Search results

Founded in 2015, the Impact Valuation Roundtable (IVR) is an informal group of companies who wish to operationalise the emerging field of Impact Valuation. IVR participants consider Impact Valuation a groundbreaking approach to measure and value the effects of business activities on the health and well-being of people and the planet – in economic, environmental, social and human dimensions.

Impact Valuation can support large and small companies alike. It uses the language of business, supports strategic decision-making by adding fact-based insights into business operations and strengthens the communication and engagement of business with stakeholders. This is showcased in case studies from adidas, Ambuja Cements Limited, BASF, Cementos Argos, Maersk, Natura, Novartis, Syngenta and UPM.

Although there is an increased recognition of the benefits of Impact Valuation, comparability in the calculation and communication of the results of Impact Valuation assessments across companies is one of the key challenges to the credibility and uptake of the concept. The IVR supports and encourages the development of consistent frameworks and standards that strive for maximum commonality across industries, pragmatism in their application, and allow for scaling up.

As importance and interest rises, the IVR continues to welcome other practitioners willing to contribute knowledge and experience to accelerate convergence and mainstreaming of Impact Valuation.

When it comes to measuring and managing corporate impacts on the multiple capitals (financial, natural, social, human and built), Impact Management and Impact Valuation have emerged as best practices in the interrelated fields of corporate social responsibility and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investing. These practices have two significant shortcomings that are largely unacknowledged: they don't attend to ecological and social thresholds (or the carrying capacities of capitals); and they assume impacts on the various capitals are fungible, and therefore impacts on one capital can substitute for impacts on another capital, which clearly does not reflect reality.

This chapter proposes solutions to both gaps: respect ‘critical capital’ thresholds to retain vital capital stocks necessary to fuel continuing flows of value (and avoid systemic collapses of capital resources), and aggregate impacts across capitals via the common factor of ‘progress towards sustainability’. These steps will mature the fields towards the creation of System Value, where capitals are continually regenerated sustainably in ways that support healthy living systems.

Population, community, and public health notions are addressed separately in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), have different foci and stakeholders, build on different frameworks to achieve their aims, and apply different measures to determine the long-term impact of interventions. This paper attempts to clarify each concept and proposes a method of evaluating each of these sets of health-related activities based on the benefits that accrue to the respective stakeholders.

In addition to indicating how to affect change and improvements in health, the ecological model of health also provides insight into how the benefits from health-related activities may or may not flow back to the entities sponsoring health interventions. By clearly defining each of the concepts and examining the methods and metrics being used to select activities and measure benefits, a valuation model is developed that measures the financial impact on the targeted population as well as the sponsoring institution.

Defining, measuring, and evaluating are important to bring clarity to how individual organizations can contribute to the overall health of the population, as well as the limits of any single organization in doing so. Collective and upstream action will be required to improve the population’s health, but identifying and justifying the role of each participating organization is a challenge that still lacks an overarching vision that can be explained and measured to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Decision makers must justify how resources are committed in an era of scarcity and limited financial means. Moreover, methods must be in place to measure the impact of potential collaborations. The proposed valuation framework lays out the natural incentives, the responses to those incentives, and how to select initiatives that maximize value from the perspective of the various stakeholders.

To catalyse the impact economy, we need a common language which unites the various disciplines covered by the universe of impact investing, including environmental science, sociology, anthropology, human capital, childhood education and development, workforce development, criminal justice, diversity equity and inclusion and more and which translates those into monetary estimates to enable decision-making, and to catalyse more sustainable and just outcomes. Impact accounting seeks to do just that by uniting the statements of an organisation's financial health and performance with monetised impact accounts that reflect the organisation's positive and negative impacts on employees, customers, the environment and the broader society. This chapter provides an argument for impact accounting, an implementation roadmap, and grapples with principles and ethics-based challenges for impact accounting.

Collectively, we can use impact accounting to demand accountability from the businesses from which we purchase or of which we are equity owners, either through from investment managers and our retirement accounts. We must demand that they start showing the impact-weighted earnings of their profits or the ‘true’ price of the product they produce.

Strategy is ultimately aimed at creating shareholder value. We examine the relationship among intrinsic (DCF) value, market value, and the value of growth options using a “perfect foresight” model. Our findings suggest that Kester's (1984) initial assessment of growth option values may not hold under alternative valuation models. We highlight important issues in the valuation of growth options related to market expectations, modeling assumptions and estimation methods. The findings suggest that the firm's growth option value depends on three factors, each of which impacts investor expectations: (1) the macroeconomic environment; (2) the industry in which the firm participates; and (3) firm specific factors.