Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Determining impact and return of csi updated (2)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Determining impact and return of csi updated (2)

789
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
789
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Determining Impact and Return of Corporate Social Investment Presented by Reana Rossouw Next Generation Consultants
  • 2. Why the pressure to measure?
    • The debate on impacts and return on investment are playing out in three arenas:
      • In private foundations and corporate CSI divisions aiming to be more strategic about their philanthropy, grantmaking and social investments
      • In nonprofit organisations in response to pressures from foundations and government
      • Among international development organisations such as bilateral government agencies and non governmental organisations (NGOs) seeking to improve development effectiveness.
    • The pressures to demonstrate impact and return are likely to increase across all sectors in times of economic crisis, as public and private resources diminish and as competition for existing resources heightens.
  • 3. Global Literary Review
    • Variety of purposes
      • One can and should use cost and impact data to make funding allocation decisions across program areas
        • You can compare programs once you get in the sector of global health, but you cannot compare global health vs arts vs education vs sport.
      • One can and should use cost and impact data to make funding decisions within program areas
        • It is not about building a unifying measurement across domains, but to build a conceptual framework of having the biggest impact across a dollar (Rand value) unit. So it is not about comparing health to education to sport or the arts, but to determine which program yields the highest return for the most effective use of resources
  • 4. Global Literary Review
    • Three Primary applications
    • Prospective
      • Looking forward to determine whether or not the projected costs and benefits indicate a favourable investment
    • Ongoing
      • Testing assumptions and projections along the way in order to aid course correction
    • Retrospective
      • Looking back to determine whether or not it was a favourable investment given the costs incurred, in order to inform future decisions
  • 5. Global Literary Review
    • The lure of false precision
      • Detailed and complex programs lead to complicated methodologies
    • The desire for the silver bullet
      • Single numeric numbers to indicate success or failure
    • The risk of cherry picking
      • High results in impact or return might lead to favoritism and not focusing on real issue – socio economic development i.e. developmental approaches
  • 6. Impact Assessment – WHY?
    • Because we call it an investment – not a grant or gift!
    • Cost savings – to avoid future investment mistakes
    • Improved data quality - to ensure future funding and investment decisions are correctly assessed in terms of community impact and return on investment
    • To built internal capacity – around monitoring and evaluation internally (the organisation) and externally (for service providers)
    • Greater credibility – to create a baseline for current knowledge, and to create a benchmark for future best practice as well as the ability to benchmark against peers
    • Shared measurement – To create a common platform for data capture and analysis, including specific performance and/or outcome/impact indicators
    • Comparative performance – A common platform for data capture and analysis in which all industry players/sectors/participants within the development sector use the same measures, uniformly defined and collected
    • Adaptive learning – An ongoing participatory process that enables all participants to collectively measure, learn, coordinate, and improve performance of the social development sector
  • 7. Impact Assessment – HOW? Strategic Review (CSI Strategy) Operational Review (CSI Management) Programme Review (Impact Assessment)
    • Also reviewed
    • Business Strategy
    • Brand Strategy
    • Operational Strategy
    • Sustainability Strategy
    • Human Resources
    • Finance and Budgets
    • Technology
    • Marketing & Communications
    • Governance
    • Grantmaking Processes and Systems
    • Stakeholder Engagement
    • Research and Development
    • Programme Design and Management and Implementation
    • Partnerships
    • Resources
    • Focus Areas – Flagship Programmes
  • 8. Main Impacts Impact on program components
    • More community needs assessment needs to be done – even if through service providers and this needs to form the basis of applications for funding
    • More stakeholder engagement is encouraged and this dialogue and feedback needs to form the strategic objective of programs and strategies
    Impact on program objectives
    • More indicators needs to be identified
    • More indicators need to be applied more consistently and uniformly
    • The range of indicators need to be confirmed in MOU’s and reported on regularly
    Impact on service providers
