From Social Stability to Social Sustainability: Comparing SIA and SSRA in an ADB Loan Project in China

Abstract

Social impact assessment (SIA) is a key tool for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within project contexts. Originating largely from international practice, SIA requires localization to fit national conditions. This research examines an Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan project in Hubei Province, China, comparing the SIA conducted under ADB procedures with China’s domestic practice of social stability risk assessment (SSRA)—China’s localized practice of SIA. Adopting a full project life cycle perspective, this article conducts a comprehensive gap analysis between SIA and SSRA from five key dimensions: cycle requirement of assessment, implementation of assessment activity, assessment outcome, application of assessment outcome, and assessment objective. While both approaches are quite similar in four aspects (assessment subject, assessment principle, risk investigation method, and risk classification), SIA places greater emphasis on social sustainability dimensions (poverty, gender, ethnic minority, and involuntary resettlement), whereas SSRA mainly focuses on social stability during the early project proposal and feasibility study stages. Building on the preceding analysis and comparison between SIA and SSRA, this research proposes a “Social Stability–Social Sustainability” progressive framework. Social stability serves as the foundational condition, while the framework emphasizes enhancing the long-term adaptive capacity of social governance through inclusion, participation, and resilience, thereby achieving genuine social sustainability.

1. Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), established by the United Nations as global development objectives for 2015–2030, have been widely recognized by governments and organizations around the world. Among these, the social dimension goals—including zero poverty (SDG1), zero hunger (SDG2), good health and well-being (SDG3), quality education (SDG4), gender equality (SDG5), affordable clean energy (SDG7), decent work and economic growth (SDG8), reduced inequality (SDG10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG16)—constitute the foundation for the sustainable development of human society. Investment projects play a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of human social development. Accordingly, it is essential to conduct project screening and evaluation activities in reference to the SDGs. Social impact assessment (SIA) for investment projects represents a practical application of sociological theory and methodology within the context of the “project society.” As a critical evaluative mechanism, SIA is instrumental in ensuring the effective realization of the SDGs throughout the entire project life cycle.

SIA is an internationally recognized tool for project assessment, adopted in numerous countries across the globe. Nevertheless, each country has pursued distinct pathways toward localization and operationalization. In recent years, the Chinese government has actively advanced the SDGs by innovatively establishing the Social Stability Risk Assessment (SSRA) system, inspired by SIA. After more than a decade of continuous development, the efficacy of this system has become increasingly apparent. However, as China deepens its engagement with the international community, SSRA must further converge with the relatively mature yet continually evolving domain of SIA, explicitly identifying existing gaps and shortcomings to better align with the SDGs. Likewise, many other countries continue to confront challenges in refining and enhancing their SIA frameworks. Therefore, examining the localization practices and optimization strategies of SIA through the lens of China’s SSRA experience not only enriches the theoretical underpinnings of SIA but also addresses the practical imperatives of improving SIA localization in China and beyond, thereby carrying substantial theoretical and practical significance.

2. Literature Review

To align with the SIA proposed by the international community and improve China’s SSRA, it is essential to first elucidate the origins and current developmental trajectories of both approaches.

2.1. SIA and Social Sustainability

2.1.1. Research on SIA

Although there is no unified definition of SIA, the definition of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) is widely accepted, that is, “social impact assessment includes analysis, monitoring and management of the intended and unintended, positive or negative social impacts of any social change process triggered by planned interventions (policies, plans, programs, projects, etc.)” [1]. The IAIA, established in 1981, is the most important organization to promote the development of SIA. Its International Principles of Social Impact Assessment published in 2003 is the most widely used practice guideline in the industry [2]. The World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Inter-American Development Bank, Caribbean Development Bank and other international financial institutions have introduced SIA, making it an international project evaluation tool.

SIA was first applied to water resource development projects, and later extended to urban construction, land resource management projects, and more [3]. Now, SIA has been widely used in various fields, including wind and tidal, urban comprehensive transportation hub, expressway, railway, hydropower engineering, river regulation engineering, wind energy utilization, brewery, and other engineering projects, as well as disasters, wildlife management, invasive species management, fisheries economic transformation, and other types of activities [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Geographically, it mainly involves the United States, Korea, Canada, Bangladesh, Romania, Peru, and other countries [17,18,19,20,21,22]. In terms of evaluation methods, Bonilla-Alicea and Fu employed systematic mapping to determine the methods available to perform SIA [23], the main methods introduced in other studies include (i) Risk and Social Impact Assessment (RSIA), which combines Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Social Risk Assessment (SRA) [24]; (ii) Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) and the GreenZee Model [25]; (iii) selecting the social impacts and indicators from existing frameworks like Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and SIA [26] and using the social performance index (SPI) to evaluate social impacts [27]; (iv) Constellation Analysis (CA), etc. [28]. The main research directions include the following: (i) A social cost index was established based on SIA [29]. (ii) SIA practitioners are urged to use mixed methods, with a stronger emphasis on qualitative approaches. They are especially encouraged to work with communities in an iterative way towards a conceptual basis for assessing and managing change and enhancing social wellbeing [30]. (iii) Using a political ecology framework and a mixed methods approach, researchers have explored SIAs as sites of power struggles to understand the contestations, inequities, and marginalizations that occur in SIA processes [31]. (iv) Environmental and social impact assessment should move towards an integrated assessment process [32]. (v) The social impact of development projects is not brought about solely by changes in social environment but as the result of the interaction of factors such as changes in social, natural, and living environments and problems related to assessment or operation/management. The reasons the current environmental impact assessments cannot address the above problems sufficiently were analyzed, along with possible solutions [33].

2.1.2. Research on Social Sustainability

Social sustainability constitutes a critical dimension of sustainable development, with its foundational concept articulated in the landmark report of Our Common Future—also known as the Brundtland Report, published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. This report provided the first systematic definition of Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [34] and highlighted the importance of the social dimension alongside economic growth and environmental protection. Subsequently, scholars have expanded research on social sustainability from multiple perspectives. Some have argued that social sustainability is a major part of both sustainable development and sustainability. It encompasses societal sustainability and the overall promotion of more sustainable societies, taking into account multiple social/society–environment relationships and interfaces [35]. It has also been described as the capacity of urban or community systems to maintain long-term stability through interaction, collaboration, and cultural development while meeting the diverse needs of different social groups [36]. Others interpret social sustainability as reflecting the degree to which urban systems satisfy individual residents’ needs, serving as a key indicator of quality of life [37].

