Social licence is the word of the day when it comes to the energy transition. It’s the headline of the new National Guidelines for community engagement and benefits for electricity transmission projects. It’s the subject of national sentiment tracking for the energy transition by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. And it’s the lever for many community groups opposing energy infrastructure in their local areas. And these are just a few examples in a groundswell even the energy engineers are recognizing as ‘a somewhat unexpected roadblock on Australia’s path to net zero’.

In this short piece (relatively speaking, I am an academic!), I want to take a pause on SLO, to step back and to introduce a new, helpful and important concept: presumed benevolence.

Is our focus on SLO all wrong?

Communities in Australia and around the world are voicing opposition to the renewable energy infrastructure required for the energy transformation. The recently approved Central-West Orana renewable energy zone (REZ) in New South Wales remains contested, despite planning approval. Of 398 public submissions received in the planning process, for instance, 369 objected to the REZ and only three were written in support. Almost three-quarters of those submissions cited ‘environmental, social and economic impacts’ as their major concern.  Situations like these are playing out across Australian, First Nations and international communities.

Longitudinal research by the ANU Institute for Infrastructure in Society (I2S) clearly shows that the technological capacity and engineering nous required for major infrastructure delivery is well in hand, at least in Australia. A failure to acknowledge, engage and respect the communities who will host our energy infrastructure is what needs most urgent attention. Not the technical stuff (that’s a technical term).

This is a message that is consistently challenging to deliver. And to which the answer is most often, “We have to secure a social licence.” Increasingly, and after a whole lot of research and thinking, I’m convinced that this is not the critical starting point. It’s not lack of social licence that will short circuit the energy transition, it’s presumed benevolence and all of the assumptions and expectations it entails. Let me say that again, clearly. It’s presumed benevolence that will short circuit the energy transition.

Why?

The world’s briefest introduction to framing
It all relates to the long-understood phenomenon of framing—the sense-making structures we apply to situations and experiences in order to interpret and create meaning. Frames are the often unconscious lenses we apply to issues in our lives to make sense of them, based on our own values, beliefs and experiences. Many, if not most, scientists, policymakers, environmental advocates and climate-concerned citizens adopt a frame of ‘presumed benevolence’ when it comes to climate adaptation and the renewable energy transformation.

What is presumed benevolence?
Presumed benevolence is what I’m calling the unconscious framing bias commonly related to a ‘good for all’ project, policy or initiative that responds to a requirement or crisis and where the requirement, crisis, scientific advice, technological improvement or socio-environmental need creates a presumption that the project, policy or initiative is benevolent and will therefore be readily accepted.
(Read that again, slowly. It makes good sense. I swear!)

Start making sense*

Scientists, climate-friendly politicians and renewable energy operators are but a few of the parties baffled by public resistance or outright rejection of renewables projects. But things start to make more sense when we understand what’s emerging around the world relative to renewables project opposition in terms of presumed benevolence. Not everyone sees the changes required for the energy transition from the same frame, especially those for whom the transition necessitates major, likely irreversible changes of a scale and nature that will alter their local communities, land, livelihoods or identities.

In the NSW Hunter-Central Coast REZ, for instance, local residents, many of whom are intergenerational agricultural or mining families in tight-knit communities, are expected to host 24 solar energy projects, 13 onshore and seven offshore wind projects, 35 large-scale batteries and eight pumped hydro projects with an associated, new 100 kilometer above-ground 500kV transmission line. Eighty percent of electricity generated in the Hunter-Central Coast REZ will flow to Sydney, Illawarra and the Hunter.

From a frame of presumed benevolence, the Hunter-Central Coast REZ is a necessary, exciting and easily acceptable initiative that is introducing new, climate-friendly industries and technologies, with associated jobs, skills, economic opportunities and environmental benefits. But if we adopt another frame, this is a fast-moving program of major projects requiring local residents to shoulder considerable changes to achieve the collective benefit of climate adaptation.

Far fewer urban residents will be asked to make such trade-offs or sacrifices for the common good. This is not to say that all regional or rural community members see the transition and its associated infrastructure as unwanted, or that people are selfish or that urban dwellers are unappreciative. The point here is that individuals understand the transition through a variety of frames and experiences, many of which are divergent to the presumed benevolence that frames so much of Australia’s (and many other countries’) renewables activity.

Is presumed benevolence really an issue?

