Measuring social impact nyu presentation (1)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
4 gefällt mir•741 views
Summary of my research findings on Social Return of Investment (SROI) metrics: What makes a "socially responsible" company? How do we measure it? What can we learn from the measurement systems that already exist? How can we get businesses to care about maximizing social impact?
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Measuring social impact nyu presentation (1)
Ähnlich wie Measuring social impact nyu presentation (1) (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Measuring social impact nyu presentation (1)
- 1. Measuring Social Impact Nerissa Clarke Guest Lecture P11.0020- Introduction to Social Impact New York University February 19, 2013
- 7. Research Methodology • Looked at the various ways that companies are currently measuring their social impact – Identified 178 different lists for scoring Social Impact • Rankings, Ratings, Awards, Checklists, Frameworks • Within these lists, there are of millions of detailed indicators – Focused on a cross-section of 23 Social Impact Measurement Systems • As described within SustainAbility’s Rate the Rater Series (2011) • Indexed 471 indicators
- 8. Sampled Social Impact Rating Systems ASSET 4 v Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Series v Carbon Disclosure Project v Global 500 Project v 21st Century Corporation: The CERES Roadmap to Sustainability (CERES) v Climate Counts Company Scorecard v CR Magazine 100 Best Corporate Citizens v CSR Hub v Dow Jones Sustainability World Index v EIRIS Sustainability Ratings v Ethisphere World's Most Ethical Companies v Fortune's Most Admired Companies v FTSE4Good Index Series v Global 100 Most sustainable corporations v Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS) v GoodGuide Company Ratings v GS Sustain Focus List v Climate Innovation Indexes (CIIs) v Newsweek's Green Rankings v Oekom Corporate Ratings v Sustainalytics Global Platform v Trucost Environmental Impact Assessment v Vigeo ratings v Walmart Sustainability Index
- 9. How Are Companies Today Measuring their Social Impact? (As measured by the number of indicators found in each category) Financial Social Count of 10% Impact indicators Category collected (N=471) Social 16% Environment Environment 157 33% Governance 108 Civic 84 Civic 18% Social 77 Governance 23% Financial 45
- 10. How are Companies Measuring their Environmental Impact? Top 5 Key Environmental Count Indicators CO2 Emissions 35 Existence of Environmental 26 Policy/ Management plan Resource Use, Waste, Recycling 17 Sustainable Supply Chain 10 Climate Change Risk Mitigation 9 Strategy (leadership, support)
- 11. How are Companies Measuring Impact through its Governance Structures? Top 5 Key Governance Indicators Count Board Effectiveness 13 Transparency 11 Lack of Corruption 10 Compliance with laws 9 Engaged Management 9 (ethical/ESG driven)
- 12. How are Companies Measuring their Civic Impact? Top 5 Key Civic Indicators Count Human Rights 15 Labor Standards 13 Local Community Engagement 12 (Volunteerism, sponsorships) Corporate Philanthropy 7 Fair Dealings in Public Policy 6 (lobbying, campaign finance)
- 13. How are Companies Measuring their Social Impact? Top 5 Key Social Indicators Count Employee Relations 26 Health & Safety (workplace) 11 Diversity 10 Employee Training and 8 Development Employee Compensation 5
- 14. Top Social Impact Metrics for Business (Based on number of indicators found within each subcategory) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Indicator Count (N=471)
- 15. Most Commonly Agreed upon Social Impact Metrics for Business Subcategories Most Frequently Cited Across Rating Systems 14 12 10 8 Frequency of 6 Appearance Count (N=23) 4 2 0
- 16. Research Takeaways • Good combination of proactive (i.e. employee relations)and reactive indicators (i.e. lack of corruption) – Bias towards proactive measures • Potential for SROI varies widely by industry – Oil company vs. Restaurant vs. Bank • SROI Metrics reward effort as much as results – Management vs. Performance vs. Disclosure
- 17. SROI Metrics Currently Reward Effort as much as Results • Engaged Management • Existence of Company Environmental Policy/Plan Inputs • Sustainable Supply Chain • Community Engagement (Volunteering, Sponsorships) • Compliance with Labor Standards Activities • Employee Training and Development • CO2 Emissions • Waste Outputs • Product (safe, accurate labeling) • Health & Safety (Workplace) • Workplace Diversity Social Impact • Transparency Outcomes • Human Rights
- 19. Ultimately Business Decisions are made to Fulfill Core Business Drivers • Engaged Management • Existence of Company Environmental Policy/Plan Inputs • Sustainable Supply Chain • Community Engagement (Volunteering, Sponsorships) • Compliance with Labor Standards Activities • Employee Training and Development • Social Impact Outcomes • CO2 Emissions • Waste Outputs • Product (safe, accurate labeling) • Profit • Talent Outcome • Risk and Crisis Management (Business • Long Term Growth Drivers) • Reputation
- 20. Core Business Drivers 1. Profit – Stock Volatility – Return on Investment – Sales 4. Long-Term Growth – Upfront Cost – Strategy – Cost Recovery Period – New Market Penetration – Cost Savings – Research and Development – Stock Valuation – Innovation – Market share – Evolving Consumer Demands 2. Talent 5. Reputation – Retention – Company Values – Recruitment – Brand Equity – Employee Morale – Customer Satisfaction – Community Goodwill 3. Risk and Crisis Management – Client Relationships – Compliance/Regulation – Changing Market Conditions
