This document summarizes research comparing how mining companies in Sweden and South Africa obtain a social license to operate (SLO). The research examines the choices mining companies make when applying for licenses in Sweden and an ongoing case study of the Sishen mine in South Africa. It discusses definitions of SLO and how companies obtain it by following soft laws and initiatives like CSR policies, local agreements, transparency, and philanthropy. For Sweden, results showed established companies did the minimum while new companies did more. In South Africa, billions have been invested at Sishen but communities have not benefited as intended. Concluding thoughts discuss differences in CSR approaches between the contexts and potential lessons from Sweden.

1. Mining and Social
License to Operate:
differences and similarities
South Africa & Sweden
Håkan Tarras-Wahlberg
Sustainability Research Group (SuRe)
Stockholm School of Economics Institue for Research

2. The research:
 What do mining companies do to gain a Social
Licence to Operate (”SLO”) ?
 Sweden:
• Completed: study of choices made by companies in
applying for mining licenses (-2012)
• Later, case study
 In South Africa:
• Ongoing case study of Sishen/Kumba

3. What is meant by ”SLO”?
 Origins in western (Anglo-American) Mining
Industry
 Example of definition:
”SLO refers to the acceptance within local communities of both
mining companies and their projects. In order to obtain an SLO
it is necessary to develop good relationships with all
stakeholders, especially with local communities. The credibility
of mining companies is based on mutual respect, honesty,
open dialogue, transparency, timely responses to community
concerns, information disclosure, and constancy and
predictability in the companies’ ethical behavior. Obtaining an
SLO is essential for reducing the risks of social conflicts and for
enhancing a company’s reputation”.
www.miningfacts.org

4. How obtain ”SLO”?
 Abide by ”hard law”, in addition:
• Following ”soft laws” (ICCM, OECD, WB, EITI,
•
•
•
•
•
•
SveMin etc.)
Establishment of CSR policy & Co C
Create local work & business opportunities
Initiatives for transparent disclosure
Local agreements (e.g. Impact Benefit Agreements)
Provision of information / educative efforts
Philantropy

5. Why focus on permitting
process:
Scope & expectations of EIA

6. Issues - Sweden

7. Results - Sweden:
Social license to mine in Sweden: do companies go the extra mile
to gain community acceptance?
 Established mining companies:
- no more than necessary
 New mining and exploration companies:
- more than legally required
 In spite of this:
- The established companies accepted; new ones
resisted

8. Results - Sweden:

9. Results - Sweden:

10. Sishen Mine
39Mt/yr (2011)

11. Reyneke & Snyman
(BenchMarks & HHS), 2013:
”Billions of Rands invested, but
communities not benefitting as
intended”
”The current state of affairs in
the communities surrounding
Sishen Mine is one of poverty,
unemployment and various
health risks….”
”… the question can be
asked: Where does the
mining company’s
responsibility begin and end?”

12. Who should do what – LKAB
case
2013:
Early 1900s:
”LKAB does
everything”
”LKAB
should
do more”

13. Concluding thoughts:
 Swedish mining companies – beginners at CSR.




Does that make them irresponsible or bad?
Kumba /Anglo American – far from beginners at
CSR, yet results & efficiency contested.
Swedish companies have become alerted to the
need for CSR by influences from abroad.
How well does CSR fit in a Nordic, welfare state
based context ?
Is there anything in the Swedish experiences that
can be usefully applied in Southern Africa?