TY - JOUR
T1 - What did NAM do to get a social licence to operate? The social impact history of the Schoonebeek oilfield in the Netherlands
AU - Veenker, Ramon
AU - Vanclay, Frank
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - From 1943 to 1996, the small rural community of Schoonebeek in the eastern Netherlands hosted the largest onshore oilfield in western Europe. Some 250 million barrels of oil were produced, bringing prosperity to the municipality and local community. With generous compensation paid by NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, a partnership between Shell and ExxonMobil), local people greatly benefited from oil extraction. However, there were also negative social impacts, including: an influx of outsiders; changes to social structure, social fabric, social cohesion, and community identity; disruption to the peaceful rural setting; and industrialisation of the landscape. Nevertheless, the oil pumping installations (‘jaknikkers’ or nodding donkeys) ultimately became positive symbols of local place identity. Despite the negative social impacts, oil production came to be viewed positively by most local people, and a high level of trust developed between the host community and NAM because of the social performance strategies that were implemented: NAM employed many local people; minimised physical displacement; provided generous compensation for economic displacement; respected the social, cultural and religious wishes of the host community; and quickly addressed any social or environmental issues that developed. These actions meant that NAM gained a strong social licence to operate and grow.
AB - From 1943 to 1996, the small rural community of Schoonebeek in the eastern Netherlands hosted the largest onshore oilfield in western Europe. Some 250 million barrels of oil were produced, bringing prosperity to the municipality and local community. With generous compensation paid by NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, a partnership between Shell and ExxonMobil), local people greatly benefited from oil extraction. However, there were also negative social impacts, including: an influx of outsiders; changes to social structure, social fabric, social cohesion, and community identity; disruption to the peaceful rural setting; and industrialisation of the landscape. Nevertheless, the oil pumping installations (‘jaknikkers’ or nodding donkeys) ultimately became positive symbols of local place identity. Despite the negative social impacts, oil production came to be viewed positively by most local people, and a high level of trust developed between the host community and NAM because of the social performance strategies that were implemented: NAM employed many local people; minimised physical displacement; provided generous compensation for economic displacement; respected the social, cultural and religious wishes of the host community; and quickly addressed any social or environmental issues that developed. These actions meant that NAM gained a strong social licence to operate and grow.
KW - Corporate social responsibility
KW - Extractive industries and society
KW - Local history
KW - Social impact assessment
KW - Social license to operate
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85101634342
U2 - 10.1016/j.exis.2021.02.008
DO - 10.1016/j.exis.2021.02.008
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85101634342
SN - 2214-790X
VL - 8
JO - Extractive Industries and Society
JF - Extractive Industries and Society
IS - 2
M1 - 100888
ER -