We selected 4 impact assessment tools through our established criteria so that our research scope and objectives were determined (see 7.3.2) The data collection for this stage was done by means such as literature review and documents analysis.
7.3.1 Data collection
7.3.1.1 Literature review and document analysis
Firstly, we constructed a conceptual framework to guide our research, and understand what literature and preliminary studies for understanding IB, impact assessment tools and how these integrate sustainability. We strategically searched for published information on IB development and sustainability, challenges of IB, assessing IB approaches by reviewing peer-reviewed articles, academic journals, academic publications (including Ph.D. thesis papers), books, online resources from governmental and non-governmental organizations, and web pages of the promoters of IB initiatives. Key literature review terms referred to: ‘sustainability challenge’, ‘IB’, ‘Impact assessment tool’, ‘criteria’, ‘positive and negative impact’, ‘indicators’, ‘perspective’, ‘types’, ‘purpose’ and so on.
A guide for business ‘Measuring socio-economic impact’ edited by WBCSD social capital (2013) (wbcsd 2013) and the 'Impact assessment tools for BOP and other types of triple bottom line investing' edited by ADB’s IB Initiative (Chappel 2012) were chosen as the main data source to guide us for selection of research objectives. Additionally, the Handbook on Impact Evaluation (Khandker, Koolwal, and Samad 2009) was referenced as it provides a comprehensive overview of quantitative methods and models of impact evaluation. These offered reference indices to help us understand all collected impact assessment tools and help us to build our selection criteria.
7.3.2 Data analysis
We collected 18 tools that are commonly used to evaluate the impact of IB from documents as mentioned above (see 7.3.1). These assessment tools show a different understanding of what to measure, why or for whom to measure, or how to measure. But there is no tool can capture the entire range of impacts. Hence, we need build criteria to help us determine which tools we are going to review.
Firstly, we removed 6 tools because we were unable to gain access to the restricted information or we cannot log into their official websites. And then we selected 4 tools through an exclusion method according to the following criteria from the rest of 12 tools. (See Table 7.3.2)Those criteria helped us a better look for the tools that have the close relation between IB impacts and sustainable development. As we mentioned before, our research main goal is to describe the tool’s intended purpose and particularly its contribution to strategic sustainable development. So, we need to look for tools that must have a close relation to sustainable development. Furthermore, our focus is on IB impact, so we also need to consider tools that are used to evaluate IB impact and show the result of IB impacts more intuitive and more effective.
A single tool: The impact assessment tools can be a toolkit or a single tool. A toolkit includes several tools. If we review a toolkit, we will take a lot of time. Due to the limited research time, our focus is we a single tool, not a toolkit.
Social impacts: The social impact refers to 'the impact of a corporation on society on the economic, environmental and social dimension (Maas and Liket 2011). It can be a better indicator shows the relationship between IB impacts from economic, environmental and social perspectives and sustainability development. So, we selected this indicator as our criteria.
A micro viewpoint: These assessment tools can be developed from different perspectives. The main classification method is from the macro- and micro-viewpoint. Here the social impact tools also can be classified into a (macro) socio-economic perspective and social impact measurement from a business (micro) perspective). Given our research object is to provide sustainable references for IB participants, we selected a micro viewpoint to help us review the tools.
An Impact method: Three broad categories approaches are used to measure social impact: process methods, impact methods and monetarization methods (Rosenzweig 2004). Process methods 'monitor the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ongoing operational processes (Maas and Liket 2011).' Impact methods focus on operational performance and their impact (Maas and Liket 2011). Monetarization methods are the ways to measure social impact value by translating quantified social and environmental indicators into a monetary value (Lamberton 2005; Pearce, Atkinson, and Mourato 2006) We research goal is to understand how IB impact tools contribute to SSD, we need understand the operational performance and their impact of IB. So, we selected an impact method as one of our criteria. M&E and Indicators/Metrics: The impact assessment framework can be classified into three broad categories: monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks, Operational evaluation and impact evaluation frameworks (Khandker, Koolwal, and Samad 2009). Here we only focused on the M&E, which is used to tracks progress over a program with designed essential indicators. These indicators can be considered as an assessing benchmark to evaluate outcomes of the IB impacts. Chosen this as a parameter, because IB participants prefer to measure or evaluate their IB impacts through specific indicators or metrics. And indicators and metrics are also easier to make a comparison when we conduct our research to understand how these tools to help participants contribute to SSD.