The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: a further step towards an integrated assessment process

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process Bianca Dendena a, b, *, Stefano Corsi b a b

Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Italy  degli Studi di Milano, Italy Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods (DEMM), Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 3 September 2014 Received in revised form 19 July 2015 Accepted 20 July 2015 Available online xxx

Since its introduction, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process has been subject to both critiques and adjustments with the aim of addressing the main issues emerging from its wide implementation. In this regard, one of the most active debates has focused on the weight allocated to the analysis of the social impacts of project implementation, often considered too limited. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was then launched but it has for long been considered as a component subordinate to the Environmental Impact Assessment. As a follow up to such a debate, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has been introduced and is now being widely applied by multilateral donors, international agencies and private lending institutions. It appears as a promising tool based on an integrated assessment where biophysical and social impacts of projects, programs and policy initiatives, are equally acknowledged and evaluated. However, it still misses a proper scientific foundation as, to date, few scientific publications on the theoretical base, opportunities and limits of such an assessment process have been made available. Therefore, the present paper aims to catch the attention of the scientific community on this gap in research, as well as to contribute to fill it. With this aim, a wide spectrum of grey literature documents has been analyzed in order to deduce the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment's core elements and advancements potentially provided in the framework of an increased awareness of environmental issues, no longer limited to biophysical components. While retracing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) co-evolution over time, as well as the outset of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), a profound change in the approach to environmental and social concerns arising from project implementation clearly emerged. Such a change, that occurred with a particular emphasis since the early 2000s, has led to the establishment of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment as an integrated assessment process properly capturing the interrelationship between land and society. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment Social impact assessment ESIA Project assessment Environment Society

1. Introduction After more than 40 years since Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was first enshrined in legislation in the United States, which launched a global surge of environmental concern, many have argued about its theoretical foundation, application, effectiveness and quality (Bond et al., 2010; Jay et al., 2007; Morgan, 2012; Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995; Retief, 2010). In the meanwhile, EIA has been given legal and institutional force by being recognized in a large number of international conventions,

* Corresponding author. Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Italy. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Dendena).

protocols and agreements. The adoption of EIA procedure, in fact, with due differences, encompasses developed, developing and transitional countries (Lee and George, 2000). In its broader sense, the concept of EIA captures the idea of assessing proposed actions, ranging from projects to policies, with respect to their likely implications for the environment, similarly meant in a broad sense, thus including both social and biophysical components. While being widely implemented, EIA has been subject to several critiques, as well as to adjustments and improvements with the aim of addressing the main issues emerging from its application (Benson, 2003; Cashmore et al., 2004; Elling, 2009; Holden, 1998; Jay et al., 2007; Morgan, 2012; Pope et al., 2013; Weston, 2010; Wood, 2003; Wood and Becker, 2005; Wood and Jones, 1997; Wilkins, 2003). Remarkable room has had in this sense the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110 0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

2

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

debate on the weight allocated to the analysis of the social facet of project implementation, which has most often deemed marginal (Becker, 1997; Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Taylor et al., 2004; Vanclay, 1999). Therefore, Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was introduced but, despite its widespread and longstanding practice, it has for long preserved its statutory basis of being a component subordinate to EIA (Burdge, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Esteves et al., 2012). The minor significance acknowledged to social matters in project assessment, especially in the framework of public works, has often turned into social protests by environmental associations and civil society organizations strongly claiming for high standards of environmental security and local communities' wellbeing. This is, for example, the case of Italy, where the application of the European legislation with regard to environmental impact assessment does not require a detailed analysis of social issues as impacted by the implementation of major works (Della Porta and Piazza, 2008). The relevance of the social dimension of projects has then been increasingly acknowledged, insomuch that new approaches to impact assessment have emerged calling for an integrated perspective where environmental and social matters are equally acknowledged and evaluated (Burdge, 2003b; DfID, 2005; Esteves et al., 2012; Pope et al., 2013; World Bank, 2003, 2004). In this framework, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) appears as a promising tool as based on an integrated assessment of the multifaceted impact of projects, programs and policy initiatives. As such, ESIA responds to the need of capturing the complex and strong interrelationship linking land and society, on which there is an increasing awareness. Though ESIA is being widely applied by multilateral donors, international agencies and private lending institutions, it still misses a scientific foundation as, to date, few scientific publications on it have been released (Rosa and S anchez, 2015). Against a considerable number of scientific studies focused on EIA and SIA where limits and opportunities of both methods have been reviewed (Burdge, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Jay et al., 2007; Morgan, 2012; Esteves et al., 2012) also with regard to their ability to provide a holistic approach to the environment (Kørnøv et al., 2005), the theoretical foundation, as well as opportunities and limits of ESIA have not been extensively analyzed to date. Instead, there are several documents belonging to the so-called grey literature that focus on case studies and on specific applications of ESIA, as, for example, biofuel production (Andrew and Van Vlaenderen, 2011) and biodiversity conservation (Melton et al., 2011; The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). Therefore, the present paper aims to catch the attention of the scientific community on such a gap in research, as well as to contribute to fill it by providing some insights on ESIA's core elements and advancements potentially provided by this assessment method. In the intention of the authors, the present paper would thus serve to launch and foster a fruitful dialogue on this matter based on the sharing of knowledge, approaches and best practice by experts in the field of environmental and social assessment.

Weston, 2010). The research was performed first focusing on review papers on both environmental and social impact assessment by using “environmental impact assessment review”, “environmental impact assessment state of the art”, “social impact assessment review”, and “social impact assessment state of the art” as keywords for an internet search on Google Scholar. As the present paper is aimed at analyzing how these two assessment methods have recently changed in light of the increasing awareness of social issues in assessment procedures matured since the early 2000s, such a search included review articles dating back no more than 2005 (Section 3 And 4). Then, aspects of both EIA and SIA particularly relevant to the aim of this paper were further investigated by taking into account original research articles providing evidence of limits in both assessment methods that led to maturing a new approach. The authors then explored the concept of integrated assessment particularly focusing on ESIA that appears as the merging of EIA and SIA (see Section 5) (Burdge, 2003b; Dani, 2003; DfID, 2005; Edelstein, 2003; World Bank, 2003, 2004; Youngkin et al., 2003). Section 6 was therefore entirely dedicated to the analysis of ESIA as it is currently conceived and applied by different agents participating in the design, funding, and implementation of projects. Due to the novelty of the ESIA concept, a scientific foundation of this assessment method is still missing. Therefore, for Section 6 the authors based their analysis on the grey literature available on this topic consisting of policy documents, guidelines and case study reports released by multilateral finance institutions, export credit agencies and private companies that, with due differences, have been applying the ESIA (AFDB, 2001, 2003; Dani and Beddies, 2011; EP, 2006, 2013; EBRD, 2008, 2014a, 2014b; IDB, 1998, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2010, 2011; IFC, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2012a, 2012b; OECD, 2005, 2007, 2012; WBCSD, 2005; World Bank, 2008, 2012). In this case, an internet search was performed by using “environmental and social impact assessment” and “ESIA” as keywords. When providing an overview of the sectors where ESIA has been applied by the multilateral financing institutions taken into account, the year 2013 was considered as providing the more recent data on ESIA application. Therefore, the information provided in this respect refer to projects approved, financed and/or implemented in 2013 for which related ESIA reports were disclosed and made available. For Section 7, focused on the adoption and evolution of the environmental impact assessment concept by the European Union (EU), the authors mostly based their review on the Directives and related amendments that, since 1985, marked the EU's approach to environmental issues (EEC, 1985; EC, 1997, 2003, 2009; EU, 2011, 2014). Complementary to the consultation of this body of theory was the analysis of the guidance documents released for facilitating the implementation of the Directives in force (Raymond and Coates, 2001). In addition, reports on the assessment of the effectiveness and application of the Directives and their amendments were also considered when available (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009). 3. Current issues in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

2. Methods The present review is based on the analysis of a wide spectrum of documents ascribable to different types of literature. Different sources have been reviewed according to the section of the paper. Concerning the first part, i.e. introduction, and Sections 3e5, data and trends were mostly sourced from scientific literature, namely peer-reviewed articles including original research and review papers, and conference proceedings (Bond et al., 2010; Burdge, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Eggenberger and rio, 2000; Esteves et al., 2012; Jay et al., 2007; Morgan, Partida 2012; Pope et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2004; Vanclay, 2003;

Though being formally introduced in the United States legislation in 1969 through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the philosophy and principles on which EIA is built date back to a rationalist approach to decision making that emerged in the 1960s. Such an approach, strongly supporting a technical evaluation for providing the basis for objective decision making (Owens et al., 2004), has long been considered the most relevant theoretical foundation of EIA, though other models have also been discussed in the literature (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). However, despite the international take-up of EIA, its legal and procedural integration into many project planning systems, and its derivation from a deeply