    • It needs to be remembered that service providers are not beneficiaries, merely implementers of programmes
    • They are responsible for execution, implementation and evaluation
    • They must be able to prove impact and return on the effectiveness of their program approaches, methodologies and outcomes
    Impact on Employees
    • Employee impacts could be regarded as business benefits – in future this should be calculated against business return on investment and included as an additional indicator for return on investment
    Impact on Business
    • Brands need to be more integrated and aligned to specific programmes
    • Measurement and information management (data collection processes) needs to be established
    • The value of ROI needs to be clearly aligned to business objectives of the brands
    • The value of ROI needs to be more clearly defined and measured to prove and determine impact
    Impact on beneficiaries
    • Indictors needs to be more clearly defined and quantified
    • Outcome and output need to be more clearly defined and measured
    • Measurement needs to align with reporting cycles
    • Focus areas need to be more aligned with community benefits and impacts
    Impact on the CSI division
    • More involvement with communities and stakeholder engagement should be encouraged
    • More regular monitoring and evaluation must be done and followed up
    • Program managers must take more ownership in program evaluations and reports from service providers
  • 9. Strategic Impacts
    • Lack of overall CSI Strategy
    • Lack of business alignment
    • Lack of operational alignment
    • Lack of brand alignment
    • Lack of reactive focus / investment areas
    • Lack of focus
    • Lack of integrated interventions
    • Lack of business integration
    • Lack of governance
    • Lack of innovation
    • Lack of employee involvement
    • Lack of partnerships
    • Lack of logical fit with strategic business
    • Lack of stakeholder and community engagement
    • Lack of transparency and sharing of knowledge
    • Lack of non cash contributions
    • Lack of social change
    • Lack of leadership support (operational units)
    • Vastly different programme logic, programme styles, programme designs, programme implementation and management
    • Influence of the shareholder
  • 10. Impact
    • Operational:
    • Operational Risk
    • Financial Resources
    • Human Resources
    • Technology, Processes and Systems
    • Marketing, Branding and Communications
    • Governance
    • Programme:
    • Qualitative
    • Quantitative
    • Stakeholders
    • Measurement Indicators
    • Return
    • Impact
  • 11. Case Studies Edcon & Transnet
  • 12. Program Logic Model High Community Impact Low Business Impact Low community Impact Low Business Impact High Business Impact Low Community Impact High Community Impact High Business Impact Community Impact Business Impact/Return
  • 13. Impact Value Chain Activities: Return: Impact: Input: What the program does with inputs to fulfill its mission Benefits or changes for beneficiaries during or after program activities The direct products of program activities What the short, medium and long term results are on all stakeholder groups What the business achieved as a result of its investment Access to new infrastructure Decline in infant mortality Less dependency on grants, etc. Increase in brand awareness and reputation Mitigate environ-mental impacts and risks Recruitment of new talent and skills, etc. New knowledge, increased skills, changed attitudes or values, modified behavior, improved conditions, altered status, etc. Number of classes taught, number of counseling sessions conducted, value of educational materials distributed, hours of service delivered, number of participants served, etc Feed and shelter homeless facilities, provide job training, educate the public about signs of child abuse, counsel pregnant women, create mentoring relationships for the youth, etc Resources dedicated to or consumed by the program FACTORS Money, staff and staff time, volunteers and volunteer time, facilities, equipment and supplies, infrastructure, etc. Output: Outcome: R E S U L T S NEXT GENERATION FOCUS
  • 14. Impact Value Chain - Our Formula Hierarchy Inputs Outputs Outcome Impacts Returns Definition Resources invested (e.g. money, skills, etc.) Goods and services generated by the use of inputs (short-term) Expected changes in access, usage, behaviour or performance (medium-term) Ultimate (long-term) effect of the intervention on a key dimension of the development (e.g. living standards) (long-term) Direct or indirect business benefits/ value generated by activities/ programs/ interventions Qualitative Indicators Value of investment, number of hours, number of books, hours Number of schools, number of volunteer, number of teachers, students % change – access to health services, education, government infrastructure, pass rates Students finding employment, people with skills finding employment Number of graduates hired by company, % change in grievance, complaints received by company Qualitative indicators Stakeholders satisfaction with the programme Perceptions of schools, educators, learners, Beneficiaries reporting benefits and application of skills, education Quality of links to local employment opportunities, perceptions of improved socio economic status or opportunities Changes in community / customer/ employee perceptions attributable directly/ indirectly to CSI
  • 15. Impact Assessment Model High Community Impact Community Impact Business Impact/Return Beneficiary Stakeholder Group 1 Communities Stakeholder Group 2 Beneficiaries / Stakeholder Group 3 Other Beneficiaries / Stakeholders Group 4 Business Impact/ Return 1 Business Impact/ Return 2 Business Impact Return 3 High Business Impact Low community Impact Low Business Return METHODOLOGY: The more beneficiary stakeholder groups affected the greater the impact: Within the stakeholder group, the more impacts achieved the greater the impact and return Community Impact 1 Community Impact 3 Community Impact 2 Community Impact 1 Community Impact 1 Community Impact 2
  • 16. Assessment Formula Business Impact - Reputation Business Impact – Shareholder priority Business Impact – BEE Scorecard Any other benefits Donor Community Any Other Communities Beneficiary Communities – Stakeholder Groups Impact Recipient Communities or Individuals Government Community Business Impact + Total Impact and Return = = =
  • 17. Internal Rate of Return - Edcon 5:3 – Acceptable/Satisfactory Internal Rate of Return
  • 18. Internal Rate of Return - Transnet 165 41 27:7 6 Number of Community Impacts Number of Business Impacts : Take highest number of scores divide by the number of programmes to get average return which becomes the Internal Rate of Return Total Number of Community Impacts Total Number of Business Impacts / : Average Number of Programmes = 6 X:Y Measured against individual programme performance, determine whether or not it is high impact or high return programmes
  • 19. Matrix: Qualitative Measurement Community Impact Business Impact BEE Scorecard Contribution Employer of Choice Employee Involvement Brand/ Reputation Objectives Customer Perceptions Competitiveness Sale of merchandise Business Integration Business Units / Divisions
    • Organisational/ Service Provider Impact
    • Contribution to operational costs
    • Job Creation/Skills Development
    • Organisational impact (knowledge, capacity and skills increase)
    • Leveraging of funds - Impact on resources – access to more resources/funding/funders
    • PR / Marketing exposure
    • Leverage of government policy/ funding/grants/ priority focus areas
    • Supporting government objectives / priorities
    • Increased number of beneficiaries served – extent reach and impact
    • Less dependency on Government grants/funds
    • Stimulate local economy
    • Beneficiary / Individual / Community Impact
    • Increased access to jobs/education/ qualification/ skills/careers
    • Increased empowerment, self esteem, self worth, better quality of life
    • Increased skills and qualifications
    • Infrastructure development (additional resources)
    • Increased knowledge, skills, pass rates
    • Increased Literacy and knowledge
    • Change in behaviours and attitudes
    • Increased motivation and mentorship, aspiration and confidence
    • More stable communities, better services, more efficient
    • Filling critical government gaps/shortages
    • Strengthen and built communities
    • Wider societal transformation
    • Prevention of crime, substance abuse, sexual risky behavior
    • Payment of fees (tuition)
    • Employee Impact
    • Opportunity to give / contribute
    • Opportunity to learn / develop skills
    • Contribute to diversity/transformation – employer of choice
  • 20. Quantitative Measurement
    • Community Impact: Service Providers:
    • Number of Organisations benefited
    • Value of resources leveraged
    • Number of beneficiaries reached
    • Number of Projects
    • Value of Contributions
    • Community Impact: Beneficiaries
    • Number of beneficiaries benefited (Profiles)
    • Number of service hours
    • Number of schools / institutions of learning
    • Number of rural communities
    • Number of projects/programmes
    • Value of Goods/resources
    • Number of courses
    • Value of resources
    • Pass Rates
    • Community Impact: Employees
    • Number of employees involved
    • Number of beneficiaries (organisations)
    • Amounts raised
    • Value of resources/skills/hours donated
    • Increase in giving/skills acquired/involvement
    • Community Impact: Business
    • Number of impacts
    • Value of impacts
    • Value of sales
    • Number of employees
    • Value of PR
    • Value of CSI Spent
    • Number of brands/stores/business units involved
    • BEE points gained
    • Value to customers
  • 21. Quantifying and Qualifying ROI The ability to PROVE - scientifically! PR Value + Employee Value + BEE Value + Customer Perception Brand Value (Reputation) = Total Return on Investment + Sales value
  • 22. Determining Impact: Scorecards 0 – 2 Impacts = Low 3 – 5 Impacts = Medium 5+ Impacts = High A scorecard to assess the overall impact of the programme vs the overall return on investment. Meaning community impact vs business impact:
