Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Social and human rights impact assessments:

what can they learn from each other?

Nora Götzmann, Frank Vanclay & Frank Seier

To cite this article: Nora Götzmann, Frank Vanclay & Frank Seier (2016) Social and human
rights impact assessments: what can they learn from each other?, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 34:1, 14-23, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2015.1096036

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1096036

Published online: 03 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1768

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 2016
VOL. 34, NO. 1, 14–23
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1096036

Social and human rights impact assessments: what can they learn from each
other?
Nora Götzmanna,b, Frank Vanclayc  and Frank Seierd
a
Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen, Denmark; bCentre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland, Australia; cFaculty
of Spatial Sciences, Department of Cultural Geography, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; dStora Enso, Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

We examine key commonalities and differences between social impact assessment (SIA) and Received 19 March 2015
human rights impact assessment (HRIA) conducted for private sector projects to consider Accepted 3 September 2015
what these two fields might learn from each other. As HRIA is an emerging practice, current KEYWORDS
approaches are diverse and there is a lack of a robust understanding about how HRIA and SIA Due diligence; social licence
relate to each other. We suggest that the two fields have much in common in terms of: their to operate; corporate
objective to identify and address adverse impacts; their focus on process as well as outcomes; responsibility to respect;
and their consideration of how to ensure the meaningful inclusion of vulnerable individuals United Nations Guiding
and groups. However, there is also significant divergence in terms of: the standards applied; the Principles on Business and
relevance of project benefits; and the recognition of stakeholders as rights-holders and duty- Human Rights
bearers. We suggest that the further exploration of these areas of difference has the potential to
create valuable cross learning between SIA and HRIA, as well as the potential to open up spaces
for joint initiatives where the two fields might address current shortcomings together.

1. Introduction raises many questions for the practitioners, companies

In recent years, there has been an increased call for the
assessment of human rights impacts of private sector
projects, partly because of the prominence of the United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(hereinafter UNGP), which was unanimously endorsed
by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. However, the
assessment of human rights impacts as required by
the UNGP is not necessarily synonymous with Human
Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) per se. According to
the UNGP, a range of methodologies for the assessment
of human rights impacts is acceptable, for example, inte-
grating human rights into existing impact assessment
processes, ‘stand-alone’ HRIAs that focus exclusively on
human rights impacts, and more, as long as the focus
on human rights is comprehensive. Consequently, there
is now a growing practice of stand-alone HRIA (see e.g.
On Common Ground 2010; Bansal & Wyss 2013) as well
as assessments that seek to integrate human rights into
existing processes, for example, environmental impact
assessment (EIA), social impact assessment (SIA) and
their variants (Kemp & Vanclay 2013).
The various approaches that have been attempted
differ significantly in terms of their scope, stakeholder
engagement and process, suggesting that the practice
of the assessment of human rights impacts of business
activities is still developing. This emerging practice
and communities involved in such impact assessments,
for example: What is the additionality of human rights?;
What is a good practice impact assessment methodol-
ogy for human rights?; How is the assessment of human
rights impacts different from or similar to that of social
impacts?; Is it best to assess human rights impacts by inte-
grating human rights into existing impact assessment
processes or using stand-alone HRIA?; How can we make
the assessment of human rights impacts a meaningful
practice, i.e. generate real outcomes for rights-holders by
reducing human rights impacts rather than being just a
tick-the-box exercise? The developments also raise ques-
tions around how emerging HRIA methodologies relate
to more established impact assessment methodologies,
such as EIA and SIA, including consideration of what SIA
and HRIA methodology and practice might learn from
each other going forward.
In this paper, we consider the commonalities and dif-
ferences between SIA and HRIA when applied to private
sector projects, and suggest that this comparison will be
useful in addressing the questions outlined above. For
our discussion, we draw on our professional experience
in the SIA and HRIA fields, which has included both aca-
demic analysis of SIA and HRIA methodologies and prac-
tice, as well as practitioner experience in conducting and
peer reviewing impact assessments for private sector

CONTACT  Nora Götzmann  nog@humanrights.dk   

© 2015 IAIA

projects. We consider that, particularly at this time when
diverse methodologies and practices for the assessment
of human rights impacts abound, in order to facilitate
the development of more robust practice going forward,
it is vital that emerging practice be examined critically
with the view of identifying strengths and addressing
weaknesses.
2.  SIA, HRIA and the human rights-based
approach
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, pro-
grams, plans, projects) and any social change processes
invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is
to bring about a more sustainable and equitable bio-
physical and human environment. (Vanclay 2003, p. 6)
A good practice SIA is not merely the exercise of conduct-
ing a single assessment resulting in an impact assess-
ment statement, but should be the ongoing process
of the active identification and management of social
impacts. SIA can be conducted in a range of settings,
including for government interventions as well as for
private sector projects. SIA is less mandated than EIA,
and regulatory requirements for the inclusion of social
aspects in EIA or for stand-alone SIA remain limited
(Vanclay 2014). Despite this, the number of compa-
nies that include social considerations in their impact
assessment and management processes is increasing; for
example, many major companies in the extractive indus-
tries apply their own environmental, social and health
impact assessment (ESHIA) procedures, irrespective of
whether or not the inclusion of social and health aspects
is a regulatory requirement (Esteves et al. 2012; Franks
& Vanclay 2013). The standards applied by SIA vary, but
the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment
of the International Association for Impact Assessment
(IAIA) (hereinafter International SIA Principles) (Vanclay
2003) provides high-level guidance on what a good prac-
tice SIA should entail, and IAIA’s 2015 document, Social
Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing
the Social Impacts of Projects (hereinafter International
SIA Guidance) provides practical guidance (Vanclay et
al. 2015).
Compared to EIA and SIA, which have been around
since the early 1970s (Vanclay 2014), the HRIA field is
relatively new. HRIA has been defined as ‘an instrument
for examining policies, legislation, programs and projects
and identifying and measuring their effects on human
rights. HRIAs provide a reasoned, supported and compre-
hensive answer to the question of “how does the project,
policy or intervention affect human rights?”’ (World Bank
2013, p. 1). Within emerging practice, several different
applications of HRIA have been identified, including:
in the field of development; in the area of health and
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal   15
human rights; child rights impact assessments; impact
assessments for private sector projects; international
trade and investment; and impact assessments con-
ducted for government programmes or public author-
ities (e.g. Harrison 2010). As noted earlier, in this paper
we focus on impact assessments carried out to assess
the social and/or human rights impacts of private sector
projects. Correspondingly, we refer to an HRIA approach
that reflects the UNGP focus on adverse impacts, rather
than HRIA approaches in other domains, which might
also include attention to positive impacts and project
benefits in their scope.
In the business and human rights context, the UNGP
has been a key driver for the increased focus on the assess-
ment of human rights impacts, and HRIA has gained
traction as one tool available to the private sector, civil
society, governments and other stakeholders to assess
and evaluate the impacts of business activities on the
human rights enjoyment of workers and impacted com-
munities. The UNGP articulates the expectation that busi-
nesses should respect human rights by using a process of
due diligence i.e. a process by which to identify, prevent,
mitigate and account for how a business addresses the
adverse human rights impacts with which it is involved
(OHCHR 2012). The assessment of human rights impacts
is a critical step in this process. The UNGP specifies that
the process of human rights due diligence, including
assessment of impacts, must include consideration, at
minimum, of the rights included in the International Bill
of Human Rights (comprising the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic and Social and Cultural Rights), as well as
the eight core labour conventions of the International
Labour Organisation (comprising the Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work), with con-
sideration of additional human rights as necessary given
the particular project context (UN Human Rights Council
2011; OHCHR 2012). Furthermore, it is noted that assess-
ment of human rights impacts should: include meaning-
ful consultation with potentially affected stakeholders;
pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and the
different risks faced by women and men; draw on rele-
vant internal and external human rights expertise; and
be undertaken at regular intervals (UN Human Rights
Council 2011). Whilst the UNGP establishes the expec-
tation that business enterprises should assess their
human rights impacts, and provides broad parameters
as to what such an assessment should entail, it does not
specify in detail how human rights impacts should or
can be assessed. It is therefore necessary to also con-
sider how the human rights-based approach (HRBA) and
HRIA literature might further inform our understanding
of what HRIA of private sector projects should entail.
One key component that is emphasised in the HRIA lit-
erature is the application of a HRBA to impact assessment
16    N. GöTZMANN ET AL.
(e.g. World Bank 2013). The HRBA was developed in the
context of international development cooperation, but
has since been applied in other disciplines. According to
the United Nations Stamford Common Understanding, the
HRBA is made up of three main components: (1) applica-
tion of international human rights standards; (2) adoption
of a human rights-focused process that applies the princi-
ples of equality and non-discrimination, participation and
inclusion, and accountability and transparency; and (3) rec-
ognition of rights-holders and their capacity to claim rights,
as well as duty-bearers and their respective capacities to
respond to such claims and meet their human rights duties
(UN Development Group 2003; OHCHR 2006).
Whilst there is some overlap between the expecta-
tions outlined in the UNGP and the elements of the HRBA
(such as the focus on participation of rights-holders
and vulnerable groups), the HRBA provides additional
emphasis on accountability and remedy through the
focus on rights-holder capacity to claim rights and the
obligation of duty-bearers to respond to such claims.
Furthermore, both the HRBA and much of the HRIA lit-
erature place greater emphasis on transparency, mon-
itoring and review than what is outlined in the UNGP
(e.g. OHCHR 2006; Harrison 2013; World Bank 2013).
Drawing on the UNGP in combination with the emerging
literature and practice in HRIA, as well as guidance and
experience from SIA and the HRBA, the aspects that have
been identified as being important for the full assess-
ment of human rights impacts might be summarised
as including: (1) the application of international human
rights standards; (2) ensuring that the assessment cap-
tures not only impacts directly caused by the business,
but also impacts that the business contributes to and
impacts directly linked to its operations, products and
services through its business relationships; (3) ensuring
that the process applies the human rights principles
of participation and inclusion, non-discrimination and
equality, and accountability and transparency; (4) facil-
itating accountability through the analysis of the roles
and capacities of rights-holders and duty-bearers, and
access to remedy; and (5) ensuring that the evaluation
of impact severity and measures for addressing identi-
fied impacts are guided by human rights considerations,
including irremediability and interrelatedness (see e.g.
OHCHR 2006; Abrahams & Wyss 2010; Harrison 2010,
2013; UN Human Rights Council 2011; Kemp & Vanclay
2013; World Bank 2013; Götzmann 2014).
From this short introduction to SIA and HRIA, it is evi-
dent that there are several commonalities between the
two approaches. Both are concerned with the effective
identification and management of adverse impacts on
people stemming from project-related activities; both
evidence a focus on the respect for human rights and
equality; and both emphasise the importance of the
involvement in decision-making of those who may be
impacted by projects based on the understanding that
‘people have a right to be involved in the decision-mak-
ing about the planned interventions that will affect their
lives’ (Vanclay 2003, p. 9). Indeed, the International SIA
Principles contain explicit reference to respecting human
rights. Recent SIA literature also evidences an increased
focus on human rights, both in terms of impact assess-
ment content, as well as the process to be applied when
undertaking SIA (e.g. taking a HRBA when conducting
an SIA). Conversely, the HRIA literature clearly draws on
EIA and SIA methodologies and practice (e.g. modelling
the impact assessment process steps on those of EIA and
SIA). However, there are also a number of substantive
and procedural differences between SIA and HRIA. In the
following sections of this paper, we look in more detail
at some of the commonalities and differences between
SIA and HRIA when applied to private sector projects,
before concluding with a discussion on what these com-
monalities and differences might contribute to impact
assessment methodology and practice going forward.
3.  Key commonalities between SIA and HRIA
A key commonality of SIA and HRIA relates to the objec-
tive of the assessment. For both practices, a primary
objective is the identification of the potential negative
impacts in order to avoid or mitigate them. In the case
of HRIA that follows a UNGP approach, this is based on a
‘do no harm’ expectation. The corporate responsibility to
‘respect’ human rights outlined in the UNGP requires that
companies avoid infringement of human rights by using
a process of due diligence. The UNGP does not require
that business enterprises seek to enhance human rights
enjoyment, and the corporate responsibility to respect
human rights explicitly prevents the use of positive
impacts (i.e. benefits) to offset negative ones. In the case
of SIA, the focus tends to be on net outcomes, and there
is an increasing interest in improving benefits to com-
munities (João et al. 2011; Esteves et al. 2012). SIA iden-
tifies and assesses both positive and negative impacts of
projects, and typically allows for a balancing of these in
pursuance of its ultimate objective of improving devel-
opment outcomes for communities. Conversely, human
rights inhere in the ‘individual’, and do not allow for the
balancing of impacts on the individual against the inter-
ests of the greater good. The focus on adverse impacts
in HRIA according to a UNGP approach, whilst SIA con-
siders both positive and negative impacts, gives rise to
some key differences between SIA and HRIA, which are
discussed further below. Nevertheless, that one of the
primary objectives of both approaches is to identify and
address potential adverse impacts, is a key commonality
of SIA and HRIA.
Secondly, there is significant overlap and conver-
gence between the core values and principles that
guide the conduct of SIA and the HRBA that guides
HRIA. It is worth briefly explaining that we take the ‘core

values and principles’ of SIA to be those articulated in
the International SIA Principles (Vanclay 2003). Our
understanding of the HRBA is based on the Stamford
Common Understanding (UN Development Group 2003;
OHCHR 2006). When comparing these understandings
of SIA core values and the HRBA, it becomes evident that
there are significant convergences. For example, whilst
the assessment of human rights impacts is not specif-
ically the primary objective of SIA, the entitlement of
potentially affected individuals and communities to have
their human rights respected is a core value and guid-
ing principle of both SIA and HRIA. Convergence around
principles such as participation, non-discrimination and
accountability are discussed below.
Thirdly, both SIA and HRIA emphasise the importance
of assessment process as well as outcome. Both approaches
recognise that the people potentially impacted by the
project must be involved in decision-making with regard
to the development of that project. In the case of SIA,
this is posited in the International SIA Principles as a core
value. In the case of HRIA, participation and inclusion are
key principles of the HRBA, and it has been recognised
that where an HRIA is conducted in a participatory man-
ner it can contribute to increased human rights knowl-
edge and awareness of the participating stakeholders
(e.g. Watson et al. 2013). Participation of rights-holders
in decision-making also extends to entitlement to pro-
cesses designed to obtain consent for certain groups of
rights-holders in particular situations (e.g. ILO 1989; UN
General Assembly 2007). For example, the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the
principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of
Indigenous Peoples in decision-making regarding the
lands, territories and resources which they have tradi-
tionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired
(UN General Assembly 2007). In fact, the meaning and
practice of FPIC is a key topic of current debate in the
context of project development and impact assessment
(e.g. Hill et al. 2010; ICMM 2010; Hanna & Vanclay 2013).
The emphasis in HRIA on the participation and inclusion
of rights-holders in decisions that may impact their rights
is mirrored in the core values and principles articulated in
the International SIA Principles, which note that people
should be involved in decision-making about planned
interventions and that projects should be acceptable to
those who will be impacted (Vanclay 2003).
Fourthly, SIA and HRIA share a commitment to
non-discrimination and equality, including by focusing
on those who are most vulnerable and marginalised
in a particular project context. Non-discrimination is a
cornerstone in HRIA, as it is both a human right in and
of itself, as well as a key process principle recognised in
the HRBA. From a human rights perspective, ensuring
non-discrimination and promoting equality requires a
comprehensive approach that includes investigating and
understanding existing patterns of discrimination in a
project context, as well as ensuring that the assessment
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal   17
process and outcomes account for and address any
actual and potential discrimination, including through
the adoption of measures that support those who are
discriminated against, vulnerable or marginalised. In SIA,
it is recognised that ‘promoting equity … should be a
major driver of development planning, and impacts on
the worse-off members of society should be a major
consideration in all assessment’ (Vanclay 2003, p. 9).
As such, SIA and HRIA share a commitment to focus on
those individuals and communities who may be margin-
alised or discriminated against in a given project setting,
including through the identification of structural discrim-
ination as well as through recognising and addressing
the potentially disproportional distribution of impacts
and benefits.
Lastly, both SIA and HRIA share a commitment to
the principles of transparency and accountability. This
includes attention to transparency in the assessment
process and with regard to assessment outcomes, as well
as ensuring that projects are accountable to impacted
individuals and communities for effectively addressing
any identified impacts. For example, both SIA and HRIA
note the need to consider in what formats and for a pro-
ject information is shared with impacted communities,
whether the impact assessment process and method-
ology is clearly communicated, and whether it is clearly
explained how stakeholder input from consultation and
engagement activities does or does not influence pro-
ject design decisions, assessment of impact severity and
mitigation planning. The International SIA Principles, for
instance, state that ‘decision-making should be just, fair
and transparent, and decision makers should be account-
able for their decisions’ (Vanclay 2003, p. 9). In the case
of HRIA and the HRBA, transparency and accountability
are emphasised in a similar manner; including through
attention to transparency during the impact assessment
process, reporting on impact assessment findings, as well
as through the analysis of rights-holders and duty-bear-
ers and the corresponding recognition of claims, respon-
sibilities and remedies (see e.g. OHCHR 2006; World Bank
2013).
The above points demonstrate that SIA and HRIA have
several notable commonalities, in particular with regard
to their core values and objectives. This indicates that the
approaches are complementary, and in particular that
the two fields of practice have the potential to learn from
each other about how such core values and objectives
can be implemented in practice. However, there are also
a number of differences between SIA and HRIA, which
we will now elaborate.
4.  Key differences between SIA and HRIA
Perhaps the primary key difference between SIA and
HRIA is that SIA is not strictly speaking based on inter-
nationally accepted standards or benchmarks that are
grounded in law, whereas HRIA is based on international
18    N. GöTZMANN ET AL.
human rights standards. Human rights are standards and
principles that have been developed by the international
community and that are captured in international and
domestic laws; as such, human rights provide a bench-
mark for impact assessment that ‘potentially gives them a
more secure and precise normative foundation than, for
example, social impact assessment where the theoretical
and philosophical foundations that form the basis for
assessment are more contested’ (Harrison 2013, p. 110).
Human rights law also has provisions for the enforce-
ment of remedies for breaches of the standards, provid-
ing the human rights norms are effectively implemented
through domestic laws. The accountability of human
rights duty-bearers to meet their human rights obliga-
tions and the corresponding ability of rights-holders to
claim their rights, including through legal remedies, is
also emphasised in the HRBA. SIAs may address human
rights-related topics (e.g. gender, socio-economic fac-
tors, resettlement, etc.), however, a wide range of stand-
ards tends to be utilised to provide benchmarks for the
assessment of these issues; as such, the standards that
are applied by SIA may not be consistent, and application
of the standards is not necessarily enforceable through
legal remedies (depending, of course, on the particular
standard being applied, some may be legally enforceable
and others may not).
Another issue of difference is in the scope of impacts
to be covered and how scope is determined. Both SIA and
HRIA focus on the impacts caused by business activities. In
addition to this, however, HRIA places specific emphasis on
the inclusion of impacts that the business contributes to
(e.g. a project uses contractors with poor labour practices),
and impacts that are directly linked to its operations, prod-
ucts or services through business relationships (e.g. the
use of excessive force against protesters by public secu-
rity forces stationed to protect business assets). Notably,
within SIA theory and practice, significant emphasis is
placed on consideration of cumulative impacts (Franks
et al. 2011). However, whilst SIA includes consideration
of some types of indirect impacts (Slootweg et al. 2001;
Vanclay 2002), it arguably lacks the examination of the
whole supply chain in the way expected in HRIA.
A third key difference is that, whilst both approaches
focus on identifying and addressing adverse impacts, SIA
also includes a clear focus on enhancing benefits (Esteves
& Vanclay 2009; João et al. 2011), whereas HRIA according
to a UNGP approach does not. SIA is focused on identi-
fying, assessing and managing both the negative and
positive social impacts of a project, with the objective
of addressing adverse impacts and maximising project
benefits for impacted communities. HRIA according to a
UNGP approach, on the other hand, is extremely cautious
about a focus on benefits, instead taking a ‘do no harm’
approach, consistent with the responsibility to respect
(in this context also cautioning against the offsetting of
adverse impacts by the generation of positive benefits
elsewhere). It should be noted that not all perspectives
reflected in the HRIA literature accord with the approach
taken in the UNPG, with some authors pointing to the
value or necessity of including a focus on benefits in
HRIA of private sector projects, with the proviso that any
focus on benefits must be differentiated from the base-
line focus on addressing adverse impacts (e.g. Salcito et
al. 2013). Furthermore, as not all business projects and
activities are the same, it is likely that HRIA methodolo-
gies and practice in the business and human rights con-
text going forward will need to develop more nuanced
approaches. For example, HRIA conducted for the pro-
vision of essential public services, such as health care or
education, even where these are provided by a private
company, may need to include consideration of whether
the services effectively contribute to the realisation of
human rights, i.e. go beyond a ‘do no harm’ perspective.
However, the starting premise for HRIA of private sector
projects can and should remain the focus on identifying
and addressing adverse human rights impacts. This is
consistent with maintaining a clear delineation between
the State as the primary human rights duty-bearer, and
avoiding attributing duties on companies to protect and
fulfil human rights, which could potentially reduce State
implementation of their human rights obligations to do
so. In sum, the UNGP requires that all negative impacts
must be addressed and cannot be offset against positive
impacts that a project has or may have, in contrast, SIA
focuses on both adverse impacts and benefits and the
impact assessment process itself is seen as a tool to facil-
itate the provision of benefits to impacted communities.
A fourth difference is in the positioning of impacted
individuals and communities in the impact assessment.
Overall, SIA tends to focus on net outcomes, including
through analysis of aggregate social welfare and through
maximising project benefits, thereby positioning com-
munities as ‘project affected people’ and/or as ‘beneficiar-
ies’. SIA looks at the vulnerabilities of different subgroups
in a community and considers the differential distribu-
tion of costs and benefits. For example, a gender lens or
a specific gender assessment might be applied (Vanclay
2012). The overall focus tends to be on groups and sub-
groups of people in particular stakeholder categories.
HRIA, on the other hand, recognises individual workers
and community members as ‘rights-holders’ with entitle-
ments, emphasising individual agency and facilitating
an increased focus on, and analysis of, impacts at a dis-
aggregated level. Human rights are primarily individual,
not collective rights, and HRIA therefore pays particu-
lar attention to impacts on the especially vulnerable or
marginalised individuals within an impacted community.
This requires that HRIA must be conducted in a way that
ensures the identification and assessment of impacts at
an individual rights-holder level. In contrast, SIA tends
to be more collective in focus, accepting some adverse
impacts on certain individuals within a community in
exchange for the greater good or positive impacts for
the majority of the impacted community.

