The drive to improve measurement is often sparked by a desire for more confidence that positive change is truly happening. This causes measurement conversations to emphasize a long-term impact, pushing attention towards the visionary side of the work. It is always a good exercise to get back to basics and make sure the operations are built and maintained for information to flow.

Implementation of measurement practices requires teams to have documented definitions, collection methods like online survey tools, and a well-known location for year-end numbers. Once built, these require annual maintenance to keep them accurate and smoothly functioning. Skimping on measurement resources can end up impeding the ability to draw meaning from data and cost people time in applying operational patches each year.

Social impact teams can fall into a pattern of annual data collection and reporting without stepping back to clearly articulate how they use data throughout the year. This is rarely due to a lack of interest and more often stems from a lack of bandwidth. Make sure the team discusses what everyone is learning from the social impact data; learning is fundamental in discovering all of the other ways data can be used. A mentality of learning is critical to avoid transactional data relationships. As external reporting continues to rise in importance, metrics that are included in annual reporting should be drawn from the largest set of processes a company has underway.

Social impact data is different than other data. There are unique complications when using data to describe changes in behavior that are part of a complex history of personal experiences. This data is typically sourced through collection methods that are still in the early stages of development and rely on significant human effort. Inside large companies, this contrast is particularly stark when social impact data is compared to sales pipeline data, building infrastructure data, or website traffic data.

Knowing the levels technology and automation in other types of data may skew expectations about social impact data.

Decisions to be more rigorous or pursue strict statistical confidence levels must not be made in a way that does people harm.

There is no shortage of ways to improve S in ESG metrics; teams can usually list numerous potential advancements for their measurement practices. They might have feedback from a partner, learned something new at a conference, hired an expert, or received a request for information they didn’t have. Drawing inspiration from multiple sources, experts, partners, and frameworks comes first. Then, sift through to pick which ones are feasible to accomplish. Prioritization and planning happen with less frequency in measurement because the breadth of possible improvements too often leads to overwhelm or can cause teams to second guess their expertise. It’s crucial to act with intention and start somewhere. Otherwise metrics (and thus, learning) can stagnate.

Some may try to sell you on what sounds like a measurement miracle. Trust your observations and be skeptical of promises that complex issues will easily disappear… if only you purchase their service. Instead, adjust your focus on the changes the team can achieve and keep the measurement practices steadily moving forward to track progress and improve results.

Continuous improvement is the name of the game. When it comes to deciding what to measure or how many metrics to have, strive to assess and continually improve balance rather than to define an ideal set of metrics that may always be out of reach. There are so many sources to help teams identify issue-specifics metrics. There are also many services to help with a theory of change exercise which should influence both strategic changes to activities and the indicators that can represent changes over time.

Look across all metrics currently in use – the whole list. Observe imbalance, not only in terms of the time horizon of what results they present (i.e., outputs vs outcomes), but also if/how there are enough that represent achievement of your strategy. Are there enough that represent operational excellence? It’s unlikely any team needs to delete everything and start over… or even could. Therefore, as part of making the prioritization and plan noted above, teams decide on specific metrics to add or subtract each year, in pursuit of balance rather than perfection.

Measurement is one agent of change. Corporate social impact professionals have made major strides in data-driven approaches to learning over the past decade together with their partners. Teams must now find a path forward to weave together the operational and the visionary – it’s the only way!

Carmen Perez is Founder of Better Next, an S in ESG consultancy that leads social impact projects for companies. Specifically touted for her extraordinary expertise in measurement, she has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other top tier publications as a futurist voice on corporate social impact trends. She’s written or contributed to more than 15 thought leadership papers on measurement and data. Together with corporate partners, Carmen led the development of a metric included in the World Economic Forum’s Common Metrics for Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism. Including her years as Senior Director, Corporate Strategy & Impact at Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose (CECP), she has spent over 5,000 hours advising on measurement practices with leaders from more than 100 multinational corporations including: Alcoa, Campbell Soup Company, Chevron, Dell, Discovery Education, Impossible Foods, Intel, Macquarie Group Foundation, Regeneron, TCS, USAA, and more.

Learn more about the measurement framework for CSR.