LAUSR

Social licence to operate can be defined as ‘... the level of acceptance or approval continually granted to an organisation’s operations or project by local community and other stakeholders’ (Black 2013). An industry can be said to have gained a social licence to operate when it is viewed as a socially responsible, legitimate and trusted contributor to the host community and to society more broadly. The term social licence to operate was first coined in the late 1990s and applied mainly to extractive industries. In the last decade it has become more commonly applied to largescale industries, such as forestry, agriculture and fisheries, and more recently still, to a much broader range of activities, from banking to greyhound racing. It has become far more widely used in public discourse. Even in its earliest articulation, when it applied exclusively to the relationship between extractive projects and neighbouring human communities, social licence has always been just a metaphor, albeit a powerful one. Social licence is most clearly understood and demonstrated when it is withdrawn or eroded, with consequent impacts on access to markets for products, imposition of additional legislation and regulation governing the activities of the industry, or operational impacts resulting from protest, legal or industrial action. Loss of social licencemay be a reaction to an undesirable or unacceptable action or change in a business activity, or it may occur as a result of the changing expectations or standards by stakeholders. Operationalising the metaphor of social licence presents significant conceptual and implementation challenges that are likely to become increasingly complex when moving from, say, a single forest coupe or plantation to single businesses, and to the forestry sector as a whole. Nevertheless, there are instructive examples of strategies leading to successful outcomes at all scales in a range of industries (Moffat et al. 2016). The extractive industries were amongst the first to recognise the need for a social licence to operate particular projects, which often have readily identifiable areas of potential conflict with host communities, and a clear and unambiguous business case for early resolution. Nevertheless, social engagement strategies in the extractive industries have become increasingly sophisticated, moving beyond compensation and minimisation of offsite impacts to fairer, long-term distribution of benefits with regard to mineral development, more inclusive models of governance, and a greater understanding of social acceptance. The Australian cotton industry has also made notable gains in social licence, from a low base in the 1990s—the contemporary Australian cotton industry enjoys a reputation as a leader and innovator in sustainable agriculture, with a positive image in the marketplace and a strong relationship with global retailers (Roth 2014). The forestry industries are generally more skilled at identifying and mitigating business risk from environmental variables (e.g. climate, pests) and market variables (pricing, competition, consumer demand), than they are at evaluating and mitigating socio-political risk. Addressing the former risks represents a greater proportion of the research, development and extension (RD&E) investment, although there are examples of effective social research and public outreach (e.g. the ‘Wood. Naturally Better’ campaign of Forest and Wood Products Australia). The business case for investment in social licence research closely tracks the business case for building a social licence to operate per se. First, in order to reduce the level of operational risk from social issues it is necessary to understand what these issues are before an effective response can be formulated. Second, it is necessary to understand how these issues are changing. Research can identify who the key stakeholders are, and their level of involvement, and ultimately, help businesses engagewith the belief systems of these stakeholders, and to develop business systems that embrace corporate social responsibility goals. Reliance on the communication of scientific findings alone is a strategy that is unlikely to succeed in allaying community concerns, for all that it may be necessary to inform industry practice, meet regulatory requirements or to underpin the longterm viability of the industry. Recently there has been an apparent decline in the communities’ trust of scientific findings, probably exacerbated by the presentation of contradictory evidence, and experts disagreeing in the public domain. Local stakeholders and members of the public are generally poorly equipped to discriminate between reliable and unreliable scientific evidence, or to judge which source of scientific evidence is likely to be the more credible. Organisations or campaigns that are opposed to a particular forestry activity sometimes have little difficulty in finding apparently well-credentialed experts to put the scientific case against the activity. In the faceof public disagreementbetween scientists and their findings, the majority of stakeholders will stick with their preconceptions and will not be swayed by the science, no matter how sound. This goes again to the need for organisations that carry out or support scientific research to engage with the belief systems of their target audiences, if the expectation is that the research will influence outcomes in the socio-political environment. A long-term investment is usually required to improve trust and political capital. Individual businesses and the forestry sector more broadly need to know where is the most sensible place to make such an investment. The central question from an industry or business perspective, is therefore ‘What programs, policies, standards and business systems are needed to achieve social licence?’ This presupposes that a substantial majority of participants in the industry accept the need for a social licence to operate. Questions that need to be considered include the following: