Позитивные изменения. Том 2, № 1 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 1 (2022) - Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения»
Шрифт:
Интервал:
Закладка:
2.5. SOCIAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THRESHOLDS
Assessing the progress of impact outcomes builds on the already familiar concept of "stocks and flows”.
The table 6 provides a comprehensive list of strategies suitable for comparing impact outcomes against some kind of baseline or threshold level of performance.
STEP 3. CONDUCTING ANALYSIS
The GIIN analytical methodology was developed based on a desk review of existing guidance and evidence, as well as individual and group discussions with a range of stakeholders, including academics, M&E specialists, impact investors and service providers in the impact investing ecosystem. GIIN proposes to divide impact analysis into the following components: normalization, outcome evaluation and outcome clustering.
3.1. NORMALIZATION
Normalization is the mathematical process of adjusting values measured at different scales to obtain a comparable scale. It unlocks the analytical potential of a particular data set. In order to normalize the impact at the level of the investee (section 2.3) in order to assess performance at the level of the investment, two critical factors that reflect the investment context (section 2.1) need to be considered: proportionality and time.
Proportionality is the relationship between the amount of investment and the size of the investee. Obviously, the size of investees varies widely, as do the investments they attract. For example, the proportion of impact attributable to a $1 million investment in a $10 million company should be different from the proportion attributable to a $1 million investment in a $100 million company, despite the same investment size.
The time factor implies that the investment affects the performance of the investee in different ways, depending on the timing of its deployment, the growth or cash flow needs of the investee at that time and the holding period of the assets before exit (through sale or completion of loan repayment). For example, a $1 million investment in a seed or venture-stage company may affect that company's growth trajectory and business development differently than a $1 million investment in an already mature public company. In addition, in the case of debt investments, as the principal and interest on one loan is repaid, this capital is often reinvested in new loans — and so there is a risk of double counting in the overall impact of one investor if timing is not taken into account.
NORMALIZATION ANALYSIS
To make the results at the investee level applicable to any investment and impact strategies in terms of proportionality and timing, they can be translated to the investment level as follows:
Where, in a given reporting period:
• "Impact results at the level of the investee" are specific metrics, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or sales of insurance policies, achieved by the company, project or physical asset during the reporting period;
• "Outstanding investment" is the balance of the debt investment (original loan amount minus principal repaid) or the estimated valuation of the equity investment in that investee during the reporting period;
• "Enterprise value" is a reflection of the market value of equity plus the market value of debt for that investee in the reporting period.
The normalized results are used in the following stages of the analysis.
LIMITATIONS OF NORMALIZATION
There are several significant limitations to this approach. First, it does not determine the exact amount of impact achieved from a given tranche. Determining the exact contribution of an investment requires further analysis of all investor contributions, including financial and non-financial factors and investment and impact management processes, as well as analysis of impacts that would likely have occurred independently of that investment. Second, normalization seeks to unlock an understanding of performance at the investment level, with particular attention to the proportions and timing of capital injections. However, it does not intend to downplay the fundamental role of investees in advancing social impact achievements.
3.2. OUTCOME EVALUATION
Project outcome evaluation is based on the "theory of change”. Its essence is that normalized outcomes reflect progress towards long-term outcomes.
The full range of outputs and outcomes is a continuum with varying levels of investor influence on the activities and conditions necessary for longterm effects to occur. In order to manage the impact of the project effectively, the degree of certainty in the relationship between activities, outputs and level of control must be identified. Clearly, this certainty cannot be 100 % clear, if only because there are always external factors that could affect the impact created by the investment. For example, an entity may have complete control over the outputs and services that result in some intermediate output, but it has no ability to affect the outcomes created by those intermediate outputs. For example, an organization can easily control the number of mosquito nets distributed to people in malaria-prone regions, but it is much harder to control that people use mosquito nets every night to reduce the incidence of malaria.
It is important that each link between intermediate, short-term and long-term outcomes is supported by the evidence base. Such links should also consider the applicability of the evidence base to investments in different geographic and demographic settings.
Conducting experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations after investment, such as randomized control trials, to check whether the intended impact has been achieved is not always possible, ethical or feasible for most investors. Therefore, data on project outcomes are not always fully available and therefore standardized and accurate evaluation may be difficult. However, in cases where significant literature and evidence already exists, investors can reasonably rely on the results of assessments carried out by external evaluators, NGOs or other development organizations. This methodology uses such knowledge and applies actual indicators of intermediate