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

rooted thought, several questions have increasingly been raised whether EIA is achieving the purposes it was meant for. With regard to this, there has been no shortage of studies and research into the extent to which EIA is effectively working. These studies, undertaken both by academic and regulatory bodies, have widely examined individual EIA cases and procedural elements, extending also to comparative reviews of EIA systems (Jay et al., 2007). Embedded in the definition of the EIA itself is the recurrent criticism that has been raised with respect to the rationalist model of planning/decision making at its basis (Jay et al., 2007; Morgan, 2012). According to it, the identification of the ‘best’ solution amongst all possible alternatives by planners and other professionals giving an objective consideration to an issue can be questioned (Holden, 1998; Weston, 2010; Wood and Becker, 2005). This is because a value-free objectivity in EIA is hard to believe since it is hard to practice. The impartial use of the environment related information collected and presented by the experts, as well as the consequent decision reached upon a shortlist of options, can be hardly assumed as not being biased by other underlying factors, possibly reflecting of the interests by the decision-makers who operate in a given political context (Jay et al., 2007). Leknes (2001) points that it is particularly in the later stages of the decisionmaking process that EIA findings become tightly intertwined with political considerations. The political burden on development projects decision making also emerged from the studies conducted by Wood and Jones (1997) that focused on the British context, and was later confirmed by Wood (2003) and Cashmore et al. (2004). They both concluded that the contribution made by EIA, both to consent decisions and to project design, is generally moderate rather than substantial, eventually resulting in relatively modest fine tuning of the proposed actions. In particular, Wood (2003) argues that this outcome is at least partly ascribable to a regulatory weaknesses embedded in the whole EIA procedure, for which EIA does not exert but marginal influences on development decisions in favor to non-environmental objectives and political factors. Benson (2003) in turn attributes such a limitation of EIA to the lack of any particular environmental standards or targets imposed upon decision makers, who are not required to give any specified weight to the environmental information provided. With this regard, Jay and coworkers (2007) argue that such a lack of clear indications has indeed made the EIA politically acceptable on a widespread scale with EIA being adopted in many different jurisdictions worldwide. However, Jay et al. (2007) also point at the significant disjuncture between the limited results that EIA has been proven to achieve in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and the goal of addressing land degradation embedded in the EIA in its prime conception. The acknowledgment of the political and value-based nature of EIA has encouraged the promotion of collaborative approaches to planning and decision making processes that EIA is intended to serve. Therefore, EIA procedures have gradually been modified with the aim of sharing the assessment process with stakeholders and communities, strengthening the importance of communication as a means for negotiating the consensus on solutions that capture the values of the participants involved, and moving professionals and technical officers from a central to a facilitating role in the assessment procedure (Elling, 2009; Wilkins, 2003). This focus on public participation has particularly taken on since the 1990s, when the discussion on the theoretical foundation of the EIA was incorporating new concepts such as deliberative justice democracy and environmental justice (Morgan, 2012). However, the EIA procedure was not new to considerable modifications in its structure and applications as, since the 1970s, when it was first introduced, different forms of assessment have developed being all gathered under the umbrella of EIA. All of them

3

are similar in that they are meant to meet the needs emerging from some level of dissatisfaction with EIA (Morgan, 2012; Pope et al., 2013). In this regard, one of the first assessment procedures to emerge as an alternative to EIA was the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) whose first mention appeared in the late 1980s (Wood and Djeddour, 1989). Since then, SEA has developed partly from the practice of EIA as being identified as an advancement in its respect. SEA, in fact, was framed as a set of tools and/or approaches better supporting the identification of alternative choices in the earlier stages of the decision-making process (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). As such, it emerged as a more proactive approach in addressing ad hoc plans and programs in line with environmental and sustainability considerations that, during the 1990s, became central to the discourse related to development (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). In addition, SEA was proposed to better capture and, thus, address cumulative and large scale effects and encompass follow-up arrangements (Wood and Djeddour, 1992; rivel and Partid The ario, 1996), with the latter being later identified as an important limit of EIA (Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2005). Since the early 2000s, the application of SEA rapidly spread in many countries, as triggered by the adoption and transposition of the European SEA Directive in 2001 and the adoption and negotiation of the SEA protocol to the Espoo Convention in 2003 (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). In the present paper, however, a specific mention is due to the Social Impact Assessment (SIA), given the relevance it has gradually gained in the international discourse on EIA and the advancement in its future application that is recently being unveiled. 4. Current issues in Social Impact Assessment (SIA) SIA strongly developed in the late 1970s through the 1980s because EIA was deemed to have a strong emphasis on biophysical components, since it often pushed the analysis of social dynamics as affected by development projects to a marginal role in the assessment process (Taylor et al., 2004). Though SIA is regarded as a technique for predicting the social impacts as a part of an EIA thus being embedded in the formal requirements of the NEPA, some authors have argued that the consideration of social impacts existed long before this Act (Becker, 1997; Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Vanclay, 1999). Nowadays, SIA is widely practiced internationally in a number of fields, such as natural resource management (Cooper et al., 2006; Dale et al., 2001; Fenton et al., 2003), disaster preparation (Benson and Twigg, 2007), international development cooperation (Dani and Beddies, 2011), in peacebuilding and conflict initiatives (International Alert, 2005), conflict management (Prenzel and Vanclay, 2014) and in due diligence processes (Joyce and MacFarlane, 2001). Notwithstanding such a wide application worldwide, SIA has still a minor role compared to the extent of analysis and resources aimed to biophysical issues. With regard to this, Burdge (2002; 2003a; 2003b) and Esteves et al. (2012) provide a thorough analysis of the main reasons for SIA to lag behind EIA. Concerning human resources, Burdge (2003a) and Esteves et al. (2012) agree on the little or lacking experience in social matters of the project managers responsible for commissioning and delivering impact assessments as being an important issue hindering the outcomes of the assessment itself. Moreover, social practitioners have often insufficient influence in identifying and shaping alternatives for the actions to be taken. The limited resources devoted to social assessment, therefore, coupled with the limited capacity of regulators to provide a quality control of the proposed actions, significantly affect the standard of the SIAs, with the tendency for the proponents to draft assessments meeting just the minimum expectations of the policy makers (Esteves et al., 2012). Data currency is another important

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

4

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

issues, both concerning the selection of indicators to take into account and the quality of the data collected. With regard to the type of data, Burdge (2003a) warns on the risk for socioeconomic impact assessment to become a baseline listing of demographic information for the project area. In addition, analysis sometimes lacks identification of the stakeholder distribution of impacts and benefits over space and time, often neglecting cumulative effects (Brereton et al., 2008; Franks et al., 2011; Esteves et al., 2012; Lockie et al., 2008). Burdge (2002) points at the lack of publication of good case studies as an important issues to take into account since it limits the opportunity to track cumulative findings. Concerning data collection, in most cases secondary sources are often the unique to be considered, though they quickly become outdated and are rarely coupled with locally sourced data (Esteves et al., 2012). When focused on local contexts, SIAs are rarely crossreferenced, and coordination and collaboration between project developers are rare. Public participation is a major issue that SIA shares with other forms of assessments. According to Esteves and coworkers (2012), SIAs often do not meet public expectations of being a deliberative process promoting the acceptability of the project. Most often, public participation is seen as a step to ensure the legitimization of projects, rather than a process really aimed at improving the quality of project proposals. As in this sense there are no specific requirements, public participation ranges from the simple disclosure of information for public comments to the active involvement of stakeholders in the assessment process by shifting the focus of governance onto local communities. Even when the public availability of SIAs reports is ensured, their full comprehension is an issue, especially in some contexts, such as in developing countries, where local communities might have, on average, low literacy level. Interestingly, Burdge (2002) points at public participation as a factor contributing to SIA displacement in the 1980s. By focusing on the US case, he reports the example of federal land-management agencies that put in place public involvement as a substitute for SIA as similarly based on community consultation. However, at the basis of this rationale there was the misleading belief that, in order to thoroughly understand how a project would impact on communities, a simple consultation was required, instead of a systematic assessment (Burdge, 2002). By contrast, the author highlights as public involvement and social impact assessment processes should work together with the latter being firmly based on the former for providing the evidence of how the proposed actions and its alternatives would alter the life of individuals, as well as of communities they belong to (Burdge, 2003b). In this sense, Burdge (2003b) points at participatory social impact assessment as the following step to take towards high level SIAs. This form of assessment is based on the inclusion of affected parties in deciding on the indicators for measuring social impacts and monitoring the effects of the project during its implementation. The marginal role SIAs have while evaluating the impacts of projects is also due to the fact that most often a full SIA is not strictly required by the legislation in force in many jurisdictions around the world. Exceptions to this are Queensland, Australia, where project developers are required to submit a social impact management plan (SIMP) as part of their environmental impact statement; South Africa, where social and labor plans (SLP) were introduced in 2004 specifically for mining project; the Philippines, were similar social management processes are in place for mining projects (Esteves et al., 2012). Commonly, in the public sector SIAs are restricted to the evaluation of impacts on human health in the project area. By contrast, much of good SIA practice currently available is being produced within the corporate sector, often on a voluntary basis (Esteves and Barclay, 2011). Specifically regarding this sector, though its use is still strictly related to project impact

assessment, both the drivers and the focus of SIA are progressively changing (Esteves et al., 2012). Particularly, some organizations and companies have enhanced the process leading to the identification of social impacts potentially deriving from project implementation in order to proactively respond to change (Franks et al., 2009; Esteves et al., 2012; Mota et al., 2014; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). This perspective, embedded in the field of community relations (Kemp, 2009), places SIA as a part of a management process for effectively responding to impacts and is indicative of a shift in recognizing social issues as drivers for business risk. Stakeholder-related risks, in fact, have been found to have a significant impact on success, timeliness and cost of projects (Ruggie, 2010). To such matters companies and private organizations are more sensitive than public institutions, which explains why they are at the forefront for ensuring high quality SIAs. SIA methods are, in fact, used to assist decision making process also by prioritizing social investments by project proponents. The increasing attention to social issues gradually matured within the private sector has experienced an important step forward in 2010, when the ISO 26000 standards was released with the aim of providing a guidance to businesses and organizations for operating in light of social responsibility (ISO, 2014; Ward, 2012). 5. Towards the definition of an integrated assessment approach The strengthening of social assessment practice in environmental assessment procedure is evidenced by both the increasing number of social specialists in lending institutions, governments, projects teams and consultancy firms, and the literature made available on case studies and theoretical foundation to the SIA rio, 2000; Esteves et al., 2012; concept (Eggenberger and Partida Pope et al., 2013; Vanclay, 2003). A similar pathway highlighting the relevance of social issues in the framework of environmental impacts evaluation, though on a supply chain scale, has also come out from the evolution of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCS) procedure. The increasing interest in socioeconomic impacts related to production processes emerged in late 1990s and has since consolidated, as evidenced by a number of scientific studies exploring the integration of social aspects in LCA from different perspectives (Norris, 2003, 2004, 2006; Weidema, 2006; Dreyer et al., 2006; Benoît et al., 2010; Parent et al., 2012). The formal endorsement of Social Life Cycle Assessment as an integrated procedure came in 2009 with the publication of the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products occurred in conjunction with the ISO 26000 meeting that turned out in the definition of the abovementioned standards for social responsibility (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009; Benoît et al., 2010). In respect to such an increasing recognition of the importance of social issues to be appropriately evaluated in project assessment, Esteves and collaborators (2012) raise the attention on a number of external factors likely contributing to the enhancement of social impacts analysis, and points at the opportunities offered by these emerging trends in specific regard to the legitimization of SIA. Particularly, they refer to the greater acceptance of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) concept, the increasing attention to the respect and promotion of human rights, the incorporation of social performance standard by lending agencies, multilateral financial institutions, organizations and companies, and a strengthened commitment to local content, with particular reference to supply chain management (Esteves et al., 2012). While acknowledging the positive effects that the consolidation of these trends has on the acceptance of SIA, the authors also stress the strong relationship existing in the other way. They, in fact, point at

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

SIA as being particularly useful as an organizational tool for delivering concepts relevant to the present that might be hardly reflected in legislation (Esteves et al., 2012). In view of these changes, Pope et al. (2013) identifies in SIA a form of impact assessment that, more than others, is clearly taking an evolutionary pathway leading to a profound transformation of both impact assessment procedures and outcomes. However, SIA's full potential is still generally limited by the statutory basis of such an assessment method as subordinate to the analysis of biophysical components involved in project, program and/or policy implementation, as evidenced in the practice and thoroughly analyzed in literature (Burdge, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Esteves et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2004). Beyond the factors already identified as preventing SIA to be adopted as a practice per se possibly in combination with EIA, there is the multifaceted nature of environmental impacts. In light of this, it is often difficult to attribute some specific impacts to either the environmental or social sphere, when these two branches are separately assessed; rather, the risk of overlapping or missing important elements would be significant, thus potentially compromising the effectiveness of the assessment process. Moreover, the adoption of SIA as a separate assessment procedure to be possibly coupled with EIA is to be considered in the crowded scenario of assessment methods that is increasingly acknowledged to cause confusion and jeopardize both the effectiveness and the acceptance of impact assessment as a tool for project evaluation. The practice of impact assessment has, in fact, resulted in the flourishing of several methods, aimed to better capture the complexity of reality by introducing different perspectives of analysis. The need for simplification is now increasingly felt both by the communities likely affected by projects, the funding institutions and the proponents that have to comply with standards. In this sense, with the aim of fully analyzing the contexts subject to impact assessment, simplifying the procedures in place and going further the weaknesses emerging from the application of the most commonly used methods, integrated forms of assessment have been proposed and applied (Burdge, 2003b; Dani, 2003; DfID, 2005; Edelstein, 2003; World Bank, 2003, 2004; Youngkin et al., 2003). Amongst these, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has recently emerged and is particularly interesting since it appears to offer promising perspectives for project impact integrated analysis. While responding to the needs of a fast changing society calling for more transparency and accountability, in fact, it is strongly aimed to the protection of the environment meant in its broader sense, thus including biophysical and social aspects, as well as the expected pressures they will be likely subject to. In light of this broad perspective, a critique potentially arising is that, by merging environmental and social issues in the assessment process, a less detailed analysis would be provided in respect of one or both components. However, any evaluation of the effectiveness of ESIA would be still premature, as the adoption of such a method, often on a voluntary basis, is still in the inception phase, and, at the time of writing, there is no integrated database sharing good practices and main issues encountered in its application. Similarly to EIA and SIA, it is reasonable to suppose that both shortcomings and advantages of ESIA will come up in the future, as the practice consolidates. Even though not yet thoroughly discussed within the scientific community, the ESIA method is being increasingly applied by multilateral donors, international agencies and private lending institutions. Such a fact indicates that ESIA is being applied before even being theorized, thus highlighting that its application responds to an urgent need for assessment methods able to catch the complex and fast changing reality in which project are implemented.

5

6. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a look at the global scenario As mentioned, the impact assessment practice is strongly characterized worldwide by its use at the project level, with particular emphasis on major projects (Wood, 2003). However, the introduction of the concept of EIA in the legislation of many countries was not accompanied by the development of control mechanisms at the legislative level to require the routine use of EIA for proposed actions having significant environmental impacts. In order to address this gap, several multilateral financial institutions, as well as export credit agencies, adopted specific policies including both environmental and social assessment procedures to guide funding decisions on development projects. These procedures, as well as the approaches to both environmental and social matters lying behind them, have changed over time by keeping pace with the evolution of an increasing awareness on environmental and social concerns. Interestingly, such a shift in the focus of assessment methods and procedures has been marked by the emergence of the ESIA. 6.1. Multilateral financial institutions 6.1.1. World Bank (WB) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) The first international financial body to take an action in the field of environmental assessment (EA) was the World Bank group that, in 1989, introduced the Operational Directive 4.0, with Annex A: Environmental Assessment that made EA the standard for the Bank-financed projects. During the 1990s the World Bank developed nine additional operational policies that served as a guide for separately assessing environmental and social effects. In 1997 the Bank labeled such a body of theory as the “do no harm” policies, which later turned out to be the Safeguard Policies, as they are currently known and implemented. Such a commitment by the Bank significantly improved the environmental and social performance of the funded project with respect to the early 1990s (Dani and Beddies, 2011). The Safeguard Policies, currently going through a two-year consultative process for update, consist of ten policies including environmental, social and legal aspects, with an additional policy specifically addressing the Bank disclosure requirements. Whereas the attribution of the Operational Policies (OP) 7.50 and 7.60 to the legal sphere is widely agreed, the assignment of the other policies is still controversial: some, in fact, count six environmental and two social policies (Dani and Beddies, 2011), while others attribute the Operational Policy 4.11 related to Physical Cultural Resources to social policies, thus counting five environmental and three social policies overall (World Bank, 2008). Apart from the arguable attribution, there still is a clear imbalance in favor to environmental matters. The inclusion of social aspects, in fact, is limited to the evaluation of the effects of the project on indigenous people (OP 4.10) and involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12). No consideration whatsoever is required for socioeconomic issues. In this sense, a step forward was taken in 2012 when the World Bank Performance Standards were adopted for projects operated by the private sector (World Bank, 2012). With respect to the Safeguard Policies, the focus on social aspects for project assessment was considerably enhanced: out of eight performance standards (PS), in fact, four were clearly related to social issues, namely labor and working conditions (PS 2), community health, safety and security (PS 4), land acquisition and involuntary resettlement (PS 5), and indigenous peoples (PS 7), with cultural heritage 8 (PS 8) that could be arguably attributed to either environmental or social issues. The introduction of these standards closely drew on the Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability that the International Finance

