4. Accountability, social outcomes, and social impact

4. Accountability, social outcomes, and social impact

While there are some encouraging examples in the literature about the value of accountability interventions, overall the body of evidence about its effectiveness and impact is weak, incomparable, and inconclusive (Fox 2014; Holland et al. 2009; McGee and Gaventa 2011). For example, a number of contributions highlight that stakeholders’ expectations of accountability’s impact are unreasonably high and not matched by the evidence (McGee and Gaventa 2011; Menocal and Sharma 2008; Molyneux et al. 2012; Ringold et al. 2012). This is widely attributed to methodological challenges in evaluating interventions rather than inherent failures in the approach of accountability. Joshi (2013, p. 28) summarises the situation by stating that

Current social accountability practice has been racing ahead of clear evidence of impact. The paucity of studies of impact (although increasing rapidly), the fragmentation of the data points, the lack of comparative evidence, the need for studies using mixed methods all have contributed to a situation where there is a strong normative belief in citizen-led accountability without a clear understanding of the conditions under which it can have impact.

On the contrary, impact measurement requires the integration of social and environmental considerations into deeply-rooted market dynamics and investment management processes to ensure the flow and the effectiveness of the accountability process.

• “Impact” has a fluid definition, often varying across different investments and sometimes difficult or impossible to measure
• Impact measurement requires collaboration between multiple parties; currently, there remains a limited consensus around best practices
• Because impact measurement is still emerging as a global practice, an enabling infrastructure has yet to exist

Effective impact measurement generates value for all stakeholders, mobilizes greater capital, and increases the transparency and accountability for the impact delivered. However, the pathway is still long and difficult, mainly because it is not clear what social impact assessment actually entails.

A first attempt in this regard has been pursued by The International Association for Impact Assessment, which defines Social Impact  Assessment as it follows:

Social Impact Assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment. […] SIA is best understood as an umbrella or overarching framework that embodies the evaluation of all impacts on humans and on all the ways in which people and communities interact with their socio-cultural, economic and biophysical surroundings.

Accordingly, social impact involves considering manifold issues in relation to:

• demographic change: e.g. size and composition of resident population, influx of temporary work force or new recreational users
• economic change: e.g. new patterns of employment/ income, real estate speculation
• environmental change: e.g. alterations to land use, natural habitat and hydrological regime
• institutional change: e.g. in the structure of local government or traditional leadership, zoning by-laws or land tenure
• lifestyle impacts – on the way people behave and relate to family, friends and cohorts on a day-to-day basis
• cultural impacts – on shared customs, obligations, values, language, religious belief and other elements which make a social or ethnic group distinct
• community impacts – on infrastructure, services, voluntary organisations, activity networks and cohesion
• amenity/quality of life impacts – on sense of place, aesthetics and heritage, perception of belonging, security and livability, and aspirations for the future
• health impacts – on mental, physical and social well being, although these aspects are also the subject of health impact assessment

Such complexity clearly determines difficulties in measuring social impact, thus threatening institution’s capability to satisfy accountability wishes. On these grounds the UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME in the Social Impact Assessment of Affected People -Final Report has provided the following summary of the central messages that are found in most normative frameworks (pp. II-III):

1. The importance of considering the social and socio-economic environments (i.e. people) for all stages of the project lifecycle.
2. The importance of understanding the receiving social and socio-economic environments as early as possible in the project lifecycle.
3. The necessity of understanding the baseline social and socio-economic environments prior to project intervention, firstly, to understand the social and socio-economic environments, and, secondly, to serve as a yardstick against which effects of a project and mitigation actions can be measured.
4. The need to consider alternatives and, wherever possible, to apply impact avoidance and impact minimisation as preferred alternatives.
5. The need to understand and assess indirect, downstream and cumulative impacts.
6. The need to involve potentially affected communities from as early as possible in the project lifecycle.
7. Resettlement is usually the largest and single most important negative impact on the social environment, necessitating the formulation of resettlement programmes, preferably within a development paradigm to encompass wider community benefits whilst attaining the restoration of livelihoods of the directly affected people.
8. The desirability to improve peoples’ livelihoods (or at least restore them to a before project status).
9. Within all social mitigation/development planning, the ability of the development proponent to mobilise the necessary resources to manage negative impacts and to optimise benefits needs to be appraised and, where relevant, management constraints need to be identified and addressed.
10. The need for the monitoring, evaluation and auditing of performance during and post the implementation of mitigation plans.

Again, despite the importance of the issues raised, this summary lacks practical operationalization. On the contrary, among all the other contributions, understanding this, the Working Group on Impact Measurement, under the direction of the Social Impact Investment Taskforce established under the UK’s presidency of the G8 provides guidelines for impact measurement (see figure 1). The guidelines have been conceived for investors, but they are equally valuable for investees, and for stakeholders in general. They are based on the fundamental principle that impact measurement should help organizations in managing performance, learn, improve outcomes, and hold themselves accountable to those they aim to serve. Moreover, the guidelines move from the view that impact measurement to ensure accountability revolves around the availability of material, reliable, comparable, ‘additional,’ and universal impact data. This implies the development of “impact accountability” approaches and the refinement of measurement praxes, as well as, the establishment of an “impact language” and data infrastructure.

Nothing to date seems able to satisfy such expectations. We, the various organisms and standard setter, as well as their advisers, have much thinking still to do.

Figure 1 - MEASURING IMPACT

(source Subject paper of the Impact Measurement Working Group, Sept 2014)