Avoiding harm or creating benefit? How a risk focus sidelines social considerations in early decisions for Australian infrastructure projects

There is a growing need to maximise the social benefits achieved from public investment in infrastructure, particularly with the transition to net zero economies. Project Delivery Models (PDMs)—the contractual agreements that set out roles and responsibilities for infrastructure project partners—can underpin the delivery of social benefits, yet the processes involving their selection are largely opaque. In this paper we explore how social considerations inform PDM selection and how this is facilitated by policy. We interviewed highly experienced procurement professionals from the sector about how social benefits and risks are considered. We also examined how the associated regulatory environment supports social considerations through documentary analysis of auditing guidance documents. We found that not only are social benefits sidelined in early project decisions, but social risks are inadequately considered. An entrenched gap in social expertise contributes to this situation while project compartmentalisation presents challenges for inclusion and transparency in decision-making. Current auditing processes provide little incentive for social benefit consideration and reinforce both risk framing and compartmentalisation of major infrastructure projects. The paper offers new and important insights into this early project stage and distils five recommendations for improving social benefit creation from infrastructure investments, particularly in developed economies.