An annotated walkthrough of a CSR impact assessment report, section by section, with commentary linked to the nine principles.
This walkthrough analyses a composite sample report based on patterns observed across multiple maternal health programme assessments. It demonstrates how the nine principles apply in practice — where this type of report typically succeeds, and where common weaknesses emerge.
What works here: The report opens with a specific, quantified problem grounded in local data — not a generic statement about maternal health. The three-delay framework provides a clear causal mechanism linking the problem to the intervention design. Each programme component maps to a specific causal pathway.
The problem: Despite strong foundations in earlier sections, the report makes direct attribution claims without adequate causal reasoning. During the same period, the state government expanded its Janani Suraksha Yojana programme, a national conditional cash transfer scheme for institutional deliveries. District health infrastructure also received significant government investment.
The report presents correlation as causation. Institutional deliveries rose across the state during this period (from 58% to 69% statewide), suggesting that much of the observed increase in target areas may reflect broader trends rather than programme-specific impact.
What works here: This section demonstrates genuine reflexivity. The report honestly describes a component that wasn't working, explains why (drawing on qualitative evidence), documents the adaptation, and presents the result. This is precisely the kind of learning that makes impact assessment valuable beyond accountability.
This walkthrough illustrates a pattern common across healthcare impact reports: strong programme design and contextual understanding coexisting with weak causal reasoning. The report does many things well — its theory of change is clear, its ethical framework is robust, and its willingness to document adaptation is commendable.
However, the attribution claims in Section 4 undermine the report's overall credibility. An accreditation committee reviewing this report would likely return it as "Accredited with Conditions," requiring revision of the attribution and impact claims to acknowledge alternative explanations and provide a more honest contribution analysis.
The lesson is instructive: a report can be excellent in eight of nine principles and still face accreditation conditions on the basis of a single critical weakness — particularly in causal reasoning, where over-claiming impact is the most common and most consequential failure in CSR reporting.