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

6

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

Table 1 Main steps of the adoption and implementation of environmental and social assessment principles by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). World Bank 1989 1997

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Operational Directive 4.0 1998 Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies 2007 Adoption of Performance Standards on Social and (Do no harm Policies) Environmental Sustainability 2012 World Bank Performance Standarda 2012 Adoption of the revised IFC Sustainability Framework 2013 Sectors of project implementation Water resources management, power and energy, agriculture and agroindustry, local development, infrastructure, waste management, tourism, commercial activities, manufacture development a

They apply to projects supported by IBRD/IDA that are owned, constructed and/or operated by the private sector (World Bank, 2012).

Table 2 Towards the definition of the EPs. Equator Principles (EP) 2003 2006 2013

Launch of the Equator Principles First revision e EP II Second revision e EP III

Corporation (IFC) adopted in 2006 and implemented from 2007 (IFC, 2006a). The adoption of such standards by the IFC was actually part of a long history of commitment to environmental and social issues that partially overlap and is intertwined with that of the World Bank (Table 1). The IFC, in fact, first adopted its own Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies in 1998 by lending on those of the World Bank. In 2006, the IFC adopted the Sustainability Framework, which articulates IFC's strategic commitment to sustainable development (IFC, 2006b). Such a framework was based on a single policy that defined eight performance standards equally divided among social and environmental issues (Dani and Beddies, 2011) that the World Bank referred to in 2012. The IFC's Sustainability Framework was then revisited and updated in 2011 (IFC, 2012a, 2012b) with the aim of strengthening IFC's commitments to climate change, business and human rights, corporate governance, and gender, thus further enhancing the attention to social issues. With reference to 2013, the application of the abovementioned improved standards, both by the World Bank and the IFC, spanned several sectors including water resources management, power and energy, agriculture and agroindustry, local development, infrastructure, waste management, mining activities, tourism, commercial activities and manufacture development (for details, see the repositories at http://goo.gl/7mea9q and at http://goo.gl/ PWcsZ6or, for the World Bank and IFC, respectively). 6.1.2. The definition of the Equator Principles (EPs)1 Notwithstanding the wide application of the improved assessment standards, however, still social and environmental issues were considered as separate components and no mention to integrated assessment procedure was made in any of the cited policy documents. The real leap forward in this sense came after the launch of the Equator Principles (EPs), to which the IFC significantly contributed. The first step towards the definition of the EPs was taken in 2002, when the IFC met with several major banks and initiated discussions leading to the official launch of the EPs in 2003 (Table 2). Such Principles are still in force and consist in a risk management framework providing guidelines for determining, assessing and managing both environmental and social risks

1 The adoption of the Equator Principles (EPs) is open to any financial institution that meets the set requirements; it is voluntary. Currently 80 Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) in 34 countries have officially adopted the EPs (EP, 2013).

associated to projects. The adoption of the EPs by lending institutions was and still is on a voluntary basis and has ever been intended to provide a minimum standard for due diligence to assist decision making processes. The EPs refer to the abovementioned Sustainability Framework elaborated by the IFC, thus being based on the related Social and Environmental Performance Standards (IFC, 2012b). They also refer to the Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines of the World Bank Group that constitute the technical reference documents for the IFC's Performance Standard 3 (IFC, 2007). The EPs were first revised in 2006 (EP, 2006). A second adjustment, sometimes referred to as EP III, was then made in 2012, consistently with the revision that the IFC's Sustainability framework went through in 2011. Such an update process ended up with the release of the new EPs in 2013 (EP, 2013). While comparatively analyzing the 2006 and 2013 editions, an important consideration emerges. The documents are characterized by a similar general structure, with different sections providing guidance for impact assessment. What constitutes the novelty of the 2013 edition is the introduction of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) concept. An ESIA, in fact, is explicitly required for Category A2 and, when appropriate, for Category B3 projects. In the 2006 edition such term did not appear, though the assessment of both environmental and social impacts was similarly required. The clear reference to ESIA provided in the 2013 edition constitutes an important advancement in that, for the first time, social issues are not considered as part of an environmental assessment but are acknowledged as being equally essential in evaluating project impacts. By adopting the integrated framework of analysis that ESIA is based upon, the new EPs promoted a shift of the statutory basis of SIA from being subordinate to EIA to be complementary to it and, as such, strictly necessary when assessing project impacts. The EPs, therefore, that ever since their introduction in early 2000s have increased the attention on social standards and community responsibility, contribute to the formalization of the shift from EIA to ESIA. Such a conceptual change is in line with, and to some extent responds to, the debate that has been taking place in the environmental assessment research and practice community. In this sense, the EPs are themselves an important element in the scenario of initiatives taken by financing institutions and banking industries that promoted the adoption of responsible environmental and social impact assessment measures. Apart from the IFC and the other EPs members, in fact, other multilateral development agencies that initially based their own safeguard policies for lending on those of the World Bank, have since

2 By Category A projects it is here meant “projects with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and/or impacts that are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented” (EP, 2013). 3 By Category B projects it is here meant “projects with potential limited environmental and social risks and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation measures” (EP, 2013).

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

customized and expanded these policies by better defining social standards and requirements for project funding. 6.1.3. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Similarly to the World Bank and the IFC, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) adopted in 1992 an internal policy for promoting sustainable development through its investments that was primarily focused on environmental issues (Table 3). This focus was still clear when such a policy was revised in 2003. In the following years, though, a greater awareness on social issues emerged also within the EBRD. In 2008 an Environmental and Social Policy was formally adopted by enhancing the focus on social issues and good governance (EBRD, 2008). Through this document the EBRD formally expressed its commitment in considering and ensuring both the environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development. A framework of ten Performance Requirements was then defined, where the social facet of development was considered by including labor standards and working conditions, community impacts, gender equality, impacts on indigenous peoples and cultural heritage, involuntary resettlement, and affordability of basic services. Such a commitment has been recently reaffirmed and strengthened in the updated version of the Environmental and Social Policy in May 2014 (not yet in force at the time of writing) (EBRD, 2014a). Similarly to what observed by comparatively analyzing the two editions of the EPs, also the two versions of the Environmental and Social Policy by the EBRD show an important change in the approach to the assessment of the project impacts. In the 2008 version, in fact, specific reference to EIA and SIA is made several times along the text, by calling for the need to meet the requirement of national EIA law and of other relevant laws. Therefore, the adoption of two separate assessment procedures is envisaged when coming to environmental and social impacts. However, one reference to ESIA also appears when giving specifications about the scoping of projects and stakeholders involvement. The difference between ESIA and EIA/SIA procedures is not provided, nor is information about the contexts where they apply. In the 2014 document, instead, any reference to EIA and SIA procedures disappeared as replaced with reference to ESIA that is deemed mandatory for all the projects listed in Category A. As a support for the implementation of the Environmental and Social Policy, the EBRD provides a guidance specifically defining the format for carrying out an ESIA (EBRD, 2014b). In this document, again both reference to EIA and ESIA appear with no specifications regarding what these procedures exactly consist of and apply. However, the focus on social and socioeconomic aspects is remarkable, particularly regarding the description of the existing environment, the characterization of impacts and issues, and of the environmental and social opportunities for project enhancement. Therefore, the term EIA is used in this document in its broader sense by meaning an assessment of both environmental and social impacts and being used as a synonym of ESIA. Notwithstanding the lack of clarity still persisting in the terminology used for indicating the type of project assessment, the structured reference to ESIA by the EBRD is indicative of a greater awareness of the need for

Table 3 EBRD's approach to environmental and social assessment. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 1992 Environmental policy 2003 Revision of the environmental policy 2008 Launch of the environmental and social policy e 10 Performance requirements 2014 Revision of the environmental and social policy 2013 Sectors of project implementation Power and energy, health, natural resources management