- 21. Link Social Impact to Business Drivers Profit Talent Risk/Crisis Long-Term Reputation Mgmt Growth Emissions - Cost - Regulation/ - Long-term Savings Compliance Strategy - Changing Market Conditions Employee - Sales - Retention - Innovation Relations - Morale - R&D - Productivity Sustainable - Changing - Long-term - Client Supply Chain Market strategy Relationships Conditions - Innovation Community - New Market - Brand Equity Engagement Penetration - Community Goodwill Health & Safety - Retention - Regulation/ - Morale Compliance - Productivity
- 22. Link Social Impact to Business Drivers Profit Talent Risk/Crisis Long-Term Reputation Mgmt Growth Human - Regulation/ Compliance Rights - Stock Volatility Board - Profit - Morale - Long-term - Company - Stock Strategy Values Effectiveness Valuation - Innovation Compliance - Regulation/ Compliance Diversity - Recruitment - Innovation - Retention - Evolving Consumer Demands Transparency - Morale - Regulation/ - Client Compliance Relationships - Stock Volatility
- 23. We Need to Build Logic Chains that Connect Socially-Oriented Results to Core Business Drivers Health & Safety of Employees Employee Productivity Increased Sales Increased Profit (SOCIAL IMPACT (ACTIVITY) (OUTPUT) (BUSINESS OUTCOME) OUTCOME/BUSINESS INPUT)
- 24. In many cases, the effort/intent to be a socially responsible company is enough for businesses to achieve business objectives, regardless of its actual effect on social impact. If we truly want to get businesses on board with MAXIMIZING social impact outcomes (not simply making attempts), we need to demonstrate that getting socially-oriented RESULTS really matters for enhancing core business drivers. Until then, businesses will continue to measure its SROI management and disclosure efforts with the same weight as actual performance. Know what your audience cares about.
- 25. Resources • Tools and Resources for Assessing Social Impact – http://trasi.foundationcenter.org/ • GIIRS – http://www.giirs.org/ • CSR Hub – http://www.csrhub.com
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Hey guys, I’m NerissaI’m here today to talk to you about how Companies are thinking about measuring social impactLast Spring I did a research project with Professor Light on how to best measure Social Return on Investment, otherwise known as SROII’ll tell you more about that in a minute, but I wanted to start by telling you a little bit about my background and sharing with you how I got interested in social impact measurement
- My first job out of college was for a Jewish philanthropy called The Samuel Bronfman Foundation. They fund a bunch of community building programs that aims to strengthen and enrich the Jewish community.A big part of my job was to go on site visits, to evaluate our grantees. I had to figure out what they were doing well, and where they had room for improvement. This required me to think about what it means to be successful/ how to measure social impact.And as I became more familiar with my role, it struck me how little our foundation talked about outcomes.I’ll give you an example: Birthright Israel. This is a program that brings Jewish college students to Israel for a free 10 day trip. The goal of the program is to enhance the way that young Jews feel about Israel and their connection to their Jewish identity. This program costs millions of dollars to run, most of which is funded by billionaire philanthropists who believe that if you invest in high quality inputs and activities that you will achieve successful outcomes. For them, its enough to hire really dedicated staff (input), and take the participants on an awesome camel ride (activity) and throw a really awesome concert (activity), and abracadabra the students come home with a much stronger Jewish identity. And maybe its true, maybe it’s not.But how can you measure a change in someone’s identity (which is the outcome they are looking for)? It’s really hard. How would you do it? Some ideas:Number of participants that had a fun time? Number of Jewish friends they keep in touch with post-trip? Amount of $ they donate to Israel? Number of people who hookup on the trip and end up eventually getting married/raising Jewish kids? Maybe “Jewish identity” isn’t an outcome that can be measured… As a result, its really hard to “prove” one way or another if the program is worth the money it costs. If you do try to measure it, who’s to say that what they actually are measuring is really capturingthe “right” thing?And if not, does that mean that it is automatically a waste of money? You may think that this is just a badly run organization… But as I’ve become more familiar with nonprofits, I’ve realized that this is actually more common among nonprofits than you might think. Many nonprofits are hesitant to distill their programming into discrete indicators because they don’t think that it fully captures the essence and scope of their impact. Most of their work is based on experiences, and personal relationships, which isn’t really captured by output metrics. This is as true for birthright as it is for other types of nonprofits. The impact of building a playground in an inner city neighborhood is greater than the number of children that go down the slide. The impact of having a really great teacher is more than scoring higher on a standardized test. Those are simply OUTPUTS measuring much broader OUTCOMESThey like anecdotes more than numbers.
- Despite this resistance from nonprofit, it’s starting to change. The interest on measuring social impact is exploding. Over the past decade or so, social impact measurement has become THE hot topic.Donors are becoming more strategic with their giving, many of whom are wealthy people that earned their money in business, have business mindsets. They are requiring nonprofits to think more critically about their outcomes. And Nonprofits are getting on board.It seems like everyone is talking about it. There are webinars, and databases, and dashboards, and trainings, etc…But this is still new. Many nonprofits are just now figuring out how to apply the best practices of social impact measurement within their organizations.
- I decided to go back to graduate school so that I could get a better sense of how other organizations, outside of the Jewish world, were measuring their impact in the community.In my mind, I was sure that the private sector would have the answer. There seems to be growing interest and pressure for corporations to act as good corporate citizens through their corporate social responsibility platforms. They are driven by results, and are trained to make evidence-based decisions using numbers all the time. I was sure that, with their rigorous business skills, businesses would have a solid strategy for best measuring social impact and investing their money effectively in social programs.I got really interested in corporate social responsibility, and I got an internship on the corporate social engagement team at Changing Our World, which is a philanthropy consulting firm. There, I had the opportunity to work with many large corporations, such as FedEx, ConAgra Foods and Mastercard Worldwide on their corporate social responsibility programming.
- Around this same time, I started working with Paul Light about all the different ways that businesses were quantifying their social impact.Just as social impact measurement is a new phenomenon for nonprofits, it’s also very new for businesses.There is some consensus that the best way to get businesses to care about social impact is to target investors. If you can get investors to care about 3 major areas of social impact (ESG indicators), when making the decision to invest in that company, CEOs and other business leaders will start to care about these things as well.But there is still no consensus about what aspects of ESG are the most important/critical, and how to measure them. This means that there is a lot of ideas, a lot discussion about what businesses should be measuring, within the ESG framework, and there is not yet a golden standard. So if you are a business owner, and you want to know what types of things you should be measuring to be considered a “good” business, you need to sort through hundreds, even thousands of different metrics.After looking on the internet for 15 minutes, I was able to find over 175 different lists for measuring social impact. Rankings, ratings, frameworks, dashboards, toolkits, checklists of best practices, etc. Together, these lists include millions of different indicators. Here can see 5 different lists. Which is great, but also not that helpful.
- As I started looking through the endless lists of metrics, this is what I felt like…Pretend this is Paul Light and and that is me, except instead of saying “lets pretend we never had this conversation”, Paul Light told me “Why don’t you go and figure it out”The research I did with Professor Light was to figure out what, if any, could be identified as the “most important” metrics for measuring social impact….million of indicators seems like way too much. And if it’s way too much of a burden for companies to collect, chances are, they won’t bother.
- We wanted to get a good sense of the types of metrics that are already out there, and identify which categories are the most commonly agreed upon.Our goal was to create a SIMPLE list of the BEST indicators for measuring social impact (based on an aggregate of other, well-known rating systems)Our gut was that, the best indicators would be: Frequently agreed uponApplicable across industriesValue neutralSo we took a cross-section of 23 social impact measurement rating systemsWe categorized their indicators into 5 areas of social impact:1) Environmental2) Social3) Governance4) Civic5) FinancialWithin these 23 Social Impact Rating systems, I looked at 471 indicators. They were categorized into around 90 fairly specific subcategories, and these 90 subcategories fit into the 5 areas of social impact.
- The Rating Systems that we measured
- Almost every rating system included these 5 categories (except for the ones that were entirely oriented in one area)
- Human rights: assessment, report, compliance with ILO code, indigenous rightsLabor standards (employees): worker conditions, slave labor, child labor, enforced across supply chain (contracted workers),
- Labor/Management relations includes: benefits, corporate culture, work-life balance, job security, communication, contracts, job flexibility, job ownership, productivity,
- This graph illustrates Which subcategories were mentioned/included in the largest number of databases?It’s a good mix on the four major categories: E,S,G, C
- Out of the top 20 indicators:-7/20 were reactive, 13/20 were proactive-SROI Metrics reward effort as much as resultsManagement vs. Performance vs. DisclosureExamples from different rating systems: - CDP: Performance vs. Disclosure - FTSE4Good: Policy, Management, Reporting (no real outcome indicator) - Climate Counts: Measured, Reduced (Impact: achieve goals), Supported, Disclosed - Newsweek: Impact, Management, DisclosureDo you have a environmental policy/strategy in place? vs. how much did you reduce waste last year Vs. Did you report on it? (Mgmt/Disclosure are much more issues of governance)
- Management vs. Performance vs. Disclosure Are they thinking about ESG? Are they doing anything about it? Are they reporting on it? Are all given similar weight/emphasisThe most important indicators fall into many different categories on the logic chain. That made me think: Why aren’t the Outcome indicators more heavily weighted? These, after all, represent the RESULTs of social impact, which is what these rating systems are DESIGNED to measure…Performance indicators should be THE most important. But, look at these social impact outcomes: health and safety, diversity, transparency, human rights. Yeah, pretty important, But why should Businesses care about measuring these things?
- Then I thought back to my time working for Changing Our World, and how the companies I worked with were thinking about measuring their impactWhat I discovered working there was that, for the most part, corporations are not using rigorous metrics to measure the impact of their social investments. Even though there is a ton of potential, corporations are not necessarily looking to maximize social impact. They are concerned more with things like: employee morale, customer satisfaction, brand reputation, and other business drivers. Ex: Sam’s Club donates money to a charity based on the preferences of its customers, using an in-store voting promotion. Their objective is to improve their reputation among customers, not to maximize social impact.Ex: Hess established a Middle School mentoring program in schools in Texas towns where it was drilling oil, as a community engagement/risk mitigation strategyEx: The majority of the canned food that ConAgra donates goes to food pantries in areas located near its factories, where its employees volunteer. Their objective is to improve employee morale, not to maximize social impact.Ex: FedEx donates in-kind shipping services for international disaster relief to help enhance its brand globally
- This is because, for business, social impact is not the primary OUTCOME (or Result) that they are necessarily looking for…
- All of the CSR initiatives seemed somehow to link to CORE BUSINESS DRIVERS, which as you can see here fit into 5 major categories: Profit, Talent (employees), Risk management (avoiding bad things), Growth, and Reputation (marketing)In many cases, the effort/intent to be a socially responsible business is enough for businesses to achieve their objectives, regardless of the actual results/social impact. It can help them differentiate themselves from the crowd, boost their brand, increase customer satisfaction, and improve company morale. If we want to get businesses on board/interested in MAXIMIZING social impact (not simply paying it lip service), we need to build up the case for the OUTCOME driven metrics. We need to demonstrate that getting socially oriented RESULTS is what really matters for enhancing core business drivers… For example: Health/Safety of employees (result) Increased productivity increased sales increased profitWhat we need now is to really build the case for outcome driven metrics, as it relates to core business drivers. This matrix is based on the indicator categories that were most cited across databases.LINKING SOCIAL IMPACT TO BUSINESS DRIVERS (next steps of the research) Global 100 KPI: Includes a specific business methodology for all 11 of its indicatorsCase Study:Global 100 KPICalculation MethodologyRationale#1. Energy productivityThe energy productivity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated by dividing an entity’s total revenue in USD for a particular fiscal period by total direct and indirect energy (GRI: EN and EN4) consumed in GJ for the same period. An entity’s energy productivity score is a function of two sub-scores: i) a group percentile score; and ii) an improvement factor score. Thegroup percentile score is obtained by percentile ranking the entity’s energy productivity score against that of industry group peers in the same equity index as the entity in question. The improvement factor score is determined by measuring the trailing two year improvement in the entity’s group percentile score. An improvement factor score of 25% is awarded if energy productivity has increased by at least 12.5% over the preceding two years. If this condition is not met, an improvement factor score of 0 is given. The final equation for an entity’s energy productivity score is represented below:Energy productivity score = (.75 x the group percentile score) + the improvement factor score (0 or .25) Energy availability and costs are one of the greatest challenges facing global corporations in the 21st Century. Rising and increasingly volatile energy costs can lead to reduced profitability, particularly in energy intensive industries and in companies with unsophisticated energy management plans.