
%20Communication%20Jan%202013.pdf〉.
Lacey, J., Lamont, J., 2013. Using social contract to inform social licence to operate: an
application in the Australian coal seam gas industry. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 831–839.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.047.
Leith, P., Ogier, E., Haward, M., 2014. Science and Social License: defining Environmental
Sustainability of Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture in South-Eastern Tasmania, Australia.
Social. Epistemol. 28 (3–4), 277–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.
922641.
Levi-Faur, D., Ansell, C., 2012. Collaborative Governance: Oxford University Press.
Lloyd, D., Luke, H., Boyd, W.E., 2014. Community perspectives of natural resource ex-
traction: coal-seam gas mining and social identity in Eastern Australia. Coolabah 10
(1), 144–164.
Measham, T., Darbas, T., Williams, R., Taylor, B., 2012. Rethinking rural futures: quali-
tative scenarios for reflexive regional development. Rural Soc. 21 (3), 176–189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.2012.21.3.176.
Moffat, K., Zhang, A., 2014. The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model
explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour. Policy 39, 61–70. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003.
Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Zhang, A., Leipold, S., 2015. The social licence to operate: a critical
review. Forestry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv044.
Owen, J.R., 2016. Social license and the fear of Mineras Interruptus. Geoforum 77,
102–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.014.
Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2013. Social licence and mining: a critical perspective. Resour.
Policy 38 (1), 29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.06.016.
Owen, J.R., Westoby, P., 2012. The structure of dialogic practice within developmental
work. Community Dev. 43 (3), 306–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330.
2011.632093.
Parsons, R., Moffat, K., 2014. Constructing the Meaning of Social Licence. Social.
Epistemol. 28 (3–4), 340–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922645.
Parsons, R., Lacey, J., Moffat, K., 2014. Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice:
how the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’. Resour. Policy
41, 83–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.04.002.
Prno, J., 2013. An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to
operate in the mining industry. Resour. Policy 38 (4), 577–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.resourpol.2013.09.010.
Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2012. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the
mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour.
Policy 37 (3), 346–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002.
Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., 2003. Support for decision making in conservation practice: an
evidence-based approach. J. Nat. Conserv. 11 (2), 83–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/
1617-1381-00040.
Richert, C., Rogers, A., Burton, M., 2015. Measuring the extent of a Social License to
Operate: the influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in
Western Australia. Resour. Policy 43, 121–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2014.12.001.
Rooney, D., Leach, J., Ashworth, P., 2014. Doing the Social in Social License. Social.
Epistemol. 28 (3–4), 209–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922644.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci.,
Technol., Human. Values 30 (2), 251–290.
Santos GLNG, 2012. Social Impact Management Plan: Community Handbook. 〈http://
www.santosglng.com/media/pdf3301/updated_simp.pdf〉 Retrieved from 〈http://
www.santosglng.com/media/pdf3301/updated_simp.pdf〉.
Sigurdson, G., Danielson, L. (Eds.)., 2005. The Dialogue Forum Handbook: Energizing
Conversations AboutDialogue Through Dialogue. Vancouver, Canada: Morris J. Wosk
Centre for Dialogue.
Skoldeberg, J., Jones, V.N., Kupcu, M.F., Cable, C., 2013. Changing the game - commu-
nications and sustainability in the mining industry. Retrieved from 〈http://www.
icmm.com/publications/pdfs/6095.pdf〉.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M., 2006. Stakehold. Dialog-. Nat. Resour. Manag. Theory
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
145

10. Pract. 386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36917-2.
Thomson, I., Boutilier, R.G., 2011. In: Darling, P. (Ed.), The Social Licence to Operate
SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Colorado, pp. 673–690.
Twyfords Consulting, 2008. From Conflict to Collaboration: Degrees of Dialogue. Not
publically available; used with written permission (pers. com.).
van der Sanden, M.C.A., Meijman, F.J., 2008. Dialogue guides awareness and under-
standing of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different sci-
ence communication approaches. Public Underst. Sci. 17 (1), 89–103. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0963662506067376.
Walsh, B., van der Plank, S., Behrens, P., 2017. The effect of community consultation on
perceptions of a proposed mine: a case study from southeast Australia. Resour. Policy
51, 163–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.12.006.
Westoby, P., 2014. Theorising dialogue for community development practice – an ex-
ploration of crucial thinkers. J. Dialog-. Stud. 2 (1), 18.
Westoby, P., Dowling, G., 2013. Theory and Practice of Dialogical Community
Development: international perspectives. Routledge, New York.
Williams, J., Martin, P., 2011. Defending the Social Licence of Farming. CSIRO
Publishing.
Williams, R., Walton, A., 2013. The Social Licence to Operate and Coal Seam Gas
Development: A literature review report to the Gas Industry Social and
Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). Retrieved from Canberra:.
Yates, B., Horvath, C.L., 2013. Social License to Operate: How to Get It, and How to Keep
It (Working Paper). Retrieved from The National Bureau of Asian Research: 〈http://
www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?Id=681〉.
Zhang, A., Moffat, K., 2015. A balancing act: the role of benefits, impacts and confidence
in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia. Resour. Policy 44,
25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.01.001.
Zhang, A., Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Wang, J., González, R., Uribe, K., Dai, Y., 2015.
Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a com-
parative study of Australia, China and Chile. J. Clean. Prod. 108 (Part A), 1063–1072.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.097.
L. Mercer-Mapstone et al. Resources Policy 54 (2017) 137–146
146