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

• Date: 30 October 2020
• Pages: 279-293
• Published date: 30 October 2020
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2020-0038
• Subject Matter: Strategy,Corporate governance
• Author: Yanina Kowszyk,Frank Vanclay

The possibilities and limitations regarding

the use of impact evaluation in

corporate social responsibility programs

in Latin America

Yanina Kowszyk and Frank Vanclay

Abstract

Purpose –Improvement in the evaluation methodologies used in the public policy and development

fields has increased the amountof evidence-based information available to decisionmakers. This helps

firms evaluatethe impacts of their social investments. However, it is not clear whetherthe business sector

is interested in using thesemethods. This paper aims to describe the level of interest in, knowledge of

and preferences relating to the impactevaluation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs by

managersin Latin American companies and foundations.

Design/methodology/approach –A survey of 115 companies and foundations in 15 countries in Latin

Americawas conducted in 2019.

Findings –The results indicated that most respondentsbelieved that quantitative impact evaluation

could address concerns about CSR program outcomes. However, monit oring and evaluation were

primarily seen to be for tracking program objective s 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 increasingthe use of impact evaluation were the lack

of skills and knowledge of management staff and the methodological comp lexity of evaluation

designs. We conclude that there needs to be increased awaren ess about: the appropriate

understanding of social outcomes; the benefits of evaluati on; when impact evaluation is useful; how

to prepare an evaluation budget; and the effective use of rigorous evidence to inform program

design.

Originality/value –Acceptanceby the business sector of quantitative measurementof the social impact

of CSR programswill lead to improved outcomes from socialinvestment programs.

Keywords Monitoring and evaluation, Program evaluation, Corporate social performance,

Social license to operate, Corporate social investment, Impact measurement

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now firmly rooted in the global business agenda as

an umbrella term for a variety of activities ranging from donations at the discretion of the

management without any expectation of return, to complex business and community

partnerships that are integrated into business strategy (Matten and Moon, 2008;Lin-Hi and

Mu

¨ller, 2013). Even after Agenda 2030 and the Addis Ababa Agenda, which partlyaddress

the role of the private sector in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Scheyvens,

2016), CSR activities are still largely considered to be discretionary, as they are not

mandated by law but are part of the voluntary commitments of companies (Laszlo and

Cescau, 2017). A key challenge for CSR practitioners, therefore, is to be able to

Yanina Kowszyk is research

affiliate of the University of

Groningen, Groningen, The

Netherlands and the

University of Barcelona,

Barcelona, Spain.

Frank Vanclay is the Head

of Department of Cultural

Geography and Director of

the Urban and Regional

Studies Institute in the

Faculty of Spatial Sciences

at the University of

Groningen, Groningen,

The Netherlands.

Received 29 January 2020

Revised 26 June 2020

10 September 2020

17 September 2020

Accepted 21 September 2020

Disclosure of potential conflict

of interest: It is appropriate that

we note that Yanina Kowszyk is

the owner of InnovacionAL, the

company that implemented the

Evaluar para Innovar project

together with GIZ and CEMEX.

DOI 10.1108/CG-01-2020-0038 VOL. 21 NO. 2 2021, pp. 279-293, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCE jPAGE 279