The efficacy of public participation in ESIA: a review of procedural flaws and institutional constraints

Public participation in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) enjoys normative endorsement in lending frameworks, conventions and national law, evidence accumulated since 2020 points a persistent gap between commitment and practice. This integrative review draws 21 primary sources from 2020 to 2025 and 14 earlier works, with country evidence concentrated in Africa, Latin America and Europe. It distinguishes integrated ESIA regimes from systems which social impact assessment operates separately. Procedurally, it examines late engagement, information asymmetries, one-directional formats, exclusion along lines of gender and socioeconomic standing, and deficient feedback. Institutionally, examines regulatory fragmentation, enforcement deficits, proponent-funded assessment, political interference and absence of independent oversight. Judged against Arnstein’s ladder, the IAP2 spectrum, deliberative democracy, the split ladder and multidimensional effectiveness criteria, participation operates overwhelmingly at tokenistic registers of informing and consultation. An anticipatory evaluative framework is advanced that treats process design, institutional architecture and power relations as co-determinants of participatory quality, each with five criteria. The review assesses four institutional models that reform proposals invoke, conditions sustaining each and their documented limits. Reform is set out as conditional propositions specifying enabling conditions and implementation risks rather than transferable prescriptions.