A fifth key difference is that SIA and HRIA take some-
what different positions towards the aspects of account-
ability for addressing impacts and providing remedy.
HRIA emphasises accountability (including legal liabil-
ity) by recognising impacted community members as
rights-holders with legal entitlements, for which spe-
cific duty-bearers are accountable to respect, or remedy
where impacted. This means that HRIA places particular
emphasis on the accountability of companies to address
any human rights impacts that are identified, and that
such impacts can potentially be articulated as legal
claims. For SIA, in contrast, in the absence of a regulatory
requirement holding project proponents accountable
for their impacts on stakeholders’ interests, stakehold-
ers have no basis for asserting impacts as legal claims
and consequently often need to resort to (the threat
of ) protest action or to the voluntary corporate social
responsibility sensibilities of companies (Hanna et al.
2014, forthcoming 2015). SIA also tries to establish the
business case for taking social impacts into consideration
(Esteves & Vanclay 2009; Vanclay & Esteves 2011; Vanclay
2014). Conversely, human rights-holders are entitled to
respect for their human rights by duty-bearers, including
a remedy in the event of breach. HRIA requires that com-
panies are accountable to rights-holders for impacts on
their human rights. This also has direct implications for
the question of access to remedy. HRIA and human rights
place particular focus on access to remedy, including on
the role of grievance mechanisms as well as on remediat-
ing actual impacts. Although SIA clearly includes a focus
on addressing adverse impacts, ongoing social moni-
toring and complaints procedures, a specific access to
remedy is not demanded in the same way as it is in HRIA.
The above points demonstrate that, in addition to a
number of commonalities, there are also key differences
between SIA and HRIA. We suggest that the differences in
terms of an acknowledged benchmark for practice and
standards, recognition of rights-holders and duty-bear-
ers in stakeholder analysis, and the issue of whether to
focus only on adverse impacts or also on benefits, con-
stitute significant points of divergence which warrant
additional attention. We discuss these points in further
detail below.
5.  Comparing SIA and HRIA in detail
From the above elaboration of commonalities and dif-
ferences, we draw the observation that SIA and HRIA
have much in common in terms of core values and prin-
ciples, including their common goal of identifying and
addressing the adverse impacts of private sector pro-
jects on individuals and/or communities. We take this to
indicate that SIA and HRIA have considerable potential
to be complementary. In practice, this might mean that
SIA and HRIA processes for projects can support com-
mon goals, that fieldwork undertaken can be targeted
to contribute to both types of assessment, and that there
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal   19
is potential to develop and implement joint SIA/HRIA
assessments, including to avoid stakeholder consultation
fatigue, streamline impact management approaches and
avoid potentially duplicative processes. In this context,
we suggest that it may prove beneficial to further inves-
tigate some of the key differences between SIA and HRIA
to see what kinds of issues this might pose for practice
going forward. Specifically, we consider that differences
in terms of standards and benchmarks, recognition of
rights-holders and duty-bearers in stakeholder analy-
sis, and the issue of whether to focus solely on adverse
impacts or also benefits, constitute three key points of
divergence that warrant additional investigation.
5.1.  Need for an international standard or
benchmark
As elaborated above, a key difference between SIA and
HRIA is that SIA does not follow a set of consistent and
internationally recognised standards, whereas HRIA takes
international human rights standards as its benchmark
for assessment. Arguably, the consistent use of interna-
tional human rights standards in impact assessment has
much to offer in terms of fostering consistency in prac-
tice, thereby allowing comparison of impact assessment
methodologies, practice and findings. Furthermore, the
application of international human rights standards in
impact assessment has the potential to ensure that a
diverse range of human rights issues are comprehen-
sively captured and addressed, including issues that
might not be captured in SIA, such as labour rights
and working conditions, bribery and corruption and
the human rights implications associated with secu-
rity arrangements for projects. Essentially, at the outset
an HRIA requires a comprehensive consideration of an
established set of universally guaranteed human rights,
with subsequent contextual analysis then resulting in
the screening out of any issues that are not relevant, and
delving into those issues that are. This means that whilst
HRIA starts with a discrete and defined list of issues to
consider, SIA on the other hand starts with the consid-
eration of a potentially infinite set of issues that may be
of concern. Whilst some broad parameters for investi-
gation might be set, in essence SIA takes a bottom-up
approach, screening-in any social issues that are found
relevant based on a contextual analysis of the project
and impacted communities, which has the potential to
result in the omission of important human rights issues,
which might not surface easily based on a bottom-up
context analysis.
Given that both SIA and HRIA are arguably still emerg-
ing practices, at least when compared with their prede-
cessor, EIA (Morgan 2012), the use of a consistent set of
standards is likely to be particularly useful. Within SIA
practice, the use of diverse guidelines to inform different
impact assessments has the potential to undermine its
authority, as consistency and the adequacy of the various
20    N. GöTZMANN ET AL.
SIAs performed cannot be guaranteed. HRIA takes a dif-
ferent methodological approach in the sense that the
assessment starts with the consideration of a predefined
set of rights that can be applied in any context (acknowl-
edging that precise interpretation will include context
specific analysis and consideration). Arguably, the legal
status of human rights, and in particular the principle
of universality, can have significant implications in
terms of increasing the legitimacy and emphasising the
importance of impact assessments that address social
and human rights impacts. The value of an authoritative
and common guiding standard for impact assessment
is also partly supported through the new International
SIA Guidance, which was developed and launched under
the auspices of the International Association of Impact
Assessment (Vanclay et al. 2015).
Although the application of international human
rights standards to guide impact assessment has several
benefits, there are arguably also some factors which have
not yet been elaborated in HRIA practice. For instance,
despite the considerable elaboration of what interna-
tional human rights standards mean in practice, the
precise definition and content of a particular human
right is not always clear, nor is it necessarily consistently
established or accepted globally. The definition of the
right to housing, for example, has been articulated in
a number of General Comments of the United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as
well as in the adjudication of human rights at regional
and domestic levels. These elaborations provide insights
into the different parameters that make up the right to
housing, including considerations such as availability,
accessibility, acceptability and quality. However, the
precise content of each of these parameters may dif-
fer depending on the country context, i.e. what type of
housing is considered to be acceptable and affordable
in one country will not necessarily be the same as in
another country. This means that an analysis of how a
company interacts with the right to housing will require
careful contextual analysis, and cannot only rely on the
broader parameters of the right to housing articulated
in international human rights instruments.
It is here where the more established practice of SIA,
including different techniques of social profiling, base-
line data collection, impact prediction and forecasting,
impact analysis, significance determination, determi-
nation of mitigation and enhancement measures, par-
ticipatory monitoring and follow-up evaluation, might
provide particularly useful insights for the emerging
practice of HRIA. Arguably, it is important that the devel-
opment of HRIA practice acknowledges and addresses
that, whilst international human rights standards should
constitute the key standard for HRIA, the use of human
rights standards alone will not be sufficient in terms of
generating meaningful outcomes for rights-holders.
To date, much HRIA literature and commentary is very
clear on the importance of applying international human
rights standards, but has provided less detail or guidance
regarding exactly what this means for data collection and
analysis, including the interplay between international
human rights standards, other standards and local con-
text, in evaluating how particular factors give rise to a
human rights impact.
5.2.  Stakeholders, rights-holders and duty-
bearers
Both SIA and HRIA place an emphasis on the involvement
of impacted stakeholders in the impact assessment pro-
cess, including having a particular focus on vulnerable
individuals and groups. However, HRIA does so by rec-
ognising individuals as rights-holders, including a corre-
sponding focus on duty-bearers and their accountability
to rights-holders. Distinguishing between rights-holders
and duty-bearers in stakeholder analysis has the poten-
tial to promote greater attention to the individuals and
communities who experience impacts. In more conven-
tional conceptions, stakeholders are recognised as those
who may be impacted by, or who may exert influence
on, the project. In practice, this can sometimes result
in those individuals, groups or organisations who have
more power to influence, or a louder ‘voice’, to dominate
stakeholder consultation and engagement sessions and
consequently that their interests have undue influence in
impact mitigation and management decisions. Focusing
on rights-holders instead calls for the involvement of,
and attention to, those who may experience impacts irre-
spective of their ability to influence or make their voice
heard. The HRBA also places emphasis on non-discrim-
ination and hearing those who may be most marginal-
ised or vulnerable. This means that attention to gender
and vulnerability is a key consideration in stakeholder
identification, consultation and engagement in HRIA.
Whilst such factors are also considered in good prac-
tice SIA, they are not, per se, at the forefront of stake-
holder analysis and engagement. That being said, SIA,
through being a more established practice, currently has
more practical knowledge and experience in terms of
stakeholder engagement and vulnerability assessment.
Despite significant attention to vulnerability in the area
of development (such as in poverty analysis), under-
standings of vulnerability, gender analysis and diverse
human rights-compatible engagement processes are
much less developed in the field of HRIA. Going forward,
HRIA practice could benefit significantly from drawing on
these existing methodologies, approaches and experi-
ences from the field of development and SIA practice.
According to the HRBA, the analysis of rights-hold-
ers and corresponding duty-bearers serves to facilitate
accountability and by implication, to examine and recog-
nise the power-dynamics and relations at play. The HRBA
also requires evaluating the capacities of rights-holders
to claim their rights and of duty-bearers to meet their
obligations. In an impact assessment context, this means