7

adopting an integrated assessment framework to better capture the effects of projects on land and society. In 2013 the EBRD financed several projects compliant with its Environmental and Social Policy for which an ESIA was carried out. They were implemented mostly in Eastern Europe (Romania, Georgia, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina) in power and energy, health and natural resources management sectors (for details, see the repository at http://goo.gl/ lwfDPG). 6.1.4. Asian Development Bank (ADB) and African Development Bank (AfDB) Amongst the other major international financial institutions, both the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) are reported to require an ESIA when funding development projects. Specifically, the ADB, against a certain number of assessment reports from implemented projects (three in 2013 in the power and energy sector, see the repository at http://goo.gl/Iy3SsT), does not have policies nor other documents providing the foundation for adopting the ESIA. The AfDB, instead, adopted a specific Environmental and Social Assessment Procedure for public sector operations in 2001 (AfDB, 2001) and produced its own Integrated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Guidelines (IESIA) in 2003 (AfDB, 2003). While promoting an integrated approach for the assessment of project impacts, the AfDB incorporates some transversal issues critical for achieving sustainable development, namely: poverty, environment, population, health, gender, and participation. All these aspects are covered in the AfDB's IESIA guidelines. With reference to 2013, the AfDB disclosed ESIA reports for several projects implemented in Africa both at country and regional scale in the sectors of power and energy, infrastructure, water management, agriculture and agroindustry, local development, environment and manufacture development (for details, see the repository at http://goo.gl/Ue7hHM). 6.1.5. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) The Inter-American Development Bank's (IDB) approach to environmental and social matters is based on the adoption of sustainability and safeguards policies that specifically provide compliance standards and implementation guidelines to apply to all Bank-financed operations. The IDB has separate policies specifically addressing environmental and social issues (Table 4). With respect to the former, the IDB adopted in 2006 its Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy (IDB, 2006a) completed in 2007 with the related Implementation Guidelines (IDB, 2007). The new Policy, currently in force, strengthens the Bank's commitment to environmental sustainability in the region. With respect to the social dimension of development projects, the IDB has also defined its own social safeguards consisting of three policies, namely: the Operational Policy on Indigenous People (IDB, 2006b), the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (IDB, 1998), and the Operational Policy on Gender Equality in Development (IDB, 2010). The presence of several policies with a clear focus on either environmental or social matters would suggest a lack of integration between these aspects in contrast with the trend characterizing other multilateral financial institutions mentioned above. However, among the tools and publications provided on the IDB website for supporting and facilitating the implementation of both environmental and social policies, the document entitled Environmental Impact Assessment for Cement Plants (IDB, 2011) repeatedly refer to ESIA, which is claimed as a valid alternative to EIA. This document, listed as a Technical Note, describes the Bank requirements for the content and disclosure of ESIAs with a focus on the particular issues related to cement plants. The adoption of the ESIA process first in the cement industry could be attributed the fact that this sector is

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

8

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

Table 4 Inter-American Development Bank's environmental and social policies. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Environmental issues 2006 Environmental and Safeguards compliance Policy 2007 Environmental and Safeguards compliance Policy e Implementation guidelines

Social issues 1998 Involuntary Resettlement Policy 2006 Operational Policy on Indigenous People 2010 Operational Policy on Gender Equality in Development

2013 Sectors of project implementation Power and energy, infrastructure, agroindustry

considered to significantly impact on all the components of a territory and would thus particularly benefit from an integrated assessment approach for the evaluation of both environmental and social issues. Therefore, it could be intended as an advancement towards the mainstreaming of the ESIA into all Bank-financed initiatives in the near future. With reference to 2013, in fact, among the eight projects formally approved and financed by the IDB in the sectors of power and energy, infrastructure and agroindustry, the EIA process still prevails on ESIA (for details, see the repository at http://goo.gl/1n3Z5Y). 6.2. Export credit agencies Similarly to the abovementioned financial institutions, export credit agencies have also been increasingly developing a sound environmental and social awareness leading to the adoption of standards to comply with for project funding. The Common Approaches by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are indeed drawn on such a line (Table 5). These are basically a set of recommendations for addressing environmental and social aspects of officially supported export credit, and apply to the export credit agencies based in OECD countries. They were first introduced on a voluntary basis in 2001. In 2003 a larger consensus was achieved amongst export credit agencies, resulting in the approval of the OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits that turn the recommendations mandatory for OECD members. The Recommendation on Common Approaches was first updated in 2005 (OECD, 2005) and then revised in 2007 (OECD, 2007). In 2012 such a policy document was further revised and released in a new version entitled Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence (OECD, 2012). The enhanced focus on social issues clearly emerges with respect to the previous version of the document. The new edition of the Common Approaches, in fact, provided an advancement against the 2007 version in that it better addressed the potential environmental and social impacts that were claimed to be equally addressed. Also, it explicitly required the inclusion of human rights related concerns within the definition of social impacts. The Common Approaches currently in force are based on the ten World Bank's Safeguard Policies, the eight IFC's Performance Standards, and the Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. Similarly to what observed in the policy documents related to environmental and social standards for project assessment by other

international institutions, in the 2012 edition of the Common Approaches the term ESIA is reported where the 2007 version of the document simply referred to an EIA. In line with this, an “environmental and social review” is required for projects falling in the Category A, whereas, for the same type of projects, the 2007 version indicated an EIA to be mandatory. 6.3. Private sector In the global scenario of actors having a part in the design, funding and implementation of projects, the private sector is no exception in acknowledging the need for a better evaluation of the social dimension of project impacts. With regard to this, the case of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is indicative. In the framework of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), in fact, the WBCSD initiated in 2000s a series of task forces for assessing the local impacts of the cement industry on land and communities. On this occasion, the ESIA was acknowledged as being a useful tool for evaluating and managing the impact of a cement site. The CSI task force therefore produced some ESIA guidelines specifically aimed at cement sector, thus enabling cement companies and local communities to identify and address potential impacts arising during cement project development, operation and closure (WBCSD, 2005). 7. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) towards Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): is the European Union ready? 7.1. The acknowledgment of the environment concept in the first Directives At the European level, the environmental impact assessment was accepted in 1985 through the Council Directive 85/337/EEC (Table 6). The 1985 Directive was the first European Community wide instrument to provide details on the nature and scope of environmental assessment, its use and participation rights in the process. Also known as the EIA Directive, it applied to a wide range of public and private projects, which were defined in the Annexes I and II. Project listed in the former required a mandatory EIA as having significant effects on the environment. By contrast, for those listed in the latter, EIA was at the discretion of Members States that, through a case-by-case examination, decided whether an EIA was needed (EEC, 1985). The EIA Directive of 1985 was lately amended

Table 5 Towards the definition of the “Common Approaches”. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2001 2003 2005 2007 2012

First draft of the Common Approaches e voluntary basis Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits e mandatory basis Updated Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits Revised Council Recommendation On Common Approaches on the Environment And Officially Supported Export Credits Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence (the “Common Approaches”)

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

in 1997, 2003 and 2009 with regard to some specific issues, namely the alignment with the UNECE Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context (EC, 1997) and with the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making process and access to justice (EC, 2003), and the extension of the focus on projects related to transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide (EC, 2009). While examining the text of the 1985 Directive and the related material that was made available in terms of guidelines, reports and formal communications, some important considerations can be made. Along the text of the Directive, in fact, no direct or indirect reference to social aspects to be considered while carrying out an EIA is made. In Article 3 there is mention to the need for the EIA to identify, describe and assess the effects of a project on human beings, fauna and flora; soil, water, air, climate and landscape; material assets and cultural heritage; and on the interaction between these factors. The assessment of the social impacts of the project being considered is, thus, restricted to those related to the cultural patrimony and human beings with no further specifications on how such wide indications should be intended and addressed. The Guidance on EIA e Environmental Impact Statement Review (2001), issued after the EIA directive being amended in 1997, provide a review checklist where different aspects of the EIA process are gone through. Again, the reference to social and socio-economic aspects of the environmental assessment is limited in comparison to the relevance that biophysical components have in the document (Raymond and Coates, 2001). The lack of clear indications in regard to social and socioeconomic aspects also emerges from the assessment of the application and the effectiveness of the Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC and Directive 2003/ 35/EC conducted five years after the entry into force of the 2003 Directive (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009). The review, later recalled in the report published by the European Commission COM(2009)378, examined the effectiveness of both the changes introduced in 2003/35/EC, as well as the application of the EIA Directive as a whole, and built on reviews carried out in 1993, 1997 and 2003. According to this study that specifically reviewed the entire EIA system in the new Member States, namely Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, impacts on socioeconomic aspects are assessed by some Member States, though not categorically. Most often, it is the human health impacts to be extensively assessed through the application of procedures that vary between the Member States. These procedures sometimes include also social and socioeconomic aspects. This is the case of the Czech Republic where, for certain projects, the environmental assessment also focuses on impacts on population, specifically including socioeconomic aspects. Similarly, in Estonia, the assessment on human health should also extend to the potential impacts on human wellbeing, as well as on the overall socio-economic situation associated with the proposed action and its alternatives. In Hungary the EIA related Decree contains detailed rules on both health aspects and socio-economic impacts potentially arising from the implementation of a planned activity. However, practice shows that only the EIA reports of the largest investments deal with socioeconomic

