Social Partnership’: Promoting Shared Interests for Resource and Infrastructure Development

Geoffrey Hale and Yale Belanger
Additional contact information
Geoffrey Hale: The University of Lethbridge
Yale Belanger: The University of Lethbridge

C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 2015, issue 440

Abstract: Social partnerships have become a key element for energy and related infrastructure development. Failure to secure social acceptance increases the risks of litigation of a project or political conflict that creates significant barriers to economically viable resource development. The central challenge facing governments, businesses, and affected communities is how to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements ostensibly intended to serve the broader public interest, and competing views of “legitimacy” based on the accommodation of diverse social and political interests and values. This challenge may be greatest in dealing with First Nations, especially the growing but often loosely defined legal recognition of rights to consultation and accommodation of their ways of life and uses of traditional lands. In this Commentary, the authors examine case studies of successful community engagement in different settings involving resource sector firms, local and provincial governments, Aboriginal communities, and other local stakeholders. The authors examine a number of approaches to addressing local concerns. Those are: • Building Multi-Stakeholder Groups and Networks: Local or regional industry working groups including industry representatives provide a valuable means of strengthening connections with local governments and communities, public health authorities and local emergency response professionals in order to reduce risks, address community concerns, and respond more effectively to occasional emergencies. The group process appears to complement the activities of regulators such as the Alberta Energy Regulator. • Multi-Jurisdictional Projects: Multi-jurisdictional initiatives require parallel processes that respect legal, institutional and social differences in various jurisdictions. The authors find successful examples of formal multi-stakeholder advisory processes in British Columbia that could inform future negotiations elsewhere. • Engaging First Nations and Aboriginal Communities: One major factor common to many past disputes with First Nations has been a frustrated community leadership. Consultation prior to detailed project design or approval has become a central factor influencing First Nations’ acceptance of resource projects affecting traditional lands. The energy sector’s involvement in hundreds of diverse communities points to a number of lessons. Provincial and federal governments and regulators can do more by promoting multi-stakeholder groups and disclosing more about emergency response plans. Industry bodies should promote cultures of continuous improvement reinforced by benchmarks and internal reporting requirements that demonstrate adherence. Energy firms themselves can look to international certifications of their processes of social partnership.

Keywords: Energy; and; Natural; Resources (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q4 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/%E2% ... e-and-infrastructure (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cdh:commen:440

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in C.D. Howe Institute Commentary from C.D. Howe Institute Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kristine Gray ().