Social Feasibility Considerations

Why Every Developer Needs a “Community Feasibility Study” When we talk about feasibility, the focus is almost always financial: -What will it cost? -What’s the return? Those numbers matter. But they don’t tell the whole story. Because even the most bankable project can fail, not because of a spreadsheet, but because of people. The Blind Spot in Traditional Feasibility Most studies ask if a project can be built. Rarely do they ask if it should be, in this way, in this place, for these people. That’s where the trouble starts. A project might “pencil,” but if it doesn’t reflect the values, memory, or needs of the surrounding community, it will face resistance. We’ve all seen it: -A project breaks ground, but buy-in never follows. -Meetings get tense. Partnerships stall. -The deal drags. Costs balloon. Not because the design was bad, but because the process was incomplete. What a Community Feasibility Study Does Imagine starting every project with a trust plan, not just a site plan. Community feasibility looks beyond market data. It maps: -Who holds local trust? -What priorities or pain points already exist? -What early wins build credibility before construction? It’s not appeasement. It’s alignment. What You Gain When You Lead with Trust When trust leads, the process flows: -Neighbors become partners. -City staff move faster. -Lenders see reduced risk. This isn’t “soft” work, it’s smart strategy. And it performs. The best-aligned projects often outperform expectations because they’re powered by local energy, not built in spite of it. The Shift Developers Need We’re entering a new era: Where social alignment matters just as much as financial alignment. Especially in legacy communities, we can’t just ask what’s viable. We have to ask: What’s trustworthy, meaningful, and built to last? Feasibility should include trust, stewardship, and shared benefit, not just square footage. Because if a project can’t be trusted, it won’t be supported. And if it’s not supported, it won’t succeed. Before we ask if a project can get financed, we should ask if it can get trusted. That’s where real progress begins. What’s one question you think every developer should ask before breaking ground?

The 2024 Global Renewables Status Report has just been released by REN21. This annual publication provides a summary of global developments & trends in #renewableenergy. A further module of this report is due to be released in September too that specifically looks at economic and #socialvalue creation. 2 key things stood out to me in the status report this year, and both relate to the critical #socialimpact aspects of the energy transition: 1. Equity challenges - especially the disadvantages for low-income countries where the cost of capital for renewable energy projects is reaching as high as 10%, compared with less than 4% in high-income countries 2. The gap between policy ambition and implementation - "Worldwide, an estimated 3,000 GW of renewable energy projects remained underdeveloped as of 2023 due to inadequate grid infrastructure, insufficient financing, and permitting delays. These are major bottlenecks that risk derailing the energy transition". With respect to permitting delays, it has been recognised now that as the rush & intensity around renewable energy projects has increased, so has incidences of community opposition to some projects in host locations. This is a contributing factor to the delay & cost trends and is both symptom of too much in the energy space being led by the private sector and insufficient, timely government decision making in the public interest. Permitting & approvals is an area where I'm of the view a change in regulatory approval processes to involve earlier social impact assessment, including rapid social screening and social value projection of projects, would be beneficial and can be done well in advance of environmental impact assessments and other technical studies that need to take longer. I'm not talking about the proponent-serving social licence type considerations or throwing money at community benefit funds to win over local communities (or score high on a tender process). The emphasis instead needs to go towards understanding which renewable energy projects will create the most social value holistically in context (with benefits for people & communities including workers, suppliers and energy end users, and across the project lifecycle) and then prioritise those for implementation. The ultimate "S" question is not "how do we get public acceptance for the project?" but "is this project going to create a net positive value?". Good social performance & value creation potential does not always mean a project will have social licence at the time it is proposed too. Some projects without social licence at a particular point in time should still be supported to proceed if they are in the public interest. Early social impact assessment (to understand social risks and benefit opportunities) can help work out which projects those are so efforts can focus there and not be wasted elsewhere. What do you think? What else would help speed up the transition and get better social outcomes?