Table 6 The European EIA Directives (1985e2014). European Union (EU) 1985 1997 2003 2009 2011 2014

Directive Directive Directive Directive Directive Directive

85/337/EEC, known as the EIA Directive 97/11/EC 2003/35/EC 2009/31/EC 2011/92/EU 2014/52/EU

9

assessment in details. Lithuania adopted specific regulations for preparing both the EIA program and report while assessing the project impact on factors such as labor markets, land and housing prices, transport, construction of dwelling houses, local living conditions and possible public discontent. These regulations also require the developers to identify measures mitigating the impacts of the proposed action on the social and economic environment (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009). By contrast, in other Member States, such as Bulgaria, Slovenia and Latvia, the focus is on health impact assessment with little, if any, reference to socioeconomic impacts evaluation (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009). When coming to the recommendations, the study on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive does not provide indications concerning the inclusion or the enhancement of the analysis of socioeconomic impacts of the planned activities. The given recommendations, in fact, regard screening procedures, transboundary consultations, quality control and monitoring, and are drawn from consultations with the Member States. Monitoring, in particular, has been found to be critical for the Member States in that it does not appear clearly whether monitoring requirements should be included in the EIA procedure (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009). By contrast, a greater attention to the follow up to the EIA process, that is described in the report as being first and foremost focused on biophysical impacts of development projects, is not included in the recommendations. With regard to this, in the report Morrison-Saunders and Arts are cited with respect to their Editorial to a special issue focused on analyzing trends in EIAs' follow up (2005). Here, they reported an emerging and increasing emphasis on social and economic issues in impact assessment practice against a well-established interest towards biophysical matters. The delay observed in assessing the follow up of socioeconomic issues is attributed to shortcomings in the monitoring and evaluation phases that, compared to biophysical components, lag behind due to a limited attention to socioeconomic themes since the predecision stage of the EIA procedure. According to the authors, post-decision monitoring and evaluation related to socioeconomic effects are relatively rare and, if any, poorly developed. Such an imbalance in comparison to the follow up of biophysical matters may be due to the fact that indicators for this type of impacts are often better known and well-documented. In addition, where socioeconomic impacts are assessed, it is most often only first order impacts thus resulting in an incomplete evaluation. Therefore, Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2005) recommend more attention to socioeconomic issues, not only in the follow up, but also in the predecision stages. Also, they call for a broader spectrum of socioeconomic issues to be included, going beyond direct project-level impacts as pollution and nuisance, and extending to community health, well being and life style. Though referring to this study, the report on the assessment of the application and the effectiveness of the Directive 85/337/EEC (COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009) does not point at the need for enhancing the analysis of socioeconomic issues in carrying out an EIA. In this sense, an issue is somehow detected and registered, but not yet acknowledged as a problem to address. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the findings of an academic research and the analysis conducted at the policymaking level, as different issues are perceived and revealed. On the one hand, in the academic research, an analysis perspective strongly based on practice is provided. On the other, the focus of the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive is mainly on procedural issues. Such a difference in sources and focus may explain why the policy-making level analysis apparently lagged behind the findings emerging from the field level study, which could first capture shortcomings in the application of the EIA. The abovementioned discrepancy, therefore, may be interpreted as being due to awareness on this topic that was gradually developing

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

10

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

at the time of the release of the report (2009), thus not being yet fully matured and captured at the policy making level. In other words, it could be presumed that a proper critical mass supporting the evidence of socioeconomic matters being underestimated in EIAs procedure was not yet available for supporting a change at the policy level. Further evidence for this would be the fact that, similarly to the 1997 and the 2003 amendments, the 2009 Directive did not add any specification for better considering socioeconomic issues in EIA, but rather strengthened the focus on environmental issues. Again, in the Directive 2011/92/EU (EU, 2011) that codified the 1985 Directive and its three amendments, there is no direct or indirect reference to social aspects, apart from the mention in Article 3 to the assessment of the effects of projects on human beings and cultural heritage, amongst other factors. With regard to this, therefore, there was no significant change against the 1985 Directive. 7.2. What is new in the latest Directive? After publishing the report COM(2009)378 outlining the strengths of the EIA Directive, as well as the main issues needing improvements, the European Commission launched a public consultation meant to cover a broad variety of issues including, amongst others, the quality of the EIA process, the harmonization of assessment requirements between Member States, and the alignment with other EU policies. The consultation and the approval procedure ended in April 2014 with the release of the newly amended EIA Directive referred to as 2014/52/EU that formally entered into force on 15 May 2014 (EU, 2014). In line with the motions leading to its elaboration, the new Directive aims to simplify the rules for assessing the potential effects of projects on the environment by reducing the administrative burden and making the procedure more efficient. What is interesting to note, is that, apart from a greater awareness on some specific environmental matters considered for the first time, such as resource efficiency and sustainability, biodiversity protection, climate change, and disaster prevention, the social significance of land affecting interventions is acknowledged. By directly citing in the premises of the document the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012) where the relevance of both the economic and social dimensions of land management is recognized, the European Union endorses in the EIA Directive the close link existing between land and society. Though the focus is still on biophysical components such as soil fertility conservation and land degradation prevention, this reference appears as a significant advancement since it opens up to a greater attention to social and socioeconomic dynamics potentially affected by development projects. Member States have to apply the rules contained in the Directive as from 16 May 2017, at the latest. As it will take a few years to come into force de facto, it would now be premature to express any judgment on the application and effectiveness of the new EIA Directive. However, its adoption could be deemed as indicative of an opening process that the European Union has been undertaking with respect to social matters. To such a gradual change has likely contributed the increasing awareness of the multifaceted impacts of major public works acquired by the civil society that, with particular emphasis from the 2000s, has resulted in social protests. The Italian case is particularly interesting in this regard, as some protest campaigns have caught the attention of the media in recent years. Amongst them, the No TAV and the No Bridge movements, which contest the construction of a tunnel as part of a High Speed Rail Line in Piedmont region and the construction of a bridge across the Messina Strait, respectively, have been especially newsworthy. According to Della Porta and Piazza (2008), despite the emphasis on defense of the environment and

the health of inhabitants, both the abovementioned movements are not “single-issue” environmental protests. By contrast, they are indicative of the change in the concept of ecological struggle that has occurred since the end of the 1990s. Such an evolution process resulted in a more comprehensive critique of the model of development, which is strongly built upon the theme of global justice with social issues having a central role (Della Porta and Piazza, 2008). Given the relevance of these themes, increasingly rooted in the collective perception and culture, it would be advisable that they be no longer neglected in the European legislation in order to prevent the exacerbation of conflicts that may even result in violent clashes, as happened in 2005 in Val di Susa during the No TAV protest. The abovementioned facts are just some examples of a trend consolidating in environmental associations, as well as in civil society organizations. Such a trend points at a strong need for social and socioeconomic matters to be properly evaluated by a more comprehensive assessment process coming into practice. Whether social and socioeconomic matters will be actually included in EIAs in the framework of the Directive currently in place, will likely depend on the availability, at the national level, of sector studies, guidelines and tools, as well as on the exchange of good practices between the Member States. The adoption of the ESIA process could feed a cautious optimism in this sense, as it would be a useful tool for practicing an integrated impact assessment whose endorsement in the European legislation has been gradually maturing. 8. Conclusions The present review analyzes the trend in the adoption and implementation of environmental policies and assessment procedures by the major international institutions since the introduction of the environmental assessment concept in the legislation of several countries. Apart from the legal and institutional foundation that such a concept has been given by being formally recognized in international conventions, laws and agreements, the authors detected a profound change in the approach to environmental and social concerns potentially arising from project implementation. Such a change, that has gradually matured and occurred with a particular emphasis since the early 2000s, has led several entities that differently take part in the implementation of projects to develop and use appropriate tool for analyzing, planning and respond to multifaceted impacts. While evaluating such impacts, difficult is their attribution to either the environmental or social dimension; this is particularly true in a context where the awareness of environmental issues is increasing, as well as of their complexity and many-sided implications. Therefore, the concept of an integrated assessment approach has gradually become established, with the aim of equally evaluating biophysical and social aspects of project impacts and ensuring the compliance with higher environmental standards. In light of the advancement in impact assessment that the ESIA process offers with respect to other commonly used methods separately assessing environmental and social impacts with the latter being historically subordinate to the former, the present review depicted a wide application of ESIA by multilateral donors, international agencies and private lending institutions. In particular, the potential of ESIA in the context of the European legislation was investigated, in light of the increasing awareness that social matters have gained in the claim for global and environmental justice. However, ESIA has not yet been taken into account by the scientific community, as the scarcity of a scientific literature on this topic indicates. In the intention of the authors, therefore, this review paper is meant as on opportunity for the impact assessment community to reason on the foundation of ESIA and start a dialogue that, apart from filling an important gap in

