IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/corsem/v31y2024i1p331-343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renewable energy, social disruption and formalising the social licence to operate in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Mabele
  • Lochner Marais
  • Nazmiye Balta‐Ozkan
  • Pegah Mirzania
  • Babalwa Mbobo
  • Phia van der Watt
  • Jan Cloete
  • Anita Venter

Abstract

A social licence to operate and corporate social responsibility are often applied voluntarily to ensure a positive relationship between businesses and communities. But South Africa's Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme makes investment in local socio‐economic development a contractual obligation. To assess the implications of this legalised approach to CSR and the social licence to operate, between September 2019 and January 2020 we conducted seven focus group discussions and 24 key informant interviews in two towns in South Africa's Northern Cape province. The data were analysed thematically and triangulated with data on crime, municipal finance and house prices. Our concerns about the legalised approach are that it does not require local consent; it reduces local development to a needs analysis; it does not require local collaborative planning, despite adverse consequences such as social disruption; it bypasses local organisation and accountability; it does not provide cheaper local electricity; and it offers no guidelines for decommissioning.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Mabele & Lochner Marais & Nazmiye Balta‐Ozkan & Pegah Mirzania & Babalwa Mbobo & Phia van der Watt & Jan Cloete & Anita Venter, 2024. "Renewable energy, social disruption and formalising the social licence to operate in South Africa," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 331-343, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:31:y:2024:i:1:p:331-343
    DOI: 10.1002/csr.2572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2572
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/csr.2572?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Watt, Phia & Marais, Lochner, 2021. "Implementing social and labour plans in South Africa: Reflections on collaborative planning in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Parsons, Richard & Lacey, Justine & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 83-90.
    3. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "The Death and Life of Collaborative Planning Theory," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 1-5.
    4. Wang, Sen, 2019. "Managing forests for the greater good: The role of the social license to operate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Deacon, Leith, 2020. "Land use tools for tempering boom and bust: Strategy and capacity building in governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Geert Demuijnck & Björn Fasterling, 2016. "The Social License to Operate," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(4), pages 675-685, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Anna Katharina Provasnek & Anton Sentic & Erwin Schmid, 2017. "Integrating Eco‐Innovations and Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Development and a Social License to Operate," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 173-185, May.
    3. Marais, Lochner & Matebesi, Sethulego & van der Watt, Phia, 2024. "Social licensing and dependencies: Implications for mine closure in South Africa," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Brueckner, Martin & Eabrasu, Marian, 2018. "Pinning down the social license to operate (SLO): The problem of normative complexity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 217-226.
    5. Demajorovic, Jacques & Lopes, Juliana Campos & Santiago, Ana Lucia Frezzatti, 2019. "The Samarco dam disaster: A grave challenge to social license to operate discourse," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 273-282.
    6. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    7. Veronica Devenin & Constanza Bianchi, 2018. "Soccer fields? What for? Effectiveness of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the mining industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 866-879, September.
    8. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Granzow, Michael, 2021. "From trauma to fantasy and policy. The past in the futures of mining communities; the case of Crowsnest Pass, Alberta," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    10. Marc Bascompta & Lluís Sanmiquel & Carla Vintró & Mohammad Yousefian, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Index for Mine Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    11. Alexandra Köves & Tamás Veress & Judit Gáspár & Réka Matolay, 2021. "Conceptualizing Cuvée Organizations: Characteristics Leading towards Sustainable Decision-Making Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    13. Misani, Nicola, 2020. "Sustainability and Implicit Contracts," MPRA Paper 104963, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Mark Anthony Camilleri, 2022. "The rationale for ISO 14001 certification: A systematic review and a cost–benefit analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 1067-1083, July.
    15. Julien Lancelot Michellod & Declan Kuch & Christian Winzer & Martin K. Patel & Selin Yilmaz, 2022. "Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-25, October.
    16. Radebe, Nomkhosi & Chipangamate, Nelson, 2024. "Mining industry risks, and future critical minerals and metals supply chain resilience in emerging markets," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    18. Kautonen, Teemu & Schillebeeckx, Simon J.D. & Gartner, Johannes & Hakala, Henri & Salmela-Aro, Katariina & Snellman, Kirsi, 2020. "The dark side of sustainability orientation for SME performance," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    19. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    20. Daniel M. Shapiro & Carlos Vecino & Jing Li, 2018. "Exploring China’s state-led FDI model: Evidence from the extractive sectors in Latin America," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-37, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:31:y:2024:i:1:p:331-343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1535-3966 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.