I’ve heard the expression “Social License” used on a number of occasions recently. The two references I can remember off hand were in relation to live cattle exports and CSG projects.

My understanding of the “Social License to Operate” is that it serves as a community consensus in relation to specific projects. The local community and stakeholders, often referred to as the “Network of Stakeholders” are able to express their acceptance, support or rejection. I don’t have much concern with this process in general terms.

In one of the descriptions at the link shown below, I came across the following further descriptions of additional Stakeholders which I found a little alarming.

“For example, ranchers that would have to accept a land swap involving part of their pasture land would be affected by a proposed mining operation, without having much affect on it, provided they accepted the deal. By contrast, a para-military group of insurgents, or an international environmental group, that might attack the project site, each in their own way, would have effects on the operation, without being affected much by it. They would be stakeholders too”.

http://socialicense.com/definition.html

In today’s world of ideological politics, activism and business interests, isn’t the social license as primarily a community instrument, now more exposed to undue influence from politics, activism or companies.

Are these additional stakeholders valid as primary decision criteria? If one secondary stakeholder is represented should all be represented in the interests of balance? More importantly, are we seeing a community mechanism being usurped for other purposes?

It may be my advanced years, spindoc, or my upbringing, or the fact that I have never worked in the public service, but I didn't understand a word of this.

Who uses these instruments, and for what purpose?

Who owns them? And who devises them? Are they required to adhere to particular standards? Do they have to be registered somewhere - and who checks them for conformance?

What force do they have? Are they legal instruments, or simply wish-lists submitted by third parties? How do I find out whether I am in breach of such a license?

Can I apply for one? To whom do I apply? Does it cost me anything to be licensed?

If I come across one that I have problem with, where do I go in order to have it repealed?

Methinks it is just waffle. I just hope no taxpayer has been tapped to support this meaningless guff.

Spindoc me too.
But it, surely comes from America?
Call an Aussie farmer a Rancher and get ready to run!

Pericles,

This concept is now being picked up by the consulting firm’s big time, for developers it is very serious stuff, just Google it and see how many hits you get.

In answer to your questions; I think I’m right in saying; Communities, developers, consensus, the community, no, government, nobody, complete, yes, no, you don’t, yes, your community, no, you can’t.

It may be just waffle but check out the power against developers and the power they give to government.

This is another example of the socialization of development processes. Good, bad or indifferent, they are serious stuff.

Spindoc, I have never before heard of social license until coming to this forum. But it is an intriguing notion. In answer to your question, I sort of agree that the identification of these additional stakeholders to the process runs the risk of usurping a community mechanism. Yet in some (or all?) such cases would not these additional stakeholders offer a greater scope for refinement of community consensus?

For example, the community may be informed through traditional media and miss the opportunity for a deeper understanding of the issues. I think climate change, fracking and live exports are some topical examples.

Activism has always meant that political processes and social issues can be highjacked or unfairly tainted, but surely that doesn't invalidate the rights of such groups to have their views inserted into the process. Taking an issue close to my heart, I'd love to see animal rights given a stronger airing in the live export debate.

What a lot of nonsense !
Reads like something dreamt up in an ivory tower university by some
#$%^&head with nothing to do !