Considering Gender in Social Impact Assessment
Matchanova Fazilat Shixnazar qizi
Tashkent University of Applied Sciences
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10462792
Keyword:
Gender impact assessment gender studies participation responsible business conduct social impact assessment
women’s rights.
Abstract:
This essay serves as an introduction to the special issue on gender in management and impact evaluation. We
highlight the consequences for effectively addressing gender relations, the rights of women, and LGBTQI+
individuals as well as the lack of gender-responsive techniques in conventional impact assessment practice
and management. We also introduce the special issue, which highlights impact assessment's shortcomings
while also showing that doable ways to further integrate gender-responsive techniques exist. Collectively, a
key claim made in the contributions is that gender-neutral methods of impact assessment and management
may actually worsen existing gender discrimination or even create new forms of it. The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and international human rights law, which are based on the core values of non-
discrimination, substantive equality, and gender equality, and ‘leaving no one behind’. Four themes for more
gender-responsive impact assessment and management are highlighted: (1) gender-responsive context
analysis; (2) gender-responsive engagement and increased participation of women and LGBTQI+ people; (3)
adaptation of tools, methods, and skills for enhanced gender responsiveness; and (4) embedding gender-
responsive approaches from the project level to the governance sphere. Without presuming transferability
across contexts, the contributions show that such strategies are necessary and possible in diverse global
settings.
1 INTRODUCTION
This essay serves as an introduction to the special
issue on gender in management and impact
evaluation. The lack of gender-responsive techniques
in traditional impact assessment practice and
management is noted in the opening paragraphs,
along with the consequences for creating impact
assessment procedures that truly address the rights of
women and LGBTQI+ persons. We also introduce the
contributions to the special issue, which highlight
specific instances of impact assessment and
management practices that fall short of fully
integrating a gender perspective and show how
workable, gender-responsive solutions can be
developed to address these oversights.
Even though it has been acknowledged that
women and LGBTQI+ people frequently bear a
disproportionate burden of the negative effects
associated with business activities, particularly
industrial activities, large-scale resource extraction
projects, and infrastructure development, and are less
likely to share in the benefits, this recognition has not
consistently translated into gender responsiveness in
impact
assessment
and
management.
The
"conventional" impact assessment practice, such as
regulatory or other impact assessments that are not
specifically focused on gender, tends to remain
gender neutral, which has the effect of missing or
incorrectly conceptualizing the experiences of
women and LGBTQI+ people as well as the gender
relations within families and communities. As a
result, incomplete impact evaluations are created and
implemented, which leads to inadequate management
plans. the contributions to this special demonstrate
issue, gender-neutral impact assessment risks
perpetuating and exacerbating systemic gender
discrimination in societies, or even creating new
forms of discrimination. This contributes to
detrimental effects for those people adversely
impacted by business activities but also demonstrates
a failure of government actors to uphold their duties
to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights, and of
business actors to respect these rights.
While women and LGBTQI+ people are
occasionally addressed in impact assessment and
management, this typically takes the form of
predetermined categorization as members of
"vulnerable groups," or by demonstrating that there
have been some women-only meetings or that some
sex-disaggregated data has been collected; rather than
taking a comprehensive gender-responsive approach
that seeks to understand gendered roles, structures,
and power dynamics, and associated privileging an
oppressed group, these approaches are typically more
narrowly focused. Instead of incorporating a gender
perspective throughout, there may be a "gender"
segment in the impact assessment where gender is
addressed. Additionally, essentialist approaches to
gender are widely used in impact assessment and
management (e.g., referring to "the women" as a
homogeneous group; maintaining the men-women
two-sex dichotomy in order to leaving no room for
other genders), patronizing (e.g., designating
LGBTQI+ persons as vulnerable per se), and
instrumentalist (e.g., suggesting that enhanced
participation of women may be beneficial for
securing a ‘social license to operate’). While some or
all of these factors may be the case in given
circumstances, in the absence of more in-depth
gender analysis that interrogates, questions, and
nuances such assumptions, they have detrimental
practical implications for individuals, communities,
and projects.
Gender-neutral or gender-stereotypical
approaches not only run the risk of perpetuating
systemic
gender
discrimination
and
the
marginalization of women and LGBTQI+ people in
impact assessment and management, but they also
present challenges for projects as they fall short of
providing a fuller and more nuanced understanding of
project impacts and the best ways to address them. If
input from gender-responsive assessments is taken
seriously and used to create more equitable
initiatives, a gender-responsive methodology could
instead produce significant insights for avoiding a
managerial zed approach to gender impacts.