identifying those stakeholders who are duty-bearers and
taking account of their precise responsibilities or duties
with regard to human rights in the impact management
planning and implementation. Correspondingly, the
capacities of rights-holders to participate in the impact
assessment process and in impact management should
be subjected to scrutiny, and measures implemented to
support rights-holder capacity to meaningfully engage
and participate. Like HRIA, SIA should include attention
to power-dynamics in the impact assessment context,
and include government and other duty-bearers in
impact assessment engagement and management; how-
ever, empowering rights-holders, holding duty-bearers
accountable and reconfiguring power-relations are not
explicit objectives of SIA, whilst they are some of the key
goals for HRIA.
The human rights framework of rights-holders and
duty-bearers also includes paying attention to access
to remedy. In the context of an HRIA, this would mean
including careful analysis of both judicial and non-judicial
access to remedy mechanisms available to rights-holders
as well as ensuring that a project-level grievance mech-
anism is in place during the impact assessment and
throughout the project life cycle. This focus on access
to remedy and project-level grievance mechanisms is not
a core component of an SIA approach.
5.3.  Adverse impacts and benefits
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights
under the UNGP is based on a ‘do no harm’ approach –
there is a responsibility to avoid infringement on human
rights, but there is no requirement to enhance enjoy-
ment (although the contribution of business to human
rights realisation is acknowledged). SIA, on the other
hand, includes a focus on benefits as well as adverse
impacts, and is often based on a ‘net benefit’ or ‘no net
loss’ approach that allows for trade-offs between nega-
tive and positive impacts, as long as there is an improved
net outcome for impacted communities and serious
impacts are addressed. Further consideration of this key
difference might have significant implications for SIA and
HRIA practice going forward.
The UNGP focuses on addressing adverse impacts has
grown out of a recognition that often private sector pro-
jects avoid identifying and addressing adverse impacts
through disguising them in their showcasing of positive
impacts and community contributions, in other words
‘greenwashing’. The UNGP cautions against this by taking
the approach that human rights due diligence should
focus on addressing all adverse impacts and that human
rights harms cannot be offset by ‘positive contributions
elsewhere’; that all human rights impacts must be effec-
tively identified and addressed. In an impact assessment
context, this approach has a number of benefits. One is
that it places the emphasis on addressing all impacts. A
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal   21
further important point is that the SIA focus on ‘no net
loss’ and benefits often occurs at an aggregate level, and
this may have implications for those individuals who are
marginalised or discriminated against. The HRIA focus
on adverse impacts, at an individual rights-holder level,
has the potential to avoid this (providing that the HRIA
is also acted on).
In terms of HRIA, a key question must surely be
whether an exclusive focus on adverse impacts really
yields the most beneficial outcomes for rights-holders,
and whether a strict approach to no-offsetting is truly
desirable and realistic in practice. What about scenar-
ios where communities might choose to offset certain
adverse impacts in exchange for significant social and
human rights benefits? Human rights are indivisible,
interrelated and inalienable, nevertheless, within the
human rights framework and in the implementation of
human rights it is acknowledged, and there are accom-
modations made, for the balancing of human rights in
given scenarios (e.g. balancing freedom of speech with
the right not to be subjected to hate speech, or balancing
the right to be free from child labour and the right to an
adequate standard of living). How, exactly, do we define
the difference between balancing of rights and offsetting
in practice then? And if the balancing of rights is consid-
ered acceptable in human rights terms, how is offset-
ting fundamentally distinct? These questions should be
considered in the context of an important recognition in
the UNGP, which is that, all too often, companies avoid
addressing adverse impacts, bypassing these by show-
casing positive impacts and contributions. This should
remain a key orientation point in the discussion, as it is
also consistent with the core objectives of SIA and HRIA
– that the primary concern must be that adverse impacts
are identified, anticipated and addressed. Arguably, how-
ever, what precisely the role of positive contributions and
benefits should be in HRIA of business activities (includ-
ing private sector projects) will need to be further con-
sidered in HRIA practice going forward.
A further point to consider is the interplay between
the project-level and national-level development and
human rights outcomes. Particularly in those contexts
where a specific industry comprises a large component
of the national economy, HRIA will have to make a con-
sidered analysis of how project-level revenues, taxes and
so forth contribute to national development, including
the State’s capacity to effectively exercise its human
rights duties to protect, respect and fulfil human rights
(e.g. the State’s ability and willingness to manage bribery
and corruption in revenue management and to use such
revenues for the implementation of its human rights
obligations). With an increasing focus on the role of the
private sector in development (e.g. the role of the private
sector in development is discussed in the current devel-
opment of the Sustainable Development Goals, which
will replace the Millennium Development Goals), as well
22    N. GöTZMANN ET AL.
as the development of HRIA methodologies that take
a sector-wide approach, how projects contribute to, or
impede, the creation of an environment that is conducive
to human rights realisation will warrant further consid-
eration. Whether a project-level HRIA is an appropriate
tool for this, or not, and the precise role of project-level
impact assessments in a broader national development
context, need to be further elaborated; in this discussion,
it is arguably relevant to consider human rights benefits,
as much as adverse impacts, to reach a more considered
understanding of the role that a project-level impact
assessment may or may not be able to play.
6. Conclusion
We discussed key commonalities and differences
between SIA and HRIA as they apply to private sector
projects, for the purpose of identifying areas where
the two approaches might learn from each other. We
posit that, particularly at this time when diverse meth-
odologies and practices for the assessment of human
rights impacts abound, it is vital that emerging practice
is examined critically to facilitate the development of
more robust practice in the future. We suggest that it is
useful to examine SIA and HRIA to identify the strengths
of each area of practice that might be best utilised in the
assessment of social and human rights impacts of private
sector projects in the future.
The key commonalities we identified relate par-
ticularly to the core values and objectives of SIA and
HRIA. Both approaches, as a core objective, identify and
address adverse impacts on individuals and communi-
ties impacted by private sector projects; both focus on
process and outcomes, premised on recognising the
importance of the involvement of those individuals
who are impacted in decision-making; and both share
a commitment to the principles of non-discrimination
and equality, participation and inclusion, and trans-
parency and accountability. We consider that these
commonalities indicate that the approaches are com-
plementary, and that they have the potential to benefit
from each other through further dialogue and sharing
of experiences.
At the same time, however, we recognise that there
are also some key differences between SIA and HRIA,
and suggest that further exploration of these has the
potential to create valuable cross-learning between the
approaches, as well as the potential to open up spaces
for joint initiatives where the two fields of practice might
address current shortcomings together. In particular, the
implementation of a common and authoritative stand-
ard/benchmark for impact assessment, the recognition
of rights-holders and duty-bearers in stakeholder analysis
and engagement, and the question of whether to focus
solely on adverse impacts or also benefits, constitute key
points of divergence which could benefit from further
enquiry and cross-disciplinary learning.
The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights states clearly that businesses are obliged
to assess their human rights impacts; this does not
equate to a call for stand-alone HRIA, so long as human
rights can be meaningfully and effectively integrated
into complementary assessment processes. In many
project contexts, in particular those for large-scale
operations, companies and communities are confronted
with a multitude of demands in terms of impact and risk
assessment, consultation and engagement and impact
management. Unless impact assessment is effectively
embedded in organisational processes, in particular to
ensure that projects are accountable for the implemen-
tation of impact mitigation, follow-up and monitoring of
effectiveness, undertaking an SIA or HRIA has little value.
Given the complementarities of SIA and HRIA, there is
much to be said for favouring integrated assessment
approaches where these can leverage existing organi-
sational processes for impact management. Integrated
approaches are better able to draw on the strengths of
both SIA and HRIA methodologies, and address common
challenges through joint learning in practice (acknowl-
edging that there will of course be circumstances where
an integrated approach is not suitable or practicable). To
be meaningful and effective, integrated approaches will
need to take care to proactively account for and respond
to the current differences in SIA and HRIA methodolo-
gies; as well as the challenges associated with resourcing
and practitioner skills, which are arguably common to
both approaches. Frequently, it remains the case that
the social and human rights disciplines are marginalised
in private sector projects, meaning that they receive less
financial and other resources than areas such as envi-
ronment or health and safety. In terms of the skills of
impact assessment practitioners, it is clear that there is
currently a lack of human rights practitioners with thor-
ough knowledge and understanding of private sector
projects, and similarly, that most SIA practitioners are
unfamiliar with human rights, HRIA and HRBAs. Going
forward, if the social and human rights impacts of private
sector projects are to be effectively addressed through
impact assessment practice, these factors of resources
and organisational prioritisation of social and human
rights issues will need to be addressed as urgently as
any synergies and differences between SIA and HRIA
methodologies.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Ana Maria Esteves and Gabriela
Factor from Community Insights Group for the numer-
ous discussions on this topic, which have contributed to
shaping our thinking in this article.