#2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) productivity.The GHG productivity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated by dividing an entity’s total revenue in USD for a particular fiscal period by total greenhouse gas emissions (GRI: EN 16) in metric tonnes of CO2e for the same period. Using the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, only Scope 1 (Direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions are included. An entity’s GHG productivity score is a function of two sub-scores: i) a group percentile score; and ii) an improvement factor score. Thegroup percentile score is obtained by percentile ranking the entity’s GHG productivity score against that of industry group peers in the same equity index as the entity in question. The improvement factor score is determined by measuring the trailing two year improvement in the entity’s group percentile score. An improvement factor score of 25% is awarded if GHG productivity has increased by at least 12.5% over the preceding two years. If this condition is not met, an improvement factor score of 0 is given. The final equation for an entity’s GHG productivity score is represented below:GHG productivity score = (.75 x the group percentile score) + the improvement factor score (0 or .25) Real and implicit carbon pricing (via cap-and-trade programs and carbon tax frameworks) is on a long-term upward trend, with established regimes in Europe, Canada and Australia. The regulation of carbon can have both positive and negative effects on company profitability, depending on individual company circumstances (e.g. allocation of permits, management plan, marginal abatement cost, etc.)#3. Water productivityThe water productivity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated by dividing an entity’s total revenue in USD for a particular fiscal period by total water withdrawn (GRI: EN8) in cubic metres for the same period. An entity’s water productivity score is a function of two sub-scores: i) a group percentile score; and ii) an improvement factor score. Thegroup percentile score is obtained by percentile ranking the entity’s water productivity score against that of industry group peers in the same equity index as the entity in question. The improvement factor score is determined by measuring the trailing two year improvement in the entity’s group percentile score. An improvement factor score of 25% is awarded if water productivity has increased by at least 12.5% over the preceding two years. If this condition is not met, an improvement factor score of 0 is given. The final equation for an entity’s water productivity score is represented below:Water productivity score = (.75 x the group percentile score) + the improvement factor score (0 or .25) Water is a vital yet largely underappreciated input in many industrial sectors, including Oil & Gas and Mining. Global fresh water scarcity has been identified by several international bodies as a growing threat to peace and prosperity in certain regions. Interruption of water supply can lead to lowered production, with negative effects on long term competitiveness.#4. Waste productivityThe waste productivity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated by dividing an entity’s total revenue in USD for a particular fiscal period by total waste generated (GRI: EN22) in metric tonnes for the same period. An entity’s waste productivity score is a function of two sub-scores: i) a group percentile score; and ii) an improvement factor score. Thegroup percentile score is obtained by percentile ranking the entity’s waste productivity score against that of industry group peers in the same equity index as the entity in question. The improvement factor score is determined by measuring the trailing two year improvement in the entity’s group percentile score. An improvement factor score of 25% is awarded if waste productivity has increased by at least 12.5% over the preceding two years. If this condition is not met, an improvement factor score of 0 is given. The final equation for an entity’s waste productivity score is represented below:Waste productivity score = (.75 x the group percentile score) + the improvement factor score (0 or .25) Above average waste productivity indicates more efficient processes and lower disposal costs.#5. Innovation CapacityThe Innovation Capacity score ranges from 0-100%. It represents the ratio of 3-year average R&D expenditures to 3-year average total revenue. Companies at the forefront of innovation are better positioned to capture emerging market opportunities and to control risk. This metric is a particularly revealing financial indicator in knowledge and science based industries, including Pharmaceuticals and Technology.#6. % Taxes PaidThe % Taxes Paid score ranges from 0-100%. It is the percentage of taxes paid in cash (trailing four year average) to the amount of taxes owed at statutory rates (trailing four year average) in USD. Companies score a 0% in the event that their statutory tax amount (trailing four year average) or taxes paid in cash (four year average) is zero or lower. Companies score a 100% in cases where the amount of taxes paid in cash is greater than the amount of tax owed at statutory rates. In the current era of large government deficits and austerity measures, tax authorities are clamping down on legal tax loopholes and other vehicles that permit tax minimization. Against this backdrop, determining which companies pay substantially lower cash tax as a per cent of their reported statutory tax rate relative to their industry peers provides insight into a host of risk factors that could impact future cash flows.#7. CEO to Average Employee PayThe CEO to Average Employee Pay score ranges from 0-100%. It is the ratio of CEO compensation[1] for a particular year in USD divided by the average employee compensation in USD over the same time period. Average employee compensation is calculated by dividing the company’s total wage bill for a particular year divided by the total number of employees over the same period. The CEO to Average Employee Pay score is obtained by percentile ranking a company’s ratio against that of every company in the equity index under consideration irrespective of industry group. The higher the ratio, the lower the pay equity score. A disproportionate share of compensation expenditure going to one person can lead to lower overall workforce motivation, and can also be indicative of potential governance risks, or misalignments of interests. #8. Safety ProductivityThe Safety Productivity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated by dividing an entity’s total revenue in USD for a particular fiscal period by the total number of fatalities (multiplied by $1,000,000 USD) and by the total number of lost time injuries (multiplied by $1,000 USD) for the same period.[2] An entity’s safety productivity score is a function of two sub-scores: i) a group percentile score; and ii) an improvement factor score. The group percentile score is obtained by percentile ranking the entity’s safety productivity score against that of industry group peers in the same equity index as the entity in question. The improvement factor score is determined by measuring the trailing two year improvement in the entity’s group percentile score. An improvement factor score of 25% is awarded if safety productivity has increased by at least 12.5% over the preceding two years. If this condition is not met, an improvement factor score of 0 is given. The final equation for an entity’s safety productivity score is represented below:Safety productivity score = (.75 x the group percentile score) + the improvement factor score (0 or .25) The BP Gulf incident (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) in 2010 brought safety to the forefront as a core factor in corporate valuations and competitiveness.#9. Employee TurnoverThe employee turnover score ranges from 0-100%. A company’s employee turnover score is obtained by percentile ranking its retention rate (defined as 1 - employee turnover rate) against that of all companies, irrespective of industry group, that trade in the entity’s equity index. Low employee turnover is positively associated with employee morale and productivity, efficient preservation of human capital and reduced transactions costs.#10. Leadership DiversityThe Board Diversity score ranges from 0-100%. It is calculated as the percentage of women on the entity’s board of directors multiplied by two, up to a maximum of 100%. An emerging body of research suggests that companies with more diverse boards, especially with respect to gender, have higher performance on key financial metrics such as Return on Equity, Return on Sales and Return on Invested Capital. CalPERS, the largest pension fund in the U.S., calls it the Diversity Return on Investment (DROI).#11. Clean Capitalism PaylinkThe Clean Capitalism Paylink score ranges from 0-100%. It is designed to award companies that have set up mechanisms to link the remuneration of senior executives with the achievement of clean capitalism goals or targets. A score of 100% is given to companies that describe such a mechanism in detail (e.g. the company specifies the proportion of a particular named executive's compensation that is linked to the achievement of certain clean capitalism performance targets). A score of 50% is given to companies that provide a high level description of such a mechanism (e.g. the company mentions the existence of a link between executive compensation and the achievement of certain clean-capitalism performance targets without specifying the proportion that is linked, the nature of the link, etc.). A score of 0% is given to companies that do not report any linking mechanisms. Evidence of sustained management focus on clean capitalism business drivers can be found in mechanisms that link the remuneration of senior executives with the achievement of clean capitalism goals and targets.
- What are the MAIN social impact outcomes that we are looking for within each of the 4 categories (Environmental, Social, Governance, Civic). Right now there is no real consensus…It really depends on your interests as a public servant/nonprofit employee/advocate etc.For Businesses, it is really what matters to THEM.Next step of this research is going to be to figure out:Which of the indicators are Social Impact Outcomes??? How do they RELATE TO Key Business Drivers(Find research to support/prove it)
- Figure out the interests/values of your audience, use that to determine what to measure/ How to sell your measurement indicators for “being a good company”As of right now, funding for the program is driven almost entirely on the beliefs/personal values of those who have the money to give away. Get leadership on board: What do they care about? Who is making decisions?Everything is sort of subjective