Evidence and emotion - finding a new way forward for the grains industry

Author: | Date: 26 Feb 2019

Take home messages

  • A lack of community trust in some farm practices is leading to the potential for disruptive change.
  • Dispassionate facts are not competitive in many social licence debates.
  • The grains industry must learn how to communicate what it does in a way that the community will relate to.

Introduction

A social licence is easier to define once lost than when it is in place. The live export industry is very familiar with the disruptive consequences of losing the social licence to operate, and understanding social licence has been critical for doing business in the forestry sector for decades. It is currently one of the most talked about issues in global agriculture, yet it remains an enigma to many in the Australian sector. The grains industry is not immune from the disruption of social licence induced change as the continuing discussion about the future of glyphosate demonstrates.

Social licence is notoriously difficult to quantify and virtually impossible to measure, which means it is often shunted into the ‘too hard’ basket. It must be earned rather than granted, and it can be extremely tricky to regain once lost. Although it seems trendy, it is not new. Society has always determined acceptable behaviour. What has changed recently perhaps is the range of activities that the concept of social licence is being applied to.

Many areas of agriculture once considered below the radar are increasingly subject to social licence in the way they are being regulated or influenced by market behaviour. High profile issues such as chemical use, animal agriculture and native vegetation management are but a few that have been, or are likely to be, impacted by significant regulatory change as a result of societal pressure — independent of economic, public safety or scientific imperatives.

Along with the range of issues affected, the speed and spread of change are significant factors in why social licence has recently become such a disruptive force for agriculture.

In satirically describing the operation of a fictional Social Licence Review Board (SLRB), The Australian columnist Bernard Salt said that: ‘The key skill in being admitted to the SLRB is being able to see and nurture division that others cannot or will not see.This is perhaps the most threatening aspect of the way that social licence is being applied to agriculture: that division and opposition to farming practices can be created seemingly without cause and championed in a short space of time by a vast number of people with no investment in nor understanding of the practice. Through the speed and reach of social media-driven campaigns, practices which have been considered normal or acceptable for generations can suddenly be under threat.

While social licence can seem a very nebulous concept for growers to deal with, the impact of an industry losing its social licence is immediate and potentially terminal for the farm businesses involved. It is no wonder then that social licence is a topic that is currently generating so much interest. For the grains industry, the future of glyphosate use regulation, the market’s acceptance of corporate farming and genetic engineering technologies for plant breeding are all issues for which the unwritten social contract is under threat.

While forced practice change in these issues will not lead to the end of agriculture, it could however have the potential to shape a very different agricultural sector to what is known today.

Australian agriculture cannot afford to minimise the impact of social licence. It is applied to other sectors (such as coal seam gas, mining or banking), so it is naïve in the extreme to think that it will not be applied to the agricultural sector.

There are a number of ways that the likelihood of social licence induced change can be approached:

  • It can be fought: This approach requires an intimate understanding of how to communicate effectively to justify current practice. Facts alone will not be enough - read more about this topic here.
  • It can be guided: Industries that anticipate social licence issues have the ability to position themselves as drivers of change for good, rather than clinging to practices which have lost public support.
  • It can be embraced: Change always provides opportunity and successfully anticipating new markets enabled by social licence induced change will provide opportunities for those willing to seek it out.

Whichever approach is taken (and it is likely that agriculture will move forward with a mixture of all three), it cannot be ignored. Agricultural industries that do not collaboratively and continuously renew their social licence will be prone to disruption well into the future.

Contact details

Richard Heath
Australian Farm Institute
73/61 Marlborough St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010
02 9690 1388
heathr@farminstitute.org.au
@richardaheath @austfarminstitu