The role of social license in conservation

Kendal, Dave; Ford, Rebecca M.

doi:10.1111/cobi.12994

Cited by 38 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that social license is most useful when conceptualized as binary and that its metaphorical similarity to a formal state‐sanctioned license is far closer than suggested by Gunningham et al. () and adopted by Kendal and Ford (). This definition, “The demands on and expectations on a business enterprise that emerge from neighbourhoods, environmental groups, community members, and other member of the surrounding civil society” (Gunningham et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social license as an emergent property of political interactions: response to Kendal and Ford 2017

Garnett

Zander

Robinson

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…We are delighted that Kendal and Ford () were moved to comment on the use of the term social license with respect to conservation as we (Zander et al. ; Garnett et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social license as an emergent property of political interactions: response to Kendal and Ford 2017

Garnett

Zander

Robinson

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term is also progressively being applied and adopted across a range of other natural resource industries to describe the changing nature of the interactions among private companies and local communities (Hall et al 2015, Moffat et al 2016, Kendal and Ford 2018. Although social licence suggests a role in environmental regulation, there is actually no legal process for attaining it (Bursey and Whiting 2015).…”

Section: Overview Of Slomentioning

confidence: 99%

The emergence of social licence necessitates reforms in environmental regulation

Putten¹,

Cvitanovic²,

Fulton³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The term "social licence to operate" (SLO), popularized in corporate usage over the last 20 years, is frequently used to refer to the level of social approval that exists in relation to the development of natural resources for private or public purposes. However, the theoretical and practical utility of the concept remains contested and it is often used opportunistically to advance individual agendas. Moreover, it remains difficult to assess how an adequate level of SLO can be transparently assessed, or how dialogue can be appropriately achieved. In this paper we argue that the increasing use of the SLO concept is an indication that trust in, and the legitimacy of, formal regulatory processes for natural resource management has eroded and needs to be reimagined. In response, we outline five principles that provide pathways to increase the legitimacy of, and trust in, regulatory approval processes: (i) clear regulatory objectives; (ii) transparent regulatory approval processes; (iii) clear pathways for appeals and reviews of regulatory decisions (iv) early and inclusive collaborative consultation process; and (v) independence of decision-making authorities. By rethinking the basic principles of regulatory and licencing processes in natural resource management, our five principles aim to reduce the need for SLO. This could minimize erratic decision making and inequitable approval processes that are driven by a perceived need for SLO, often only for the corporate sector, which risks the voices of other stakeholders being unevenly represented. We draw upon natural resource management experiences from Tasmania, Australia as illustrative examples to stimulate a discussion on the usefulness of SLO and the need for improved approaches to natural resource management.

show abstract

“…Hence social license has recently become an important focus for many natural resource management fields, including mining (Lacey et al ), energy production (Hall et al ), forestry (Lester ), and agriculture (Robbins et al ). There is, however, less awareness of its role in wildlife management (Kendal and Ford , Darimont ). There has been some disagreement between authors as to the applicability of the term social license to wildlife fields (Kendal and Ford , Garnett et al ), but the concept is increasingly being used in contemporary human dimensions studies (Oakes et al , Garnett et al , Wanger et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is, however, less awareness of its role in wildlife management (Kendal and Ford , Darimont ). There has been some disagreement between authors as to the applicability of the term social license to wildlife fields (Kendal and Ford , Garnett et al ), but the concept is increasingly being used in contemporary human dimensions studies (Oakes et al , Garnett et al , Wanger et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

Hampton¹,

Teh-White²

2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many wildlife use industries are facing criticism from animal welfare groups. In some recent cases, opposition to contentious practices (e.g., kangaroo [Macropus spp.] harvesting) has achieved widespread community support and industries have lost market access or regulatory approval. The concept of social license to operate has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields, but there is ostensibly less awareness of its role in animal industries. To regard this contemporary threat to traditional wildlife management as more than inexplicable requires some delving into social sciences. We use the example of the declining harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) harvest in Canada to illustrate how poorly addressed animal welfare concerns can erode social license and decimate even ecologically sustainable wildlife use enterprises. We argue that other consumptive wildlife use industries, such as North American fur harvesting and kangaroo harvesting in Australia are at risk of loss of social license if animal welfare concerns are not addressed proactively and effectively. When faced with opposition from animal advocacy groups, many wildlife use industries have traditionally been reactive and have been reluctant to engage with stakeholders who possess seemingly irreconcilable differences. Instead, industries have often resorted to secrecy or deception, or have steadfastly defended their current approaches while attacking their critics. We suggest that a more effective approach would be for industries to proactively engage with stakeholders, establish a shared vision for how their industry should operate, and support this vision by transparently monitoring animal welfare outcomes. Proactive management of community expectations surrounding animal welfare is essential for the maintenance of social license for wildlife use enterprises. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

The role of social license in conservation

Cited by 38 publications

References 27 publications

Social license as an emergent property of political interactions: response to Kendal and Ford 2017

Social license as an emergent property of political interactions: response to Kendal and Ford 2017

The emergence of social licence necessitates reforms in environmental regulation

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About