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

research, would positively contribute to fine-tuning assessment procedures on the complex and fast changing reality in which projects are implemented. The present paper is also intended to raise the attention on an assessment process that responds to a widely shared need for the evaluation of social issues to come into practice. Therefore, the scientific community should commit itself in thoroughly exploring the concept of ESIA in order to provide a theoretical foundation to it and constitute a repository of good case studies on this matter. Such a foundation could then constitute the basis for supporting the design of appropriate legislative measures where procedural innovations as ESIA could be embedded and thus spread as a consolidated method for impact analysis. Indeed, should ESIA be regulated by an EU directive as in the case of EIA and SEA, scholars, technicians, planners, policy-makers and project managers could positively contribute to the implementation of both procedures and operational tools for the assessment of environmental and social impacts of projects, potentially including health and economic aspects towards an integrated cost-benefit analysis. References African Development Bank, 2001. Environmental and Social Assessment Procedures for Public Sector Operations. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/ uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/ENVIRONMENTAL%20AND% 20SOCIAL%20ASSESSMENT%20PROCEDURES.pdf (accessed on 15.07.14.). African Development Bank, 2003. Integrated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Guidelines. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/ afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Integrated%20Environmental%20and% 20Social%20Impact%20Assesment%20Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 15.07.14.). Andrew, M., Van Vlaenderen, 2011. Commercial Biofuel and Deals and Environment and Social Impact Assessment in Africa. Three Case Studies in Mozambique and Sierra Leone. Land Deal Politics Initiative. Available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/ pdf/outputs/futureagriculture/ldpi-wp-01.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). Bartlett, R.V., Kurian, P.A., 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy-making. Policy Polit. 27 (4), 415e433. http://dx.doi. org/10.1332/030557399782218371. Becker, H., 1997. Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World. UCL Press, London. Benoît, C., Mazijn, B. (Eds.), 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Benoît, C., Norris, G.A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., Prakash, S., Ugaya, C., Beck, T., 2010. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2), 156e163. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8. Benson, C., Twigg, J., 2007. Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for Development Organizations. ProVention Consortium, Geneva. Benson, J., 2003. What's the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (4), 261e280. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001. Bond, A.J., Viegas, C.V., Coelho de Souza Reinisch Coelho, C., Selig, P.M., 2010. Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA? J. Clean. Prod. 18 (1), 6e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.002. Brereton, D., Moran, C.J., McIlwain, G., McIntosh, J., Parkinson, K., 2008. Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Mining on Regional Communities. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, and the Australian Coal Association Research Program, St Lucia. Burdge, R., Vanclay, F., 1995. Social impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F., Bronstein, D. (Eds.), Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 31e66. Burdge, R.J., 2002. Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 20 (1), 3e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154602781766799. Burdge, R.J., 2003a. The practice of social impact assessment background. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (2), 84e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154603781766356. Burdge, R.J., 2003b. Benefiting from the practice of social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (3), 225e229. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154603781766284. Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R.K., Cobb, D., Bond, A., 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 22 (4), 295e310. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765860. Cooper, S., Maher, M., Greiner, R., 2006. The People Impacts of NRM: a Simple Training Package for Building Social and Economic Impact Assessment in Regional Natural Resource Management. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Brisbane.

11

COWI A/S and Milieu Ltd, 2009. Study Concerning the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/archives/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf (accessed on 15.07.14.). Dale, A., Taylor, N., Lane, M., 2001. Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management Institutions. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Dani, A., Beddies, S., 2011. The World Bank's poverty and social impact analysis. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 306e322. Dani, A., 2003. In: An Exploratory Essay Presented at the Conference on New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development: Methods and Practice, Manchester, 24e25 November 2003. Della Porta, D., Piazza, G. (Eds.), 2008. Voices of the Valley, Voices of the Straits: How Protest Creates Communities, vol. 1. Berghahn Books. Department for International Development (DFID), 2005. Poverty and Social Impact Analysis: Principles for Good Practice. DFID, London. Available at: http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPPSISOU/Resources/14240021185304794278/4026035-1185386760315/DFID_Good_Practice_Principles.pdf? resourceurlname¼DFID_Good_Practice_Principles.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). Dreyer, L.C., Hauschild, M., Schierbeck, J., 2006. A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (2), 88e97. Edelstein, M.R., 2003. Weight and weightlessness: administrative court efforts to weight psycho-social impacts of proposed environmentally hazardous facilities. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (3), 195e204. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154603781766257. rio, M.R., 2000. Development of a framework to assist the Eggenberger, M., Partida integration of environmental, social and economic issues in spatial planning. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 18 (3), 201e207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154600781767448. Elling, B., 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 27 (2), 121e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 146155109X454294. Equator Principles, 2006. The Equator Principles. Available at: http://www.equatorprinciples.com/resources/equator_principles_II.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). Equator Principles, 2013. The Equator Principles. Available at: http://www.equatorprinciples.com/resources/equator_principles_III.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). Esteves, A.M., Barclay, M.A., 2011. Enhancing the benefits of local content: integrating social and economic impact assessment into procurement strategies. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 29 (3), 205e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 146155111X12959673796128. Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 34e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2012.660356. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2008. Environmental and Social Policy. Available at: http://www.ebrd.com/environment/e-manual/ebrdpolicy/2008policy.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2014a. Environmental and Social Policy. Available at: http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/policies/ esp-final.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2014b. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment e Supporting Tool. Finance of Investment Projects: ESIA and Public Consultation. Available at: http://www.ebrd.com/environment/ e-manual/r16eia.html (accessed on 15.07.14.). European Community, 1997. Council Directive 97/11/EC Amending Directive 85/ 337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment [1997] OJ L 73/5. European Community, 2003. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2003/35/EC Providing for Public Participation in Respect of the Drawing up of Certain Plans and Programmes Relating to the Environment and Amending with Regard to Public Participation and Access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L 156/17. European Community, 2009. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2009/31/EC on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide and Amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 [2009] OJ L 140/114. European Economic Community, 1985. Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment [1985] OJ L175/40. European Union, 2011. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2011/92/EU on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment [2011] OJ L 26/1. European Union, 2014. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2014/52/EU Amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment [2014] OJ L 124/1. Fenton, M., Coakes, S., Marshall, N., 2003. Vulnerability and capacity measurement. In: Becker, H., Vanclay, F. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 211e230. Franks, D., Brereton, D., Moran, C., 2011. Cumulative social impacts. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 202e220. Franks, D., Fidler, C., Brereton, D., Vanclay, F., Clark, P., 2009. Leading Practice Strategies for Addressing the Social Impacts of Resource Developments. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

12

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13

University of Queensland, and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Government, St Lucia. Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 15e24. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.666400. Holden, E., 1998. Planning theory: democracy or sustainable development? e both (but don't bother about the bread, please). Scand. Hous. Plan Res. 15 (4), 227e247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02815739808730459. Inter-American Development Bank, 1998. Involuntary Resettlement: Operational Policy and Background Paper. Available at: http://publications.iadb.org/ bitstream/handle/11319/2582/Involuntary%20Resettlement%20in%20Bank% 20Projects%3a%20Policy%20and%20Background%20Paper.pdf?sequence¼1 (accessed on 01.08.14.). Inter-American Development Bank, 2006a. Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy. Available at: http://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/ 2580/Environment%20and%20Safeguards%20Compliance%20Policy.pdf? sequence¼1 (accessed on 01.08.14.). Inter-American Development Bank, 2006b. Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Strategy for Indigenous Development. Available at: http://publications. iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/2631/Operational%20Policy%20on% 20Indigenous%20Peoples%20and%20Strategy%20for%20Idigenous% 20Develpment.pdf?sequence¼3 (accessed on 01.08.14.). Inter-American Development Bank, 2007. Implementation Guidelines for the Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy. Available at: http:// publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/6302/Implementation% 20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Environment%20and%20Safeguards%20Policy% 20.pdf?sequence¼2 (accessed on 01.08.14.). Inter-American Development Bank, 2010. Operational Policy on Gender Equality in Development. Available at: http://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/ 11319/2585/Operational_Policy_on_Gender_Equality_in_Development.pdf? sequence¼1 (accessed on 01.08.14.). Inter-American Development Bank, 2011. Environmental Impact Assessments for Cement Plants. Available at: http://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/ 11319/5575/Environmental%20Impact%20Assessments%20for%20Cement% 20Plants%20%20.pdf?sequence¼1 (accessed on 01.08.14.). International Alert, 2005. Conflict-sensitive Business Practice for Extractive Industries. International Alert, London. International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2006a. International Finance Corporation's Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Bianca/Downloads/IFCþPerformanceþStandards.pdf (accessed on 20.07.14.). International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2006b. International Finance Corporation's Policy on Social & Environmental Sustainability. Available at: http://www.ifc. org/wps/wcm/connect/5159190048855a4f85b4d76a6515bb18/ SustainabilityPolicy.pdf? MOD¼AJPERES&CACHEID¼5159190048855a4f85b4d76a6515bb18 (accessed on 20.07.14.). International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2007. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines. Available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ 554e8d80488658e4b76af76a6515bb18/Final%2B-%2BGeneral%2BEHS% 2BGuidelines.pdf?MOD¼AJPERES (accessed on 22.07.14.). International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2012a. International Finance Corporation's Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Available at: http://www.ifc. org/wps/wcm/connect/7540778049a792dcb87efaa8c6a8312a/SP_English_ 2012.pdf?MOD¼AJPERES (accessed on 20.07.14.). International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2012b. International Finance Corporation's Policy on Social & Environmental Sustainability. Available at: http://www.ifc. org/wps/wcm/connect/c8f524004a73daeca09afdf998895a12/IFC_ Performance_Standards.pdf?MOD¼AJPERES (accessed on 20.07.14.). International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2014. ISO 26000:2010. Guidance on Social Responsibility. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_ detail?csnumber¼42546 (accessed on 09.02.15.). Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., Wood, C., 2007. Environmental impact assessment: restrospect and prospect. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 287e300. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001. Joyce, S., MacFarlane, M., 2001. Social Impact Assessment in the Mining Industry: Current Situation and Future Directions. MMSD Paper no. 46. IIED and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, London. Kemp, D., 2009. Community relations in the global mining industry: exploring the internal dimensions of externally orientated work. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17, 1e14. Kørnøv, L., Christensen, P., Nielsen, E.H., 2005. Mission impossible: does environmental impact assessment in Denmark secure a holistic approach to the environment? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 23 (4), 303e314. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3152/147154605781765427. Lee, N., George, C., 2000. Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries. Wiley, Chichester. Leknes, E., 2001. The roles of EIA in the decision-making process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 21, 309e334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00081-0. Lockie, S., Franetovich, M., Sharma, S., Rolfe, J., 2008. Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 26 (3), ,177e187. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/146155108X357257. Melton, D.A., Dickinson, S., Sare, K., Berner, P.O., 2011. Biodiversity Offsets and ESIA Schedules. In: IAIA11 Conference Proceedings. Impact Assessment and

Responsible Development for Infrastructure, Business and Industry 31st Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment. Available at: http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia11/uploadedpapers/final%20drafts/ Biodiversity%20Offsets%20and%20ESIA%20Schedules.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 5e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2012.661557. Morrison-Saunders, A., Arts, J., 2005. Learning from experience: emerging trends in environmental impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 23 (3), 170e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765580. Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., 2014. Towards supply chain sustainability: economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean. Prod. 105, 14e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.052. Norris, G., 2003. Life Cycle Approach to Sustainable Consumption: Conceptual Design of a Methodological Framework. Final report. The Society of NonTraditional Technology (AIST), Tokyo. Norris, G., 2004. Life Cycle Sustainable Consumption Analysis:evaluating the Health Impacts of Income Changes and Development in Life Cycle Assessments. Final report. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology (AIST), Tokyo. Norris, G., 2006. Social impacts in product life cycles: towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (1), 97e104. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005. Update Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/ publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote¼TD/ECG(2005)3&doclanguage¼en (accessed on 22.07.14.). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007. Revised Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote¼TAD/ECG(2007) 9&doclanguage¼en (accessed on 22.07.14.). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012. Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Social Due Diligence (the “Common Approaches”). Available at: http:// www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote¼TAD/ECG% 282012%295&doclanguage¼en (accessed on 22.07.14.). Ortolano, L., Shepherd, A., 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assess. 13 (1), 3e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 07349165.1995.9726076. Owens, S., Rayner, T., Bina, O., 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ. Plan A 11, 1943e1959. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1068/a36281. ret, J.P., 2012. Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., Reve the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9), 1642e1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9. Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 41, 1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008. Prenzel, P.V., Vanclay, F., 2014. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45, 30e37. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.11.003. Raymond, K., Coates, A., 2001. Guidance on EIA e Environmental Impact Statement Review. Retief, F., 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 12 (4), 375e397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S146433321000370X. nchez, L.E., 2015. Is the ecosystem service concept improving impact Rosa, J.C.S., Sa assessment? Evidence from recent international practice. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 134e142. Ruggie, J., 2010. Business and human rights: further steps towards the operationalisation of the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework. In: Report of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights, and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, 9 April. Sadler, B., Verheem, R., 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague. Taylor, C.N., Bryan, C.H., Goodrich, C.G., 2004. Social Assessment: Theory, Process and Techniques, third ed. Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI. rivel, R., Partida rio, M.R., 1996. The Practice of Strategic Environmental AssessThe ment. Earthscan, London. The Energy and Biodiversity Intiative (EBI), 2003. Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Processes. Available at: http:// www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdf (accessed on 24.07.14.). Vanclay, F., 1999. Social impact assessment. In: Petts, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 301e326. Vanclay, F., 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (1), 5e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154603781766491. Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., 2011. Current issues and trends in social impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 3e19. Ward, H., 2012. ISO 26000 and Global Governance for Sustainable Development. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110

B. Dendena, S. Corsi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e13 Weidema, B.P., 2006. Social impact categories, indicators, characterization and damage modelling. In: Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion Forum. Weston, J., 2010. EIA theories e all Chinese whispers and no critical theory. J Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 12 (4), 357e374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ S1464333210003693. Wilkins, H., 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23 (4), 401e414. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1. Wood, C.M., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: a Comparative Review, second ed. Prentice Hall, Harlow. Wood, C.M., Jones, C., 1997. The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority decisions. Urban Stud. 34, 1237e1257. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/0042098975619. Wood, C.M., Djeddour, M., 1989. The Environmental Assessment of Policies, Plans and Programmes. In: Volume 1 of Interim Report to the European Commission on Environmental Assessment of Policies, Plans and Programmes and Preparation of a Vade Mecum. EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester. Wood, C.M., Djeddour, M., 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, plans and programmes. Impact Assess. Bull. 10, 3e22. Wood, G., Becker, J., 2005. Discretionary judgment in local planning authority decision making: screening development proposals for environmental impact assessment. J. Environ. Plan Manag. 48 (3), 349e371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09640560500067467.

13

World Bank, 2003. A User's Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPSIA/Resources/4900231121114603600/12685_PSIAUsersGuide_Complete.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). World Bank, 2004. Good Practices in Using PSIA to Support Development Policy Operations. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTOPPSISOU/ Resources/WB_PSIA_Good_Practice_S1.pdf (accessed on 22.07.14.). World Bank, 2008. Safeguard Policies: a Quick View. Available at: http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/ECAEXT/Resources/258598-1289768521871/ 7554517-1289768544275/OverviewOfSafeguardPoliciesRF.pdf (accessed on 20.07.14.). World Bank, 2012. World Bank Performance Standard. Available at: http://web. worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAFEPOL/ 0,contentMDK:23410648~menuPK:2575517~pagePK:64168445~piPK: 64168309~theSitePK:584435,00.html (accessed on 20.07.14.). World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2005. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Guidelines. Available at: http://www. wbcsdcement.org/pdf/cement_esia_guidelines.pdf (accessed on 15.07.14.). Youngkin, D., Dawood, L., Kennedy, L., Davis, B., 2003. The place of social impacts in the iterative assessment process: a case study of a highway project in the US State of Georgia. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (3), 173e178. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3152/147154603781766329.

Please cite this article in press as: Dendena, B., Corsi, S., The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): a further step towards an integrated assessment process, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110