Search Advanced

AIMS Energy

2014, Volume 2, Issue 4: 443-460. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.443
Previous Article Next Article
Research article

The discourse of "social licence to operate": case study of the Australian wind industry

  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), QCAT, PO Box 883, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia
  • Received: 17 August 2014 Accepted: 07 December 2014 Published: 12 December 2014

  • Social Licence to Operate is a concept from the mining industry that reflects the ongoing acceptance or approval for a development granted by local stakeholders. It is now being applied by wind farm developers. Using the Australian wind industry as a case study, this discourse analysis examined how Social Licence to Operate is perceived and operationalised, and the key themes in this conceptual and applied discourse. Discourse analysis acknowledges that language choices are not accidental and discourse reflects power relationships. The wind industry representatives interviewed considered power over the Social Licence to Operate was shared with community stakeholders. They recognised the stakeholders' power to delay or prevent projects, but rejected the notion that every stakeholder group should have veto power. Social Licence to Operate is seen by the wind industry through a business-oriented perspective, with an emphasis on business risk, and they describe the opposition to wind farms by invoking a metaphor of "battle". The industry respondents described Social Licence to Operate as incorporating the values of trust, transparency and participation—which all contribute to creating "authentic" relationships. These findings can inform Social Licence to Operate research, engagement practices, and also encourage reflection by industry representatives on their implicit intentions for stakeholder engagement.

    Citation: Nina L. Hall. The discourse of "social licence to operate": case study of the Australian wind industry[J]. AIMS Energy, 2014, 2(4): 443-460. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.443

    Related Papers:

  • Social Licence to Operate is a concept from the mining industry that reflects the ongoing acceptance or approval for a development granted by local stakeholders. It is now being applied by wind farm developers. Using the Australian wind industry as a case study, this discourse analysis examined how Social Licence to Operate is perceived and operationalised, and the key themes in this conceptual and applied discourse. Discourse analysis acknowledges that language choices are not accidental and discourse reflects power relationships. The wind industry representatives interviewed considered power over the Social Licence to Operate was shared with community stakeholders. They recognised the stakeholders' power to delay or prevent projects, but rejected the notion that every stakeholder group should have veto power. Social Licence to Operate is seen by the wind industry through a business-oriented perspective, with an emphasis on business risk, and they describe the opposition to wind farms by invoking a metaphor of "battle". The industry respondents described Social Licence to Operate as incorporating the values of trust, transparency and participation—which all contribute to creating "authentic" relationships. These findings can inform Social Licence to Operate research, engagement practices, and also encourage reflection by industry representatives on their implicit intentions for stakeholder engagement.


