The Insider/
What is “community”?

“The community” is one of the most frequently used terms in stakeholder engagement, and often as a single reference: the community supports the project, the community has raised concerns, the community has been consulted. The term is useful because it is shorthand for a diverse and complex group of people, but it can conceal the true depth of interests and views. 

A “community” typically includes people with different experiences, priorities, and interests, and their views will not always align. Understanding that diversity is one of the foundations of effective community engagement because the differences within a community carry as much information as the overall sentiment. 

Community or stakeholders?

A common pitfall is conflating communities with stakeholders. The two terms are often used interchangeably but they are not the same. Regulators, investors, government agencies, and suppliers all hold stakes in a project without being part of the community it affects. Communities hold a stake too but they are rarely a single stakeholder. In stakeholder mapping, “the community” frequently appears as one entry which can obscure the range of groups and interests. We explored this in a previous edition of The Insider, and it is an ongoing issue that ReGen Strategic manages for its clients. 

Communities can be understood in a variety of ways. Some people are connected by where they live, others by a shared interest, and others by identity, faith, or culture. Most people belong to several of these at once, so the connection that matters most to them can shift depending on the issue. A long-term resident might welcome the employment opportunities that a project brings while also having concerns about heavy vehicle movements past a local school. Both views are legitimate and these differences are often where the richest insights lie. 

Genuine community engagement

Social impact assessments (SIA) address this by identifying social locality, which describes the area where people experience impacts. Although the term comes from SIA, it is just as useful in stakeholder mapping because it starts from where impacts are felt rather than from a fixed distance around a project. A social locality is rarely home to a single community, and the people within it will often experience the project differently. 

This makes scoping an important stage in community engagement because deciding who is included helps shape the design of everything that follows. Recognising diversity within a community also helps explain why social licence is rarely held at a single level. In a previous edition of The Insider, we discussed the different levels of social licence and how one group may sit at “approved” while another sits at “withheld”. So an assessment of community sentiment is more informative and valuable when those differences are visible. 

Treating a community as a single entity carries consequences for a project as well as for the people involved. Engagement outcomes can reflect the most organised or available voices which do not necessarily represent wider views. In these cases, sentiment can appear positive while divergent views can go unrecorded which can surface later when they are more difficult to address. Commitments and benefits designed for “the community” may suit some groups while holding little relevance for others which can influence how a proponent’s intentions are perceived. Over time, these gaps can erode credibility and trust.  

These principles are important when engaging with First Nations peoples, where diversity operates at several levels. 

How First Nations engagement differs

In Australia, First Nations are different and distinct groups, each with their own rich culture, customs, language, and laws. Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples are culturally distinct from one another, and within each are hundreds of nations. Engagement approaches that are appropriate for one group will not necessarily suit another, even within the same region, so each group’s protocols and customs are the best guide for engagement efforts. 

Importantly, Traditional Owners hold a distinct position regarding any project on Country. Where communities hold a stake in a project, Traditional Owners hold rights and interests which places them in a different position from other stakeholders. Where native title has been determined, the Native Title Act 1993 requires that native title holders nominate a Prescribed Body Corporate to manage native title rights and interests. This is distinct from participation in a community reference group or consultation forum.  

However, native title is not the only basis for engagement and recognition of connection to Country has broadened. In offshore oil and gas, a 2022 Full Federal Court decision confirmed that Traditional Owners’ cultural and spiritual connections to sea Country can be interests that require consultation, even where no native title exists. As a result, consultation can now extend across large areas of land and sea Country, well beyond a project’s immediate footprint. A wider area brings more groups into view, which makes it all the more important to understand the nature of each group’s connection. Not every Aboriginal person living near a project is a Traditional Owner of that Country, and many have deep connections to Country elsewhere. Their interests are no less important, but they are different, and treating the two groups as interchangeable can affect relationships with both and the recognition of Traditional Owners’ rights. 

The same diversity is present within Traditional Owner groups themselves. Families, Elders and representative bodies may hold a range of views on the same proposal, and each group has its own ways of reaching decisions. Where a Prescribed Body Corporate exists, it is the appropriate first point of contact, and engagement then follows the group’s own processes and timeframes rather than those set by the project. 

What this means

“The community” will remain a useful term and an appropriate starting point. Recognising that it contains many groups adds complexity but that complexity is the reality that projects operate within. The term is most valuable when it opens up the question of who is actually there, what matters to them, and how they relate to one another. 

At ReGen Strategic, understanding who makes up a community is where our work begins. Our social impact assessment and stakeholder mapping are designed to identify the range of groups within a project’s social locality, the different ways they may experience change, and where their interests align or diverge. Our engagement practices with First Nations peoples recognise the distinct standing of Traditional Owners and the importance of each group’s own protocols and decision-making processes. We help clients paint clearer and more reliable picture of the communities their projects affect, and a stronger foundation for the relationships that follow.