The Insider/
Approval isn’t the finish line: the case for better social impact assessments.

Social impact assessments (SIAs) are common practice for major projects and development approvals. They are fundamental to understanding and responding to the social landscape involving hours of research, relationship building, and reporting. 

An SIA is one of the most valuable tools available to proponents and developers, surfacing insights and attitudes that inform community relations, engagement strategy, and broader social performance. It identifies who is affected, how, and to what degree. It is the evidence needed to help shape why and how a project engages with host communities. When commissioning an SIA, planning next steps is just as important as the findings.

The problem

As someone who has worked in the resources and energy sectors for the best part of 20 years, I have seen an erosion in the practice to a situation now where the final report is often seen as an end point, rather than the start of relationship building and community empowerment. 

Put simply, the problem arises when an SIA becomes an artefact rather than a live account that continues to shape how an organisation and community work together. 

What started as an enthusiastic and authentic desire to understand and address social impacts was usurped by cost and schedule priorities. Eventually, and one might say inevitably, this failure to act on the findings eroded social licence and burnt through considerable social capital. 

This is because the stakeholders who shared their insights concluded that they were just part of the churn, a commodity to be mined and processed rather than an asset to be developed and valued. In these cases, community stakeholders became wary of future engagement and in some cases opposed further development. 

Why this happens

Part of the answer is that projects and organisations sit at the intersection of three things that constantly shape each other: what the community expects, what the regulator requires, and what the organisation is trying to achieve. 

The three are interdependent and there is often tension between them. Regulatory compliance does not automatically reflect community expectations which in turn may not align with organisational aspirations. If an SIA is primarily used to satisfy regulatory compliance or development approvals, then the other two become afterthoughts. 

This is where a fully realised SIA and subsequent management plan do real work. Rather than assuming that the three naturally align, it identifies where they genuinely overlap and supports an engagement approach focused on that shared space. This does not eliminate the tension, but it does identify the trade-offs needed to balance the equation.

Next is that regulatory compliance is a floor, not a ceiling. It sets a minimum standard that should not be mistaken for minimum effort when it comes to social performance and community relations. An SIA used to meet the “regulatory floor” will only confirm that a project meets its minimum obligations. It will not tell an organisation whether it has found common ground or indeed where that common ground is.

Finally, there is the shift in how SIAs have been used over the past 50 years. What started as a tool used by regulators to inform decision making has been refined and standardised into a management tool that can guide social performance beyond development approval. Even so, SIAs are often undervalued and treated as an appendix rather than a chapter in its own right. In other words, SIAs have evolved, but the way they are used has not.

This gap shows up in specific ways. Stakeholder and community relationships weaken, commitments go unmeasured or untracked, and expectations formed during consultation are not addressed.

The reframe

It does not have to go this way. I have also seen communities align with company aspirations through the SIA process. When presented with the findings, they could see where their concerns were acknowledged and became willing partners in the development and execution of social impact management plans. This matters because communities that perceive they have been heard, respected, and part of a fair process will often accept unfavourable outcomes. This is where SIAs can transform the way that organisations and communities work together. 

The alternative is not complicated but does require an ongoing commitment, to:

• Treat SIA findings as the start of a relationship, not the end of a process. 
• Develop and implement social impact management plans that are measurable, outcomes-focused, and address residual impacts (and benefits).
• View community expectations, regulatory obligations, and organisational aspirations as an interdependent ecosystem.
• Use the regulatory floor as the foundation upon which to build and maintain robust, sustainable community relationships.

Beyond the build

This is how ReGen Strategic approaches SIAs, social performance, and community relations. We treat SIAs as a foundation for ongoing social impact management and long-term community relationships built on trust, credibility, and legitimacy. Where many SIAs are geared towards regulatory requirements, we start from a different position by scoping the assessment to highlight where stakeholders diverge as well as where they align. The social impact management plans that we develop from the findings help organisations recognise and address tension before it hardens into opposition.

In closing

An EPA submission or development approval will always be a genuine milestone. It represents substantial, valuable work and deserves to be treated as such. But it was never meant to be the finish line. The real test of an SIA is not whether it was completed, but whether it is an asset to be worked rather than a record to be kept.