There’s been steady progress on the draft ISEAL Impacts Code in the last month. Amazingly, the Impacts Code committees do not seem to tire of this work, and have been both critical and encouraging. Here is a copy of short note from Francisco Bustamante of UTZ Certified, which is typical of the committee support I receive:
It is very interesting to see the evolution in the Code. You will find my comments enclosed directly in the text. I think we need to pay more attention in the methodological issues in data analysis, because the statistical methods have their own procedures; so I suggest not to be very descriptive and let the standards define the quantitative and qualitative data handling according with the selected indicators and all the other considerations in the Evaluation design (with a good advisory sources). Congratulations for your hard work.
In this newsletter, you’ll find more good suggestions for the ISEAL Impacts Code, a theory of change for standards systems and – of course – an overview of the steps ahead.
Enjoy reading!
Paddy Doherty
Credibility Tools Manager, ISEAL Alliance
Patrick Mallet has been taking particular interest in the overall design of the Impacts Code—ensuring it flows logically, and is neither too short nor too long, while including the necessary information. Together we have rearranged sections of the draft, splitting some sections up, and moving sections around within the document. We will be doing more of this in the coming weeks, in preparation for a final draft.
Catrina Lucero, of iScale has offered to spend some time thinking about, and making suggestions regarding how the Impacts Code can include the theory of change (as its theoretical framework) and especially how the theory of change is linked to the notion of ‘scaling-up the impacts’ of social and environmental standards systems. Catrina suggests:
Theory of change is about systemic change and is tied to a broad level VISION that is shared by many. For example, many if not all of the standards systems have as their ultimate goal/vision a socially and environmentally sustainable world. Clearly, standards systems are necessary but not sufficient for achieving such a world. They are one of a series of simultaneous, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing pathways for achieving impact. This means that there is a whole host of other actors working on different impact pathways that are also needed to reach the vision.
One could imagine a social movement that needs representative from civil society, labor, business etc… to bring about some kind of social change. They each do different things and have different strengths but it is only through their combined efforts that the ultimate goal is reached. A set of systemic level progress markers can be set and progress towards generally and an individual actor’s specific contributions to these intermediate indicators can be measured, monitored, and evaluated.
One level down is the standard system. While each has a broad level vision that is aligned with many other actors, they also have a more individualized MISSION of HOW they specifically contribute to the vision – what impact pathway(s) they follow. The theory of action is a further elaboration of the individual’s mission. It creates a sort of blueprint directly tied to mission but still aligned with the vision and thus the broader level theory of change as well. This means that an individual actor can both monitor and evaluate their own actions AND asses their CONTRIBUTIONS to the outcomes and impacts embedded within the theory of change one level up.
Evaluation becomes a multi-level question of “What/how well am I doing?” AND “What/how well is the system doing?” The theory of change (at the systems level) and theory of action (at the individual level) then become the theoretical structure for the M&E system—showing us what to measure, and where to measure it.
The Impacts Code will show standards systems how to answer the question, “What impact are we having?”, but more importantly perhaps is the question, “Why isn’t there more impact?” A common theory of change for standards systems will help us answer this question as a coordinated movement, and show us where we stand in relation to the “broad level VISION that is shared by many”, as Catrina suggests.
Common theory of change
I continue to struggle with the notion of a common theory of change for social and environmental standards systems, with assistance from Patrick, Catrina, Aimee Russillo, and Ruth Norris (Packard Foundation):
Standards systems influence markets to choose products or services that are compliant with social and environmental standards, and by doing so, contribute to healthy ecosystems, social well-being, and economic resiliency.
Assumptions (or nested hypothesis)
- The implementation of our standards will contribute to healthy ecosystems, social well-being, and economic resiliency
- Standards mechanisms will encourage increased demand (from the market) for products or services that are compliant with our standards
- Increased demand will result in incentives for participants (profit, risk management), thus increasing participation and thereby more positive impact
This is just the start of what seems at times to be a theoretical exercise, but should actually lead us towards the appropriate questions of what we should be assessing to show our common contribution to impact.
Next Steps
There is a lot of work to do between now and early June, when I need to provide a working draft to the Impacts Code Steering Committee. The Issues section (what to measure) in particular needs more effort, but I am working closely with Aimee Russillo to complete the list of issues to measure, and describe how standards systems will choose the indicators of what they will measure. I am confident we will come up with a good working draft for this section.
Please visit the Impacts Code wiki and the Impacts Code Blog to see the latest changes, comments, and my particular thinking. Patrick and I will be meeting with the Impacts Code Steering committee in London on June 18, 19 in order to review the working draft and get it ready for formal posting for comments (July).
