The Missing Metric
Why Access Stability Should Shape Your Next Investment or Bid
You’re reviewing two promising opportunities.
One’s in Ghana. The other, Ethiopia.
Both tick the boxes: permits secured, ESG baselines cleared, political risk flagged as “manageable.”
But within six months, one is bogged down by local tensions, off-track, and over budget.
The other progresses steadily, with fewer headlines, fewer delays, and lower total cost.
On paper, they looked the same.
The difference wasn’t permits.
It wasn’t stakeholder reports.
It wasn’t whether someone claimed to have a social licence.
It was something more fundamental and almost never measured.
Access Stability: a measurable score that tells you whether you can actually work—safely, consistently, and without disruption.
Most disruption in complex environments is not caused by technical failure.
It is caused by what we broadly call non-technical risk.
This includes the operational fragility that comes from informal gatekeeping, social tension, contested land, deteriorating security, or abrupt regulatory shifts.
Whether you're delivering a capital project, managing field operations, or developing early-stage assets, these are the risks that derail plans, delay outcomes, and distort value.
And yet, they remain poorly integrated into most planning, valuation, or approval processes.
Access Stability is designed to change that.
It turns non-technical risk into something you can see, score, and manage.
What Looks Like Confidence Is Often Blindness
Inside most project decisions, the paperwork looks solid.
There is a risk register.
A stakeholder matrix.
Security inputs.
A community engagement summary.
Each document is dense, credible, and deeply siloed.
Legal confirms the permits.
The ESG team affirms participation.
The security lead flags national-level threats.
Someone adds, “We’ve got a social licence to operate,” as if that is a switch, not a spectrum.
It feels like due diligence.
It sounds like preparedness.
But it often stops short of asking the right questions.
Most teams start with a simple one:
“Should we operate here?”
More mature teams go a step further.
They ask, “Can we operate safely, reliably, and without unacceptable disruption?”
But the question that really matters - the one that strategy, capital, and delivery all depend on - is this:
“What will it cost to get to that point, and can we sustain it?”
That is not a compliance question. It is a strategic one.
And right now, it is rarely answered and often not even asked.
The result?
Projects proceed on faulty assumptions
Fragility is inherited during acquisition
Bids are submitted with false confidence
Value erodes slowly, and often invisibly
What is missing is not more data.
It is a way to bring it together and see what it actually means.
That is what Access Stability provides.
What Access Is Really Made Of
By now, some readers - especially those in security, programmes, or legal roles - might be thinking:
“Of course we ask the tough questions. Of course we assess whether we can operate. That’s our job.”
And that is fair. Many teams already monitor elements of access.
But the real gap is not awareness. It is structure, integration, and decision utility.
Most teams are pricing in aspects of access risk.
Very few are doing it in a way that allows for comparison, costing, or actionable oversight.
Access risk is not new.
It has been with us since the first humans crossed into neighbouring territory to trade flint or salt.
What is new is the ability to measure it and manage it with strategic intent.
Most projects come with stacks of assessments: security reviews, stakeholder maps, HRIAs, and EIAs.
These are useful inputs. But without a framework, they remain fragmented.
They do not drive decisions. They sit on shelves.
That is why we break access into seven overlapping risk factors.
Together, they shape your ability to operate safely, reliably, and without unacceptable disruption.
1. Security
This includes threats from armed conflict, intercommunal violence, and organised crime.
But it is not just about identifying risk. It is about whether that risk can be managed in line with your duty of care, safeguarding responsibilities, and asset protection standards.
2. Acceptance
This is not a binary social licence.
Acceptance moves along a spectrum—from tolerance to active support to latent opposition.
It varies by group, evolves over time, and shapes how your presence is interpreted.
3. Gatekeeping
Gatekeepers shape legitimacy and control access.
They may be formal authorities, informal actors, or both.
Knowing who holds real influence and what it takes to maintain that standing is essential.
4. Physical Constraints
Terrain, weather, infrastructure failures, or informal tolls can all limit access.
You may have a permit, but if the road washes out or is held by tax-collecting militia, you are restricted in practice, not just on paper.
5. Biosecurity and Cultural Restrictions
Health zones, sacred sites, and protected ecosystems can limit or block access entirely.
These constraints are rarely negotiable and often carry operational, legal, or reputational risk.
6. Legal Compliance
Permits matter. But legal authority does not always translate into real-world control.
Weak institutions, overlapping mandates, or contested jurisdiction can block even fully compliant projects.
7. Land Tenure
Who holds land rights: formally, customarily, or informally?
Unclear boundaries, overlapping claims, or legacy grievances surface quickly when land use changes.
These risks do not appear in isolation.
They overlap. They compound. And when left unstructured, they hide fragility behind the appearance of readiness.
Access does not usually fail because no one saw it coming.
It fails because the signals were scattered and never joined up.
That is why we do not just observe these factors.
We score them.
Access Stability: A Metric That Makes Risk Comparable
Access Stability is not just a lens. It is a metric.
A structured, composite score that captures your real ability to operate - safely, reliably, and without unacceptable disruption.
It draws from the seven access risk factors.
Each one is assessed, weighted, and combined into a single, interpretable score built for decision-making.
Access Stability does not replace ESG frameworks, security reviews, or permitting systems.
It connects them and turns fragmented inputs into structured insight.
This metric gives you:
A quantified view of current access conditions
A basis for comparing assets, bids, and jurisdictions
A way to judge what can be tolerated, what needs treatment, and what will remain residual
And crucially, it brings cost into the picture.
If mitigating fragility in Jurisdiction A costs one million dollars,
and in Jurisdiction B it is half that,
but in Jurisdiction C the risks cannot realistically be reduced,
you now have something most organisations lack:
a risk-adjusted, cost-informed basis for deciding where to invest, what to pursue, and what to walk away from.
The Acceptance Continuum
Access as a Delivery Strategy
Access conditions do not stay still.
Security improves. Acceptance erodes. Gatekeepers shift. Tensions fade or flare.
That is why Access Stability is not just a one-time diagnostic.
It functions as a Key Risk Indicator; a live read on your operating environment over time.
It helps boards, global teams, and project leads:
Track access health
Reallocate resources
Adjust posture before disruption takes hold
Access is not just a constraint.
It is a delivery system.
It links ambition to operating reality and shapes whether strategy gets delivered at all.
Access Stability may not be perfect.
But when it comes to non-technical risk, it is as close as we have come to a single metric that actually matters.
What’s Next Depends on What You See
Most teams know you can’t deliver what you can’t reach.
But access is still widely misunderstood.
It is often reduced to logistics or security: is the road clear, is it safe enough, can we get in?
That is part of it, but only part.
Access is not just physical. It is not just about threat.
It is a strategic condition, shaped by perception, gatekeeping, acceptance, and time.
Many teams treat access as fixed.
In reality, it shifts constantly.
What matters is not just whether you have access today.
It is whether you will still have it tomorrow.
Access Stability gives you a way to see that risk clearly.
It helps you track it, cost it, and manage it.
Because access does not only affect delivery.
It affects value.
Strong access might not raise your valuation.
But poor access will almost certainly lower it.
So, the question is not just how to get access.
It is what you are willing to do, and what you are willing to spend, to keep it.