A principles-based framework, not a prescriptive checklist. The Standard assesses the credibility of the assessment process — design, evidence, and reasoning — rather than validating outcome claims.
These convictions shape every principle in the Standard and every accreditation decision made under it.
Social change is shaped by context — social, institutional, temporal — and cannot always be reduced to numeric measures. The Standard accommodates this complexity rather than forcing false precision.
Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed approaches should be selected based on evaluation questions, scale, and materiality — not methodological preference or convention.
Accreditation confirms the integrity of the assessment process. It does not constitute endorsement of the CSR project itself or validation of the magnitude of reported impacts.
Public disclosure and scrutiny are integral — enabling accountability, learning, and continuous improvement beyond the accrediting decision itself.
Click any principle to explore its full guidance, methods, good practice examples, and common pitfalls.
The assessment must be anchored in a clearly articulated purpose and causal logic. Without a coherent theory of change, impact assessment becomes an exercise in data collection without direction.
Impact assessment must be grounded in local social, cultural, economic, and ecological realities. Decontextualised assessment misses what matters most to affected communities.
Methods used must be fit-for-purpose, transparent, and defensible. Rigour means appropriateness, not complexity — the right method for the right question at the right scale.
The depth of assessment should be proportionate to scale, risk, and materiality. A ₹50 lakh programme should not require the same assessment apparatus as a ₹50 crore intervention.
Findings must be supported by reliable and traceable evidence. The chain from data to analysis to finding must be transparent and reproducible.
The report must responsibly address causality without over-claiming impact. In complex social interventions, contribution claims are almost always more honest than attribution claims.
Impact assessment must respect rights, dignity, safety, and agency throughout the assessment lifecycle. Measurement itself can cause harm if conducted without ethical care.
Impact assessment should support learning, not just accountability. The most valuable reports are those that honestly examine what worked, what didn't, and why.
Impact reporting should enable public scrutiny and trust. Accessible language, disclosed funding, and willingness to enter the public domain are marks of genuine accountability.
A rigorous, transparent process designed for credibility and learning — not bureaucratic compliance.
The institution responsible for administering the Standard and accreditation process.
Provides strategic guidance and recommends revisions. Has no role in individual accreditation decisions.
Three independent members constituted per submission, with collective expertise in impact assessment and CSR.
Review the full Standard, understand the process, and submit when you're ready. We're here to help you get it right.