Title: Social Licence and Mining: A Critical Perspective
Author/Institution: J.R. Owen & D. Kemp, University of Queensland Publication
Year: 2013
Questioning the Managerial Framing of Social License
Owen and Kemp’s 2013 article offers a critical examination of how the concept of social license to operate (SLO) has been adopted within the mining industry. While acknowledging its importance, the authors argue that SLO is often framed too narrowly as a managerial risk tool rather than as a deeper social and political process. They contend that many corporate interpretations reduce social license to
community acceptance metrics or reputation management strategies, overlooking underlying structural inequalities, power imbalances, and historical grievances that shape community responses to mining projects. In this view, social license cannot be “managed” solely through communication strategies; it must be grounded in substantive institutional change.
Power, Participation, and Structural Conflict
Methodologically, Owen and Kemp analyze mining conflicts across different jurisdictions to demonstrate that opposition frequently emerges from perceived exclusion, inequitable benefit distribution, and limited decision-making influence. They emphasize that meaningful participation and fair negotiation processes are central to legitimacy, especially in contexts where communities bear environmental and social costs. The article highlights that unresolved structural tensions—such as land rights disputes, environmental degradation, or inequitable fiscal arrangements—cannot be resolved through short-term engagement programs. Instead, legitimacy requires addressing systemic governance weaknesses that undermine trust.
Implications for Contemporary License Debates
Owen and Kemp’s critical perspective is directly relevant to current global discussions on concession reforms, renegotiations, and formalization policies. Their analysis suggests that durable mining stability depends less on corporate social investment and more on equitable institutional arrangements that redistribute decision-making power and clarify accountability. In environments where governments revisit concession terms or where communities demand greater participation, social license must evolve from a corporate strategy into a shared governance framework. The article ultimately reinforces that stakeholder prosperity is contingent on structural fairness, not symbolic engagement, positioning legitimacy as a function of institutional depth rather than public-relations effectiveness.