ORCID
Frank Vanclay   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9945-6432
References
Abrahams D, Wyss Y. 2010. Guide to human rights impact
assessment and management. Washington (DC):
International Business Leaders Forum, International Finance
Corporation and UN Global Compact.
Bansal T, Wyss Y. 2013. Talking the human rights walk: Nestle’s
experience assessing human rights impacts in its business
activities. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Human Rights
and Nestle.
Esteves AM, Vanclay F. 2009. Social development needs analysis
as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment:
applications in the minerals industry. Environ Impact Assess
Rev. 29:137–145.
Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact assessment:
the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30:35–44.
Franks DM, Vanclay F. 2013. Social impact management plans:
innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 43:40–48.
Franks DM, Brereton D, Moran CJ. 2011. Cumulative social
impacts. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions
in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological
advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; p. 202–220.
Götzmann N. 2014. Human rights and impact assessment:
conceptual and practical considerations in the private sector
context. Matters of Concern Human Rights Research Paper
No. 2014/2. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Human Rights.
Hanna P, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights, Indigenous Peoples
and the concept of free, prior and informed consent. Impact
Assess Proj Appraisal. 31:146–157.
Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. 2014. Improving the
effectiveness of impact assessment pertaining to Indigenous
Peoples in the Brazilian environmental licensing procedure.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 46:58–67.
Hanna P, Langdon EJ, Vanclay F. Forthcoming 2015. Indigenous
rights, performativity and protest. Land Use Policy.
Harrison J. 2010. Measuring human rights: reflections on the
practice of human rights impact assessment and lessons
for the future. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010/26.
Warwick, UK: University of Warwick School of Law.
Harrison J. 2013. Establishing a meaningful human rights due
diligence process for corporations: learning from experience
of human rights impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj
Appraisal. 31:107–117.
Hill C, Lillywhite S, Simon M. 2010. Guide to free, prior and
informed consent. Carlton, Melbourne: Oxfam Australia.
ICMM. 2010. Indigenous Peoples and mining: good practice
guide. London: International Council on Mining and Metals.
ILO. 1989. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples convention: C169.
Geneva: International Labour Organization.
João E, Vanclay F, den Broeder L. 2011. Emphasising
enhancement in all forms of impact assessment: introduction
to a special issue. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 29:170–180.
Kemp D, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights and impact assessment:
clarifying the connections in practice. Impact Assess Proj
Appraisal. 31:86–96.
Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state
of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30:5–14.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal   23
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights. 2006. Frequently asked questions on a human rights-
based approach to development cooperation. New York
(NY): United Nations.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights. 2012. The corporate responsibility to respect human
rights: an interpretive guide. New York (NY): United Nations.
On Common Ground. 2010. Human rights assessment of
Goldcorp’s Marlin mine. Guatemala: Steering Committee
for the Human Rights Assessment of the Marlin Mine.
Salcito K, Utzinger J, Weiss M, Münch A, Singer B, Krieger G,
Wielga M. 2013. Assessing human rights impacts in corporate
development projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 42:39–50.
Slootweg R, Vanclay F, van Schooten M. 2001. Function
evaluation as a framework for the integration of social
and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj
Appraisal. 19:19–28.
UN General Assembly [Internet]. 2007. United Nations
declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. A/
RES/61/295. New York (NY): UN General Assembly.
United Nations Development Group [Internet]. 2003. The
human rights based approach to development cooperation:
towards a common understanding among UN agencies
(otherwise known as the Stamford common understanding).
New York (NY): UN Development Group; [cited 2015 March
19]. Available from: http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-
based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-
common-understanding-among-un-agencies
United Nations Human Rights Council. 2011. Guiding principles
on business and human rights: implementing the United
Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. HR/
PUB/11/04. New York (NY): United Nations.
Vanclay F. 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 22:183–211.
Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact
assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21:5–12.
Vanclay F. 2012. The potential application of social impact
assessment in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean
Coast Manage. 68:149–156.
Vanclay F. 2014. Developments in social impact assessment: an
introduction to a collection of seminal research papers. In:
Vanclay F, editor. Developments in social impact assessment.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; p. xv–xxxix.
Vanclay F, Esteves AM. 2011. Current issues and trends in social
impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New
directions in social impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar; p. 3–19.
Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D. 2015. Social impact
assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social
impacts of projects. Fargo (ND): International Association for
Impact Assessment.
Watson G, Tamir I, Kemp B. 2013. Human rights impact
assessment in practice: Oxfam’s application of a
community-based approach. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal
31:118–127.
World Bank. 2013. Human rights impact assessments: a review of
the literature, differences with other forms of assessments and
relevance for development. Washington (DC): World Bank.
[cited 2015 March 19]. Available from: http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/
HRIA_Web.pdf