I2S' latest research, led by Ruth O'Connor, highlights the opportunities for improved social benefit creation and social impact mitigation through very early consideration of community needs and social benefit in infrastructure projects and revising auditing processes to include social considerations. Our work highlights a mismatch between the stated aims of major public infrastructure investment in Australia to deliver social benefit for community and business, and the processes that determine and audit infrastructure delivery. Infrastructure delivery is currently focussed on risk, which investors will always need to consider. At the same time, social risks – which can be precursors of project delay – are either ignored or downplayed due to entrenched evidence privileging. What you should know: Social benefit and social risk are inadequately considered in the early planning stages of major infrastructure projects. Why? 1. Engagement and social impact professionals rarely if ever get a seat at the decision-making table. 2. Exclusion of social professionals relates to ‘evidence privileging’, especially of engineering, economic and legal expertise. Project staging is also a factor when the engagement team is not yet identified at the pre-procurement stage. 3. Social risks are not considered “deal-breakers” in the same way as more traditional economic, environmental or legal risks, despite growing evidence of social risk’s implications for project budgets and delivery. Improved social due diligence is needed. 4. In Australia, Gateway Review processes reinforce a (traditional) risk focus, leaving little incentive to consider social benefit creation. I2S recommends: 1. Explicitly consider social benefit creation in PDM selection 2. Where absent, introduce national guidelines for social risk identification for major projects 3. Establish programs to support the promotion and inclusion of social practice professionals to promote consideration of these issues and increase capacity 4. Develop strategies for better communication and consistency across project lifecycles 5. In Australia, update Gateway workbooks in collaboration with appropriate experts to include requirements for social performance. Thank you to I2S' Partners and Supporters and to the infrastructure experts who contributed their time and knowledge to this research. Congratulations to our co-authors, Emerson M. Sanchez, Kirsty Jones and Hayley Henderson. International Association for Impact Assessment members can access the full Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal journal article with your IAIA Membership log-in here: https://lnkd.in/ef-QBHuC Not an IAIA member (yet!)? Details and green open access article here: https://lnkd.in/ehCr2edj https://lnkd.in/e4j6ttjc

My words of caution to the ACF in response to their Request for Information on the Development of Interoperability Standards for Human Service Programs: I am writing in response to the practical enablers or barriers to interoperability and other equally important considerations, specifically defining desired outcomes. First, I recommend highlighting and emphasizing data privacy and patient consent for sharing health and social needs-related information because many health care stakeholders do not understand the special sensitivities related to this type of data. While health-related social needs data may be used to facilitate the provision of additional services (e.g. housing assistance and food-related assistance), they also have the potential to flag individuals and families for unnecessarily punitive child welfare services. Unfortunately, child welfare services too often focus on removing children from impoverished circumstances and providing financial assistance to support alternative “care” arrangements; this results in trauma for everyone involved, rather than the direct provision of much-needed services to struggling families. With the stated interoperability goals of “care coordination” and “improved outcomes,” it is important to define what we mean by positive outcomes. Potentially flagging individuals and families for child welfare system involvement is unlikely to result in beneficial services or improved outcomes. We need an explicit emphasis on avoiding punitive outcomes as an unintended consequence of sharing social needs data. I am concerned with the speed at which exchanging social needs data is happening relative to the speed at which the FHIR privacy and consent-related work is progressing. For example, the HL7 FAST Consent Management Implementation Guide is still under development, as are various taxonomies for accurately flagging sensitive data. This work needs time to mature and be implemented more widely before we rush to exchange data that falls into any kind of sensitive category beyond regular health care data across health and social data systems. In summary, we need additional emphasis on electronic privacy and consent standards and capabilities to protect sensitive data including social needs data before opening up interoperable data flows between health and social service data systems. More resources and technical assistance are needed to advance privacy and consent work, as well as education for health care and other stakeholders on what the desired outcomes look like. It is important to remember that “more service delivery” does not necessarily result in better outcomes (e.g. child welfare system involvement). We need to be clear about what “care coordination” and “improved outcomes” look like in practice to avoid unintended consequences of sharing data across health and social service systems and potentially ensnaring families in punitive systems. #HealthIT #Privacy #Consent #HRSN #SDOH #HIE #RiskFactor #FHIR

