The report is upfront about the lack of comparability on non-financial indicators at present, it predicts there will be more consensus in the future as the industry matures with more collaboration. It once again reaffirms the complexity in finding overlapping social and eviromental indicators even at basic output level, we're still far off from developing common outcome/ impact indicators from diverse missions and strategies. The report also acknowledges the lack of additional analyses will restrict insight on particular sectors or geographies. The lack of comparable non-financial indicators is one challenge, and the small sample of enterprises that contribute data/ apply IRIS standard also hinders insight generalization.
There's no question that IRIS is primarily developed for impact investors, the stated goals for enterprises using IRIS are inclined to 'attract more capital and report to investors.' Like indicator used for analyses throughout the report - earned revenue, employees hired, suppliers worked with, people served and profitability by regions and also sectors, they offer a quick glance of market intelligence to investors. Although the report highlights future potential of doing more segmentation with more enterprise characteristics and even down to the level of which crops can be more profitable and impactful, the debate that will linger is can IRIS capture truly meaningful and real impact with output inclined to investors?
IRIS website states that the annual review process always 'involves broad participation and objective consideration of comments provided by various stakeholders.' It'll be better to be open about how the process incorporates feedback from mission-driven enterprises. I think there should be genuine interests from all key players to seek more information in this area.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment