Evolving social performance in practice

Two stand-out case studies demonstrate how community partnerships, respecting cultural knowledge, and shared decision making can help shape equitable agreement-making and cultural heritage protections.

In this article the authors share their learnings and experiences driving change in social performance. Drawing on their respective experiences in social impact assessment and cultural heritage management, they share two case studies that exemplify meaningful practice.

Though distinct in context and geography, the case studies are united by three common threads:

• intentional foundations for partnership that create the conditions for meaningful participation and long-term collaboration
• commitment to equity and capacity building; and
• community led design and decision making.

Case Study 1: Promoting meaningful and equitable participation in social impact assessment (by Carla Martinez)

A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is a structured process used to identify, analyse, and manage the social consequences – both positive and negative – of planned projects, policies, or developments. Its core purpose is to ensure that changes brought about by these interventions support community wellbeing, equity, and sustainability.

While there are numerous guidelines in Australia and internationally on how to conduct an SIA, there is far less emphasis on the foundational conditions that enable a meaningful and equitable SIA process.

As an example, a key enabler is ensuring that participants – particularly those from affected communities – have a clear understanding of the project. Without this, their ability to contribute meaningful insights is limited.

This case study highlights a collaborative approach to working with Indigenous communities to establish a framework that supported informed participation in the SIA and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for a mining expansion project.

At the heart of this process was a formal agreement – in the form a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – with the local Indigenous communities in Chile to actively participate in both the SIA and the EIS processes. The MoU was not a symbolic gesture – it was a structured commitment to enable participation.

The MoU was built on four key pillars:

1. Co-design of methodology: From the outset, the community played a central role in shaping how the SIA would be conducted. This included inputs into the study area definition and identifying how the SIA could support the community’s broader aspirations. As a result, the assessment extended beyond documenting project impacts – it also produced a comprehensive baseline that captured the community’s history, cultural values, practices, and connection to Country. This baseline provided the community with a documented knowledge base they could use for their own purposes, such as informing their native tittle claims.
2. Independent advisory support: The mining company committed to funding independent advisors – social, environmental, and legal – selected by the community. The process for selecting these advisors was co-developed and agreed upon, reinforcing transparency and enabling informed, inclusive engagement. The idea was to ensure the community had equitable access to independent specialist advice and the necessary resources to negotiate an agreement on a level playing field with the company.
3. Participatory baseline studies: Community members were trained and compensated for their time as field monitors when contributing to social, environmental (flora and fauna), and archaeological studies. This was more than capacity building – it supported co-ownership of the research process and recognition of Indigenous expertise.
4. Clarity on consent: The MoU explicitly stated that participation in the SIA and EIS did not imply consent to the project, nor did it override the community’s consultation rights. This distinction was critical in maintaining the integrity of the process and upholding the community’s right to self-determination, in line with the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

This approach to SIA focused on laying strong foundations and establishing a clear framework for its delivery. It was grounded in principles of accountability, mutual respect, and a commitment to addressing power imbalances.

Case Study 2: Agreement-making in protecting cultural heritage (by Gavin Martin)

From a different part of the world and an agreement for different purposes, this case study was one of the author’s most memorable and fulfilling roles: overseeing a cultural heritage conservation agreement between industry and government in the mid-2000s.  

Expanding the scope of cultural heritage protections

Although cultural heritage agreements are now well established, they were far less common two decades ago. Cultural heritage agreements form a key component of Indigenous Land Use Agreements and are often developed as standalone agreements between industry or government and Indigenous groups. Similarly, conservation agreements are commonly used to protect places of heritage significance.

The agreement was between an industry land user and a government regulator, established to protect an internationally significant cultural heritage landscape. Unlike typical conservation agreements, this one stood out for its geographic scale, its multi-year funding commitment, and its dual objectives: not only safeguarding cultural heritage but actively promoting it to the broader public.