In recent times, more CSOs across Africa have been exploring social enterprises as a way to sustain their missions. The reasoning is clear, many CSOs already provide essential services to communities, so why not structure these services into viable revenue-generating models? However, while the idea of social enterprises is appealing, making the transition successfully is not straightforward. In my conversations with organisations that have ventured into this space, a few hard-earned lessons emerge. The first and perhaps most critical is staffing and leadership. Many CSOs assume that their existing teams, particularly activists and programme-focused professionals, can seamlessly run a social enterprise. However, social enterprises require a different mindset, one that blends business acumen with social impact. The ability to develop market-driven solutions, manage financial risk, and engage in strategic growth is key. Organisations that fail to acknowledge this often struggle to make the transition. Another major insight is the importance of a solid business model. Simply charging for existing services does not automatically make an organisation financially sustainable. Successful social enterprises identify a clear value proposition, understand their target market, and ensure their product or service meets a real demand. Without this, efforts to generate income may not be sustainable in the long run. Furthermore, governance structures need to evolve. A social enterprise requires decision-making that considers both financial sustainability and social impact. This often means restructuring boards, creating hybrid models, or setting up separate entities to ensure accountability and efficiency. Legal and regulatory considerations are also essential, as different African countries have varying frameworks governing social enterprises. For organisations considering this shift, a gradual transition is often the most effective approach. Piloting small-scale revenue-generating initiatives, testing different pricing models, and learning from early adopters can reduce risks and increase the chances of long-term success. Some organisations have also leveraged impact investment, partnerships with ethical businesses, and blended finance approaches to strengthen their financial base. Ultimately, moving towards social enterprise models is about enhancing resilience, reducing dependency on unpredictable donor funding, and reclaiming agency over financial sustainability. However, it requires intentionality, adaptability, and a willingness to rethink traditional ways of operating. As this trend grows, what is needed is not just enthusiasm but a supportive ecosystem, one that includes mentorship, capacity strengthening, and policy frameworks that enable social enterprises to thrive in the African context. #SocialEnterprise #SustainableCSOs #FinancialResilience #AfricanInnovation #BeyondDonorFunding #ImpactDrivenBusiness

Implementing CSR in Ops vs. Non-Ops Areas: Strategic Considerations Since the enactment of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, companies often deliberate between implementing CSR programs within their operational areas or extending them to non-operational regions. This article delves into the strategic implications of both approaches. 🏭 CSR in Operational Areas: Strengthening Local Ties Advantages: 1. Enhanced Stakeholder Engagement: Implementing CSR initiatives in areas where a company operates can foster stronger relationships with local communities, employees, and suppliers. 2. Direct Impact on Business Environment: Addressing local issues such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare can lead to an improved operating environment. 3. Operational Efficiency: Local CSR initiatives can reduce logistical complexities and costs associated with project management and monitoring. The ease of access allows for more frequent oversight and quicker adjustments to programs as needed. Challenges: 1. Perceived Self-Interest: Communities might perceive CSR efforts in operational areas as primarily serving the company's interests, potentially leading to skepticism about the initiatives' true intent. 2. Resource Allocation Conflicts: Balancing CSR activities with operational demands may strain resources, especially in areas where the company is already investing heavily in infrastructure and services. 🌍 CSR in Non-Operational Areas: Expanding Social Footprint Advantages: 1. Broader Social Impact: Extending CSR initiatives to underserved or remote areas can address critical needs, such as education and healthcare, contributing to national development goals. 2. Brand Image and Reputation: Demonstrating a commitment to social responsibility beyond immediate business interests can enhance the company's public image and stakeholder trust. Challenges: 1. Logistical and Cultural Barriers: Operating in unfamiliar regions may present challenges related to infrastructure, language, and cultural norms, potentially hindering project implementation. 2. Monitoring and Evaluation Difficulties: Assessing the impact of CSR initiatives in distant locations can be challenging due to limited oversight and difficulties in data collection. 🧭 Strategic Considerations * Alignment with Core Competencies: Choose CSR initiatives that leverage the company's strengths and expertise. * Stakeholder Involvement: Engage local stakeholders in the planning and execution of CSR programs. * Partnerships: Collaborate with NGOs, government agencies, and other corporations to pool resources and knowledge, enhancing the effectiveness and reach of CSR efforts. In conclusion, both approaches to CSR have unique benefits and challenges. A balanced strategy that incorporates initiatives within operational areas and extends support to broader communities can maximize social impact while aligning with business objectives.

Screening last week .. Recruitment checklist: All inclusion criteria met? Check Exclusions clear ? Check Patient desperately needs treatment ? Check Perfect candidate? Check check and Check Then the patient declines!! The reason? Religious beliefs ..doesn’t agree to body photos per protocol requirement because whole study team will see them. Not mentioned in any feasibility assessment: • Cultural considerations around body photography • Religious restrictions on being photographed • Personal dignity concerns with clinical images • Privacy boundaries beyond HIPAA compliance The reality is that we can have perfect medical eligibility and still lose patients over protocol requirements that clash with deeply held beliefs. This dermatology trial required full body photography at every visit. For this patient, that wasn’t negotiable..faith came first! We spent weeks qualifying him medically. Lost him in 5 minutes over something the protocol designers never considered. The lesson??? Human factors always matter more than we plan for. Patients aren’t just walking inclusion/exclusion criteria checklists. They’re people with beliefs, values, boundaries, and lives that don’t fit neatly into protocol requirements! Before designing protocols with photography requirements, someone should ask: How many potential patients will we lose to cultural, religious, or personal objections? Because that’s as much a feasibility question as patient population prevalence. Medical eligibility is only half the equation. Human dignity is the other half!!!🎤

Energy transition models can improve accuracy by up to 27% when they include social factors like public acceptance and investment risks. Energy system models have struggled to account for the human elements of transitioning to clean energy. While these models excel at technical and economic calculations, they often miss social dynamics that can make or break real-world implementation. A new study examines which societal factors matter most and how to include them effectively. By analyzing power system transitions across 31 European countries from 1990-2019, researchers found that incorporating societal factors improved model accuracy by up to 27% for predicting the installed capacity of individual technologies. Three factors emerged as particularly important: public acceptance of new energy infrastructure, investment risk considerations, and the tendency of existing infrastructure to create system lock-in. This research hints at new pathways for updating energy transition models. By systematically identifying which social factors matter most, modelers can better simulate how energy systems evolve - helping policymakers design more effective interventions. S/O to Vivien Fisch-Romito, Marc Jaxa-Rozen, Xin Wen , and Evelina Trutnevyte.

A feasibility study is a systematic assessment conducted before starting a project to determine whether the project is viable, practical, and worth investing in. It helps decision-makers answer the key question: “Should we proceed with this project or not?” A feasibility study evaluates potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, risks, costs, and benefits of a proposed project. Key Components of a Feasibility Study #Market_Feasibility Examines whether there is sufficient demand for the product or service. *Target market *Customer needs *Competition *Pricing strategy #TechnicalFeasibility Assesses whether the required technology, equipment, and skills are available to implement the project. #Organizational_Feasibility Determines whether the organization has the management capacity, structure, and human resources to run the project successfully. #FinancialFeasibility Evaluates the financial viability of the project. *Startup costs *Revenue projections *Profitability *Cash flow analysis #EnvironmentalFeasibility Assesses the environmental impact of the project and compliance with environmental regulations. #EconomicFeasibility Analyzes the broader economic benefits & costs to society (cost-benefit analysis). #Socio_CulturalFeasibility Examines whether the project aligns with community values, beliefs, and social norms. #PoliticalFeasibility Assesses government support, policies, regulations, and political risks that may affect the project.

There is a fundamental asymmetry in how our cities are being built. Investors bring feasibility studies designed to prove financial viability. Chains bring development pipelines designed to capture market share. But who is calculating the urban risk? As Dr. Christian Buer (Managing Partner, Horwath HTL Germany) argues, the political responsibility lies with the municipality, but they often lack the objective data to evaluate. Municipalities need to balance opposing forces: Market Logic: The pressure for capital deployment and brand expansion. Social Factors: Housing shortages, infrastructure load, and neighborhood character. The Critical Step: Independent Market Analysis. If you rely solely on the applicant's data, you aren't planning. But how much intervention is actually sensible, and at what point does it start to harm the market? Neutral, independent feasibility studies are a key instrument for municipalities to make informed decisions without relying solely on investor calculations. They objectively demonstrate whether a hotel project is truly market-appropriate and economically viable, and help to avoid risks such as vacancy, misinvestment in infrastructure, or the displacement of existing businesses. At the same time, they identify opportunities such as latent demand or supply gaps that the market alone does not recognize. To read the full analysis, visit https://bit.ly/4kgWmQd #HorwathHTL #UrbanPlanning #DestinationManagement #HotelDevelopment #CityGovernment #Overtourism