Regarding the indicators of social sustainability, some scholars have pointed out that one of three main elements of sustainability, the social aspect, is especially difficult to assess. The research on quantitative indicators of social sustainability is still in its infancy. The objective of this work is to introduce a set of quantitative indicators of social sustainability for the assessment of wastewater treatment processes. The proposed indicators are used to evaluate various aspects of social sustainability, such as social capital, social equity, and social peace [38]. Some scholars have provided a pentagon model for urban social sustainability by identifying five dimensions: person (demographic and household characteristics), place (accessibility, social infrastructure, open spaces, and places for daily operations), people (sense of community, social relations, and social network), perception (sense of place and feelings security and safety), and process (participation and future of space). There are a variety of positive associations between indicators of social sustainability [39]. Another study identified that urban social sustainability incorporates six main dimensions, including social interaction, sense of place, social participation, safety, social equity, and neighborhood satisfaction [40]. Overall, the literature indicates that social sustainability particularly emphasizes social equity, well-being, inclusivity, and the stability and resilience of social systems.

At the same time, one study showed that social sustainability also leads to environmental sustainability (e.g., situational awareness leads to energy awareness) and economic sustainability. This indicates that sustainability consideration may be more effective when starting from the social aspect [41]. Nevertheless, compared to economic and environmental sustainability, the social dimension has historically received relatively less attention in research and practice [42,43,44]. Some scholars have posited that the inherent challenge of understanding social sustainability is its many legitimate meanings, in addition to the lack of interdisciplinary scholarship. Drawing from the literature across multiple disciplines five different ways that the concept of social sustainability has been applied in scholarship and professional practice have been illustrated, namely (i) as a distinct objective; (ii) as a constraint upon economic and environmental imperatives; (iii) as a pre-condition for environmental and economic sustainability; (iv) as the causal mechanism of economic and environmental change; (v) as place-centered, process-oriented sustainability [45].

An increasing body of research situates social stability within the broader framework of social sustainability, viewing it not only as a prerequisite for achieving inclusiveness, equity, and social cohesion but also as one of the core dimensions of social sustainability, alongside cohesion, inclusion, resilience, and legitimacy/procedural justice. The research emphasizes the role of institutions and governance in enhancing the capacity of social systems to adapt to and recover from shocks [46,47]. This “resilience-oriented stability” contrasts with “control-oriented stability”, which relies primarily on order maintenance; the former highlights long-term institutional adaptability, participatory processes, and the accumulation of social trust, thereby aligning more closely with the social dimension of sustainable development. This shift in emphasis is evident in the United Nations World Social Report 2025: A New Policy Consensus to Accelerate Social Progress, which calls for equity, economic security, and solidarity to underpin sustainable social progress [48]. It also appears in the World Bank’s definitions of social sustainability, which emphasize inclusive societies, resilient communities, and participation and legitimacy in governance as central components [49,50]. At the project level, the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)’s Guidance for Social Impact Assessment identifies good practice principles, such as participation, governance, justice, and resilience as integral to SIA [51]. Taken together, these developments suggest that transitioning from a “control–compliance” logic of stability to a “participation–adaptation–resilience” logic offers stronger support for long-term social sustainability outcomes.

Against this conceptual backdrop, this paper compares SIA and Social Stability Risk Assessment (SSRA) through a progressive “social stability → social sustainability” framework, beginning with the necessity of social stability, moving toward resilience-oriented social sustainability as the goal, and analyzing the institutional logics, assessment indicators, and governance pathways underpinning both. This approach helps explain why incorporating participation, inclusion, and resilience into assessment and management cycles is essential for sustainable practice.

2.1.3. SIA Under Social Sustainability

SIA and social sustainability exhibit a profound and mutually constitutive relationship in both theoretical and practical contexts. As a forward-looking analytical tool and decision-making process, SIA is fundamentally concerned with systematically identifying, predicting, and evaluating the potential social consequences—both positive and negative—of policies, plans, or projects, while also designing measures to mitigate adverse effects and strategies to enhance beneficial outcomes [52]. In contrast, social sustainability serves as a broader normative framework and value orientation, emphasizing the maintenance of social equity, community well-being, cultural continuity, and institutional resilience throughout the development process to ensure that the social needs of both present and future generations are met [53]. The practice of SIA provides an operational pathway toward achieving social sustainability. For instance, by constructing life-cycle-based indicator systems, such as the Railway Social Sustainability Index (RaSSI) framework in the railway sector, SIA translates the abstract ideals of social sustainability into quantifiable management dimensions (e.g., human rights protection, community resilience, intergenerational equity). In doing so, it ensures that projects not only avoid risks but also proactively create shared social value [52].

Social sustainability provides a guiding direction for the advancement of Social Impact Assessment (SIA). The evolution of SIA has increasingly been shaped by social sustainability objectives, transforming it from a primarily technical and compliance-oriented tool into a strategic process aimed at planning and fostering a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable society [51,52]. This evolution is reflected in the expansion of SIA’s assessment scope, which now extends beyond traditional, project-level social impacts, such as resettlement and relocation, to encompass social and macro-socioeconomic impacts across the entire product life cycle, from resource extraction to final disposal. Moreover, SIA has become more closely aligned with the SDGs. For instance, in bioenergy projects, SIA incorporates cultural dimensions, such as the integration of traditional knowledge and heritage awareness, and governance dimensions, such as community participation and policy coherence, thereby addressing gaps left by conventional tools, like the tool for sustainability impact assessment (ToSIA), and enhancing the capacity to quantify social sustainability outcomes [54].

2.2. From SIA to SSRA

SIA is an imported product for China. As early as the 1980s, with the continuous development of China’s reform and opening up, foreign advanced experience in project management, including SIA, were introduced together with foreign investment. With the implementation of loan projects from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in China, China began to formally introduce SIA. In 2005, Suining City in Sichuan Province, China, issued the “major project SSRA prediction and resolution mechanism”, which is recognized as the foundation of China’s local SIA system, that is, the starting point of the SSRA system. After seven years of pilot testing, China’s National Development and Reform Commission issued the “Major Fixed Asset Investment Projects SSRA Interim Measures” in 2012 (Development and Reform Investment [2012] No. 2492), formally establishing China’s SSRA system.

China’s SSRA has long been extended to include major policy formulation or adjustment, major initiatives, important planning and project formulation or adjustment, major activities, and other major decision-making matters. Therefore, it can also be called “major decision-making SSRA.” Scholars have different definitions, but the basic connotation is similar: it is a procedure conducted before major decision-making, involving a professional evaluation in which the subject predicts and analyzes the risk factors related to social stability that may be caused by the decision, which may affect the decision-making results.

Academic research has mainly centered on the background, objectives, processes, methods, and reforms of SSRA, initially forming a relevant theoretical framework [55]. This framework mainly includes stakeholder theory, policy gap theory, social combustion theory, etc. At the practical level, policy system, talent team, technical standards, skill training, industry management, theoretical research, etc. continue to deepen, basically realizing the institutionalization and specialization of SSRA.

