Methodology Summary v1.0 · Public
This is the public version of the methodology behind the Social Accord Architecture risk quantifier. It explains what the tool measures, the standards it is built on, and how to read the score. The full methodology, including specific weights, multiplier formulas, and the complete recommendation matrix, is available to paying subscribers.
Author: Thomas Gaultier · Version 1.0 · May 2026
What the tool measures
The platform quantifies social risk exposure for projects in the extractive, energy, and infrastructure sectors. The score is built from 17 independent risk dimensions, each evaluated on its own merits and then combined into a single Social Risk Score between 0 and 100. The dimensions were chosen to reflect the realities of how community-driven conflict actually escalates in the field, not from a desk-based theoretical framework.
The 17 risk dimensions
| Dimension | What it captures |
|---|---|
| Community Resistance & Disruption History | Past incidents, organised opposition, protests, blockades, and physical disruption to operations |
| Legal Action & Litigation History | Formal legal proceedings, arbitration, demand letters, and prior litigation exposure |
| Engagement Architecture | Maturity of the community engagement programme, from ad-hoc to embedded |
| Grievance Mechanism | Existence and credibility of a formal complaints process |
| Human Rights Risk | Risk of harm to rights-holders, severity, and remediation status |
| FPIC Process | Free, Prior and Informed Consent process status with indigenous communities |
| Displacement & Resettlement | Scale and severity of physical and economic displacement |
| Water Stress | Community competition for water and watershed pressure |
| Environmental Sensitivity | Biodiversity, ecosystem, and pollution exposure |
| Cultural Heritage | Risk to tangible and intangible cultural sites |
| Team Capacity | Internal community relations and mediation team experience level |
| Media & NGO Exposure | Visibility profile and active civil society scrutiny |
| Governance & Political Stability | Operating environment stability and rule-of-law quality |
| Labour Relations | State of workforce relations and union dynamics |
| Artisanal & Small-Scale Mining | Presence and conflict potential of informal sector activity |
| Supply Chain ESG Scrutiny | Downstream buyer and disclosure requirements |
| Regulatory Compliance | Adoption of recognised due diligence frameworks |
Scoring approach
Each of the 17 dimensions is evaluated on its own, then combined through a weighted formula. Three project-level context multipliers, sector, project stage, and operational region , modulate dimension scores to reflect the operating environment. A commodity multiplier adjusts where relevant. Adoption of regulatory frameworks reduces the overall score.
The combination is not arbitrary. Dimensions that are stronger predictors of operational disruption (community resistance, engagement maturity, and human rights risk) carry more weight than dimensions that are secondary or contextual. The weighting reflects evidence from peer-reviewed research including the Davis and Franks (2014) Harvard Kennedy School study, ICMM case data, and field-tested patterns from over 2,000 community grievances resolved in Mozambique and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Resolved dimensions
Nine of the 17 dimensions support a “resolved” state. When a risk has been fully addressed (displacement completed per IFC PS5, human rights remediation verified, community resistance settled through agreement), the dimension shifts into a maintenance posture.
The model assigns a residual score of 0.05 rather than zero, reflecting that even resolved issues require ongoing vigilance. The recommendation engine produces lighter monitoring tasks rather than intensive remediation when a dimension is marked resolved.
Regulatory grounding
The methodology is grounded in the regulatory and best-practice frameworks that lenders, investors, and courts actually use when assessing social risk. Adopting these frameworks reduces the overall score in the model, reflecting the empirical reality that projects aligned with these standards experience fewer and less severe conflicts.
Reading the score
The Social Risk Score is a single number between 0 and 100. Lower is better. The score is grouped into four operational bands, each with a specific interpretation:
Manageable opposition, minor frictions. Maintenance and monitoring posture.
Recurring tensions, permitting friction, growing scrutiny. Active engagement needed.
Sustained disputes, blockades likely, legal proceedings probable. Structured remediation required.
Project-threatening conflict, arbitration likely, abandonment risk. Immediate action.
Platform outputs
The score is the starting point, not the conclusion. From the Social Risk Score and the dimension breakdown, the platform produces:
Example scores
Anonymised but realistic examples of how the model interprets a project profile.
Example 1
Permitting-stage copper project
Sub-Saharan Africa
71
High RiskDrivers: Structured engagement in place but grievance mechanism still informal. FPIC process not yet started despite the presence of indigenous communities. Moderate displacement planned. Historical opposition documented but not violent.
Roadmap highlights
FPIC initiation → Critical · 0–3 months
Grievance mechanism formalisation → Critical · 0–3 months
Recommended community budget: 4.5–7% of OPEX
Example 2
Operating gold mine
Resolved community resistance
28
Medium RiskDrivers: Previous community resistance resolved through documented community agreement and independent monitoring (marked resolved). Structured engagement programme and third-party grievance mechanism in place. FPIC completed. Production-stage benefits flowing.
Roadmap posture
Quarterly compliance review
Biannual perception surveys
Annual independent audit
Score acts as evidence of strong social licence for lenders and ESG-rated investor mandates.
About the author
Thomas Gaultier is the architect of the Social Accord Architecture and the methodology behind the getsocialaccord.com platform. New York Bar admission. LL.M. in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Lecturer in Negotiation and Mediation at the Catholic University of Portugal. Over 2,000 community grievances resolved through field mediation, primarily in Mozambique and across Sub-Saharan Africa. The platform operationalises a methodology developed and field-tested across more than a decade of practice on the front line of mining and infrastructure projects.
Full Methodology White Paper
Available to Explorer, Portfolio, and Enterprise subscribers as a watermarked PDF.