  • 23. JCA 8:4 Community Impact Reputation Brand Impact Customer Perceptions – Caring Company Organisational Impact (Training workshops) – knowledge/skills Increased number of beneficiaries served increased community reach Business Impact Increased impact on beneficiaries – better services – more efficient – more skills and jobs Number of Organisations benefited Number of Beneficiaries benefited Organisational Impact Contributions to operational costs Impact on resources and funding – more resources and additional funding Job Creation and Skills Development (Community & Beneficiaries PR Value Increased sales and accounts Additional Funding and leverage of funding PR/Marketing Exposure Brand/ Business Alignment
  • 24. City Year Community Impact Reputation Brand Impact Organisational Impact Organisational Capacity Leverage funding other donors Service Leaders: Improved job search skills Business Impact Service Leaders: Improved motivation, aspiration, confidence and self esteem BEE Scorecard Learners: Motivation and mentorship Number of organisations benefited - schools Number of Beneficiaries benefited – service leaders Number of Beneficiaries benefited – learners Number of service hours PR/Media Value Customer Perceptions Service Leaders: Increased qualifications/ skills Service Leaders: Access mainstream opportunities education and jobs Schools: Additional resources for teachers in classrooms Organisational Impact Supporting government priority – (Youth Development) and building South Africa’s democracy Community Impact: Integrating community development, supporting broader community partnerships Number of courses/ classes 9:3
  • 25. I Choose to give 4:3 Community Impact Employer of Choice Organisational Impact Additional resources – additional funds – leverage of funding Number of beneficiaries increase – impact increase Business Impact Brand and Reputation Caring Company Employee Impact – Transformation Life Skills Development Number of employees Number of beneficiary organisations Organisational Capacity Number of organisations increase and number of beneficiaries increase Amount raised Link between stores and local communities
  • 26. Evaluation and Total Programme Participation Programmes Indicators - Organisation Indicators – Community Indicators - Employees Indicators – Business Impact Total Outcomes Total Impact Community Business ROI Jet Community Awards 6 2 0 4 6:2:4 8:4 City Year 2 7 0 3 2:7:3 9:3 I choose to Give 2 1 1 3 2:1:1:3 4:3 SOS Children’s Village 2 2 0 2 2:2:2 4:2 Dreamfields 0 5 1 4 6:4 6:4 Star Schools 1 5 0 1 1:5:1 6:1 Casual Day 3 2 1 3 3:2:1:3 6:3 Thuthuka Bursary Fund 1 1 0 1 1:1:1 2:1 Red Cress Children’s Hospital 7 2 0 2 7:2:2 9:2 Biblionef 1 9 1 2 1:9:1:2 11:2 Clothing Donations 2 2 0 2 2:2:2 4:2 HIV & Me 3 10 0 1 3:10:1 13:1
  • 27. Evaluation and Total Programme Outcome Programmes Score/Rating Observations Recommendations Jet Community Awards 8:4 High Impact High Return Continue and Expand Find more of these type of programmes City Year 9:3 High Impact Low Return Either adjust and redesign program for higher impact or cancel program I choose to Give 4:3 Low Impact Low Return Program needs to be redefined with service provider to more clearly define impact and return SOS Children’s Village 4:2 Low Impact Low Return Need to more clearly define indicators for measure or except low return and impact Dreamfields 6:4 High Impact Low Return Either adjust and redesign program or cancel program due to strategic importance of driving merchandise sales (to increase ROI) Star Schools 6:1 High Impact Low Return Program needs to be redefined with service provider to more clearly define return Casual Day 6:3 High impact Low Return Continue – expand program – redefine to ensure greater impact Thuthuka Bursary Fund 2:1 Low impact and Low Return Either adjust and redesign program or cancel program Red Cress Children’s Hospital 9:2 High impact Low Return Program has come to natural end Biblionef 11:2 High Impact Low Return Redesign program for higher return Clothing Donations 4:2 Low Impact Low Return Redefine and redesign program to ensure greater impact and return HIV & Me 13:1 High Impact Low Return Expand program or redesign to ensure greater return
  • 28. Impact and Return: Program Logic Model High community impact Low business return Low community impact Low business return Low community impact High business return High community impact High business return JET COMMUNITY AWARDS City Year; SOS Children’s Village; Dreamfields; Star Schools, Casual Day, Red Cross Children’s Hospital, Biblionef, HIV& Me I choose to give; Thuthuka Bursary Fund; Clothing Donations
  • 29. Impact Assessment and Return on Investment: Applying the internal rate of return methodology: 5:3 Programmes Score/Rating Observations Jet Community Awards 8:4 Achieved return City Year 9:3 Achieved return I choose to Give 4:3 Need to increase community impact SOS Children’s Village 4:2 Need to increase business impact Dreamfields 6:4 Achieved return Star Schools 6:1 Need to increase business impact Casual Day 6:3 Achieved return Thuthuka Bursary Fund 2:1 Need to make strategic decision – either redesign to increase impact and return or move program to another division or cancel program Red Cress Children’s Hospital 9:2 Need to increase business impact – however, program has come to an end Biblionef 11:2 Need to increase business impact Clothing Donations 4:2 Need to increase both impact and return – either redesign program or accept low return and low impact HIV & Me 13:1 Need to increase business impact
  • 30. Transnet - Results High Community Impact Low Business Impact Low Community Impact Low Business Impact High Business Impact High Community Impact Low Business Impact Low Community Impact 27 Phelopepha (58:13) Sports Development (22:7) Containerised Assistance (20:7) Total Scores 165:41 Applying Internal Rate of Return – divide by 6 (no of programmes = 27: 6 Sharpminds (32:5) Arts & Culture (19:5) Sponsorship and Donations (14:7) 6
  • 31. Arts & Culture Programme Stakeholder Groups Commu-nity Impacts Business Impacts Total Impact/ Return Highest Commu-nity Impact Highest Business Return Arts & Culture Individual Artists 7 Industry 3 Consumer Communities 3 Service Providers 4 Government 2 Transnet 5 19 5 19:5 No 5 No 3* Achieved low community impact and low business impact
  • 32. Health Phelophepa Stakeholder Groups Commu-nity Impacts Business Impacts Total Impact/ Return Highest Community Impact Highest Business Return Patients 8 Beneficiary Communities 8 Other community health care facilities 8 Government 8 Care Givers Staff, Students 7 Learners & teachers/ Schools 4 Universities 4 Community Based Organisations 4 Donors/ Sponsors 7 Transnet 13 58 13 58:13 No 1 No 1 Achieved high community impact and high business impact
  • 33. Indicators Sponsorships & Donations Beneficiary Organisa-tions Capacity Building and organisational Development Contribute to development agenda in SA and facilitate economic growth and /or organisational prosperity Access to resources – operational capacity Leverage funds of other donors Access to finance Beneficiary Communi-ties Poverty Alleviation through resource distribution Ensure economic sustainability Assist and alleviate socio-economic inequalities and restore human dignity Access to resources and infrastructure Access to skills development, capacity building, training, coaching, mentorship Individuals Business Skills Access to markets and partners, mentorship and training Job Creation, skills development, sustainability, economically active (self sustainability) Access to seed funding, marketing, mentoring, product development Transnet Supports business operation alignment – specific geographical corridors Supports and Leverage CSI Focus Areas Rail Heritage Preservation through growing awareness of Transnet’s role in the history of railways, infrastructure, logistics, steam engines, etc. Increased awareness and improved company image and as result perceived as caring responsible corporate citizen Contribute to environ-ment manage-ment through rehabilitation and conservation Opportunity to reach specialised markets Contribution to BEE Scorecard
  • 34. Indicators Sports Development Department of Education Turn around of dysfunctional schools through sports development Identification of talent and talent development (teachers and learners) Instill a sense of national pride and community building amongst the youth New careers development – sports development & sport psychology Schools Educators Skills development and capacity building – accredited training Access to resources and infrastructure Lowering of crime rate, increases pass rates, increase educator morale, lower absenteeism rate, change in morale and attitudes Identification of talent and talent development Opportunity to recruit talented students to schools for greater achievement opportunity To assist with sports development and promote sport participation Access to qualified sports teachers Learners / Students Opportunity to use sport as an economic opportunity – professional sporting careers Skills development and high performance training Access to opportunities sponsorship/ bursaries / Access to professional sport bodies to follow a professional career which could lead to self sustainability Access to competitions and competing on national/ provincial level Quality of life – self actualization and empowerment Opportunity to participate and compete at new levels Sports Develop-ment Fraternity Access to talent (pipeline of qualified youth) Access to resources and infrastructure Access to qualified coaches, sports administrators, referees Universities Access to talent Transnet Promote Transnet as responsible caring corporate citizen PR and Publicity = brand awareness To promote Transnet as sports development leader To support priority of major shareholder (government)
  • 35. BHP Billiton Metalloys
  • 36. Rand Water Rand Water Impact (ROI) Community Impact - Quantitative Community Impact – Qualitative
    • Build stakeholder relationships
    • Promote relationship with shareholder
    • Promote partnerships (across/inside/ outside) sector
    • Build industry / shareholder capacity
    • Contribute and enhance positive reputation – trust, credibility, visibility
    • Contribute to transformation (BEE) agenda
    • Generate Revenue
    • Protect assets (pipelines, infrastructure, servitude etc.)
    • Contribute to skills development, recruitment, retention strategy (of RW)
    • Contribute to sector support and capacity building
    • Protect licence to operate (social or regulatory requirement)
    • Promote shareholder objectives of increasing service delivery
    • Improves (reduce) risk management practices
    • Improving the competitiveness of the organisation, including access to finance and preferred partner status
    • Improving the organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders, thus exposing the organisation to new perspectives and contact with a diverse range of stakeholders
    • Enhancing employee loyalty, involvement, participation and morale
    • Impacting positively on an organisation’s ability to recruit, motivate and retain its employees
    • Achieving savings associated with increased productivity and resource efficiency, lower energy and water consumption, decreased waste, and the recovery of valuable by-products
    • Preventing or reducing potential conflicts with consumers about products and services.
    • 149 jobs created
    • Cleared 931 hectares
    • Retrofitted 505 houses
    • Educated 3006 people on water purification
    • 130 jobs created
    • 2231 educated households on hygiene (less illness)
    • 460 jobs created
    • 438 beacons installed
    • 292 wall signs
    • 900 toilets
    • Provide or Improve access to water
    • Provide or Improve access to sanitation
    • Reduce wastage or unnecessary consumption
    • Conserve or enhance water security
    • Enhance, protect environmental assets, natural resources, water conservation and restoration
    • Educate or raise awareness about water issues
    • Maximise economic (income generation) opportunities i.e. local economic development
    • Reduce illness or increase health
    • Alleviate Poverty
    • Empower communities specifically women (knowledge, skills, access, jobs)
    • Promote gender equality
    • Address services delivery backlogs (government)
    • Create Jobs
    • Provide skills
    • Build local supplier base (create SME’s)
    • Contribute to local government (Municipality) infrastructure (capacity resource) development
  • 37. Some stuff we have learnt
    • Sponsorship and Donations and Infrastructure development programs CAN deliver high impact and return
    • Bursaries does NOT necessarily deliver high impact and return
    • How and on what you spend the money ( inside the program ) has a direct influence on the impact and return
    • The strategy and focus areas has to clearly define the return and impact required as well as the indicators how the impact and return will be measured
    • Sustainability has to be clearly defined for exit and completion
    • Indicators have to be developed, agreed, and documented as part of the contractual phase
    • Internal monitoring and external evaluation processes has to be established and adhered too - Impact assessment does not replace evaluation and monitoring
    • The same process and methodology can be used for Enterprise Development!
  • 38. Some other stuff…
    • The type of service provider (NGO) and the level of service provider (sophistication) does have an impact on the outcome of the assessment
    • You have to consider the impact of the impact assessment on so many levels
    • It is possible to determine impact and return and the real value lie in independent, verifiable, assurance of CSI expenditure
  • 39. At the end of the assessment:
    • What do you want to know – Why?
    • What do you want to do with the information – Why?
    • Do you know what the impact of the impact assessment will be on:
      • Your strategy
      • Your CSI team
      • The CSI beneficiaries
      • The CSI programmes
    • What if it is not good news?
  • 40. At the end of the day
    • There is no magic formula
    • It is not easy nor simple
    • There is no one size fits all approach
    • There are many ways to measure
    • You will have to develop your own formula
  • 41. What next?
    • Impact Investment Index: III
      • Direct vs Indirect Impact
      • Intended vs Unintended Impact
      • Levels of impact – shallow, deep, integrated – weighting of impact
      • Impact across the triple bottom line – Economical, social and/or socio economical, environmental
      • Impact over time – short – medium - long term
    • We are still looking for more case studies and guinea pigs!
  • 42. Contact
    • Reana Rossouw
    • Next Generation Consultants
    • Specialists in Corporate Sustainability and Integrated Sustainability as well Social Investment and Development
    • Tel: (011) 258 8616
    • E-mail: [email_address]
    • Web: www.nextgeneration.co.za
  • 43. Please note: This presentation is part of a larger body of research and knowledge. This information is the property of Next Generation Consultants and may not be copied or used without express permission. More tools, articles and training information is available at www.nextgeneration.co.za