Social impact assessment (SIA)
- Social baselines and stakeholder registers
- Impact significance and evidence gaps
- Mitigation and monitoring actions
Social impact
& assessments.
Social impact and due diligence
Responsible business conduct (RBC)
- Accountable owners and review dates
- Actual and potential adverse impacts
- Decisions, rationale and follow-up
Human rights due diligence
- Causing, contributing or direct linkage
- Affected people’s input and grievances
- Prevention, leverage and remedy
Social impact assessment: a worked example
Fictional teaching example, published 6 November 2026. A proposed warehouse expansion would change delivery traffic beside a residential area and a market. No real project, location, consultation or measured outcome is represented.
1. Establish the evidence
Separate the proposed delivery schedule from assumptions about current road use. Request traffic observations, access arrangements and evidence of who uses the route, including people with mobility barriers. A country indicator cannot fill a local evidence gap.
2. Assess effects on people
Consider pedestrian safety and access to livelihoods alongside possible jobs. Record which groups may be affected and whose input is missing. Treat the potential severity of a road-safety impact separately from the limited confidence in the initial evidence.
3. Compare actions and follow-up
Compare alternative routes, delivery times and site access with affected people before choosing measures. Assign an owner to each action and define how changes in access and safety concerns will be checked. Record a means to raise concerns and revisit measures when evidence changes.
Illustrative assessment record: potential impact: restricted market access during deliveries; evidence: an untested route assumption; confidence: low; next evidence: observations and affected traders’ input; proposed action: compare routes and loading times; responsible role: site operations lead; review point: before traffic arrangements are approved. No residual-risk score or successful outcome is asserted.
This is Salient One’s editorial illustration. It draws on the assessment and engagement approach in IFC Performance Standard 1 (2012) and the identify, prevent and track steps in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (2018). Those sources do not endorse this example. Actual requirements depend on the project, affected people and applicable framework.
Assessment method and limitations · Project assessment workspace