Power to the people: Why social licence will spark Australia’s renewable energy revolution

Australia’s renewable energy ambitions are immense, with targets like achieving 82% renewable energy by 2030. However, as highlighted in today’s article in The Australian , “Social licence the missing piece in green dream,” the lack of a robust social licence to operate (SLO) is proving to be a significant obstacle to progress. My experience supporting clients in this industry is of a tenuous divide between renewable energy developers and landholders, particularly in rural areas where projects become highly politicised.

Renewable energy developments represent an unparalleled change to our visual, environmental, and economic landscapes. Such monumental change requires a people-focused approach—one that prioritises trust, collaboration, and meaningful community engagement.

What is social licence?

While the concept of SLO is debated in the engagement profession, the most widely accepted definition comes from the Clean Energy Council: “The general level of acceptance or approval continually granted to a project by local communities and stakeholders.” Social licence is not static; it must be earned and maintained through trust, transparency, and genuine relationships. It goes beyond regulatory compliance to encompass community approval based on shared values and mutual benefits.

The growing divide: developers vs landholders

Renewable energy projects often require large tracts of land, frequently located in rural areas. However, tensions between developers and landholders have escalated in some regions. A key issue is that many renewable energy projects are backed by foreign investors whose cultural practices and decision-making processes often clash with local expectations. This is particularly evident where there is a high power distance between decision-makers and communities, exacerbating mistrust and resistance.

Recent examples of social licence challenges

1. Hills of Gold Wind Farm (NSW): This $833 million project faced six years of intense opposition from local landowners, who lodged speculative housing applications to delay approvals. The NSW Independent Planning Commission (IPC) ultimately approved 62 turbines but imposed conditions such as land acquisition options for affected neighbours and visual impact mitigation measures within 5 km of turbines. Despite these efforts, the prolonged conflict increased costs and eroded trust among stakeholders (NSW Independent Planning Commission, 2023).
2. Western Renewables Link (Victoria): Proposed high-voltage powerlines connecting renewable energy zones have sparked widespread opposition. Thousands of residents joined groups like the Regional Victoria Power Alliance, citing concerns over visual impact, safety, and environmental degradation. The legal battles have significantly delayed progress (Regional Victoria Power Alliance, 2023).
3. Offshore Wind Zones (NSW): Plans for offshore wind farms near Newcastle and Port Stephens have drawn protests over environmental impacts on marine ecosystems and economic concerns for industries like fishing and tourism (Port Stephens Council Meeting Minutes, 2023). These examples highlight how inadequate community engagement can lead to delays, increased costs, and reputational damage for developers.

Regulatory requirements vs best practice

Regulatory frameworks

In Australia, renewable energy developments are governed by a mix of state-specific regulations:

• Queensland: The Energy (Renewable Transformation and Jobs) Act 2024 requires community consultation but primarily focuses on environmental assessments.
• New South Wales: Projects must comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and a suite of guidelines, which mandates consultation during major project approvals but often limits engagement to formal submissions.
• Victoria: The Planning and Environment Act 1987 includes guidelines for community engagement and benefit-sharing plans as part of project approvals. Developers are encouraged to conduct Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) and provide transparent benefit-sharing frameworks (Clean Energy Council Guidelines, 2023).

While these regulations set minimum standards, they often fall short of fostering meaningful dialogue or long-term trust.

Best-practice engagement

Best-practice engagement goes beyond compliance by actively involving communities throughout the project lifecycle. Key features include:

• Early involvement in decision-making processes.
• Tailored approaches that consider local contexts (e.g., avoiding consultations during harvest periods in farming communities).
• Transparent communication about benefits, risks, and timelines.
• Co-designing benefit-sharing initiatives with local stakeholders.

For instance, Origin Energy’s Stockyard Hill Wind Farm in Victoria successfully gained community trust by demonstrating respect, listening to concerns, and integrating feedback into their plans. Their approach was effective and compensation measures were subsequently legislated (Origin Energy Annual Report, 2023).

In contrast, projects that meet only regulatory requirements often focus on risk management rather than relationship-building. This can lead to tokenistic consultations that fail to address deep-seated community concerns.

The case for proactive engagement

Renewable energy developments are transformative—they alter landscapes visually, environmentally, and economically. For such change to succeed, developers must adopt a people-focused approach that prioritises meaningful engagement with communities from the outset.

A 2023 CSIRO survey revealed that only 42% of Australians believe renewable energy projects adequately consider local community interests. However, projects employing best-practice engagement report significantly higher levels of acceptance (CSIRO Renewable Energy Survey Results, 2023). The benefits of proactive engagement include:

• Reduced opposition and delays.
• Enhanced trust and credibility.
• Long-term partnerships with communities.

As Werther Esposito from Enel Green Power has argued in The Australian , the absence of a strong social licence framework is a critical barrier to Australia’s green transition. To bridge this gap, developers must move beyond compliance-driven approaches towards best-practice strategies that place people at the centre of decision-making. Governments also have a role to play in setting clearer expectations for meaningful consultation.

Without this shift, Australia risks further polarisation between developers and communities—a scenario we cannot afford as we race against climate change. Social licence is not just a "nice-to-have"; it is essential for realising our renewable energy ambitions. Big change demands big conversations—and putting people first is key to ensuring these conversations lead to success.