Yes. We are already seeing the pitfalls of presumed benevolence. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner’s recent Community Engagement Review revealed a whopping 92% of respondents “were dissatisfied with the extent to which project developers engaged the local community.” If that’s not a red flag for the energy transition, what is? A recent CSIRO study similarly showed that nearly one in five Australians would reject living near renewable energy infrastructure and almost half would prefer a ‘moderately paced’ transition, as opposed to a faster one.

But wait, isn’t that all about social licence?

Yes and no. Right now, I’m going to presume (see what I did there?!) that we all agree that framing is an issue that is deeply affecting our local and global capacity to deliver the energy transformation with the urgency and efficacy required. Yes, we must absolutely focus on the trust, legitimacy, credibility and relationships characterized by procedural fairness to achieve that aim. SLO remains crucial. But, and this is what I am arguing here, it is a mis-step to focus on securing SLO as the first step.

Oh man, we’ve spent ages trying to understand SLO and now you’re suggesting we need to do something else?!

I’m never one to present problems without solutions (thank you, Mom and Dad), so here are three suggestions to get us started:

1) Acknowledge and address presumed benevolence
First, let’s openly acknowledge the presumed benevolence that is largely shaping our climate adaptation attitudes, policies and actions. Many of us regularly attempt to put ourselves in the shoes of others when it comes to traumatic or highly impactful events that are beyond their control. But when we, ourselves, possibly frame climate adaptation and the renewables transition as inherently good, or at least necessary, we often fail to extend the empathic understanding of diverse perspectives that we might otherwise apply. The critical first step to anticipate and better understand responses to the transition that may not mirror our own is acknowledging, respecting and understanding that the changes required of certain communities to achieve the transition may not be desirable, wanted or acceptable to them. So, first, acknowledge the common frame of presumed benevolence applied to climate adaptation and the energy transformation.

2) Focus on building collective efficacy
Which leads to the next important suggestion: We need to focus on building collective efficacy. Collective efficacy refers to the systemic circumstances and beliefs necessary to achieve a desired, societal outcome. A term coined by the late Stanford Professor, social scientist and psychologist Albert Bandura in his work on education, his words are unintentionally incredibly applicable to what’s needed to effect the climate and energy transformation, “It takes a great deal of united effort to dislodge entrenched detrimental practices. …Such social efforts are aimed at raising public awareness…, educating and influencing policymakers, mobilizing public support for policy initiatives, and monitoring and ensuring enforcement of existing…regulations” (p.33). Focusing on building the collective efficacy necessary to enact the energy transformation is another prequel to SLO.

3) Concentrate on the compression effect

Third and final suggestion for this masterwork humble rant: Work from the ground up and the top down. The compression effect is key. I kind of promised that I wouldn’t talk about social licence, but I can’t help myself. Recent and fascinating research out of Finland has been investigating the relationship and flows of social licence at multiple levels, from local communities to projects, to industries, to states, to countries. This ‘scalar SLO’ is super important for the climate and energy transformation. It suggests that, while local levels of SLO can affect societal levels of SLO, the reverse does not appear to be true. That’s right, Mr Reagan, SLO does not appear to trickle down.

When we think about the presumed benevolence framing so much of our high level, government-led domestic and international climate action, this makes perfect sense. A societal level agreement that climate-conserving measures and infrastructure must be rapidly implemented does not necessarily flow down as acceptance (read, social licence) among the local communities bearing those changes. When we recognize that even with a societal level SLO for climate action and the energy transition, local SLOs may be lacking, we see clearly the challenge before us and the urgency and necessity of grassroots work. Work that acknowledges our diverse frames. Work that attempts to understand and empathise with those of others. Work which seeks not to expect that acceptance will come because of top-down pressure but that it must be built up. Work characterised by respect, integrity and a flexibility to invent and apply new technical solutions that meet the values and expectations of the communities whose generosity will deliver all of us a sustainable planetary future.

Interested to hear more? Have a response, rebuttal and ideas you want to share? Want to hear from those in the middle of the transition? Get in touch. Or, better yet, join us Thursday, 15 August when we’re discussing and debating ‘The Renewables Transition, Part 2: Securing a Social Licence’.

Sara Bice is Co-Founder and Director, ANU I2S, where she and the team are working with industry and government to reduce major projects’ social impacts and improve social value from major infrastructure investments. She posts on LinkedIn, here .

*For those for whom this was a kind of Talking Heads trigger, you can Stop Making Sense here.