Social Impact Measurement: Classification of Methods

Abstract

This paper analyses and categorises thirty contemporary social impact measurement methods. These methods have been developed in response to the changing needs for management information resulting from increased interest of corporations in socially responsible activities. The social impact measurement methods were found to differ on the following dimensions: purpose, time frame, orientation, length of time frame, perspective and approach. The main commonalities and differences between the methods are analysed and the characteristics of the methods are defined. The classification system developed in this chapter allows managers to navigate their way through the landscape of social impact methods. Moreover, the classification clearly illustrates the need for social impact methods that truly measure impact, take an output orientation and concentrate on longer-term effects. This chapter also discusses the lack of consensus in defining social impact. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on theoretical and practical implications.

Appendices

Appendix 8.1: Description of Social Impact Measurement Methods

Acumen Scorecard

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

Developed in 2001 by: Acumen Fund in association with McKinsey, a nonprofit enterprise that invests in and grants to both nonprofit and for-profit ventures in its portfolio.

The system was developed to assist both for profit businesses, and not-for-profit corporations focus on actions that deliver both immediate results and improve an corporations long-term competitive positioning in changing and dynamic marketplaces.

The system assesses the social ventures investments in Acumen’s portfolio of for-profit and non-profit corporations. It entails tracking progress on short- and long-term outcomes, which is assessed in terms of outcome milestones and benchmarks.

http://www.acumensms.com/

Atkisson Compass Assessment for Investors (ACAFI)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

This system is developed by AtKisson Inc.in 2000.

This method builds on AtKisson’s Compass Index of Sustainability, a tool for assessment of the sustainability of communities. The framework for investors is designed to integrate with the reporting guidelines of major CSR standards, particularly the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), as a venture matures. The method incorporates a structure with five key areas: N = nature (environmental benefits and impacts) S = society (community impacts and involvement) E = economy (financial health and economic influence), and W = well-being (effect on individual quality of life), and a fifth element, + = Synergy (links between the other four areas and networking), and includes a point-scale rating system on each of the five areas. Each area has several indicators each of which has specific criteria. The method has been peer reviewed by corporate executives, economic academicians, and investment professionals.

http://atkisson.com/wwd_tools.php

Balanced Scorecard (BSc)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

The Balanced Score Card is developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in 1992.

The Balanced Scorecard proposes that corporations measure operational performance in terms of financial, customer, business process, and learning-and-growth outcomes, rather than exclusively by financial measures, to arrive at a more powerful view of near term and future performance. It advocates integration of these outcomes into corporations’ strategic planning processes. The scorecard is a framework for collecting and integrating the range of metrics along the Impact Value Chain, and is adaptable to an organisation’s stage. It helps coordinate evaluation, internal operations metrics, and external benchmarks, but is not a substitute for them. Recently Kaplan has adapted the Balanced Scorecard for nonprofits, suggesting that such institutions adopt strategic performance measures that focus on user satisfaction (Clark et al. 2004).

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/

Best Available Charitable Option (BACO)

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009, http://blog.acumenfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/BACO%20Concept%20Paper_01.24.071.pdf

This system is developed by Acumen Fund in 2006

Rather than seek an absolute standard for social return across an extremely diverse portfolio, Acumen Fund looks to quantify an investment’s social impact and compare it to the universe of existing charitable options for that explicit social issue. Specifically, this tool BACO helps inform investors where their philanthropic capital will be most effective—answering “For each dollar invested, how much social output will this generate over the life of the investment relative to the best available charitable option?” The BACO ratio (for best available charitable option), must be seen as a starting point for assessing the social impact and cost-effectiveness of investments. The point of the analysis is to inform our portfolio decision-making with a quantifiable indication of whether our social investment will “outperform” a plausible alternative.

http://www.acumenfund.org

BoP Impact Assessment Framework

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009, http://www.wdi.umich.edu/files/Conferences/2007/BoP/Speaker%20Presentations/PDF/State%20of%20the%20Field%20(London%20Final).pdf

The Bottom of the Pyramid Impact Assessment Framework is developed by Ted London in 2007.

The aim of the BoP Impact Assessment Framework is to understand who at the base of the pyramid is impacted by BoP ventures and how they are affected. The framework is developed to evaluate and articulate impacts, to guide strategy and to enable better investment decisions.

Next to this the system contributes to a deeper knowledge of the relationship between profits and poverty alleviation and to recognize the poverty alleviation implications of different types of ventures. It builds upon the different well-being constructs as developed by 1998 Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen.

http://www.wdi.umich.edu/

Center for High Impact Philanthropy Cost per Impact

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009, http://www.impact.upenn.edu/our_work/documents/WhatisHighImpactPhilanthropy_initialconceptpaperApril2007_000.pdf

This tool is developed by the Center for High Impacts Philanthropy from the University of Pennsylvania in 2007.

High impact philanthropy means getting the most good for your philanthropic buck. It is the process by which a philanthropist makes the biggest difference possible, given the amount of capital invested. In order to assess cost per impact, philanthropists must be able to assess, to the extent possible, its two components: 1) social impact, as measured by specific, objective criteria for success; and 2) cost, as measured by the investments made by philanthropists or other sources to realise the impact. Assessment requires objective, reliable information on what’s effective, what’s not, and how much capital is required to achieve a given impact. The Center for High Impact Philanthropy aims to deliver the information and analytic tools required to answer these questions.

http://www.impact.upenn.edu

Charity Assessment Method of Performance (CHAMP)

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009 http://www.goededoelentest.nl/_shared/champ_juni_2007.pdf and http://www.goededoelentest.nl/_shared/champ_juni_2007.pdf

The CHAMP method is developed by the Dutch charities test (nationale goede doelen test) in 2006.

The performance of charity’s ADT are determined by effectiveness - What did we achieve? - And efficiency - how fast and in a cost-effective way? Effectiveness and efficiency can be measured on five distinct levels:

1. Impact on society: how is society is affected by the effect of the charity on their target group?

2. Impact on the public: in what way is the situation of the target group demonstrably improved by the output of the charity?

3. Output: what concrete results are produced by the core activities of the charity using the input factors (money, volunteers, etc.)?

4. Activities: how effective are the core activities of the charity?

5. Input: how effective and efficient are the activities related to the input factors such as fundraising and recruiting volunteers?’

‘The CHAMP method provides indicators to measure the performance on all different levels. This tool is developed to help donators, and volunteers to choose between a wide range of non-profit corporations.

http://www.goededoelentest.nl

Foundation Investment Bubble Chart

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.gumballuniversity.org/blog/start-a-venture/metrics-analytical-methods and http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/WWL-profiles-eight-integrated-cost-approaches.pdf

This form of analysis is more of a visualization tool that plots the quantifiable impact on the x-axis, the percentage of implementation on the y-axis, and the relative size of a foundation’s grant in a given field. This results in an easy comparison of the performance of corporations across a portfolio and can have different variables for the x-axis, y-axis and bubble relativity for flexible data display. Foundation board of directors and senior management teams could use the bubble chart to assess the relative performance and cumulative foundation investment (or total philanthropic investment) against the indices of performance they care about most. The analyses can be used to discuss performance, explore why one program or a group of programs are positioned where they are, and inform future investments.

Hewlett Foundation Expected Return

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.gumballuniversity.org/blog/start-a-venture/metrics-analytical-methods and http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/WWL-profiles-eight-integrated-cost-approaches.pdf

This tool is developed by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This foundation was founded in 1966 to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world.

The method calculates the expected return of investments and is developed to enable foundations To ask and answer the right questions for every investment portfolio: what‘s the goal? How much good can it do? Is it a good choice? How much difference will we make? What‘s the price tag? The method is purely prospective. The expected return provides a systematic, consistent, quantitative process for evaluating potential charitable investments, and is based heavily on cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis.

http://www.hewlett.org/

Local Economic Multiplier (LEM)

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.sustainableseattle.org/conffolder/conffolder/VikiSonntagPresentation.ppt and http://www.applet-magic.com/LEM.htm

The Economic Multiplier is an central concept in Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics. A multiplier is a factor of proportionality that measures how much an endogenous variable changes in response to a change in some exogenous variable.

The local economic multiplier is based on the idea that dollars spend in locally-owned stores will impact the local economy two or three times more in comparison to dollars spend in national retailers. The basics of the local multiplier methodology are the identification of income in three rounds. The first round measures direct income of the study group, the second round measures indirect income, i.e. local spending of the study group, the third round measures induced income, i.e., local spending by local recipients of study group spending. The local multiplier is the sum of direct, indirect and induced income divided by direct income.

Measuring Impact Framework (MIF)

Based on internet information, accessed on 24 August 2009, http://businessfightspoverty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-gets-measured-gets-done and http://www.wbcsd.org/web/measuringimpact.htm

The Measuring Impact Framework is developed in 2008 by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The Measuring Impact Framework is designed to help corporations understand their contribution to society and use this understanding to inform their operational and long-term investment decisions and have better-informed conversations with stakeholders. The framework is based on a four-step methodology that attempts to merge the business perspectives of its contribution to development with the societal perspectives of what is important where that business operates. Step one, set boundaries: determine the scope and depth of the overall assessment in terms of geographical boundary (local versus regional) and types of business activities to be assessed. Step two, measure direct and indirect impacts: Identify and measure the direct and indirect impacts arising from the corporation’s activities, mapping out what impacts are within the control of the corporation and what it can influence through its business activities. Step three, assess contribution to development. Assess to what extent the corporation’s impacts contribute to the development priorities in the assessment areas. Step four, prioritise management response: based on steps two and three extract the key risks and opportunities relative to the corporation’s societal impact, and based on this, develop an appropriate management response. There is no “one size fits all” way to use this methodology. In order to appropriately tailor the methodology to the business and its operating context, as well as ensure follow-up actions are taken, corporations are encouraged to make the assessment as participative as possible, consulting people both within and if possible external to the corporation.

http://www.wbcsd.org

Millennium Development Goal Scan (MDG-Scan)

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.mdgscan.com/index.php?page=Textpage&item=contact_details#page=Textpage&item=about_scan

The MDG scan is developed in 2009 by the Dutch National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development (NCDO) and Dutch Sustainability Research (DSR).

The MDG Scan is a tool designed for corporations to measure the positive contribution tot the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and demonstrate their role in the global initiative to reach these eight MDGs. The MDG Scan measures each corporation’s MDG impact by entering key data in a secured environment. Once the corporation approves the publication of its results, they will be visible for everyone. The MDG Scan is a practical tool for corporations. Without spending much time or effort, corporations can gain insight in their MDG Footprint. Based on key data on core business and community investment activities that can be entered after registering, the MDG scan estimates your corporation’s contribution to each of the MDGs. Real time results generation quickly provides easy-to-understand insights, globally, per country or per sector/industry. Each corporation can download a personalized MDG impact results report, which facilitates internal discussions and in-depth analysis of its MDG impact.

http://www.mdgscan.com

Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.­socialeconomyscotland.info/scvo/content/pilot/impact.asp and http://ecommerce.volunteering.org.uk/PublicationDetails.aspx?ProductID=V309

The Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit was developed in 2004 by the Institute of Volunteering Research (IVR) with input from the London School of Economics, The University of East London and Roehampton University. It is widely recognised that volunteers make a difference to the work of many social economy corporations, but this is mainly supported by anecdotal evidence. The Toolkit is a way of changing this. It is easy to use, comprehensive and adaptable. It allows corporations to look at the impact of volunteering on the volunteer, the service user, the corporation and the wider community. It can help corporations gain a greater understanding of how and why volunteering works in the corporation as well as gather evidence to support funding bids.

This new toolkit will enable corporations to assess the impact of volunteering on all key stakeholders: the volunteers, the corporation, the beneficiaries, and the broader community. Results over time can be compared. Corporations will be able to use it to assess a wide range of impacts, from the skills development of volunteers to the economic value of volunteering corporations. Positive and negative results, intended and unintended impacts can be explored.

http://www.volunteering.org.uk

Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts (OASIS)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004

Developed in 1999 by REDF (formerly The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund) a nonprofit enterprise that creates job opportunities through support of social enterprises that help people gain the skills to help themselves.

REDF developed this system for its internal use and that of the nonprofit agencies in its portfolio to assess the social outputs and outcomes of the agencies overall, including the social enterprises they each operate. The system is a customised, comprehensive, ongoing social management information system (MIS). It entails both designing an information management system that integrates with the agency’s information tracking practices and needs, and then implementing the tracking process to track progress on short- to medium term (two years) outcomes.

http://www.redf.org/

Participatory Impact Assessment

Based on internet information, accessed on 24 August 2009, http://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Participatory+Impact+Assessment--+a+Guide+for+Practitioners and http://www.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/abstracts/Nowland-Foreman_Sandra.pdf

The Feinstein International Center has been developing and adapting participatory approaches to measure the impact of livelihoods based interventions since the early nineties. Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) takes the participatory methodology of these processes and applies it to the original corporational objectives in asking the critical questions “what difference are we making?” PIA offers not only a useful tool for discovering what change has occurred, but also a way of understanding why it has occurred. The framework does not aim to provide a rigid or detailed step by step formula, or set of tools to carry out project impact assessments, but describes an eight stage approach, and presents examples of tools which may be adapted to different contexts. A guide for practitioners is available to demonstrate how PIA can be used to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses in conventional humanitarian monitoring evaluation and impact assessment approaches, such as; the emphasis on measuring process as opposed to real impact, the emphasis on external as opposed to community based indicators of impact, and how to overcome the issue of weak or non-existent baselines.

http://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Feinstein+International+Center

Poverty Social Impact Assessment (PSIA)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

This system has been developed by the World Bank in 2000.

PSIA is a systematic analytic approach to “the analysis of the distributional impact of policy reforms on the well-being of different stakeholder groups, with a particular focus on the poor and vulnerable…” (PSIA User’s Guide). It is not a tool for impact assessment in and of itself, but is rather a process for developing a systematic impact assessment for a given project. Its components are not new, but PSIA has been formally articulated as a systematic approach by the World Bank in 2003. The method emphasises the importance of setting up the analysis by identifying the assumptions on which the program is based, the transmission channels through which program effects will occur, and the relevant stakeholders and institutional structures. Then program impacts are estimated, and the attending social risks are assessed, using analytical techniques that are adapted to the project under study.

http://www.worldbank.org/psia

Public Value Scorecard (PVSc)

Based on internet information, accessed on 24 August 2009, http://www.exinfm.com/workshop_files/public_sector_scorecard.pdf

The Public Value Scorecard is developed in 2003 by Prof. M.H. Moore, Director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Corporations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The Public Value Scorecard is based on the concept of the Balanced Scorecard. All the basics of the Balanced Scorecard– that non-financial measures are important, that process measures are important as well as outcome measures, that a measurement system ought to support the execution of an agreed upon strategy – are used but put to work through the use of strategic concept that seems more appropriate to nonprofits. The ultimate goal of non-profits is not to capture and seize value for themselves, but to give away their capabilities to achieve the largest impact on social conditions that they can, and to find ways to leverage their capabilities with those of others. There are three crucial differences between the BSc and the PVSc. First, in the public value scorecard, the ultimate value to be produced by the organisation is measured in non-financial terms. Second, the public value scorecard focuses attention not just on those customers who pay for the service, or the clients who benefit from the organisation’s operations; it focuses as well on the third party payers. Third, the public value scorecard focuses attention on productive capabilities for achieving large social results outside the boundary of the organisation itself.

Robin Hood Foundation Benefit–Cost Ratio

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009, http://www.robinhood.org/media/121827/q1_2006.pdf and http://www.partnershipforsuccess.org/docs/ivk/iikmeeting_slides200711weinstein.pdf

The Robin Hood benefit–cost ratio was developed by the Robin Hood Foundation in 2004.

In 2004, we determined that for truly effective grant making, we needed to know the value of similar and dissimilar programs. For example, is a certain job training program a better investment than a particular education program? To answer this question, Robin Hood developed an innovative methodology of evaluation, or metrics. First, a common measure of success for programs of all types is applied: how much the program boosts the future earnings (or, more generally, living standards) of poor families above that which they would have earned in the absence of Robin Hood’s help. Second, a benefit/cost ratio is calculated for the program—dividing the estimated total earnings boost by the size of Robin Hood’s grant. The ratio for each grant measures the value it delivers to poor people per dollar of cost to Robin Hood—comparable to the commercial world’s rate of return.

http://www.robinhood.org

Social Compatibility Analysis (SCA)

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009 http://www.ifib.uni-karlsruhe.de/web/ifib_dokumente/downloads/bfs_abstract.pdf

This tool has been developed in 2003 by the Institute for Sustainable Development at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences Winterthur (ZHW), Switzerland.

The Social Compatibility Analysis (SCA). This method defines objective criteria according to which social compatibility is evaluated. First, the user of the SCA-tool divides a system into a number of subsystems, i.e. a product could be divided into subsystems according to the life cycle phases preproduction, production, use and disposal. Second, relevant evaluation criteria are selected. Finally, subsystems should be assigned to classes A (highly relevant social problems), B (of medium relevance), C (of low relevance) or ’not relevant’ for all the chosen criteria. The SCA is useful when the social dimension of a project is concerned, when the clarification of differing stakeholder opinions is needed or when sets of solutions are to be negotiated.

http://zsa.zhwin.ch

Social Costs–Benefit Analysis (SCBA)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

This is a general economic tool for performance measurement. Since the 1990s the traditional cost–benefit analysis has been extended to include impacts upon the society.

Social cost-benefit analysis is a type of economic analysis in which the costs and social impacts of an investment are expressed in monetary terms and then assessed according to one or more of three measures: (1) net present value (the aggregate value of all costs, revenues, and social impacts, discounted to reflect the same accounting period; (2) benefit-cost ratio (the discounted value of revenues and positive impacts divided by discounted value of costs and negative impacts); and (3) internal rate of return (the net value of revenues plus impacts expressed as an annual percentage return on the total costs of the investment.

Social Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (SCEA)

Based on internet information, accessed on 29 August 2009 http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/costeffectiverev.php

The term cost-effectiveness analysis refers to the economic analysis of an intervention. This is a general economic tool for performance measurement. Since the 1990s the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis has been extended to include impacts upon the society.

For example, one measure of cost-effectiveness is the cost per HIV infection averted. This is affected by many factors: intervention cost, number of people reached, their risk behaviors and HIV incidence, and the effectiveness of the intervention in changing behavior. The purpose of cost-effectiveness analysis is to quantify how these factors combine to determine the overall value of a program. Cost-effectiveness analysis can determine if an intervention is cost-saving (cost per HIV infection averted is less than the lifetime cost of providing HIV/AIDS treatment and care) or cost-effective (cost per HIV infection averted compares favorably to other health care services such as smoking cessation or diabetes detection).

Cost-effectiveness analyses also break down the costs and resources needed to implement interventions—personnel, training, supplies, transportation, rent, overhead, volunteer services, etc.

Social e-Valuator

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009 http://www.socialevaluator.eu/SROItool.aspx

The social e-valuator is developed in 2007 by the d.o.b. Foundation and the Noaber Foundation and Scholten Franssen, a Dutch consultancy corporation.

The social e-valuator is a web-tool based on the SROI methodology. For further description see description of SROI.

http://www.socialevaluator.eu

Social Footprint

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.­sustainableinnovation.org/Social-Footprint.pdf

The social footprint is a measurement and reporting method that corporations can use to manage, measure and report the sustainability of their impacts on people and society in a broad range of areas. It is a context-based measurement tool that takes actual human and social conditions in the world into account as a basis for measuring the social sustainability performance of corporations. The Social Footprint might be seen as an adaptation of the concept of ecological footprint. Both footprints are alike in the sense that both are about measuring gaps, but the similarity ends there. In the case of the Ecological Footprint, the gaps of interest to us are between resources we need and resources we are stuck with; in the case of the Social Footprint, the gaps of interest to us are between resources we need and resources we have decided to produce. Ecological resources are fixed and limited, social resources are not. The sustainability metrics make it possible to measure non-financial organisational performance (e.g., the triple bottom line) against standards of performance. Numerators express actual impacts on vital capitals in the world, and denominators express norms for what such impacts ought to be in order to ensure human well-being.

http://www.sustainableinnovation.org/

Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009, http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/spo/spo16.pdf and http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/contrib/ins220.pdf

The concept of SIA is understood to include adaptive management of impacts, projects and policies (as well as prediction, mitigation and monitoring) and therefore needs to be involved (at least considered) in the planning of the project or policy from inception. The SIA process can be applied to a wide range of interventions, and undertaken at the behest of a wide range of actors, and not just within a regulatory framework. It is implicit that social and biophysical impacts (and the human and biophysical environments) are interconnected. The overall purpose of all impact assessment is to bring about a more sustainable world, and that issues of social sustainability and ecological sustainability need to be considered in partnership. SIA is also understood to be an umbrella or overarching framework that embodies all human impacts including aesthetic impacts (landscape analysis), archaeological (heritage) impacts, community impacts, cultural impacts, demographic impacts, development impacts, economic and fiscal impacts, gender assessment, health impacts, indigenous rights, infrastructural impacts, institutional impacts, political impacts (human rights, governance, democratisation etc), poverty assessment, psychological impacts, resource issues (access and ownership of resources), tourism impacts, and other impacts on societies.

http://www.socialimpactassessment.net/

Social Return Assessment (SRA)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

This system was developed in 2000 by Pacific Community Ventures (PCV), a nonprofit organisation that manages two for-profit investment funds that invest in corporations that provide jobs, role models, and on-the-job training for low-income people, and that are located in disadvantaged communities in California.

PCV developed the method for its own use in assessing the social return of each investor and of its portfolio overall. The system entails tracking progress specifically on the number and quality of jobs created by PCV’s portfolio corporations. It helps the fund target and improve its services to its investors and to a group of corporations to which it provides business advisory services. The method is separate from financial performance assessment.

http://www.pacificcommunityventures.com/

Social Return on Investment (SROI)

Adapted from a description in Clark et al. 2004.

Developed in 1996 by REDF (formerly The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund) a nonprofit enterprise that creates job opportunities through support of social enterprises that help people gain the skills to help themselves.

REDF developed social return on investment (SROI) analysis to place a dollar value on ventures in its portfolio with social as well as market objectives. The approach combines the tools of benefit-cost analysis, the method economists use to assess non-profit projects and programs, and the tools of financial analysis used in the private sector. Conceptually, the approach differs from these established types of analysis, notably in what is considered a “social” benefit. Practically, it is more accessible to a broad range of users, substituting readily understood terms and methods for technical jargon and complicated techniques.

http://www.redf.org/

Socioeconomic Assessment Toolbox (SEAT)

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009 http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/aa/development/society/engagement/seat/ and http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/corporateresponsibility

The Socioeconomic Assessment Toolbox was first launched in 2003 by Anglo American plc.

The toolbox builds on several steps. (1) profiling our own operations and our host community, (2) identifying and engaging with key stakeholders, (3) assessing the impacts of our operations – both positive and negative – and the community’s key socio-economic development needs, (4) developing a management plan to mitigate any negative aspects of our presence and to make the most of the benefits our operations bring, (5) working with stakeholders and communities to help address some of their broader development challenges they would face even without our presence, (6) producing a report with stakeholders to form the basis for ongoing engagement with and support for the community.

http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/

Stakeholder Value Added (SVA)

Adapted from a description in Schaltegger et al. (2002).

Stakeholder value analysis is based on the stakeholder approach or standard-setting and strategic management of corporations, which is used to analyse relations between stakeholders (interest groups) and corporations. Measuring the contribution to corporation value due to stakeholder relations (stakeholder value) is done in four steps. In the first two steps, the return on stakeholder (RoSt) is calculated for the corporation in question and the reference corporation (e.g.market average). The RoSt represents the stakeholder’s relative contribution to the value of the corporation. In the third step the RoSt of the reference corporation is subtracted from the RoSt of the corporation in view. In the final step this is multiplied by the corporation’s stakeholder costs to obtain the stakeholder value added.

http://www.uni-lueneburg.de/csm

Toolbox for Analysing Sustainable Ventures in Developing Countries

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009 http://www.roap.unep.org/pub/TowardstripleimpactEN.pdf

The toolbox for analysing sustainable ventures in Developing Countries is developed by UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) in 2009.

The toolbox is developed to answer questions related to the identification of opportunities, the understanding of the determinants of success and the assessment of costs and benefits appear repeatedly. It addresses initiatives that support sustainable ventures including donor programmes, award schemes, private and public investors, professional education programs and policy makers. They can use the tools to systematically identify, evaluate, advice, and promote sustainable ventures. The tools respond to three questions that appear over and again in the process of building and managing a sustainable venture:

• Where are opportunities to create value • by meeting needs better and more efficiently?

• What factors determine the success of the venture?

• What are costs and benefits of the venture for the business, society and the environment?

http://www.unep.org

Wellventure Monitor™

Based on internet information, accessed on 1 August 2009 http://www.wellventuremonitor.nl/About.aspx?Num=0

The Wellventure Monitor™ is developed in 2006 by the Fortis Foundation Netherlands (FFN) and the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR).

The Wellventure Monitor™ measures the effects of community investment on several aspects. It makes clear what the target group benefits from the project, but also what the corporation, the employees, and the social organisation gains from it. The Wellventure Monitor™ provides insight into the effects of a specific project. But more importantly; it is also possible to see the sum of the different projects. This way, the long-term benefits of community investment become visible. With the tool, corporations and corporations can create a survey after finishing a project and send it to those involved at the corporation, employees of the organisation, and to the target group. The surveys are processed automatically. The tool can be used to view, analyze, and present the results. Per project, or over a longer period of time.

http://www.wellventuremonitor.nl