2.3. Previous Comparative Research Between SIA and SSRA

Comparative studies on SIA and SSRA are mainly dominated by Chinese scholars. As early as 2002, Ajiang Chen conducted a systematic review of social evaluation practices both within the World Bank and domestically in China, identifying social evaluation as the concrete application of sociological theories and methods in project practice. He summarized the definitions, functions, methodologies, fundamental content, existing challenges, and prospective applications of social evaluation [56]. Subsequently, in 2003, Ajiang Chen further explored the paradigms of project social evaluation, introducing the concept of the “project society” and advocating for a sociological paradigm to guide project social evaluation [57]. In 2004, Dongkai Zhu advanced this line of research by noting that social evaluation in foreign countries had gradually formed a method of including the participation of sociologists in the analysis. In contrast, social evaluation in China mainly included social benefit analysis within national economic evaluations, or was mainly undertaken by economic evaluators as an “accessory” of economic evaluation. At the same time, social evaluation was only initially applied to some major domestic projects, such as the Three Gorges Project and the early stage of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project, the World Bank loan project, the Asian Development Bank loan project, etc., while lacking theoretical and methodological research and successful case studies [58]. In 2013, Shaojun Chen pointed out that the social evaluation of internationally financed projects promoted a whole-process analysis framework. In the early stages of a project, social analysis throughout the implementation and operation management stages focuses on four aspects, namely poor groups, women, involuntary resettlement, and ethnic minority populations. These focus areas have strong reference significance for social evaluation and social stability risk evaluation of domestic investment projects in China [59]. Based on the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) issued by the World Bank in 2016, Shaojun Chen and Yang Shen, in 2019, systematically elaborated the origin, development, content, and policy framework of SIA of World Bank loan projects and SSRA of construction projects in China. They further analyzed the differences between the two sets of evaluation systems in terms of objectives, content, measure requirements, cycle requirement, and supervision requirements [60]. Guoqing Shi and Ruilian Zhang wrote an article in 2019 summarizing the differences between SIA and SSRA in six aspects: assessment objectives, assessment subjects, assessment types, assessment contents, assessment procedures, and assessment time [61]. In 2022, Chen Chen and Shi Guoqing, based on the problems of social risk assessment in China at the current stage, conducted a theoretical review of China’s social risk assessment and governance system, pointing out that China’s current social risk assessment and governance system can be regarded as a transformation and application of Western SIA theories within the Chinese context. They found that the two present obvious distinctions across the four dimensions of governance concepts, systems, subjects, and methods [62]. In 2024, Chen Chen and Guoqing Shi elaborated that in the aspect of SIA for public policy, several key trends have emerged: a constructivist shift from management school to participation school (from index-based assessment to adaptive assessment); a shift toward democratic negotiation (from a management perspective to a humanistic perspective); and a shift in ethical focus (from economic interests to social responsibilities). They believe that “SIA can be understood as a pre-assessment of social risk assessment, is an important tool for ‘gateway forward’ [63]”.

A review of the literature indicates that previous comparative studies between the two approaches have already produced substantial findings regarding specific assessment elements. In recent years, there has also been a growing tendency to adopt a full-process analytical perspective. However, systematically situating assessment activities within the context of the entire project life cycle remains insufficiently addressed. Therefore, analyzing the connections and distinctions between the two approaches from a whole life cycle perspective can provide valuable insights for the further refinement and improvement of assessment tools.

3. Research Framework

SSRA and SIA correspond, respectively, to the social-level requirements of the Chinese government and international financial institutions for projects. This paper aims to analyze the gaps between the two approaches, using international SIA practices as a reference, in order to identify potential directions for the further refinement of SSRA. Such an analysis seeks to promote the integration of social sustainability principles at the project level and to facilitate the alignment of Chinese social practice with international experience.

From the perspective of the project life cycle, internationally financed projects usually go through four main stages: project identification, project preparation, project implementation, and project completion (including post-evaluation). In contrast, domestic projects within China generally go through five main stages: project proposal, project preliminary design, project construction drawing design, project implementation, and project acceptance. Correspondingly, as assessment activities, SIA and SSRA follow four key stages: assessment preparation, assessment implementation, assessment outcome, and application of the assessment outcome.

From a vertical perspective of the entire project life cycle, this study focuses on the specific elements of assessment activities, including assessment implementation subjects, assessment content, assessment methods, and application of the assessment results. It systematically presents the specific activities associated with SIA and SSRA at each project stage, comprehensively summarizes their similarities and differences across both the vertical dimension of project implementation and the horizontal dimension of assessment processes, and incorporates temporal and spatial perspectives to identify gaps relative to the SDGs, as illustrated in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, the rectangles represent the project life cycle, while the ovals primarily depict the processes of SIA or SSRA, with the arrows indicating the corresponding workflows. The left half of the figure represents SIA in the context of international financial institution-funded projects, whereas the right half represents SSRA in domestic Chinese projects. Both sides converge to highlight the specific elements for gap analysis under the guidance of social stability and social sustainability, thereby illustrating the interconnections between the two approaches. The overall framework is intended to clearly demonstrate, across the entire project life cycle, the specific stages of social assessment or social stability risk assessment corresponding to each project phase, using the key elements identified in the gap analysis as links to facilitate comparative research.

4. Material and Methodology

4.1. Basic Information of the Project Case

The experiment described in this article comes from a loan project of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Hubei Province, which is divided into two implementation areas: County X and District B (see Figure 2 for details). The required funds are from ADB loan funds (USD 200 million), Agricultural Development Bank of China loan funds (USD 137 million), and local government financial matching funds. The project was approved by ADB and China in November 2023 and is currently in the implementation stage, with an implementation period of 6 years. The overall orientation of the project is ecological protection, taking ecological environment governance, green industry development, rural revitalization, and ecological compensation as the main approaches and starting points, and striving to innovate development methods, promote development through protection, and realize regional ecological product value. The specific construction contents of the project include (1) ecological protection and restoration, focusing on improvement of the human settlement environment, comprehensive improvement of river basins, construction of intelligent water system, etc.; (2) green industry development, focusing on improvement of ecotourism facilities and landscape upgrading, construction of an R&D base for green agricultural product processing, upgrading agricultural farms, construction of an intelligent agricultural system, etc.; (3) capacity building and upgrading, focusing on institutional capacity building, resident skill training, subject research, consulting services, etc. (see Figure 3 and Figure 4 and

Table 1. The main output activities of project and subproject.

No.	Subprojects and Activities
Output 1: Enhancement of institutional capacity for ecosystem protection and climate-smart development
1	Huanggang Climate Change Adaptation and Carbon-Neutrality Action Plan *;
2	Bailian River gross ecological product accounting and value realization mechanism study;
3	Smart water system in County X;
4	Smart agricultural platform established in County X;
5	Smart environment management system in District B;
6	Job skills training for farmers and fishers, including but not limited to (1) skills training for better job opportunities; (2) public awareness of environmental and biodiversity protection, eco-tourism, climate-smart agriculture etc.; (3) latest supporting policies for rural development;
7	Biodiversity survey and monitoring in Bailian River Reservoir;
8	Project implementation consulting services and capacity building *.
Output 2: Improvement of rural environment and business opportunities in ecosystem protection
9	Eco-compensation mechanism in Bailian River Basin
10	Bailian River Reservoir ecological protection Establish physical fences and ecological protection belt along the Class I and II conservation areas of the reservoir; Install video monitoring equipment; Construct observation towers; Set up water source protection and safety warning signs and science education signage; Artificial propagation and artificial release of fish fry for 5 years; Restoration of degraded forests (9360 mu; a mu is a Chinese unit of measurement (1 mu = 666.67 square meters).
11	Comprehensive watershed management
A	District B Nature-based solutions for the rehabilitation of Shenjia River (average river width is 70–120 m, with a length of 5 km); Nature-based solutions for the rehabilitation of Xiangmu river (average river width is 30–50 m, with a length of 1.37 km).
B	County X Nature-based solutions for the rehabilitation of Maqiaogang River (average river width is 15–30 m, with a length of 7.3 km); Nature-based solutions for the rehabilitation of Guiao river (average river width is 10–20 m, with a length of 5.8 km).
12	Improvement of living environment in rural areas
A	District B Build a new wastewater treatment plant in Bailian Town with a daily capacity of 1000 tons/day, establish an 18 km wastewater collection pipe network, and 5 km of reclaimed water reuse pipelines; Rehabilitate existing Bailian Town WWTP: construct septic tanks for rural households and establish wastewater collection pipe networks for seven villages; Renovate and improve residential environment in 21 key villages.
B	County X Renovate and improve residential environment in seven villages.
13	Ecotourism development
A	District B Ecotourism belt around the reservoir; Rehabilitation of cultural square in District B; Ecotourism development along Chang River (2.3 km); Ecotourism development along Shenjia River (3.0 km); Development of interpretation and guiding system.
B	County X Eco-tourism at Wanggang Chenmiao River Agricultural Demonstration Park; Eco-tourism at Qingquan Xinpu Agricultural Demonstration Park.
Output 3: Demonstrate climate-smart green rural development
14	Climate-smart agricultural production and piloting in County X Agricultural infrastructure improvement in Wanggang Town (30,000 mu); Agricultural infrastructure improvement in Qingquan Town Xinpu Dafan (3000 mu).
15	Low-carbon and environment-friendly agricultural product processing and logistic center in District B;
16	Low-carbon and environment-friendly agricultural product processing and logistic center in County X.

* Costs will be shared by District B and County X. Source: Asian Development Bank.

for details).

4.2. Considerations for Selecting Project Case

This project was selected as the case study for the comparative research of SIA and SSRA based on three main considerations. First, this project simultaneously incorporates SIA and SSRA, the two most widely used project assessment tools in both domestic and international contexts. Second, in practical project operations, due to the assessment implementation subject (i.e., the preparation unit or evaluation unit), project participants typically have in-depth engagement with only one of the two processes. Coincidentally, two authors personally participated in both the SIA and SSRA assessment processes, enabling a comprehensive understanding of their differences and interconnections. Third, the project aims to promote local near-zero-carbon green development, aligning with broader development needs. As similar “dual carbon” projects are expected to increase in the future, this case can provide valuable reference for comparable initiatives. Employing the same case with different assessment tools offers far greater analytical rigor than comparing different cases with different tools, rendering this case selection both representative and innovative.

In the practical implementation of SSRA and SIA, although the case selected in this research is a “hybrid” project, the SSRA component remained largely independent. Specifically, aside from joint public participation activities with SIA, such as on-site surveys and focus group discussions, which were organized in accordance with SIA guidelines to ensure the inclusion of women, vulnerable groups, and other special populations, other SSRA activities and procedures were minimally influenced by SIA. The preparation of SSRA, report writing, and the evaluation of results were conducted entirely in accordance with the requirements for domestic Chinese projects, without any intervention from the Asian Development Bank officers or consulting experts responsible for SIA. Given that policy requirements and approval procedures are largely consistent, SSRA in other Chinese projects is generally carried out in a manner similar to the SSRA in this case, with no significant differences. The fact that both SSRA and SIA were applied to the same project, while remaining highly autonomous and sharing a common context and baseline, renders this comparison far more robust and persuasive than comparing assessments conducted on two separate projects. This rationale is one of the key reasons for selecting this case for comparative analysis in this research.

4.3. Considerations Regarding the Author’s Roles

The author’s dual role as both practitioner and researcher is fraught with potential biases. On one hand, as a practitioner directly involved in the SIA and SSRA processes, the author had convenient access to first-hand and relatively comprehensive data and could engage closely with various stakeholders. This immersive involvement allowed the author to gain a deep understanding of the similarities and differences between SIA and SSRA from the perspective of practical implementation. On the other hand, as a researcher, the author needed to adopt a more detached perspective, striving for analytical clarity and objectivity to ensure an unbiased gap analysis and evaluation. Being “inside” the processes naturally entails exposure to multiple information sources, which may increase the risk of subjective judgment.

To safeguard the objectivity of the analysis and reduce potential bias, the authors took several measures. First, the strength of the assessment teams was emphasized. Neither SSRA nor SIA was conducted solely by the authors; each was carried out by an independent team. In this research, two of the authors were responsible for SSRA and SIA, respectively, which resulted in relatively frequent communication, but the assessment activities and outcomes were products of collective expertise. Feedback from other members of both assessment teams was also solicited upon manuscript completion. Second, external expert input was incorporated. Among the three authors, one did not participate in the practical implementation of the SIA or SSRA in this case. This author, possessing extensive experience in both fields, helped to correct for potential subjectivity from a macro-level and comparative project perspective. Third, stakeholder feedback was sought. After the manuscript was drafted, input was obtained from local project staff, residents, special groups, and other experts and scholars outside the project area.

