Understanding the need for significant revisions to the standard, the expert speaks of being ready to engage in its adjustment and supplementation, because the practice of conveying information about a company’s activities cannot be developed once and for all; it is an iterative process. Given the dynamics with which the world changes, it is necessary to quite frequently revisit ideas and the specific ways of their implementation in reports. “We need to understand that conveying information about the company’s activities in sustainable development and other areas requires not just temporary working groups but a community of constantly active experts,” concludes Novikov.
SUSTAINABILITY AND INDICATORS
Undoubtedly, all existing methodologies are commendable in their own right, and the mere existence of such initiatives is a big advantage. However, when talking about sustainability, it is essential to address indicators directly related to this concept in terms of social impact. When reports contain only quantitative metrics, they fail to correlate with promises of analyzing or forecasting systemic qualitative changes. What is missing is a transition formula or an explanation of correlations. Hence, there is a clear understanding of the need to expand the list of indicators, including assessments of social impact, as well as topics of corporate volunteering, inclusive practices, and media influence as evaluation indicators.
Following the strategic session “Sustainable Development Reporting Standard as a tool for the development of volunteering and social involvement,” a resolution draft was created based on the discussion outcomes, which we believe should be presented below unchanged.
“To add to the original list of suggestions:
• Finalization of the social effect assessment section;
• In reporting, show not quantitative characteristics of indicators and metrics, but social effects based on them;
• Increase focus on quality indicators;
• The list of indicators should be based not only on international standards and national SDG targets, but also on national projects;
• Include community and partnership development and non-profit sector development in the assessment;
• Include communication projects in the evaluation; inclusion of indicators based on information agenda and quality of campaigns (regional campaigns, federal IRI campaigns, partnerships with ANO “National Priorities”);
• Show the need for linkage indicators between environmental and social (based on them) projects;
• Increase focus on indicators of employee and resident involvement in the management of the enterprise and regional development;
• Include indicators reflecting the accumulation and consolidation of social impact (including partnerships, communities, information agenda);
• Include reintegration rates for employees leaving the position due to retirement, illness, disability;
• Include indicators for implementing an inclusive approach in all areas of the company’s internal and external activities;
• Retain “sustainable investments, including green investments” in the list of economic indicators;
• Disclose information on sustainable investments in terms of national taxonomies.”
Natalia Gladkikh, a leading expert of the Institute of Socio-Economic Design at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and Editor-in-Chief of the Positive Changes Journal, considers the discussion that has arisen regarding the domestic reporting standard under development to be very valuable, as it gives an opportunity for representatives of different parties to express their opinions. The word ‘Standard’ in the document title indicates the presence of a set of important principles in its content, which are essential for everyone to follow and rely on. Therefore, the expert would like the final document to be one that not only helps companies and their stakeholders understand their performance results but also sets certain standards and recommendations on how to do this most effectively and successfully.
“Several important points are noteworthy in the current version of the standard, which is still a work in progress. The first is the obvious gap in the narrative rhetoric in the document in the part where it describes why the standard is needed, what it offers, what it includes, etc., and in what specific actions and indicators are ultimately proposed,” says Natalia Gladkikh.
Thus, according to her, the first part actively uses terminology from the field of impact assessment, for example:
“Information related to sustainable development is understood as information about the impacts, risks, and opportunities of the organization associated with sustainable development”;
“The usefulness of information related to sustainable development increases if the information is comparable, verifiable, timely, and understandable, and also sufficient to reflect the significant impact on the economy, environment, and social sphere and to give interested parties the opportunity to assess the organization’s performance (the principle of completeness) for the reporting period.”
“However, within the block of indicators, there is nothing that could be attributed to social impact. Indicators are principally defined by various metrics of activity – such as the number of employees involved and the amount of funds expended. The actual impact of these activities remains conspicuously absent from this list,” the expert remarks.
A second significant flaw she notes is the underlying logic of describing and assessing results, the principle of ‘the more spent, the better’.” According to the standard’s logic, a company’s substantial investments in social objectives imply it is doing well, yet there is no comment on the actual effectiveness of these investments. The specific changes that have occurred in the region or country as a result of such expenditures are not considered relevant. If a more economical solution is identified, the current logic of the standard would interpret this as the company’s deteriorating position relative to others.
“The traditional rationale for social investment, demanding an essential evaluation of the achieved results rather than just a description of actions taken or expenses incurred, is strikingly missing from the current version of the standard. This component, in my view, is crucial,” states the expert. – “Until we pose questions not only about the volume of funds spent but also the tangible outcomes of such expenditures, we cannot truly speak of results in the terms of social impact, as is claimed in the intent of the standard.”
The realm of social project design is evolving, just like any branch of science or practice, and the methodologies of project development and reporting are increasingly complex. This is evident in the practices of the Presidential Grants Fund, where updates and the incorporation of new elements and focuses in application formats are routinely implemented. For instance, in the current iteration of the application, it is crucial not only to describe the project concept but also to validate its pertinence with references to pertinent sources. The document places emphasis on the evidential substantiation of the proposed approach to addressing the issue. Several grant-giving organizations are shifting toward applications based on the so-called theory of change, which mandates the clear definition not only of the problems and their origins but also a detailed description of each activity to be undertaken in relation to the three-tiered framework of immediate results, social effects, and societal impact. The theory of change also figures into the planning strategies of state bodies when conceptualizing strategic projects.[29 - Kim, A. I., Kopytok, V. K., Filippova, Yu. A., & Tsygankov, M. V. (2020). Use of the theory of change for strategic audits and strategic planning within the Russian context. Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, Center for Progressive Management Decisions. Retrieved from: https://ach.gov.ru/upload/pdf/AuditInsights.pdf. (accessed: 26.03.2024).]
