Measuring social licence: What and who determines public acceptability of aquaculture in New Zealand?

The term social licence to operate is often deployed as a rhetorical device without reference to who grants a social licence or how one might determine whether, or to what extent, such a licence has been granted. Survey tools have been developed to assess social licence, but these have been used only by a few practitioners, mostly in the mining industry. To test one of these tools and explore the question of who grants a social licence, we surveyed 237 respondents about aquaculture in New Zealand. Of these, 102 rated a company and 135 chose to rate the industry, either shellfish farming or finfish farming. Our results confirm previous studies showing that the quality of interactions with a company is the most consistent predictor of a person's social licence rating of a company. Cultural impacts were also a significant predictor of social licence scores, but environmental, economic and social impacts were not. Further, recreational fishers and those living nearby aquaculture operations tended to rate aquaculture more highly than others, though this depended on whether the respondent was rating a specific company or the industry more generally. Measured scores for social licence depend on who is surveyed, so it important to identify who to ask about social licence. We recommend surveying people and groups who are engaged in matters affected by the company or industry of interest, using social media and other strategies. •In this survey of aquaculture’s social licence, quality of contact strongly influenced public acceptance of a company.•Cultural impacts were also a predictor of social licence scores, but environmental, economic and social impacts were not.•Social licence scores depend on who is surveyed, so it is important to consider who to ask about social licence.•We recommend surveying people affected by the company or industry of interest, using social media and other strategies.