 sorting of organisations

 Typical criteria used when mapping may include (though are not
restricted to):
• key outcome areas or sector • target beneficiaries
• products or services • location and geographic focus
• years of operating history
• stage of development (e.g. start up, early stage,growth, established)
 • ownership and legal and governance structures Check lists of things and
tick box-style” questions. checklists that incorporate process mechanisms,
quantitative data, and systematic and carefully defined qualitative assessments

• organisation size (taking into account, e.g., turnover, total assets,

number of employees)
• investment size
• investment type (e.g. equity, quasi-equity, long-term debt, short-term
debt) • financial return (prospective)
• term (liquidity / fixed term and number of years)
• proportion of project / investee organisation represented by
the investment and by the investor’s potential stake
• partnerships, subsidiaries or affiliated companies

validating the organisation’s measurement and reporting systems,

may take the form of a scorecard Alternatively a more qualitative approach may be
preferred, with evaluations of e.g. “high”, “medium” and “low” on different sections
of the analysis.

internal standards or methodologies can be different for all but some external
standards will help to maintain consistency. methodology must also be evaluative,
yielding not only a descriptive understanding of the impact, but an assessment.

evaluative results are not conditional upon the individual who is conducting the
analysis. Multiple individuals, given the same information, should produce the same
analytical results, regardless of their own views or preference
clarity concreteness completeness

credit ratings

track record similar activities in the past ‘quality of information and verification of results

a track record must demonstrate a change in the measured outcome (typically involving pre- and
post-intervention measurements

precedents track records of other organisations, working with similar methods and assumptions,
and again appropriately evidenced by measurement

demonstrate through the use of a control group the difference between the outcomes achieved
when the organisation is active

for an intervention to be truly valid, it must be able to outperform a control group. If a specific
control group is not set up and monitored, then some evidence as to what such a control group
might look like, typically based on research with comparable situations elsewhere, can serve to
lower impact risk significantly on this front.

The availability of a track record, precedents, extensive research, and control groups, will depend on
a combination of the organisation’s stage of development, and the originality of its approach

direct impact on beneficiaries and their immediate circle • wider impact on the community, the
sector and society at large • investor impact on the social purpose organisation (as a result of the
investment)