Beyond Compliance: Environmental and Social Audits and Sustainability Outcomes in Electricity Transmission Infrastructure in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area, Uganda

Environmental and Social Audits (ESAs) are institutionalised post‑implementation accountability mechanisms intended to ensure that infrastructure projects meet environmental sustainability and social equity standards. This document‑based study evaluates ESA effectiveness for electricity transmission infrastructure in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA), Uganda, using a qualitative‑dominant mixed documentary approach. A purposive sample of 24 ESA and related follow‑up documents (2015–2025) was systematically coded and analysed using deductive and inductive thematic techniques; compliance indicators were extracted for descriptive quantitative comparison. Findings reveal a persistent compliance–outcome paradox: audit records routinely document procedural adherence but provide limited, verifiable evidence of ecological recovery or social redress. Structural constraints identified include epistemic erasure, institutional fragility and weak stakeholder participation. Audit frameworks show ecological blind spots notably under‑monitoring of habitat fragmentation and avian mortality and recurring social grievances over land acquisition, compensation delays and perceived electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Descriptive indicator comparisons and a diagnostic OLS model indicate a weak association between reported compliance and documented sustainability outcomes (compliance coefficient = 0.12, Std. Error = 0.09, t = 1.33, p = 0.18, R^2 = 0.08). The study concludes that ESAs in GKMA currently function more as symbolic governance instruments than as transformative sustainability tools. It recommends reorienting audit systems towards participatory, adaptive and knowledge‑inclusive frameworks that institutionalise long‑term ecological monitoring, embed community‑based auditing and establish binding enforcement mechanisms to ensure audit findings translate into measurable outcomes.

Environmental and Social Audits; compliance–outcome gap; electricity transmission; epistemic erasure

1. Arts, J., Caldwell, P., & Bäckstrand, K. (2012). Environmental assessment and governance: The implementation gap. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(3), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cashmore, M. (2004). The role and functioning of environmental assessment: A critical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 343–372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Geneletti, D. (2021). Assessing cumulative and landscape scale impacts in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 86, Article 106517. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2019). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (5th ed.). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Jenkins, A. R., Smallwood, K., & Smith, P. (2010). Avian collisions with power lines: A review of causes and mitigation. Bird Conservation International, 20(3), 263–278. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Newig, J., Fritsch, O., & Challies, E. (2019). Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Norström, A. V., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Reed, M. S., et al. (2018). Participatory monitoring and community based approaches in environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Runhaar, H., Driessen, P., & Uittenbroek, C. (2020). From procedural to substantive: Rethinking environmental assessment effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(3), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Tengö, M., et al. (2021). Knowledge co production and Indigenous knowledge in environmental governance. Ambio, 50, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. World Bank. (2014). [Report on infrastructure and regulatory capacity]. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. World Health Organization. (2020). Electromagnetic fields and public health: Exposure guidelines and evidence review. Geneva: WHO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
• Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
• Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
• Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
• Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area