The possibilities and limitations regarding the use of impact evaluation in corporate social responsibility programs in Latin America

Abstract

Purpose Improvement in the evaluation methodologies used in the public policy and development fields has increased the amount of evidence-based information available to decision makers. This helps firms evaluate the impacts of their social investments. However, it is not clear whether the business sector is interested in using these methods. This paper aims to describe the level of interest in, knowledge of and preferences relating to the impact evaluation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs by managers in Latin American companies and foundations. Design/methodology/approach A survey of 115 companies and foundations in 15 countries in Latin America was conducted in 2019. Findings The results indicated that most respondents believed that quantitative impact evaluation could address concerns about CSR program outcomes. However, monitoring and evaluation were primarily seen to be for tracking program objectives rather than for making strategic decisions about innovations to enhance the achievement of outcomes. Decision-making tended to respond to community demands. The main challenges to increasing the use of impact evaluation were the lack of skills and knowledge of management staff and the methodological complexity of evaluation designs. We conclude that there needs to be increased awareness about: the appropriate understanding of social outcomes; the benefits of evaluation; when impact evaluation is useful; how to prepare an evaluation budget; and the effective use of rigorous evidence to inform program design. Originality/value Acceptance by the business sector of quantitative measurement of the social impact of CSR programs will lead to improved outcomes from social investment programs.

Sustainable procurement practices in the supplier selection process: an exploratory study in the context of Brazilian manufacturing companies

“…To achieve satisfactory results in the implementation of sustainable practices, it is necessary that companies to frequently evaluate and continually improve these practices (Borges et al, 2018;Eriksson and Svensson, 2016;Gutiérrez-Martínez and Duhamel, 2019;Kowszyk and Vanclay, 2020). For those who argue that sustainable practices generate only costs and do not provide positive returns to companies, it should be highlighted the work of Pullman et al (2009), according to which the implementation of social and environmental practices generate improvements in performance, including costs reduction.…”

“…To achieve satisfactory results in the implementation of sustainable practices, it is necessary that companies frequently evaluate and continually improve these practices (Borges et al, 2018;Eriksson and Svensson, 2016; Gutie ´rrez-Martı ´nez and Duhamel, 2019; Kowszyk and Vanclay, 2021). For Broccardo and Zicari (2020), sustainability has become part of the business model, regardless of the size or companies sector.…”

Fuzzy bundling of corporate governance practices and performance of Indian firms

“…Also, the financial performance and dividend payouts are stirred by firm's CG framework and practices. Similarly, other works also show that the effective CG helps in achieving better firm performance and resulting valuations (Kandukuri et al, 2015;Kowszyk and Vanclay, 2021;Mardnly et al, 2018;Orazalin et al, 2016;Orazalin and Mahmood, 2019).…”

Business Responses Towards Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Goals During Covid-19 Pandemic

“…For instance, According to He & Harris, (2020), the necessity for companies to demonstrate true and genuine CSR activities, also emphasised the necessity for consumers to make ethical judgments when confronted with unknown and unpredictable situations such as those caused by the influenza epidemic (Antwi et al, 2021). Given the pre-existing disagreement regarding the mismatch between CSR discourse and action, it was decided that a genuine CSR answer be provided to the public (Kowszyk & Vanclay, 2021). In contrast, the potential to "assemble/restoration" connections with communities during the COVID-19 epidemic has been cited as a significant incentive for organisations involved in the response and recovery [27].…”