2 METHODS
Our goals with this special issue are twofold: (1)
to highlight the negative effects that gender-neutral or
gender-stereotyped approaches to impact assessment
and management have on people, communities,
projects, and regulators; and (2) to highlight and
examine some of the useful strategies, tools, and
frameworks that stakeholders in impact assessment
and management can use to incorporate more gender-
responsive approaches, which could also serve as the
basis for future research. Collectively, a major theme
emerging from the contributions is that gender-
neutral approaches to impact assessment and
management run the risk of sustaining, reproducing,
or adversely transforming social patterns of exclusion
and discrimination, particularly those experienced by
women and LGBTQI+ people.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
and international human rights law, which are
founded on the fundamental principles of non-
discrimination, substantive gender equality, and
"leaving no one behind," respectively, establish
different expectations. (UNHRC Citation2011,
Citation2019;
UNGA
Citation2015).
These
frameworks also unequivocally reiterate the state's
obligation to guard against detrimental human rights
violations by third parties, including enterprises, and
the obligation of corporations to safeguard human
rights by taking reasonable care. A focus on
substantive gender equality is an essential part of
upholding human rights, according to the UN
Working Group on Business and Human Rights'
Gender Guidance, which was published in 2019. It
further elaborates that gender-neutral approaches to
due diligence, including impact assessment, are
insufficient. (UNHRC Citation2019).
The contributions in this special issue show that
there are workable strategies, tools, and frameworks
that can be used to better account for gender
dynamics, including the rights and experiences of
women and LGBTQI+ people, and to embed gender-
responsive approaches despite the shortcomings in
conventional impact assessment and management.
The contributions demonstrate that such practical
techniques are required and viable in many global
settings without assuming transferability between
contexts and groups. In addition, the contributions
highlight the significance of integrating gender-
responsive approaches into both, not least because the
latter is frequently decisive for setting the
requirements and direction for impact assessment and
management for particular projects.
Following is a
summary of our paper. The terminologies and
definitions used to set the background for this paper's
and this special issue's focus are briefly explained in
the section that follows. This is followed by a
summary of the three sets of sources that inform our
analysis and arguments: (1) the academic literature,
useful tools, and advice related to gender and impact
assessment and management (focused on the project
level); (2) the case for paying more attention to
gender in impact assessment and management as
found in specific international human rights law and
sustainable development frameworks; and (3) gender
mainstreaming literature (focused on the governance
sphere).
We
introduce
the
special
issue's
contributions in the final part, which we categorize
into four emerging themes: the requirement for
gender-responsive context analysis throughout
impact assessment and management processes; (2)
the need for gender-responsive engagement and
increased participation of women and LGBTQI+
people; (3) the need to adapt tools, methods, and skills
across impact assessment for enhanced gender
responsiveness; and (4) the need to embed gender-
responsive approaches from the project level to the
governance sphere.
Our discussion is based on
scholarly and grey literature, including a few
examples of impact assessment and management
tools, frameworks, and guides; our practical
experience using impact assessment for sizable
extractive projects and development programs;
anthropology; human rights; and the contributions in
this special issue.
In order to frame the special issue, we give a
brief summary of some of the main texts, resources,
manuals, and frameworks pertinent to gender and
impact assessment in this section. We make the
argument for the necessity of more gender-responsive
impact assessment and management. We review the
research on gender-specific impact experiences and
the scant consideration given to gender in traditional
impact assessment methods, tools, and guidelines.
We primarily concentrate on the project level,
requirements for improved gender responsiveness
posed by a few relevant normative frameworks on
human rights and sustainable development, and
gender mainstreaming literature, particularly in
relation to the integration of gender in policy and
governance frameworks.
In light of the aforementioned instances of the
gendered effects of business activities and the
shortcomings of conventional impact assessment and
management practice in identifying and addressing
these, it is crucial to consider the gender requirements
specified in impact assessment tools and frameworks
that serve as the basis for such assessments. We find
that the amount of attention paid to gender as a topic
or analytical lens is noticeably limited after reviewing
a number of well-known methods, frameworks, and
guides for impact assessment. This oversight is
important because it clarifies the reasons impact
assessment practitioners would not use a gender-
responsive approach - since they are not always
required or encouraged to do so.
For example, the IFC Performance Standards,
which are frequently used in project development and
execution, list gender in a somewhat generalized way
as one of the intersecting issues to pay attention to
(along with climate change, human rights, and water).
(IFC Citation2012). Regarding land and natural
resource management, consultation and free, prior,
and informed consent (FPIC), and harassment,
specific mentions of women are made. Beyond this,
though, the guidelines frequently take a "vulnerable
groups" perspective and offer little requirements for
taking a gender-responsive perspective or paying
attention to the circumstances and rights of women.
Intersectionality is not discussed, and references to
sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) are
only made in the context of job discrimination.
Different strategies are used in specific social impact
assessment (SIA) advice. One of the first
comprehensive regulatory guides for SIA under law,
the Australian New South Wales government's SIA
guidance, for example, is noticeably absent on the
subject of gender: There are no references to gender,
gender responsiveness, women and girls, LGBTQI+,
SOGI, or intersectionality. (New South Wales
Government Citation2017). Although the terms
"vulnerability," "sensitivity," and "marginalization"
are referenced frequently, notably in relation to
engagement, there are no instructions or examples
that show how these ideas may be used in actual effect
assessments. On the other side, the International
Association for Impact Assessment's Guidance for
Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of
Projects is a little more helpful. (Vanclay et al.
Citation2015). Gender research is
referenced in the
guidance, including in relation to the community
profile, and an explicit definition of gender analysis
is provided as ‘a process used to consider and
understand the gendered nature of the implications of
a planned intervention on women, as well as of men,
in the cultural context of the communities affected’
(Vanclay et al. Citation2015, p. 83). Attention is
drawn to the fact that women are not a homogeneous
group, but references to intersectionality, or rather the
adoption
of
an
intersectional
approach
or
methodology, are lacking. Likewise, beyond a
definition of LGBTQI+ in the glossary, integration of
attention to LGBTQI+ people or SOGI is absent.
For HRIA tools, the situation has not
significantly improved. We find little attention paid
to the rights of women and LGBTQI+ persons across
three separate instruments, as well as little advice on
how to implement a comprehensive gender-
responsive approach. For instance, the Danish
Institute for Human Rights' Human Rights Impact
Assessment Guidance and Toolbox provides some
information
on
gender-sensitive
engagement
techniques and acknowledges the value of gender
analysis in understanding how women interact with
the resources they have access to and how they use
them (Götzmann et al. Citation2016). However,
beyond these brief mentions, neither the specifics of
how this might be accomplished nor the consistent
integration of gender responsiveness throughout the
elaboration of each impact assessment stage are
offered (more detailed guidance is only supplied in
respect to stakeholder analysis).
Similar to how LGBTQI+ and SOGI issues are
expanded within the framework of stakeholder
interaction but not throughout the processes of impact
assessment. Similarly, the Getting it Right Tool for
Community-Based
Human
Rights
Impact
Assessment,
which
Oxfam
and
its
partner
organizations frequently employ, elaborates on the
necessity of interacting with women and include
members of the impact assessment team that have
gender
expertise.
(Rights
&
Democracy
Citation2011). There is no explanation provided for
how precisely this would alter the analysis of the
assessment and impact mitigation techniques.
Again, there are noticeably no allusions to SOGI
or LGBTQI+ people. While giving a helpful example
of business
complicity
in
systemic gender
discrimination, the HRIA Tool from the non-profit
organization NomoGaia just treats gender as one of
the subjects for consideration in assessment. (Salcito
and Wielga Citation2012).
Although this would undoubtedly be a crucial
subject for more research, we give these observations
as illustrative instances of how gender is handled in
these instruments rather than as a detailed and
exhaustive review of the impact assessment tools,
guidelines, and frameworks already in use. The
handling of gender in traditional impact assessment
methods, manuals, and frameworks is at best
superficial, according to our first observations. It is
significant in particular that:
•
references to gender and women appear to occur
in relation to a select set of actions or issues,
such as consultation or natural resource
management, rather than being holistically
applied;
•
references to adverse impact experiences of
women are insufficiently conceptualized within
the context of structural gender discrimination;
•
while gender analysis may be referenced, how it
is to be conducted to inform a comprehensive
gender-responsive
approach
across the impact
assessment is not elaborated;
•
women frequently remain characterized as one
of the categories of vulnerable groups; and
•
attention to LGBTQI+ people, issues associated
with SOGI, and complexities raised by
intersectionality are starkly absent.
The papers in this special issue contrast gender
impact assessment tools like Oxfam's Gender Impact
Assessment Guidance for the Extractive Industries
(Hill, Madden et al. Citation2017) and gender-
specific tools relevant to impact assessment and
management like the IFC's toolkit with the
inconsistent, and frequently poor, attention to gender
in conventional project-level impact assessment and
management tools and frameworks. There are several
materials on gender analysis and participatory
techniques from the field of development in addition
to these project-focused tools and manuals (such as
March
et al. Citation1999; UNIFEM Citation2009),
which could be much more widely applied in project-
level impact assessment and management. In short,
while relevant tools and guidance clearly exist, as
illustrated by the papers in this special issue (and we
have also observed this in our own practice) there is
inconsistent application of these in conventional
impact assessment practice. This urgent area for
attention is discussed further below, as well as in a
number of the contributions in this special issue.
CONCLUSIONS
In our last remarks, we highlight four
interconnected areas in need of future study:
criticism, theoretical analysis, actionable steps, and
collaborative learning. Our early analysis of impact
assessment methods, related guidance, and related
practice emphasizes the need for a more extensive
and sustained critique of impact assessment from
many genders and feminist perspectives. Such
criticisms could, in turn, serve as a foundation for
more theoretical and practical assessments of the
institutional use of impact assessment resources and
advice, including answers to queries like who uses
them? How are they used? Do they function? Then
why not, if not? The final analysis will focus on the
lessons that project-level impact assessments can
apply from the extensive discussions on gender
impact assessments and gender mainstreaming.
REFERENCES
[1]
Arora-Jonsson, Seema. 2014. Forty years of gender
research and environmental policy: where do we
stand? Women’s
Studies International Forum.
47:295–308.
Doi:
10.1016/j.wsif.2014.02.009. [Crossref], [Web
[2]
Bainton, Nicholas; McDougall, Debra. 2021. Unequ
al
lives
in
the
Western
Pacific.
In: Bainton N, McDougall D, Alexeyeff K, Cox J,
editors. Unequal lives: gender, race and class in the
Western Pacific. Canberra: ANU Press; p. 1–46.
doi:10.22459/UE.2020. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
[3]
Barcia, Inmaculada. 2017. Women
human
rights
defenders confronting extractive industries: an
overview of critical risks and human rights
obligations. The Association for Women’s Rights in
Development and Women Human Rights Defenders
International Coalition. [accessed 2020 June
6]. https://www.awid.org/sites/default/files/atoms/fil
es/whrds-confronting_extractive_industries_report-
eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
[4]
Bourke
Martignoni, Joanna; Umlas, Elizabeth. 2018. Gender
-responsive due diligence for business actors: human
rights-based approaches. Geneva: The Geneva
Academy of International Humanitarian Law and
Human
Rights.
[accessed
2020
June
6]. https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-
files/docman-files/Academy%20Briefing%2012-
interactif-V3.pdf [Google Scholar]
[5]
Cane, Isabel; Terbish, Amgalan; Bymbasuren, Onon.
2014. Mapping gender-based violence and mining
infrastructure in Mongolian mining communities.
Brisbane/Perth:
International
Mining
for
Development Centre. [accessed 2020 June 6].
https://im4dc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Mapping-gender-based-
violence-and-mining-infrastructure-in-Mongolian-
mining-communities-Full-Report2.pdf
Scholar]
[6]
Cashmore, Matthew; Bond, Alan; Sadler, Barry.
2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact
assessment instruments. Impact Assess Project
Appraisal.
27(2):91–93.
doi:10.3152/146155109X454285. [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]
[7]
[CEDAW] Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women. 2011. General
recommendation no. 24 (1999) on women and health.
[accessed
2020
June
6].
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recom
mendations/index.html [Google Scholar]
[8]
[CEDAW] Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women. 2017. General
recommendation no. 36 (2017) on the right of girls
and women to education. [accessed 2020 June 6].
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recom
mendations/index.html [Google Scholar]
[9]
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins:
intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Rev.
43(6):1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039. [Crossref],
[Google Scholar]
[10]
Davids, Tine; van Driel, Francien; Parren, Franny.
2014.
Feminist
change
revisited:
gender
mainstreaming as slow revolution. J Int Dev.
26(3):396–408. doi:10.1002/jid.2945. [Crossref],
[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
