Social licence and consent
This records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given. Consent belongs to rights-holders, and a self-assessed consent score is itself a risk.
Showing every criterion
- Can you produce a publicly available human rights policy commitment, approved at senior level, that states what it expects of personnel and business partners?
- Can you produce human rights due diligence records covering impacts you caused, contributed to, and impacts linked to you through business relationships?
- Where adverse impacts have occurred, can you produce records of the remediation provided or cooperated with?
- Can you produce records showing complaints received through your grievance mechanism, how each was handled, and how long it took?
- Can you produce a review of the grievance mechanism against the effectiveness criteria, carried out with the people who use it?
- Can you show that people who raise a concern are protected from retaliation, and that this protection has been communicated in the languages people actually use?
- Can you produce an engagement plan that identifies affected communities and shows how they were identified, including people who are harder to reach?
- Can you produce dated records of engagement showing what was raised, what you said in response, and what actually changed as a result?
- Can you produce a register of commitments made to communities, showing which have been met and which are outstanding?
- Can you produce a record of the consent process, kept in terms the rights-holders themselves recognise, including where they disagree with your account of it?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Can you show that the process gave rights-holders the time, information and independent advice they asked for, on their terms rather than your project schedule?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Can you show what happens if rights-holders withdraw or decline consent, and that this has been communicated to them?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Can you produce agreement documentation with Traditional Owners, including how it was negotiated and what independent support was available to them?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Can you produce a cultural heritage management plan and survey records developed with Traditional Owners, under the state or territory regime that applies to you?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Can you show that a decision to disturb a site of significance cannot be taken below board level, and that Traditional Owners are party to it?
This is determined by rights-holders, not by the proponent. What follows records whether process evidence exists. It does not, and cannot, establish that consent was given.
- Where physical or economic displacement has occurred, can you produce resettlement or livelihood restoration planning and monitoring of outcomes?
- Can you show that affected communities and workers are party to closure planning, including what happens to employment and infrastructure?