4.4. The Basic Situation of SSRA and SIA in the Project Case

The data analyzed in this paper are all from the field investigation carried out by the author in the project area in the first half of 2023. Entrusted by the project owner, the author’s unit undertook the SSRA of the project, and carried out the SIA of the project together with the technical assistance team hired by ADB. During the field investigation, there were overlapping parts between SIA and SSRA, all of which were carried out through a questionnaire survey and symposium. The project construction contents were announced in the form of announcements and postings, and opinions and suggestions from various stakeholders were widely solicited. A total of 409 questionnaires were distributed to residents (156 in County X and 253 in District B). Additionally, a total of thirteen symposiums were held—six in County X and seven in District B—with a range of stakeholders, including relevant functional departments of the local government (such as the Development and Reform Bureau, the Ecology and Environment Bureau, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, the Natural Resources Bureau, and the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau), the Women’s Federation, relevant enterprises, township governments, and village/community-level officials. In addition, 72 group questionnaires were distributed according to the requirements of the SSRA procedure (35 in County X and 37 in District B). A total of 71 written opinions on stable evaluation were collected (34 in County X and 37 in District B). Two review meetings were held for SSRA reports (one in County X and one in District B). After the project evaluation, two reports related to SIA (Poverty, Gender and Social Analysis Report and Poverty Reduction and Social Strategy Summary) required by ADB were issued, and two Social Stability Risk Assessment Reports (one in County X and one in District B) required by China’s domestic procedures were issued.

5. SIA and SSRA in the Project

In order to avoid duplication and improve evaluation efficiency, the SIA and SSRA of the project case described in this paper were basically carried out simultaneously. While assessment work overlapped, some was carried out separately. The specific assessment processes are as follows:

5.1. SIA

5.1.1. Assessment Basis

The SIA of this project follows ADB policies on social development, gender, poverty reduction, indigenous/ethnic minority, involuntary resettlement, and public participation, and takes ADB’s Poverty and Social Analysis Manual: Working Paper (2012), the ADB Project Gender Mainstreaming Category Guide (2012) and the Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) as the main evaluation basis.

5.1.2. Assessment Content

The SIA of this project mainly included (1) the socio-economic conditions of the project area; (2) the needs and wishes of the residents in the project area; (3) the potential social impact and risks of the project; (4) the role of the project in promoting socio-economic development, poverty reduction, and improving the living standards of poor groups; (5) the impact of the project on women, ethnic minorities (if any), and other vulnerable groups, and how to improve their participation and living standards; (6) proposal of an action plan based on the identified impacts and risks. At the same time, the SIA aimed to carry out a wide range of public participation activities to make more affected people aware of the project information. Its goal was to optimize the design through the participation of different stakeholders, enhancing the project benefits, and thus promoting social equity, inclusiveness, and the sustainable development of social objectives.

In terms of geographical scope, in addition to paying attention to the risk factors in the project area and the project impact area, special attention should be paid to the potential social risks and impacts of the project-related facilities/activities. Generally, special due diligence should be carried out on the related facilities/activities. In terms of time scope, it is required to carry out social due diligence on the current situation, predict the future project benefits and potential risks, review the completed activities related to the project (such as land acquisition and demolition), and review the construction of related facilities. Due diligence must be carried out to identify residual issues and incorporate remedial measures into action plans and follow-up monitoring systems.

5.1.3. Assessment Method and Conclusions

Risk analysis, identification, and assessment of the SIA of this project case were mainly carried out directly through public participation, such as questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. International standards, such as the 17 SDGs of the United Nations, the core labor standards of the International Labour Organization, gender equality-related policies, and the Equator Principles, have become benchmarks for risk management frameworks and international governance mechanisms of multilateral international organizations. In actual assessment, international standards are often referred to. Compared with the existing laws, regulations, policies, and plans of borrowing countries, gap identification was carried out, and corresponding gap closing measures were formulated.

The assessment activities first identified the key challenges and pressing needs commonly faced by residents in the project area. In total, more than 360,000 individuals across six townships in District B and County X were designated as direct beneficiaries of the project. The assessment further identified and enumerated the number of women, ethnic minorities, and other vulnerable groups who would benefit, while delineating their differentiated needs. Subsequently, the evaluation recognized the project’s potential positive impacts in areas such as improving the ecological environment, enhancing service and management capacities, and promoting employment and income generation. At the same time, alongside these anticipated positive outcomes, the project is also expected to generate certain adverse social impacts and risks, including increased burdens from wastewater and solid waste treatment fees, resettlement impacts, and construction-related disturbances. Ultimately, the project was classified as a general poverty-reduction intervention.

5.1.4. Application of Assessment Outcome

In the SIA report, relevant action plans, such as a public consultation and participation plan, gender action plan, social development action plan, and resettlement action plan, were specially formulated, and activities corresponding to the project design and implementation stages were clarified to promote the participation and benefit of special groups, such as women, the elderly, vulnerable groups, and resettlement populations. Target indicators were set according to baseline indicators, and capacity building plans were formulated. A follow-up monitoring, evaluation and reporting system was provided, and it was decided whether to update the SIA report according to the specific situation.

During the project implementation stage, planned activities and target indicators were continuously carried out, and a grievance redress mechanism was established and maintained. These elements were incorporated into the project’s social monitoring and evaluation system, which combines internal monitoring with external third-party assessments. Dedicated reports, such as the Project Progress Report (social section), Internal Social Monitoring and Evaluation Report, External Social Monitoring and Evaluation Report (if necessary), and other relevant documents, were produced regularly. In addition, the project underwent annual on-site or online inspections conducted by the ADB.

During the project completion stage, the social-related content was summarized and evaluated, and if necessary, a post-social evaluation of the project was carried out [64].

5.2. SSRA

5.2.1. Assessment Basis

The SSRA of this project was mainly based on relevant policies and regulations of China, mainly including Guiding Opinions on Establishing and Perfecting Social Stability Risk Assessment Mechanism for Major Decision-Making (Trial) (Zhong Ban Fa [2012] No. 2), Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission on Printing and Distributing the Interim Measures for Social Stability Risk Assessment of Major Fixed Asset Investment Projects of the National Development and Reform Commission (Development and Reform Investment [2012] No. 2492), Notice of the General Office of the National Development and Reform Commission on Printing and Distributing the Social Stability Risk Analysis Chapter and the Outline for the Preparation of Assessment Reports for Major Fixed Asset Investment Projects (Trial) (Development and Reform Office Investment [2013] No. 428), Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of Social Stability Risk Assessment Mechanism for Major Decision-Making under the New Situation (Zhong Ban Fa [2021] No. 11), Outline and Description of Preparation of Feasibility Study Report on Investment Projects Issued by National Development and Reform Commission (Development and Reform Investment Regulation [2023] No. 304), etc. These laws and policies have basically established the policy system for SSRA in China.

