The emergence of social licence necessitates reforms in environmental regulation

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The term "social licence to operate" (SLO), popularized in corporate usage over the last 20 years, is frequently used to refer to the level of social approval that exists in relation to the development of natural resources for private or public purposes. However, the theoretical and practical utility of the concept remains contested and it is often used opportunistically to advance individual agendas. Moreover, it remains difficult to assess how an adequate level of SLO can be transparently assessed, or how dialogue can be appropriately achieved. In this paper we argue that the increasing use of the SLO concept is an indication that trust in, and the legitimacy of, formal regulatory processes for natural resource management has eroded and needs to be reimagined. In response, we outline five principles that provide pathways to increase the legitimacy of, and trust in, regulatory approval processes: (i) clear regulatory objectives; (ii) transparent regulatory approval processes; (iii) clear pathways for appeals and reviews of regulatory decisions (iv) early and inclusive collaborative consultation process; and (v) independence of decision-making authorities. By rethinking the basic principles of regulatory and licencing processes in natural resource management, our five principles aim to reduce the need for SLO. This could minimize erratic decision making and inequitable approval processes that are driven by a perceived need for SLO, often only for the corporate sector, which risks the voices of other stakeholders being unevenly represented. We draw upon natural resource management experiences from Tasmania, Australia as illustrative examples to stimulate a discussion on the usefulness of SLO and the need for improved approaches to natural resource management.

Is social licence “going rogue”?

“…As Van Putten et al. () have argued, stronger regulations that enjoy the support of environmental and social activists will “reduce the need for social licence.”…”

“…In this scenario, the state will have regained the confidence of environmental and social activists in its role to regulate and monitor resource development effectively. As Van Putten et al (2018) have argued, stronger regulations that enjoy the support of environmental and social activists will "reduce the need for social licence." This is one scenario, but it is certainly not the only one.…”

“…For Van Putten et al. (), stronger regulatory systems, that enjoy greater support from the public, may even render concepts like social licence irrelevant in the longer term.…”

“…There is evidence, for example, that environmental impact assessments are being rewritten to include a greater emphasis on social acceptability and consent in the approval process. For Van Putten et al (2018), stronger regulatory systems, that enjoy greater support from the public, may even render concepts like social licence irrelevant in the longer term.…”

“…These responses are remarkably consistent in their messaging across different geographies, and they suggest that industry is rethinking the role of social licence in mediating companycommunity relations. Some of the criticism of social licence has been especially stark in Canadian pipeline politics (Corcoran, 2014;Gunster & Neubauer, 2018;, but it is also evident in other sectors of the Canadian economy (Crowley, 2014;Jarvis, 2015;Tertzakian, 2012), and in other countries with resource-extractive industries where social licence has taken root (Jenkins, 2018;Malpass, 2013;Poynter, 2012).…”