The Motivations and Practices of Impact Assessment in Socially Responsible Investing: The French Case and its Implications for the Accounting and Impact Investing Communities

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics and company data.

Variable	Definition	Mean (SD)	Min – Max
Respondent Role
Analyst	Auditor, advisor, consultant, analyst, asset manager, sales/financial advisor	0.454 (0.500)	0 –1
Director	CEO, managing director, head of SRI, sales director	0.363 (0.483)	0 –1
Respondent seniority in asset management
Less than 5 yrs.	Less than 5 years	0.261 (0.441)	0 –1
Respondent seniority in SRI
Less than 5 yrs.	Less than 5 years	0.193 (0.397)	0 –1
Respondent age and gender
Less than 45	Less than 45 years	0.568 (0.498)	0 –1
Gender	Female	0.375 (0.486)
Firm
AM	Asset management company	0.454 (0.500)	0 –1
InIn	Institutional investor	0.136 (0.345)	0 –1
Assets under management
Less than 5 BN	Less than 5 billion euros	0.113 (0.319)	0 –1
5–50 BN	Between 5 and 50 billion euros	0.125 (0.332)	0 –1
More than 50 BN	More than 50 billion euros	0.216 (0.415)	0 –1
SRI strategy of firm
SRI priority	SRI is a priority in the company	0.772 (0.421)	0 –1
SRI label	SRI labelled funds under management	0.488 (0.502)	0 –1

Table 2. Motivations for impact assessment.

Variable	Definition	Mean (SD)	Min – Max
Communication	IA used to communicate with customers	0.670 (0.472)	0 –1
Relevant for saver	IA used because it is relevant for the saver	0.579 (0.496)	0 –1
Differentiation	IA used to differentiate SRI/conventional funds	0.568 (0.498)	0 –1
Future of SRI	IA used to identify the SRI themes of tomorrow	0.5 (0.502)	0 –1
SDGs	IA used to encourage sustainable development goals	0.465 (0.501)	0 –1
Competition	IA used to increase competitive advantage	0.443 (0.499)	0 –1
SRI label	IA used to meet the SRI label requirements	0.352 (0.480)	0 –1
Self-evaluation	IA used for self-evaluation (internal use)	0.306 (0.463)	0 –1

Figure 1. MCA of the motivations for impact assessment (obtained from the Burt Table).

Table 3. Qualitative coding of impact assessment definitions.

Theme Mentioned	Number of Occurrences
CONTENT OF IMPACT
ESG	23
Positive	20
SDGs	6
Negative	7
Societal	3
Non-Financial	2
TEEC	1
Indirect	1
Direct	1
TIME HORIZON
Long Term	3
Short Term	2
Mid Term	1
TYPE OF APPROACH
Measure	65
Change / Difference	27
Contribution	18
Externalities	12
Evidence	11
Performance	6
Qualify/Apprehend	5
Transparent	3
Monitor	1
SCOPE
Stakeholders	2
Planet	2
Real Economy	2
Society	1
Environment	1
Ecosystem	1
Territories	1
UNIT OF ANALYSIS
Investment	16
Company	13
Fund/Portfolio	12
Projects	2
Activities (economic)	2

Figure 2. MCA of the impact assessment styles revealing two opposed groups (obtained from the Burt Table).

Table 4. Most commonly cited impact measures (Open Question).

Impact Measures Cited	Number of Occurrences
Climate change (GHG emission, 2° alignment)	58
Number of jobs created	23
Gender equality	16
Corporate governance	14
SDGs	7
Water consumption	4
Training programmes	4
Weight of these 7 measures	80%
Others (very diverse i.e. more than 20 measures)	20%

Table 5. Relevant indicators for impact assessment.

Variable	Definition	Mean (SD)	Min – Max
Environment
	Direct greenhouse gas emissions	0.738 (0.441)	0 –1
	Water consumption	0.431 (0.498)	0 –1
	Energy consumption	0.215 (0.413)	0 –1
	Waste	0.306 (0.463)	0 –1
	Biodiversity protection	0.261 (0.441)	0 –1
	Fight against climate change	0.522 (0.502)	0 –1
Social climate
	Absenteeism rate	0.420 (0.496)	0 –1
	Permanent contracts rate	0.193 (0.397)	0 –1
	Percentage of employees trained	0.488 (0.502)	0 –1
	Frequency rate of work accidents	0.465 (0.501)	0 –1
Governance
	Percentage of independent board members	0.647 (0.480)	0 –1
	Percentage of sectorial expert board members	0.215 (0.413)	0 –1
	CSR contracting (bonus based on ESG)	0.545 (0.500)	0 –1
	Easy access to data	0.125 (0.332)	0 –1
	Controversies and scandals	0.488 (0.502)	0 –1
Respect for human rights
	Fundamental human rights in society	0.443 (0.499)	0 –1
	Labor rights (union and collective bargaining)	0.511 (0.502)	0 –1
	Respect of human rights in the supply chain	0.702 (0.421)	0 –1
Discrimination
	Non-discrimination practices	0.363 (0.483)	0 –1
	Non-use of prohibited labor practices	0.284 (0.453)	0 –1
Gender
	Percentage of women in executive committee	0.488 (0.502)	0 –1
	Percentage of women in managerial positions	0.397 (0.492)	0 –1
Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs)
	Percentage of turnover contributing to SDGs	0.625 (0.486)	0 –1
	Percentage of turnover from low-income population	0.159 (0.367)	0 –1
	Number of decent jobs created	0.409 (0.494)	0 –1
	Contribution to circular economy	0.181 (0.387)	0 –1
	Alignment of business model with SDGs	0.431 (0.498)	0 –1

Table 6. Impact assessment styles.

Variable	Definition	Mean (SD)	Min – Max
Pure ESG	IA based on pure ESG indicators	0.852 (0.356)	0 –1
Engagement	IA based on engagement measures	0.511 (0.502)	0 –1
Monetary ESG	IA based on ESG indicators in monetary value	0.284 (0.453)	0 –1
Negative/Exclusion	IA based on negative screening measures	0.284 (0.453)	0 –1
IntRep	IA based on Integrated Reporting	0.147 (0.356)	0 –1
Lifecycle	IA based on Life Cycle Analysis	0.102 (0.304)	0 –1
Pure monetary	IA based on monetary/financial indicators	0.056 (0.232)	0 –1
GRI	IA based on GRI indicators	0.045 (0.209)	0 –1
SASB	IA based on SASB	0.022 (0.149)	0 –1
GIIRS	IA based on GIIRS	0.022 (0.149)	0 –1