Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

What is the social license?... The social license in a nutshell

After reviewing a number of existing definitions and critiques of 'social license to operate', I make the following observations about 'the social license':

1. The social license relates to the activities of any organization. It cannot be directly managed or self-awarded, rather it is the accumulation of a number of factors that will be explored in greater depth in the book. It is these factors that organizations can manage, not the social license itself.

2. It is much easier to notice the absence of the social license than its presence. The presence of the social license might be described as an equitable balance, or harmony, between different interests that allows an activity to continue and to thrive. However, as it is dynamic, it can always be withdrawn.

3. The social license relates to what an organization does as opposed to what it is—i.e. it relates to the activities of an organization.

4. The social license should be understood in social contract terms and therefore different types of organization will acquire the social license in different ways for their activities because they have a different relationship to the social contract. The classic distinctions are: for governments, by being accountable and effective servants of the social contract in society; for civil society, it is about strengthening the accountability of government or the strength of the social contract itself, and for business (whose primary purpose is not social) it is about not weakening the social contact or exploiting existing weaknesses—and finding ways of building capacity within the existing social contract without replacing it.

5. I test the hypothesis as there is some evidence that on some issues, such as internet governance, dealing with remote communities or international public–private partnerships, business is being granted a much wider social license and is treated as if it were a social actor such as an NGO or even a government.

6. The social license does not replace political license or legal license, in fact quite the opposite is the case. However, both legal and political licenses have limitations and they are increasingly reliant on the social license.

7. The limitations of existing political and legal license need to be understood in an international context and against international norms such as human rights. Modern interpretations of social contract theory have made much use of human rights and so too does this approach to understanding the social license.

It is for this reason that Chapter Two of my book starts with the latin epitaph 'Nemo judex in cause sua' (no one can be judge of their own cause). The first two pages also focus on the Niger Delta story and quote part of Ken Saro Wiwa's statement before his execution in 1995: 'I predict that the scene here will be played and replayed by generations yet unborn. Some have already cast themselves in the role of villains, some are tragic victims, some still have a chance to redeem themselves. The choice is for each individual.'

So whilst I argue throughout the book that no organisation can award itself a social license, it can very much manage or influence many of the underpinning factors which result in its presence or absence. The book explores what some of these factors are drawing on a range of experiences.

For more go to johnmorrisonbooks.com and follow John Morrison on twitter @jomo1966

Larry Medina Monsalve Communities Advisor en Talisman (Colombia) Oil & Gas Ltd.

Great definition. In south america that means oportunities inside and outside companies in a complex social and political Environment. Changes and a lot Of world to do. A new way to understand the management universe. Waiting for this book. LikeReply(1)19 days ago

John Morrison John Morrison AUTHOR 1st Executive Director, Institute for Human Rights and Business and author of 'The Social License' (Macmillan, 2014)

Dear Larry - thanks, I hope you like the book. I certainly don't have all or many of the answers but I hope I am posing the right questions. Like18 days ago

Omondi Joel Owino Omondi Joel Owino 2nd Social Impacts Assessment Consultant

While eagerness awaits this book, the factors that an organisation has to do to acquire 'Social Licence' raises eyebrows. I posit that the choice of what the company 'does' to acquire social license has to be agree to by 'consensus' processes of sorts. The 'building a waterpoint' should not be construed to mean a company has acquired social license. 'Did we agree to build a water point and we have built it' is more of what should define 'social license'. LikeReply(1)20 days ago

John Morrison John Morrison AUTHOR 1st Executive Director, Institute for Human Rights and Business and author of 'The Social License' (Macmillan, 2014)

Omondi - I think I align with where you are gong here, but perhaps not fully.. Essentially I see trust, consent and legitimacy as underpinning any definition of social license - these I guess are close to a consensus-process, Personally I prefer ideas of consent to consensus as they relate more strongly to ideas of social contract and also some activities will need to operate (legitimately) without consensus. Like18 days ago

Daniel Bena Daniel Bena 2nd PepsiCo Sustainable Development executive who harnesses the power of the private sector for good

John does great work, and I look forward to reading the book. I would also suggest that we evolve the conversation--or the aspiration--from social license to 'operate' to social license to 'flourish.' Being able to merely 'operate,' in some ways, sets a pretty low bar. What companies should really envision is a license which is so strongly granted from community stakeholders that both the business, and the society of which they are a part, can jointly flourish. Like(2)Reply(1)22 days ago Omondi Joel Owino and Rebecca Oliver

John Morrison John Morrison AUTHOR 1st Executive Director, Institute for Human Rights and Business and author of 'The Social License' (Macmillan, 2014)

Dan - thanks for the post. I agree and it is one of the reasons that I drop 'to operate' and discuss the value of the 'social license' generally, linking it explicitly to the social contract that binds any society - it is indeed symbiotic. Like(1)21 days ago Omondi Joel Owino

Katherine Teh-White Katherine Teh-White 2nd Managing Director Futureye

John, I really like your definitions of how social licence changes depending on the organisation seeking it. I agree that the issue for governments is how they accountably build consensus for reforms and the measures of success. But I don't think that companies should just stop themselves weakening their support, it's possible to think that there are a set of conditions they require for the future operations of their business that requires them to build resilience in relation to it. For instance, if you are an organisation that requires clean water then engaging with farmers to reduce their water useage and assuming you have a right to the remainder may work today, but its a pretty tenuous social licence if you haven't actually engaged beyond the farm gate about the elements society requires of you to keep using 'our' water. Water is likely to become more important to everyone and therefore there is a likelihood that the definition of 'our' will widen into a human rights definition and with it the audience you have to appeal to. So companies today simply thinking at one level would be better off thinking wider and longer to protect their long term social licence on issues that are commercially significant to them. We think we have an approach to measure it in a bespoke way before it's lost and to provide the organisation lead indicators. Like(2)Reply(1)22 days ago Omondi Joel Owino and Stephanie Coombes

John Morrison John Morrison AUTHOR 1st Executive Director, Institute for Human Rights and Business and author of 'The Social License' (Macmillan, 2014)

Katherine - thanks for this. My point is that the most fundamental thing any business must do is not to weaken the role of the state in social contract terms. This in itself would be a good step forward, particularly if we think about contexts where states are weak or dysfunctional. Taking the example of water, businesses should consider the needs of communities beyond the farm, factory or mine gates. For example, Anglo American - a mining company - also currently provides fresh drinking water to over 3 million people, mainly in Africa and Latin America. However, this water is provided mainly in public-private partnerships with local authorities, both to ensure the sustainability of provision but also to strengthen good governance. Ironically, whilst Ecuador has banned any role for private actors in the provision of water, Cuba has not and Spanish-owned hotels also supply local villages. So I guess I agree, social license can be strengthened by engaging with societal needs such as the need for clean drinking water, but I think this can be done sustainably if rights are respected and the pre-existing social contact affirmed provided it accords to international norms. Like(1)21 days ago Omondi Joel Owino