5.2.2. Assessment Contents

The assessment contents of SSRA directly aim at risks, focusing on the legality, rationality, feasibility, and controllability of the proposed project construction, as well as on identifying the potential risks and proposing mitigation measures. The social risk-related indicators of engineering projects form the core of the social risk assessment of these projects. Engineering projects are regarded as individual entities “embedded” in society, and there may be inherent hidden risks in many internal and external aspects. Specifically, eight aspects, namely policy planning and approval procedures, land and housing expropriation and compensation, technical and economic programs, ecological environment impact, project construction management, local economic and social impact, quality safety and social security, and media public opinion guidance, are used as index tools for risk factor identification and management. The purpose is to achieve stability and development of the project area with mass participation and promote the “maintenance of stability”.

In terms of geographical scope, the focus is generally on the project area, emphasizing risk factors within the area, and also paying attention to the project impact area, such as the noise impact area and traffic impact area. In terms of time scope, the focus is mainly on current and future risk factors, with no special requirements to investigate past related facility construction or related activities.

5.2.3. Assessment Method and Conclusions

SSRA of a project usually compares the project contents with China’s domestic laws, regulations, policies, plans, etc. to screen their legal compliance. In terms of risk analysis, identification, and assessment methods, the SSRA of this project case combined the single-factor risk estimation method with comprehensive risk index method. By applying the risk probability–impact matrix, the distribution of single-factor risk levels for the project in County X and District B was determined. Each risk factor was classified into one of five levels—high risk, relatively high risk, moderate risk, relatively low risk, and low risk—thereby identifying the primary sources of risk and enabling a comprehensive determination of the initial risk rating. In County X, the assessment identified two factors as “relatively low risk”, ten as “moderate risk”, and four as “relatively high risk”, resulting in an overall initial risk rating of “moderate”. The principal sources of risk in County X were associated with the relatively significant impacts of land acquisition and resettlement, potential difficulties in mobilizing counterpart funding, and anticipated challenges in the subsequent operation, maintenance, and management stages. In contrast, the project in District B was relatively simple, with fewer adverse impacts. Sixteen factors were assessed as “moderate risk”, leading to an overall initial risk rating of “low” for the project in District B.

At the project initiation stage, the Social Stability Risk Analysis Chapter and the Social Stability Risk Assessment Report are finally formed. The former is a chapter of the project feasibility study report, and the latter is one of the necessary pre-documents for the local government/project owner to submit to the local Development and Reform Commission for approval of the project. In the subsequent project implementation, if land acquisition is involved, it is necessary to prepare a special Social Stability Risk Assessment Report for Land Acquisition, as one of the pre-documents required for land acquisition approval.

5.2.4. Application of Assessment Outcomes

In the SSRA report, risk prevention and resolution measures are proposed for each risk factor, and responsible units or personnel are specified. At the same time, emergency plans are prepared, and organizational structures and personnel, early warning mechanisms, handling procedures, accountability, etc. are specified. In addition, the social stability risk level of the project after the implementation of risk prevention and resolution measures is also evaluated. The social risk level of County X and District B after the implementation of risk prevention measures was “low risk”. There is no specific requirement in the project implementation stage and completion acceptance stage, and there is no supervision/monitoring system for social stability risk avoidance measures [60].

6. Discussion: Gap Analysis Between SIA and SSRA

SSRA has, to some extent, incorporated the concepts and methodologies of international SIA and has evolved within the Chinese context as a parallel tool for social risk governance. Based on this, the present research compares the two approaches in terms of their objectives, scope, procedures, and governance logic, highlighting both their differences and progressive interrelationships. Drawing on case studies from Hubei Province, China, and integrating the specific components of the institutional framework governing the entire project life cycle, the author conducted a comprehensive gap analysis between SIA and SSRA. This analysis encompasses five key dimensions: (i) assessment cycle requirements; (ii) implementation of assessment activities (including assessment subject, assessment implementation subject, assessment principles, scope, contents, basis, risk investigation methods, and forecasting functions); (iii) assessment outcomes (including outcome categories and assessment conclusions, such as risk classification); (iv) application of assessment outcomes; and (v) assessment objectives. Details are presented in

Table 2. Gap analysis between SIA and SSRA.