The agreement enabled a range of impactful projects – from academic research and conservation initiatives to documenting contemporary cultural narratives and supporting community development programs. These efforts deepened public understanding of the heritage values of the landscape, enhanced knowledge of the community’s use and occupation of the area and built lasting capacity within the local community. As will be discussed further, where the agreement fell short was that the Indigenous custodians who are the cultural knowledge holders were not party to the agreement.

What made it successful?

The multi-year funding arrangement created a unique opportunity to plan for the long term, while also allowing flexibility to delay major expenditure until the most impactful opportunities emerged. By partnering with the Indigenous custodians, academic institutions, NGOs and other specialists, the program was able to draw on the best available expertise and unlock additional funding sources.

Dedicated program management was also essential. The team overseeing the agreement brought a diverse skill set – spanning specialist cultural heritage expertise, project management, government engagement, and deep local knowledge – along with the trust and respect of the community. This combination was critical to delivering a program that was both effective and culturally relevant.

Lessons learned

As the first agreement of its kind, it naturally revealed areas where improvements were needed – highlighting elements that were missing or required modification as the program evolved.

One critical factor of success in these programs was that they were most successful when they were community led. Community development programs can be doomed to fail if they aren’t endorsed and driven by the community. Early in the agreement, mistakes were made by assuming what the community wanted rather than canvassing it with them first. The most successful projects were the ones that were either community-led or had strong, active support from community members.

When it was first established, the agreement was a contract between industry and government. Absent from the contractual arrangement was the Indigenous custodians – despite being central to the cultural heritage the agreement aimed to protect. While in practice the Indigenous custodians were involved in decision-making, they were not a party to the agreement. It was acknowledged by all parties that future agreements needed to include Indigenous custodians, not just as the key stakeholder group to be consulted but as an additional formal party to these types of agreements.

Looking ahead, the author advocates for a governance model where Indigenous custodians are not just present at the table but are contractual partners – or, ideally, hold ultimate oversight of these agreements.

As the agreement matured, the focus of funded projects shifted from opportunistic initiatives to those aligned with strategic outcomes. Much like a social investment program, a framework was developed to guide future efforts. This framework identified three key themes:

• Indigenous capacity building
• long-term cultural heritage protection
• support for international recognition of the heritage landscape.

Common elements across both case studies

Though set in different places and circumstances, both case studies are connected by the following elements:

1. Early and intentional groundwork
• Both initiatives began with deliberate efforts to establish a strong foundation – whether through an MoU like in Case Study 1 or a formal conservation agreement in Case Study 2, this groundwork was essential to enable meaningful participation and long-term success.
2. Community-centred design and leadership
• In both cases, Indigenous communities were actively involved in shaping the process. Case Study 1 emphasised co-designing the SIA methodology, while Case Study 2 highlighted the importance of community-led programs and the evolution toward Indigenous custodians having contractual oversight.
3. Equity and power-sharing
• A clear commitment to addressing power imbalances was evident in Case Study 1 where independent advisory support was provided to ensure equitable access to expertise. Case Study 2 acknowledged the need to move beyond consultation to formal inclusion of Indigenous custodians as agreement partners.
4. Capacity building
• Both projects invested in building community capacity. In Case Study 1, Indigenous field monitors were trained and compensated, contributing directly to research. Case Study 2 supported community development programs and partnered with academic institutions to amplify local knowledge and skills.
5. Respect for cultural values and self-determination
• Each case recognised and upheld the cultural values and rights of Indigenous communities. Case Study 1 explicitly separated participation from consent, aligning with FPIC. Case Study 2 evolved to ensure Indigenous custodians had a governance role and ultimate oversight.

Conclusion: Building meaningful partnerships for impact

These two case studies – though distinct in context, geography, and purpose – share a powerful common thread: they demonstrate what’s possible when cultural heritage and social impact work are grounded in respectful relationships, shared decision-making, and long-term vision.

Whether through co-designed methodologies, independent advisory support, or evolving governance structures, both examples highlight the importance of laying strong foundations that enable communities – particularly Indigenous custodians – to participate meaningfully and equitably.