“To speak of outcomes, and all the more of the impact of their projects and programs, in terms reflective of activity characteristics – ‘conducted so many events, spent so much’ – has long been outmoded in the ‘third sector’ and is becoming ever more challenging in the governmental sphere,” says Natalia Gladkikh. – “If we establish a benchmark for businesses wherein the end result is deemed significant not for its transformational nature but merely as a static form, this would represent a regression in the theory and practice of social project planning and social investment, methodologies and approaches to impact assessment developed thus far.”
It is also necessary to standardize the verifiability and justifiability of the employed social and ecological practices. Of crucial importance is the extent to which the utilized methodologies are substantiated and whether robust procedures for monitoring and assessment of changes – both intended and incidental effects arising within the course of a project or program’s execution – are in place. For NGOs, particularly when projects are financed externally – by grant-making entities or social investors – activities are regularly subjected to rigorous assessment and oversight. Conversely, when a project or program is initiated by a business entity, it lacks an overseeing body that would be obliged to pay close attention to the level of proof underpinning the practices utilized. If such guidance is not included in the standard, CSR programs may turn into a ‘space for experiments on people and nature.’
Additionally, the expert opines that it is essential to embed within the standard the concept of an assessment model. This pivotal term reflects the anticipated process by which results will be evaluated: how data on achieved changes will be collected, and who will be involved in these evaluative undertakings and how, at what stage. According to Natalia, the practice of soliciting assessment services from auditing firms for evaluating social impact is exceptionally uncommon among social investors or non-governmental organization. The mere fact that figures have been calculated correctly is unlikely to offer any significant insights or new knowledge to the project team or organization, particularly in terms of its sustainable development. When discussing an external, independent ‘evaluating’ party that implies a ‘mutually beneficial’ partnership, one should keep in mind universities, where expertise, researchers, and proven scientific approaches can be found.
“A standard will truly become truly significant and valuable when it transcends the prevailing narrative of ‘we’ll grade you – and you might get an F’ to enhance companies’ awareness of how they might further reflect their contributions to sustainable development in all its depth and beauty,” concludes Natalia Gladkikh. – “Once the standard encompasses varied approaches that enable any organization, regardless of size, to ‘see itself’ in a newer, more splendid light.” Described approaches and methods will assist companies in establishing their internal evaluative models, considering the unique aspects of their activities without any retributive implications. The chief advantage should inherently lie in the benefit it presents to the company itself – reveling in the transformations it prompts within the sphere of sustainability.”
In conclusion, Natalia Gladkikh put forth precise recommendations for modifications to be made to the standard. The fundamental point is that all activities conducted within the framework of sustainable development must meet criteria for evidence and validity. Specifically:
1. Issues to be addressed should be distinctly defined and their causes pinpointed, relying on existing data, knowledge from similar endeavors, etc.
2. All implemented programs and projects should describe their target audiences.
3. The action plan should be clearly defined and the relationship between the realized actions and the problems, their causes, as well as the planned results should be obvious, the experience of similar projects, the effectiveness of the chosen approach (social, ecological technology) should be studied.
4. The immediate results, social effects, and social impact should be clearly spelled out for each intervention.
5. The activity planning stage specifies the plan of activities and their results, as well as indicators to conclude on the achievement/ non-achievement of the planned changes.
6. For each project or program implemented within the framework of achieving sustainable development, an evaluation model should be developed, which implies a system of monitoring and evaluation of changes achieved, in accordance with the system of indicators.
7. For each project or program implemented within the framework of achieving sustainable development, it is recommended to calculate an evidence and validity index.
8. The development and implementation of a model for assessing the impact of a sustainable development project/program, reflecting the changes it achieves (achieved), can be carried out by the organization independently or with the involvement of research and other specialized companies, scientific organizations, including those based at research universities.
The recommendations provided are not confined to a specific federal document under development; rather, they are meant to be immediately applicable in real-time across any corporation. This does not, however, diminish their relevance for inclusion in the national Reporting Standard.
We would like to conclude the overview with data from a November 2023 survey by Expert RA rating agency, according to which almost 80 % of non-financial and 60 % of financial companies will be prepared to report on sustainable development at the end of the year.[30 - Expert RA Rating Agency (2023). Sustainable Development in Russia: Key Trends 2023. Retrieved from: https://raexpert.ru/press/articles/katasonova_vedomosti_jan2024/.(accessed: 26.03.2024).] This trend is being noticed and supported by government agencies as well. And it is important that more and more leaders of social change are involved in this work.
Репортажи / Reports
Насколько добрый мой город? Репортаж с конференции
«Про развитие городов и сообществ»
Юлия Вяткина
DOI 10.55140/2782-5817-2024-4-1-26-33
Как меняется работа с местными сообществами, что будет с ними происходить в ближайшем и отдалённом будущем, как партнёрские проекты бизнеса и НКО помогают жителям развивать свои территории и за счёт чего повышается социальная эффективность таких проектов? Об этом и многом другом урбанисты, НКО, футурологи и представители бизнеса говорили на практической конференции «Про развитие городов и сообществ», прошедшей в феврале 2024 года в Москве. Делимся ключевыми тезисами о том, каковы возможные сценарии развития территорий по мнению экспертов.
Юлия Вяткина
Редактор журнала «Позитивные изменения»