    加载中
    [1] Walker G, Hunter S, Devine-Wright P, et al. (2007) Harnessing Community Energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environ Polit 7: 64-82. doi: 10.1162/glep.2007.7.2.64
    [2] Corvellec H (2007) Arguing for a licence to operate: the case of the Swedish wind power industry. Corp Commun: Int J 12: 129-144. doi: 10.1108/13563280710744810
    [3] Seeger C (2011) Unpacking the social licence to operate. Achieve 23, 2012, 4. Available from: http://www.skmconsulting.com/Knowledge-and-Insights/Achieve-Magazine/Issue4-2011/article1.aspx
    [4] Harvey B (2011) Social licence to operate is good business. Achieve 23, 2012, 4. Available from: http://www.skmconsulting.com/Knowledge-and-Insights/Achieve-Magazine/Issue4-2011/cover.aspx.
    [5] CEC (2013) Community engagement guidelines for the Australian wind industry. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council.
    [6] Thomson I, Boutilier R (2011) Social Licence to Operate. SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Englewood, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. 1779-1796.
    [7] Gross C (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energ Policy 35: 2727-3276. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.013
    [8] Hall N, Ashworth P, Devine-Wright P (2013) Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energ Policy: 200-208.
    [9] Hindmarsh R (2014) Hot air ablowin! ‘Mediaspeak', social conflict, and the Australian ‘decoupled' wind farm controversy. Soc Stud Sci 44: 194-217. doi: 10.1177/0306312713504239
    [10] Parsons R, Moffat K (2014) Constructing the meaning of ‘social licence'. Soc Epistemology 28: 340-363. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2014.922645
    [11] Hindmarsh R (2010) Wind farms and Community Engagement in Australia: A Critical Analysis for Policy Learning. East Asian Sci, Technol Soc: Int J 4: 541-563. doi: 10.1215/s12280-010-9155-9
    [12] Owen J, Kemp D (2012) Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resour Policy 38: 29-35.
    [13] Moffat K, Zhang A (2014) The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour Policy 39: 61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003
    [14] Gunningham N, Kagan R, Thornton D (2004) Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance. Law Social Inquiry 29: 307-341. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00338.x
    [15] Humphreys D (2000) A business perspective on community relations in mining. Resour Policy 26: 127-131. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4207(00)00024-6
    [16] Lacey J, Parsons R, Moffat K (2012) Exploring the concept of a Social Licence to Operate in the Australian minerals industry: Results from interviews with industry representatives. EP125553. Brisbane: CSIRO.
    [17] Lozano R (2013) A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp Soc Responsibility Environ Manage. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1325/abstract.
    [18] Michelon G, Boesso G, Kumar K (2013) Examining the Link between Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Company Performance: An Analysis of the Best Corporate Citizens. Corp Soc Responsibility Environ Manage 20: 81-94. doi: 10.1002/csr.1278
    [19] Kemp D (2010) Community Relations in the Global Mining Industry: Exploring the Internal Dimensions of Externally Orientated Work. Corp Soc Responsibility Environ Manage: 1-14.
    [20] Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C, et al. (2013) Re-visiting the ‘social gap': public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ Politics 22: 115-135. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.755793
    [21] Zografos C, Martínez-Alier J (2009) The politics of landscape value: a case study of wind farm conflict in rural Catalonia. Environ Plann A 41: 1726-1744. doi: 10.1068/a41208
    [22] ROAM Consulting (2010) The true costs and benefits of the enhanced RET: Report CEC00003. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council.
    [23] CEC (2012) Technologies: Wind. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council. Available from: http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/wind.html (accessed 2/8/12).
    [24] SKM Consulting (2012) Wind Farm Investment, Employment and Carbon Abatement in Australia. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council.
    [25] Asuero D (2012) Submission on the NSW wind farm draft guidelines. Sydney: Union Fenosa Wind Australia.
    [26] Hall N (2014) Can the "Social Licence to Operate" Concept Enhance Engagement and Increase Acceptance of Renewable Energy? A Case Study of Wind Farms in Australia. Soc Epistemology 28: 219-238.
    [27] Fairclough N (2001) Language and Power (Second edition). Longman: Longman.
    [28] Hajer M, Versteeg W (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics. J Environ Policy Plann 7: 175-184. doi: 10.1080/15239080500339646
    [29] Di Masso A, Dixon J, Durrheim K (2013) Place Attachment as Discursive Practice. In: Manzo L, Devine-Wright P, editors. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 75-85.
    [30] McKenna B (2004) Critical discourse studies: Where to from here? Criti Discourse Stud 1: 9-39. doi: 10.1080/17405900410001674498
    [31] Stevenson H, Dryzek J (2012) The discursive democratisation of global climate governance. Environ Politics 21: 189-210. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.651898
    [32] Fairclough N (2012) Critical discourse analysis. Int Adv Eng Technol 7: 452-487.
    [33] Stratford E (2009) Belonging as a resource: the case of Ralphs Bay, Tasmania, and the local politics of place. Environ Plan A 41: 796-810. doi: 10.1068/a40198
    [34] Usher M (2013) Defending and transcending local identity through environmental discourse. Environ Politics 22: 811-831. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.765685
    [35] DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree B (2006) The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40: 314-321. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
    [36] Qu S, Dumay J (2011) The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Res Accounting Manage 8: 238-264. doi: 10.1108/11766091111162070
    [37] Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [38] Davis N, B. M (2009) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Procedural Comparison. J App Sport Psychology 21: 116-124. doi: 10.1080/10413200802575700
    [39] García-Horta J, Guerra-Ramos M (2009) The use of CAQDAS in educational research: some advantages, limitations and potential risks. Int J Res Method Educ: 151-165.
    [40] Dahlsrud A (2008) How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corp Soc Responsibility Environ Manage 15: 1-13. doi: 10.1002/csr.132
    [41] Prno J (2013) An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resour Policy: 577-590.
    [42] Tognato C, Spoehr J (2012) The Energy To Engage: Wind Farm Development and Community Engagement in Australia. Adelaide: Australian Workplace Innovation and Social Research Centre, The University of Adelaide.
    [43] McDowell A (2002) Trust and information: the role of trust in the social epistemology of information science. Soc Epistemology 16: 51-63. doi: 10.1080/210132798
    [44] Barnett J, Burningham K, Walker G, et al. (2012) Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Und Sci 21: 36-50.
    [45] Cibulskienė J (2002) The metaphorization of election as war in the 2001 general election campaign of Great Britain. Respectus Philologicus 2.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2014 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Energy
1.8 3.8

Metrics

Article views(6538) PDF downloads(1083) Cited by(10)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog