DOE OSTI2020
The long regulatory road has finally been completed-after years of effort a Record of Decision has been signed and a Permit to Construct has been granted or a Permit to Operate has been obtained. But what about the other road that should be taken in parallel-community engagement? Working with the public is not a sequential activity, rather it is a consequential one and needs to be integrated with overall project planning. Unless you have effectively, meaningfully, and patiently engaged with the project's communities of impact, you may find your project trying to obtain a social license or a social license to operate (SLO). The SLO has its origins in the mining industry and its roots in the business model of corporate social responsibility and sustainability. These latter practices are well known to the US DOE and its contractor community. Aspects of the SLO are emerging as individuals and communities are becoming more informed and have increased expectations for being able to influence and shape decisions. When local community issues are not sought out, listened to, or addressed early, and questions are left unanswered, they can become agenda items for larger unaffiliated groups, and project loss (through delays and/or cancellation) can occur. Issues can transition from resolvable to intractable, a type of SLO face-off. Social media campaigns, serial negative media coverage, and protest signs at project sites opposing regulatory decisions already made are no longer anomalies. These types of incidents demonstrate the increasingly delicate relationship between approved regulatory/technical decisions and public acceptance of those decisions. A SLO is not a requirement. However, the building-blocks of a SLO - working with members of affected communities to build understanding, potentially to obtain and maintain community acceptance or even gain approval or support - are evidence of leadership by project sponsors. Actions taken, or not taken, by project sponsors truly have the ability to influence an outcome. While projects are not assured of success or failure, engaging the community in an empowered process is an investment of time and resources toward success for the project and thus for the communities of impact. Authors Note: Extensive literature searches were performed in developing this paper. The majority of the published literature on SLO as a 'movement' was found from sources in Canada, the European Union (Germany and France in particular), South Asia, South Korea, and many Latin American countries. The literature addressed resource development (mining), infrastructure, and energy projects. Articles written by US sources often spoke to origins and structural theory, specific project issues such as Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) and to protests/demonstrations related to those projects, rather than systemic opposition/conflict phenomena. For these reasons many international SLO experiences and sources are cited in the discussion. The authors recognize these non-US experiences with SLO as having a 'forecast' value to US projects, especially those related to nuclear projects of any type, waste treatment and disposal, energy development (especially fossil fuels as well as alternative sources), mining, and infrastructure. The body of future SLO experiences in the US will shape the future responses to it. (authors)
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