Social licence

...collaborative, not transactional!

Social licence is… the acceptance an organisation receives from its stakeholders to conduct its activities.

Until recently at DemocracyCo we have avoided talking about how deliberative democracy can build social licence…. because ….to be frank…. it isn’t the point …

…but perhaps because it isn’t the point … is why it works.

Building social licence from local communities by definition means building acceptance. But …this is not the aim of a deliberative process!

Deliberative engagement enables citizens to come to public judgement. This involves citizens learning about issues, building understanding of others, and working collaboratively with other stakeholders to find a way forward together. When done right deliberative processes have integrity. As highlighted by the University of Canberra in their “Guidebook for Deliberative Engagement”, they are intentional, inclusive, connected, reflective, consequential, and most importantly ethical.

Deliberative processes have respect at their heart. Respect for individuals and for communities. They seek to bring citizens together – not divide.

In short, they have legitimacy, and they seek to build trust, both of which are central to building social licence. Local communities will ‘accept’ a way forward if they feel that an initiative:

  • has social legitimacy – in that it contributes to their wellbeing or meets expectations.
  • offers economic legitimacy – in that it benefits them, and /or their community.
  • If the process to development and implement the initiative instills trust

We've seen this happen...

A recent process in Gippsland on Offshore Wind helps to demonstrate the potential impacts. The Gippsland Offshore Wind Community Assembly was convened by the Gippsland Climate Change Network with the support of DemocracyCo. A post survey of Assembly participants found

  • 76% increase in trust in the convener.
  • 30% increased support for offshore windfarms in Gippsland.
  • 6% increase in participants saying that they understood how a community benefit scheme could work in their community.
  • Over 90% of participants felt heard by the convener and over 80% felt heard by the local offshore wind industry.
  • 97% participants said they would participate in a process like this again.
  • 97% of participants agreed that they felt comfortable to advocate for change in their communities.
  • Participants and stakeholders involved were talking and working with the broader community throughout raising awareness of the process and the issues.

The Assembly kicked off what will need to be an ongoing process of industry and government working with communities throughout the design, approval, and implementation stages of offshore wind.

Achieving outcomes, like those experienced by the Gippsland case study, requires collaboration, not transaction.

It requires deliberative (or governance and engagement processes) which at their essence bring people and organisations together for mutual benefit.

Cynical processes that don’t respect citizens and their personal agency, or don’t respond to the fears and needs of local communities will not be effective … or at least won’t deliver sustainable outcomes.

Keen to learn more about deliberation and its impacts? Click here

References cited in this article

University of Canberra, Guidebook for Deliberative Engagement: Key Features and Practical Insights, 2025 https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/guidebook-for-deliberative-engagement-key-features-and-practical-/

Thomson and Boutilier, The social licence to operate,  2011, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285474394_The_social_licence_to_operate 

DemocracyCo, Gippsland Offshore Wind Community Assembly Impact Report – https://www.democracyco.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/GOWCA-Impact-Report_FINAL_FULL.pdf