Emerging Issues – Social Licence
Social licence is a de facto form of regulation that encourages companies to go beyond merely
complying with legal requirements. Failure to comply with social licence conditions can lead to
reputational damage and delay. While it does not establish a new legal or regulatory requirement,
social licence can push the boundaries of existing ones.
The Concept of Social Licence
Social licence is a much referenced, but also much misunderstood concept. The term social
licence is coined by Jim Cooney, an executive with Placer Dome, at a 1997 World Bank
meeting examining the future survival of the mining industry. The phrase was an
acknowledgement that the support of communities affected by mining could only be
obtained and continued if companies demonstrated transparency and entered into an open
dialogue with stakeholders.
Although there is no uniform definition of social licence, it can be said to embody the
following general concepts:
1. It is voluntary, not a legal concept or compliance issue.
2. “Beyond compliance” behaviour is encouraged.
3. Though not a legal contract per se, a company needs to strive to obtain an
unwritten contract with stakeholders and society.
4. It is often project or location specific (i.e. those most affected should have the
most say).
5. There may be a number of social licences, which must be maintained as social
expectations and norms change over time.
The rise of the social licence phenomenon is rooted in a growing lack of public confidence
and trust in government and governmental authorities to do the “right thing” in regulating
business. The rise is also due, in part, to the rise of social media and the internet, and a
generational shift in the views on the purpose behind business.
Criticisms of the Social Licence Concept
The social licence concept is subject to criticism. The rise of social licence is characterized
by some critics as a serious threat because it can potentially delay or frustrate billions of
dollars of economic development. To some, it is simply Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)
dressed up and given another name, and has become a “licence to stall”.
Despite such criticisms, the industry recognizes the importance of social licence. Many
companies have tried to rise to the challenge, such as through Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) in annual reports, and the inclusion of CSR expertise. In the corporate
governance context, the term “social licence” is rarely used. Rather, it is usually referred to
as “social acceptance”, a much broader term. The best vehicle to achieve social licence is,
perhaps, strong and innovative transactional agreements.
Examples of Social Licence in the Commercial and Environmental Context
Northern Gateway
By Decision Statement issued June 17, 2014, the National Energy Board approved the
Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, subject to 209 conditions. Despite numerous cited
benefits flowing from the construction of what would be a 731 km twin pipeline running from
Alberta's oil sands to the BC coast at Kitimat, it has been suggested by some that the project
is quietly being shelved, largely due to social license issues. Among other things, a number
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com
of legal proceedings are currently underway in which First Nations and other aboriginal
groups who would be impacted by its construction and operation, are challenging the
pipeline's approval.
Because of these social license issues, as well as the added costs in meeting the 209
conditions attached to the pipeline's approval, the $7.9 billion original cost estimate is now
considered to be significantly understated, and the future of the project is considered by
some to be in grave jeopardy.
Ring of Fire
A similar story exists with respect to Northern Ontario's Ring of Fire. The remote area, which
represents the first discovery of chromite in commercial quantities in North America,
contains minerals having a potential monetary value of approximately $60 billion.
As with the Northern Gateway pipeline, the Ring of Fire and associated required
infrastructure including access roads, are located in ecologically sensitive areas on
traditional lands of many First Nations communities. This project has also come to a halt
again, apparently due largely to social licence issues.
Tension among stakeholders escalated when Noront, co-owner of the mineral-related rights,
began landing planes on two frozen lakes, without permits to do so, and in the absence of
any consultation with the affected First Nations groups. As well, planning legislation was
passed without any consultation. This prompted several protests, and greatly impacted
relations with these groups.
As an indication of the project's potential demise, Cliffs Natural Resources (Cliffs), the other
owner of mineral rights, sold its Ring of Fire assets earlier this year to Noront for $27.5
million. Cliffs had originally paid $3.3 billion in 2012 to acquire those same rights.
Québec Shale Gas
While Québec's shale gas industry has existed in one form or another since the 1950s, until
the relatively recent advent of hydraulic fracturing and other technological extraction
advancements, much of the reserves located in Québec's St. Lawrence lowlands has
remained inaccessible. Unfortunately, as a result of having failed to properly consult with
affected stakeholders including landowners, those reserves remain inaccessible. Following
drilling activities with no notice to landowners and in the absence of a governing regulatory
framework, intense public opposition ensued, which resulted in the imposition in 2011 of a 5
year moratorium on shale gas exploration. In 2014, the Québec environmental regulator
released a report stating that “the social and environmental risks and costs of shale gas
exploitation would outweigh the anticipated benefits.”
Until these issues have been addressed and social licence has been obtained, the
development of Québec's shale gas resources will likely not occur.
Alberta Energy Regulator
In December 2012, the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) was enacted, which
created the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). Under REDA, the AER became the single
regulator in Alberta for all energy resource developments. The role of the AER includes
granting project approvals and regulating environmental compliance.
Oil and gas development in Alberta, especially oil sands development, is subject to intense
scrutiny internationally. The AER is seen by many as the industry's environmental watchdog.
The newly elected provincial government suggested that it would be examining the AER's
mandate with a view to assessing whether the single regulator should be split so that it's
licensing and compliance roles could be performed by separate bodies, as a result of a
perceived conflict. In an article published in the National Post, we suggested that it was too
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com
early to meaningfully assess whether the AER was properly co-managing the objectives of
environmental responsibility, and resource development. To date, nothing further has
transpired in terms of any initiative to split the single regulator.
Conclusion
It is no longer sufficient to simply focus on obtaining whatever regulatory approvals are
required for a project to proceed. If social licence is not also obtained, a project may come to
a screeching halt, or it may die a slower, quieter death.
AUTHOR
Alan Ross
T 403.232.9656
[email protected]
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com
BLG OFFICES
Calgary
Montréal
Ottawa
Centennial Place, East Tower
1900, 520 - 3rd Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2P 0R3
1000 De La Gauchetière Street West
Suite 900
Montréal, Québec, Canada
H3B 5H4
World Exchange Plaza
100 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1P 1J9
T 403.232.9500
F 403.266.1395
T 514-954-2555
F 514-879-9015
T 613.237.5160
F 613.230.8842
Toronto
Vancouver
Scotia Plaza
40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5H 3Y4
1200 Waterfront Centre
200 Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V7X 1T2
T 416.367.6000
F 416.367.6749
T 604.687.5744
F 604.687.1415
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to be a complete statement of the law or
an opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure its accuracy, no one should act upon it without a
thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are considered. No part of this publication may
be reproduced without prior written permission of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG). This publication has been sent
to you courtesy of BLG. We respect your privacy, and wish to point out that our privacy policy relative to publications
may be found at http://www.blg.com/en/privacy. If you have received this in error, or if you do not wish to receive
further publications, you may ask to have your contact information removed from our mailing lists by phoning
1.877.BLG.LAW1 or by emailing [email protected].
© 2016 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership.
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com