Engaging Communities with Social Impact Assessment: SIA as a Social Assurance Process Vanclay F* Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, Australia Abstract Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has been a technocratic expert-driven process which sought to identify the social impacts that might be anticipated from the implementation of projects or policy. Although intended to be in the community interest, such a model of SIA has not always engaged the community. Some sections of the community have been critical of SIA, seeing it as inherently linked to the corporatist agenda and nothing more than legitimation of (bad) development. New understandings of SIA, such as espoused in the ‘International Principles for SIA’, perceive SIA differently. The International Principles advocate that SIA should take a proactive stance for social development rather than be limited to the identification and amelioration of negative outcomes. The new model considers that assisting communities to identify development goals and maximising positive outcomes is more important than minimising harm from negative impacts. SIA should be part of the adaptive management of policies and projects. SIA also needs to assist communities to cope with change. Such a multifaceted understanding is not consistent with the current regulatory agency process typically associated with SIA/EIA. A different model is required. This paper speculates on the potential of a Quality Assurance process similar to an Environmental Management System (ISO 14000) to address social issues in the operations of corporations, government agencies and other organisations. The tentative hypothesis is that SIA would be more effective in achieving its goals if it seen as a quality assurance process rather than being a point-in-time assessment of potential impacts. Keywords Social impact assessment, SIA, social accountability, environmental management systems, ISO 14000 Introduction: The failure of SIA to engage communities Social impact assessment (SIA) started in the early 1970s in good faith as a genuine process that attempted to identify and manage the (negative) social consequences of development. Linked to environmental impact assessment (EIA), it was part of a regulatory process and was limited by bureaucratic restrictions and political interference, as well as by the limitations of the consultants who undertook SIA. The approval by regulatory agencies (competent authorities) of projects that had deleterious social consequences as well as decision-making processes that lacked transparency and legitimacy led to public scepticism with SIA and EIA. Many regulatory authorities, with their technocratic, asocietal worldviews (Burdge and Vanclay 1995; Vanclay 1999) also fail to appreciate the value of well conducted SIA or of full public participation, preferring instead to limit public involvement to limited consultation (Roberts 2003). While SIA as a discipline is not responsible for its narrow application, it is the case that SIA has failed to advance adequately its potential. 1