Assessment Stage	Assessment Aspect	SIA	SSRA	Comparisons
Cycle requirement		Broadly speaking, SIA runs through the whole life cycle of a project. Take the ADB financed project as an example. (a) Identification stage: Initial social analysis; (b) Preparation stage: Detailed social assessment analysis (narrow sense); (c) Startup stage: Decide, as appropriate, whether to update reports on SIA; (d) Implementation stage: Internal monitoring and updating of social development action plan, gender action plan, resettlement plan, and ethnic minority development plan, etc., conducted by Project Management Office (PMO), and external monitoring and evaluation by independent third party; (e) Completion stage (including post-evaluation): Summary assessment and, if necessary, post-evaluation on social aspect.	SSRA is mainly carried out in the early stage of a project, that is, the feasibility study stage. There are no prescriptive or mandatory requirements for the implementation stage or the completion and acceptance stage.	Broadly speaking, SIA accompanies the whole life cycle of a project and has a longer time span, while SSRA is mainly carried out in the early stage of a project, with a shorter time span.
Assessment implementation	Assessment subject	The proposed project owner	The proposed project owner	Basically consistent, and the project owner bears the ultimate responsibility for assessment conclusions.
	Subject of assessment implementation	The subject of assessment implementation varies at different project stages. Take the ADB financed project as an example. (a) Identification stage: Social specialist in ADB; (b) Preparation stage: International and national social consulting specialists on the TrTA team. In the project preparation stage, there are two other safeguard documents closely related to SIA, namely the Ethnic Minority Development Plan (EMDP) and Resettlement Plan (RP), which need to be prepared depending on the specific impacts of the project on ethnic minority and involuntary resettlement groups. If preparation is required, it is usually carried out by a consulting team/specialist commissioned by the PMO or owner. The key elements of both reports also need to be summarized in the Poverty and Social Analysis Report. (c) Startup stage: Startup social consulting specialist hired by PMO; (d) Implementation and completion stages: Social consulting specialists from a third-party external monitoring and evaluation agency or team and from the project management consulting team hired by the PMO; (e) Post-evaluation stage: Social consulting specialist hired by the ADB Independent Evaluation Bureau. In addition to the ADB specialist, the selection of other consulting teams or specialists is based on the qualifications of specialists, who are generally scored in terms of their academic qualifications, experience in similar projects, and experience in similar locations, and the selection is highly subjective.	It can be either the project owner itself or a third-party professional assessment agency.	SIA has more staged tasks than SSRA, and the assessment implementation subjects are diverse.
	Assessment principle	Objectivity, scientific rigor, operability, comprehensiveness, openness and transparency, and broad participation.	Objectivity, scientific rigor, operability, comprehensiveness, openness and transparency, and broad participation.	Basically consistent; SIA more emphasizes the participation of various stakeholders, especially special groups.
	Assessment scope	Geographical scope: Project area, project impact area, project associated facilities/activities; Time frame: Investigation of the current situation, review of the past construction of related facilities or related activities, and prediction of the future.	Geographical scope: Focus on the project area, but also on the project impact area. Time frame: Investigation of the current situation, and prediction of the future.	SSRA has no specific requirements for past associated facility construction or related activities.
	Assessment contents	The social risks (including social stability risks) that may be caused by the project and the role of the project in promoting social development, with focus on the project’s social sustainable development on poverty, gender, ethnic minority, and involuntary resettlement.	Social stability risks due to project construction	SIA pays more attention to the positive benefits brought by the project and the impact on special groups than SSRA
	Assessment basis	SDGs, International Labour Organization Core Labour Standards, policies related to gender equality, Equator Principles, existing laws, regulations, policies, plans of borrowing countries, etc.	China’s domestic laws, regulations, policies, plans, etc.	SSRA plays a main role in identifying risk factors for social stability, and generally does not specifically benchmark international advanced concepts and standards.
	Risk investigation methods	Field surveys, interviews, discussions, and consultations in field research; questionnaire surveys and structured interviews in survey research; data collection and analysis; checklist method and case reference method in literature research. Emphasis is placed on the participation of various stakeholders, especially vulnerable groups, women, the elderly, and ethnic minorities.	Field surveys, interviews, discussions, and consultations in field research; questionnaire surveys and structured interviews in survey research; data collection and analysis; checklist method and case reference method in literature research. Emphasis is placed on the participation of various stakeholders.	Basically consistent. SIA pays more attention to the participation of vulnerable groups, women, the elderly, and ethnic minorities.
	Forecasting function	Predicting future project benefits and risks	Predicting future project social risks	Basically consistent.
Assessment outcomes	Outcome categories	Take the ADB financed project as an example. (a) Identification stage: Initial Poverty and Social Analysis, Terms of Reference for Social Impact Assessment; (b) Preparation stage: Poverty, Gender and Social Analysis (PGSA), Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS, financial intermediation project), Ethnic Minority Development Plan (EMDP), Resettlement Plan (RP); (c) Startup stage: Project Progress Report (social section), Internal Social Monitoring and Evaluation Report, updated versions of relevant reports; (d) Implementation stage: Internal Social Monitoring and Evaluation Report, External Social Monitoring and Evaluation Report, updated versions of relevant reports; (e) Completion stage: Social Completion Report, Social Post-Evaluation Report	Chapter on Social Stability Risk Analysis in the Feasibility Study Report, Social Stability Risk Assessment Report, and Social Stability Risk Assessment Report on Land Acquisition (those involving land acquisition in subsequent implementation stages)	SIA has more diverse categories of outcomes.
	Assessment conclusions—risk classification	According to the Environmental and Social Framework, the World Bank classifies all projects into four categories: high risk, moderate–high risk, moderate risk, and low risk.	The risk level is divided into three levels: high risk, moderate risk and low risk.	Overall, both approaches categorize project risk levels into three broad tiers: high, moderate, and low. (Note: institutions such as the World Bank further subdivide the moderate risk category into a “moderate–high” level)
Application of assessment outcomes		The Social Development Action Plan (SDAP), Gender Action Plan (GAP), Resettlement Plan (RP), and Ethnic Minority Development Plan (EMDP) are used to manage the project’s social-related activities, including specific indicators, operational measures, and monitoring systems, such as the implementing agency, cost estimates and sources, implementation timelines, monitoring indicators, monitoring cycles, and reporting systems.	The measures and suggestions are broad and lack a monitoring system.	SIA is more directional and operable than SSRA.
Assessment objective		Promotes the realization of project social benefits to achieve social sustainable development	Maintains social stability in the project area, a phased task that supports sustainable development and creates the prerequisite conditions for sustainable development.	SIA directly points to social sustainable development; while SSRA directly points to maintaining political stability and is a prerequisite for sustainable development

Source: Author’s own.

and Figure 5. The relevant viewpoints were all analyzed based on the project case in Hubei Province, China, and the current SIA policies of the ADB and the Chinese government.

It should be noted that the project is still in the implementation phase, and activities associated with the project completion stage, including post-project evaluation and formal acceptance, have not yet taken place. Accordingly, conclusions regarding these stages are drawn not only from the project’s relevant subsequent institutional arrangements but also with reference to general practices from other completed projects. This approach helps to compensate for the lack of direct observation across the entire project life cycle.

Comparative analysis reveals that the primary objective of conducting SSRA in China is to maintain social stability within the project area. This represents a stage-specific task of sustainable development and serves as a prerequisite for achieving long-term social sustainability. All elements of SSRA, including the assessment basis, contents, methods, and application of outcomes, are oriented toward the goal of preserving social stability. In contrast, SIA incorporates widely recognized international concepts and policies, including the United Nations’ SDGs, with a stronger emphasis on social sustainability dimensions, such as poverty, gender, ethnic minorities, and involuntary resettlement. SIA aims to enhance the social benefits of projects, targeting the higher-level goal of social sustainability, which goes beyond the basic objective of merely maintaining social stability. To this end, SIA has established a relatively comprehensive institutional framework covering the entire project life cycle. Accordingly, the authors associate SSRA with social stability, while SIA is associated with social sustainability.

7. Conclusions

Building upon the above research, we can derive the following research findings, implications, and reflections.

7.1. Research Findings

Project social risk represents the concentrated manifestation of a risk society within the project field. As a specialized risk management tool, project social risk assessment originated from the practice of SIA in internationally financed projects and serves as a critical instrument for ensuring the realization of SDGs throughout the project implementation process. As a social risk management tool with Chinese characteristics, SSRA draws upon the advanced experience of internationally financed projects. Although it has been developed for just over a decade, it has become increasingly prevalent not only in the engineering project domain but also across other public decision-making contexts in China.

However, as China deepens its cooperation with the international community, SSRA, as an assessment tool, needs to further align with the relatively mature yet continuously evolving field of SIA, clearly identifying its gaps and deficiencies to better correspond with the SDGs. Similarly, other countries also face ongoing challenges in improving and optimizing their SIA tools. Drawing on international experience and continuously refining domestic SIA tools constitute essential components of implementing the SDG framework.

