Social Impact Assessment and Cross Cultural Negotiation

This paper discusses the concept of Social Impact Assessment and its correlation with Cross Cultural Negotiation. It explores the methodology, definitions, and implementation of Social Impact Assessment in various countries. It also highlights the cultural implications and effects of innovative drives on indigenous populations. The paper emphasizes the importance of fairness, accountability, and representation in Cross Cultural Negotiation.

Running head: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND CROSS CULTURAL NEGOTIATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
Introduction
Social Impact Assessment is referred to the methodology that reviews how various
developmental innovations have deep rooted social implications and effects. It is primarily
used as for planned interventions but can also be useful in evaluating the social impact of
arbitrary and uncalled for events like natural disasters (Assessment 1995). From the
perspective of applied social sciences, Social Impact Assessment proves to be a foundation
for interpretation and action. Although the primary purpose of Social Impact Assessment is to
serve as an evaluation toolkit, there have been instances where Social Impact Assessment was
used by governments and policy developers to provide justification for a pre determined
outcome. As we speak of actions with effects, cross cultural negotiation also comes into play.
In simple terms, cross cultural negotiation refers to the typical business interactions that
happen between various cultures (Fisher, 1980). In that regard, any form of international
business transaction can be considered a cross cultural negotiation, however, cross cultural
negotiations can also happen between the cultures of a nation. In this paper, I will discuss
Social Impact Assessment from multiple theoretical perspectives and attempt to elucidate my
understanding of Social Impact Assessment by correlating Social Impact Assessment with
CCN.
Discussion
The roots of Social Impact Assessment has been identified in the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) model, which first emerged in 1969 in the US National Policy Act
as a means for assessing the impacts that a lot of developmental schemes have on the society
(Becker 2001). Several countries have implemented Social Impact Assessment in their
planning and development schemes in order to assess the large scale social implications of
developmental projects (Grieco, Michelini & Iasevoli 2015). Although the base parameters

2SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
and objectives are the same, Social Impact Assessment can have varying definitions based on
varying sectors and applications. The International Association for Impact Assessment
defines Social Impact Assessment as inclusive of the processes of analysis and monitoring of
both positive and negative social outcomes of planned interventions as well as management
of Social Change Processes that are introduced by these innovations (Vanclay et al. 2015).
While the cost and benefit assessment of innovations may prove to be efficient in
evaluating the consequent impacts of newer projects and schemes, the aspect of cultural
impact assessment should not be sidelined. With the growing trends in globalisation and
international business relations, the nations of the world are becoming more and more
interdependent. Cross cultural negotiations are therefore becoming a recurring feature in
global business and political transactions. One aspect of Cross Cultural Negotiation that we
need to remember that the transactions are not delimited by the parameters of business.
Macduff (2003) in his paper has highlighted one key aspect of cross cultural effects of
modernising trends. His article is based on the factor of ‘negotiation table’ and the presence
of ‘taniwha’, an indigenous Maori spirit that inhabits the water and the land. This on its own
opens up a series of potential discussions on Cross Cultural Negotiation from a more
environmental point of view (Smith 2014). The social impacts of innovative drives are often
more focussed on the large scale impacts that entail a societal parameter. The aspect of
cultural implications are something that is required to be looked at in greeted depth as well.
The indigenous populations of a nation are one of the direct sufferers of an innovation.
Research has highlighted that most urbanisation initiative begin at a stage of primary
environmental degradation. Often the impacts spread far and wide to encapsulate, for
instance, the tribal habitations of a particular country or state. The recent incident in February
2019 where hundreds of native Amazonian tribal individuals walked to the city of Puyo in
Ecuador to register a case against major oil corporations serve as a burning example of the

3SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
effects of innovations on a cultural setting. In the recent few years there have been many
cases of cross cultural awakening against innovative practices that are in essence detrimental
for the native communities and cultural sub groups (Fraser 2018). Agius et al. (2007)
highlight in their paper that the land policies in Australia has failed to meaningfully recognise
their indigenous people, however since the turn of the new millennia, there has been more
effective implementation of policies and practices to assert and establish the native identity of
the people.
Since Social Impact Assessment was introduced in the 1970’s, it has seen major
implementation in the environments with native and indigenous populations, like the US,
Canada or Australia and New Zealand. Many countries have mandated the use of Social
Impact Assessment alongside EIA (Environmental impact Assessment). Social Impact
Assessment has seen its implementation in immediate development countries to emerging
potential markets like Philippines and Chile, and are also inclusive of countries like
Greenland and South Africa under the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development). The evaluation and implementation of Social Impact Assessment can have
effective outcomes. On one hand, where the increasingly educated local communities and the
growing pressure on the available land can lead to higher costs for the general acceptance of
complex projects and undertakings, Social Impact Assessment on the other hand can be an
effective toolkit that can help to bring these costs down by undertaking a strong socio
economic study that help evaluate the views of the affected communities, the effects and the
measures of mitigation (Harris et al. 2013).
So much of the Social Impact Assessment pertains to the factor of environmental
causes and effects that the aspect of Cross Cultural Negotiation are mandatorily highlighted.
Innovation entails environmental degradation to some extent and that remains an identified
parameter. Which is why there is a cry for fruitful Impact Assessments to better evaluate

4SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
what constitutes a good practice that would give due consideration to the indigenous
populations as well. As mentioned above, the concept of ‘taniwha’ as stated by Macduff
stands as an inhabitant of the land and the seas (Macduff 2003), the concept is better
understood as a metaphor rather than an actual presence. The reason being that a greater
cultural and emotional value is attributed to spirits and especially in the context of indigenous
populations, the spirits of ancestors are highly revered (harris et al. 2013). This shows that the
indigenous people are deeply rooted in their lands and water bodies and see them as habitats
for their spiritual ancestors, indicating that a future potential exploitation of their lands will
have serious socio-cultural outcomes and effects.
The field of Social Impact Assessment is also influenced heavily by the conflicts
between the risk – benefit factor and the generalised attribution of negotiation provided in a
pluralist environment. The conflict considers both sides of the stakeholders attempting to
reach a viable setup through negotiation where the benefits do not outweigh the social
impacts. Agius et al. (2004; 2007) identify non-negotiable issues in their paper regarding
native title and highlight them as being about people and not the legal technicalities.
“Aboriginal claimants must have standing as the principals in the negotiations; agreement
making should be an act of self-determination; and participation and decision making must
be an act of choice, not the only choice” (Agius et al. 2007, p. 197). The significance of this
identification lies in the fact that the aboriginals (indigenous Australians) ate being given an
equal footing in the aspect of negotiation by implementing non-negotiable parameters which
could have otherwise been exploited to delimit the fundamental rights and accesses.
One last aspect of discussion pertaining to Cross Cultural Negotiation includes the
ideation of concepts like fairness, accountability and representation. These terminologies can
have varied explanations under varied contexts, but from the viewpoint of international
business and transactions, we can identify these terminologies as factors that can influence

5SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
assessment and interpretation of CCN. Fairness entails that the cost and the benefits are
equally balanced between the potential stakeholders whereas accountability justifies the
presence of an accountable authority for whatever the outcomes are. Current global and
personal understanding of these factors enable us to view that Cross Cultural Negotiation are
bound by certain aspectual underpinnings of fairness, accountability etc. where the cultures
and the organisations in question are each responsible for the type of outcome expected.
There are certain good practices of Social Impact Assessment as highlighted by the
International Association of Impact Assessment, including the understanding of the issues
pertaining to the project, clarification of the responsibilities and roles involved with the SIA,
identification of the primary ‘Social Area of Influence’ followed by gathering a good
understanding of the communities that are likely to be affected by the project. Finally, to
make the process effective, the community identification should entail the preparation of a
community profile involving a thorough stakeholder analysis, socio-political setting
discussions, Assessment of needs, understanding of the community through a SWOT lens and
detailed surveying (Vanclay et al. 2015).
Conclusion
What we understand from our discussions regarding Social Impact Assessment and
Cross Cultural Negotiation is that the prospects of Social Impact Assessment is deeply rooted
in the assessment of the potential outcomes of various innovative measures on the society,
implying that the society’s innate elements, its people are at the core of the impacts. Cross
Cultural Negotiation emphasises the point that the innovations in terms of development have
detrimental influences on immediate environment wherefrom it becomes crucial to
implement a Social Impact Assessment framework as a means to evaluate the outcome

6SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
assessment factors that can potentially either harm the Cultural atmosphere or benefit both
sides of the debate.

7SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
References
Agius, P., Davies, J., Howitt, R., Jarvis, S. and Williams, R., 2004. Comprehensive native
title negotiations in South Australia. Honour Among Nations?: Treaties and
Agreements with Indigenous People, p.203.
Agius, P., Jenkin, T.O.M., Jarvis, S., Howitt, R. and Williams, R., 2007. (Re) asserting
indigenous rights and jurisdictions within a politics of place: Transformative nature of
native title negotiations in South Australia. Geographical Research, 45(2), pp.194-
202.
Assessment, S.I., 1995. Guidelines and principles for social impact
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(1), pp.11-43.
Becker, H.A., 2001. Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational
Research, 128(2), pp.311-321.
Fisher, G., 1980. International Negotiation. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Intercultural Press,
Inc., PO Box 768, Yarmouth, ME 04096.
Fraser, J.A., 2018. Amazonian struggles for recognition. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 43(4), pp.718-732.
Grieco, C., Michelini, L. and Iasevoli, G., 2015. Measuring value creation in social
enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and
voluntary sector quarterly, 44(6), pp.1173-1193.
Harris, M., Carlson, B. and Poata-Smith, E.S., 2013. Indigenous identities and the politics of
authenticity.
Macduff, I., 2003. What Would You Do—With a Taniwha at the Table?. Negotiation
Journal, 19(3), pp.195-198.

8SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
\
Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Retief, F., 2013. Advancing the theory and
practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 41, pp.1-9.
Smith, L.G., 2014. Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. Routledge.
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I. and Franks, D.M., 2015. Social Impact Assessment:
Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects.