Tackling community engagement crucial for Australia's renewable energy roll-out

Australia’s clean energy roll-out is accelerating, with billions being committed to solar, wind and storage projects in rural and regional areas. But as delays persist across rural and regional Australia, leading community engagement consultancy Capire, an RSK Group business, says the biggest bottleneck isn’t funding or technology – it’s community trust. Too often, developers fail to engage early, to create space for community deliberation or to be clear about what communities can influence.

Despite the $12.7 billion invested in renewables in 2024 and a further $8 billion announced in the 2025–2026 Federal Budget, many projects struggle to earn social licence, leading to delays.

Community and stakeholder engagement programmes for renewable energy

While there is overall public support for renewable energy, Capire says there is strong resistance at the local level when projects become a reality. It has delivered community and stakeholder engagement programmes for renewable energy projects such as Darlington Wind Farm and Meering West Wind Farm, as well as the Yanco Delta Wind Farm in New South Wales.

Capire Client Executive Matthew Gordon said: “We see fear drive much of the opposition. Concerns within communities about land rights, safety and visual or other negative impacts are often stronger than the perceived community benefit. If developers engage only with landholders who will benefit financially, issue non-disclosure agreements, reveal decisions late in the process and aren’t transparent with the wider community, it creates mistrust and deepens division between neighbours.”

Clear engagement opportunities missed

Matthew said developers are missing clear opportunities around engagement. “Some regional and rural communities have historically felt unheard and ‘overridden’ because, too often, developers still treat engagement as something you do after decisions are made or to justify decisions already taken.

“Over the past two decades, communities have felt far more empowered, where advocating for themselves has often succeeded. Locals talk and can find out early on if a developer hasn’t been transparent. They use social media and community chat groups to build resistance. They see themselves as deserving a seat at the table when decisions affect their land and their communities.”

Approval without social licence

Some developers aren’t adapting fast enough, and poor engagement can create community outrage that makes projects harder to deliver. Matthew said: “You might still get approval, but you won’t get social licence, and that backlash follows the next project, and the one after that.”

Research shows that projects with early, transparent and ongoing community engagement face fewer delays, stronger political support and far greater long-term success. “A developer will never achieve true social licence where the whole community embraces the project, but with the right engagement they will get less pushback.”

Three foundational principles recommended

Matthew says the most important community engagement actions are also the least comfortable and ones developers avoid the most. Capire recommends three foundational principles before developers embark on a formal engagement process.

Community engagement principles developers often ignore, but need to get right early:

• Start engagement early, and understand it is a long game – Capire sees a common early mistake among developers: waiting until they have certainty about a project before speaking with the community. Communities can learn about the project through the developer’s early prospecting visits, land negotiations or even a casual conversation with a local real estate agent. That’s when whispers within the community begin and misinformation can grow.
• Matthew said communities can handle uncertainty, but they react strongly if they feel misled or when information is withheld and they feel excluded. He encourages developers to understand any community risks or issues at the prospecting stage and whether any planned projects failed in the area. Early, casual conversations with community members where the developer can listen to concerns, demonstrate their good track record and build trust can be more effective than town halls that are often designed to deliver information.
• Create space for communities to talk among themselves – opposing voices to a project can be a significant minority in a community, and that’s because a safe space for grassroots conversations hasn’t been created. Capire has seen debates where community members supportive of the renewables project stay silent because they don’t want to grow tensions or damage relationships with neighbours.
• This is where developers or governments can help by creating these spaces and then stepping back. Matthew said: “A community is less likely to listen to a government or developer than to a neighbouring farmer. We know of one developer who told a community of ten landholders to nut it out among themselves, and seven neighbours got the other three onboard.” Capire has also seen communities proactively create their own space for discussion. “One community recruited a representative sample to get a balanced view of the area’s sentiment about offshore renewables,” Matthew adds.
• Be honest about the community’s influence and project limits – communities must know as early as possible what they can influence, what they can’t and why. This includes transparency about future project stages and potential project expansions. Matthew says: “A recent example is a regional solar farm project gaining approval, but a community member found out a battery energy storage system is planned. It’s getting strong local pushback and the developer has lost the community’s trust.”
• See engagement as reputation management, not risk management – when a project’s costs, time frames and approvals are on the table, community engagement can feel like a huge risk for developers. But Capire says that community relationships are essential and starting on the wrong foot can risk the millions invested in a project. Matthew believes developers will be judged more and more by communities on their social performance. “Doing this well almost always saves money in the long run.”