This research combines the practical application of SIA and SSRA in an ADB loan project in Hubei Province, China, and systematically examines the linkages and discrepancies between them from the perspective of the project life cycle. Through a comparative analysis of SIA and SSRA, the following similarities were identified: the assessment subjects of both are project owners; both adhere to the principles of objectivity, scientific rigor, fairness, openness, and broad participation; both effectively incorporate classical sociological investigation methods; and both categorize risk levels as “high”, “moderate”, and “low”.

The results of the gap analysis highlight the following differences. SIA spans the entire project life cycle, involving multiple implementation subjects of assessment, and its objective is explicitly oriented toward “social sustainable development”. Beyond the project area, the assessment scope also encompasses related facilities and activities of previous projects. Greater emphasis is placed on analyzing social sustainability dimensions, such as poverty, gender, ethnic minorities, and involuntary resettlement, while international standards are adopted as evaluation benchmarks to anticipate the benefits and risks of future projects. Moreover, a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation mechanism, together with a systematic reporting framework, has been established, where evaluation outputs include not only the project preparation stage assessment report but also follow-up progress reports, monitoring and evaluation reports, completion reports, and post-evaluation reports. By contrast, SSRA is primarily conducted during the pre-project assessment and decision-making stages, involving a single implementation subject of assessment. Its primary objective focuses more narrowly on maintaining “social stability” as a prerequisite for sustainable development. The assessment scope is restricted to the local project area at the time, with emphasis on eight key aspects of project construction to identify and analyze risks that may potentially threaten social stability, referencing domestic policies and regulations to forecast future social risks. The outcomes of SSRA are confined to the assessment report alone, as follow-up monitoring mechanisms and evaluation reporting systems have yet to be established.

The analysis reveals that China’s SSRA and SIA applied in international loan projects share a high degree of similarity in four aspects: assessment subjects, assessment principles, risk investigation methods, and risk classification. However, compared with SIA, there are still significant gaps in China’s SSRA in other nine aspects, including the cycle requirement, implementation subjects of assessment, objectives, scope, contents, reference basis, forecasting functions, outcome categories, and application.

7.2. Research Implications

Building on the preceding analysis and comparison between SIA and SSRA, this research proposes a “Social Stability–Social Sustainability” progressive framework. Social stability serves as the foundational condition, while the framework emphasizes enhancing the long-term adaptive capacity of social governance through inclusion, participation, and resilience, thereby achieving genuine social sustainability. This framework not only provides a theoretical explanation for the differences between the two tools in terms of institutional logic, assessment indicators, and governance pathways, but also offers guidance for the localized improvement of SSRA in China. Specifically, it suggests (i) incorporating social sustainability dimensions into early-stage risk identification; (ii) strengthening monitoring, grievance mechanisms, and public participation during the implementation and post-evaluation phases; and (iii) promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration at the policy level, including party and government committees, project owners, and independent assessment agencies, to embed “resilience-oriented stability” into the regular assessment indicator system. These recommendations align with international good practices in SIA and social sustainability and provide actionable pathways for refining assessment tools for future ADB and similar projects in China. The author considers this to be a novel insight arising from a case-based life cycle approach. These findings can provide valuable guidance and direction for SSRA operational departments (typically located within party and government committees), assessment entities (project owners), evaluation agencies and practitioners, and frontline staff at the county and township levels, offering practical ideas for improving routine work.

Based on the above findings, social stability is a prerequisite for achieving social sustainability. The core of SSRA is “risk prevention”, focusing on whether a project or policy may trigger immediate and overt social tensions or conflicts, with the goal of maintaining stable order. In contrast, the core of SIA is “development promotion”, emphasizing the long-term and comprehensive social changes a project or policy may bring to communities and populations, with the objective of maximizing project benefits and achieving sustainability. Thus, SSRA and SIA should not be viewed as a simple dichotomy; rather, they operate at different levels and have a progressive relationship. The risk-averse nature of SSRA can be interpreted as a form of resilience-building, which is crucial for sustainable development.

7.3. Institutional Analysis Behind the Differences

The differences between SSRA and SIA profoundly reflect the tension and potential synergy between the two core governance objectives of “stability” and “development”, which remain central issues in contemporary Chinese social governance.

The “social risk prevention” orientation of SSRA is institutionally grounded in the political priority of “Stability First”. It transforms complex and often unpredictable social stability events into manageable “risk” indicators, with the primary objective of addressing potential threats to social governance at an early decision-making stage. In doing so, SSRA clears obstacles to normal socio-economic activities and provides a secure operational environment. This tool- and technology-oriented governance model demonstrates the state’s effort to depoliticize potential social conflicts through anticipatory governance, integrating them into the administrative system for internal management and resolution. The risk-avoidance nature of SSRA can be interpreted as a form of resilience-building that is critical for sustainable development. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain stable social order, thereby creating the necessary conditions for long-term sustainability.

In contrast, the philosophy of SIA aligns more closely with the sustainability-oriented shift under a “Development First” strategy. While it does not ignore stability, SIA seeks a deeper, longer-term form of “resilient stability” grounded in social welfare and equity. By systematically assessing fundamental social elements, such as social benefits, social risks, and stakeholders including vulnerable groups, SIA aims to optimize project design and promote the equitable sharing of development outcomes. In doing so, it mitigates adverse project impacts on a broader and more inclusive scale, alleviates potential social tensions arising from project implementation, and maintains long-term social stability, thereby strengthening the social foundation for sustainable development.

Therefore, the distinction between SSRA and SIA fundamentally reflects a dual temporal perspective on the concept of “stability”: SSRA emphasizes short-term, order-centered “rigid stability”, whereas SIA focuses on long-term, development-oriented “resilient stability”. The two are not mutually exclusive; instead, they represent different institutional expressions of managing priority objectives in a nuanced and specialized manner within the Chinese and international governance systems. Together, within the dialectical framework of “seeking stability through development and promoting development through stability”, SSRA and SIA jointly serve the broader goal of modernizing national governance.

In summary, China’s SSRA has partially inherited and incorporated the concepts, experiences, and methodologies of SIA from international loan projects while adapting them to the unique Chinese socio-political context. With the ongoing transformation of Chinese society, the further integration of advanced international practices and perspectives could catalyze a shift from a primary emphasis on maintaining “social stability” toward the broader objective of fostering “social sustainability”. This phenomenon is also observed in other countries. Consequently, China’s localized practices in social impact assessment, along with the existing gaps compared to international benchmarks, could offer valuable insights for other countries in developing and refining their own systems.

Of course, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research, including its reliance on a single case—multiple cases would provide stronger empirical support—as well as the unique nature of the case, which involved both SIA and SSRA. Consequently, caution should be exercised when applying the findings of this research, and their relevance should be carefully assessed in light of the specific circumstances of each project.