i + Exploring the social impact of corporate social investment in South Africa NEVILLE TAZIVA MANGWIRO, Student Number: 820117 Supervisor: Professor Bhekinkosi Moyo WITS BUSINESS SCHOOL A thesis submitted to the Wits Business School, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, the University of the Witwatersrand in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philanthropy and Social Investment in Africa ` February 2023 Cell: +27 71 868 2577 Email: mangwironev@yahoo.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2069-8210 mailto:mangwironev@yahoo.com ii Abstract Our research examined the social impact of corporate social investment (CSI)/corporate social responsibility (CSR) in South Africa. It evaluated CSI/CSR activities and their immediate outcomes in three South African provinces, namely Mpumalanga, Western Cape, and Gauteng. CSI initiatives within the financial sector in the three provinces were chosen because the financial sector is one of the top three locations where most CSI/CSR activities occur. The critical systems heuristics theory underpinned this study. To systematically address the key research questions, the explorative sequential mixed-methods research approach was employed, which involved a two-phase research methodology that began with phase one being qualitative and phase two being the quantitative aspect of the proposed research. Semi-structured interviews with 32 key informants from a business mentorship programme and an early childhood development practitioner training programme provided qualitative data. In addition, a self- completion survey questionnaire completed by 427 respondents with experience in conducting CSI/CSR initiatives provided quantitative data. To analyse qualitative data, ATLAS.ti 9.1.3.0 Multilingual qualitative research software was employed. Furthermore, the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences software 25 (SPSS 25) was used for descriptive and inferential statistics analysis of quantitative data. Significant findings revealed that CSI is a charitable activity of business conducted to achieve community relations and development for social good. It turned out that CSI initiatives can potentially reinforce the inequalities and disparities that corporate CSR/CSI should eradicate by maintaining the status quo in South Africa. The study concludes that the would-be beneficiaries cannot voice their interests in the CSI initiatives now in a way that can positively affect their lives. Therefore, engaging in the initiative in a more inclusive way that allows would-be beneficiaries to represent themselves would be more iii empowering and emancipative. The study, therefore, recommends that when the decision-makers are designing the CSI initiatives, one of the purposes for its establishment should be to ensure ownership of the purported beneficiaries’ businesses in addition to the upskilling of all stakeholders. iv Declaration on plagiarism I, Neville Mangwiro (Student number: 820117), at this moment, declared the following: I confirmed that the work I submitted for the Doctor of Philosophy in Philanthropy and Social Investment in Africa qualification was my unaided work. I followed the required conventions in referencing the thoughts and ideas of others. I knew plagiarism (using someone else's work without their permission or acknowledging the source) was wrong. However, I understood that the University of the Witwatersrand could take disciplinary action against me if there were a belief that this was not my unaided work or that I had failed to correctly acknowledge the source of the ideas or words in my writing. I included as an appendix a report from "Turnitin" software indicating the level of plagiarism in my research document. Signature: ___ ______________ Date: _28/02/2023______________ v Acknowledgements I want to thank my supervisor, Professor Bhekinkosi Moyo, for all the support and guidance throughout the research process. Not only were you a supervisor but a friend and you always made sure I got the best of everything I needed to achieve the most significant milestone of my life through the completion of this PhD Thesis. I am grateful that you value our relationship beyond just doing a supervision job for a student allocated to you. I look forward to our next chapter, where you become my ambassador for life and I can give other students such an experience. Throughout what was dubbed a lonely journey and started very much so, I found new family and friends worldwide at various conferences. To my new family and friends I met at the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) conference (July 2022), thank you for all your input into my research. I also extend my gratitude to all my new family and friends I met at the Association for Research on Non-profit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) conference (November 2022). To all the new family and friends and the mentors and lecturers at the Centre on African Philanthropy and Social Investment (CAPSI) PhD Methodology and Writing Workshops (October 2021 & September 2022), salute. However, I extend a special thank you to Pearl Machabe, who made data collection for me seamless. The journey would have been much more complex and longer without your assistance. I will forever be grateful. I want to acknowledge everyone who made data collection possible, for research is nothing without data. Your names are too much to mention. To my family and friends, I am now available and thank you for the love and support you showed throughout the journey. vi Lastly, I would like to thank Myself for all the sweat and blood I put in throughout my academic journey to get here finally. Thank you, Neville Taziva Mangwiro, your efforts are appreciated. vii List of Abbreviations ASGISA Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa AU African Union BEE Black Economic Empowerment BBEEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment BoP Bottom of the Pyramid Impact Assessment Framework CSI Corporate Social Investment CSH Critical Systems Heuristics CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DAC Development Assistance Committee DAG Development Assistance Group DPME Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation GEAR Growth, Employment, and Redistribution IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment JSE Johannesburg Stock Exchange MIF Measuring Impact Framework MNC Multinational Corporations NDP National Development Plan NGO Non-Profit Organisations OASIS Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PIA Participatory Impact Assessment PSIA Poverty Social Impact Assessment viii RDP Reconstruction and Development Plan SCBA Social Costs–Benefit Analysis SDG Sustainable Development Goal SIA Social Impact Assessment ix Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Declaration on plagiarism .............................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii List of figures ............................................................................................................................... xiii List of tables ................................................................................................................................. xiv 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to the study ............................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.1 Primary question ................................................................................................................. 15 1.3.2 Secondary questions ............................................................................................................ 15 1.4 Objectives of the Research .......................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Delimitations ............................................................................................................................... 16 1.6 Justification/Original contribution of the research ...................................................................... 16 1.7 Organisation of the Study ........................................................................................................... 17 1.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 18 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2 Understanding Corporate Social Investment .............................................................................. 19 2.3 CSI/CSR in South Africa ............................................................................................................ 25 2.4 Defining Social Impact ............................................................................................................... 33 2.4.1 Adapting a working definition ............................................................................................ 33 2.4.2 Towards measurement of social impact .............................................................................. 36 2.5 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria .................................................................................................... 38 2.6 Theoretical Considerations ......................................................................................................... 43 x 2.6.1 Understanding Critical Systems Heuristics ......................................................................... 43 2.6.2 Valuing using Critical Systems Heuristics in CSI initiatives .............................................. 49 2.7 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................... 50 2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 51 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 52 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 52 3.2 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 52 3.3 Research design and paradigm .................................................................................................... 53 3.4 Sampling ..................................................................................................................................... 56 3.4.1 Qualitative phase ................................................................................................................. 56 3.4.2 Quantitative phase ............................................................................................................... 58 3.5 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 61 3.5.1 Qualitative phase ................................................................................................................. 61 3.5.2 Quantitative phase ............................................................................................................... 62 3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 63 3.6.1 Qualitative phase ................................................................................................................. 63 3.6.2 Quantitative phase ............................................................................................................... 68 3.7 Validity and reliability ................................................................................................................ 69 3.7.1 Qualitative phase ................................................................................................................. 69 3.7.2 Quantitative phase ............................................................................................................... 70 3.8 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 79 3.8.1 Qualitative phase ................................................................................................................. 79 3.8.2 Quantitative phase ............................................................................................................... 79 3.9 Ethics........................................................................................................................................... 80 3.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 80 4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ......................................................................................... 81 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 81 Phase 1: Qualitative Data Presentation ......................................................................................... 84 4.2 Motivation and Values ................................................................................................................ 84 xi 4.2.1 Beneficiary .......................................................................................................................... 85 4.2.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 87 4.2.3 Measure of improvement .................................................................................................... 90 4.3 Decision-making structures/Source of Power ............................................................................. 93 4.3.1 Decision-maker ................................................................................................................... 93 4.3.2 Resources ............................................................................................................................ 97 4.3.3 Decision environment ......................................................................................................... 98 4.4 Bases for knowledge generation ............................................................................................... 100 4.4.1 Expert ................................................................................................................................ 100 4.4.2 Expertise ........................................................................................................................... 103 4.4.3 Guarantor/Assurance ......................................................................................................... 106 4.5 Bases for legitimacy .................................................................................................................. 107 4.5.1 Witness .............................................................................................................................. 108 4.5.2 Emancipation .................................................................................................................... 109 4.5.3 Worldview ......................................................................................................................... 111 4.6 Social impact of CSI initiatives ................................................................................................ 112 Phase 2: Quantitative Data Presentation ..................................................................................... 114 4.7 Descriptive statistics ................................................................................................................. 114 4.7.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................... 114 4.7.2 Relevant constructs to measuring social impact ............................................................... 117 4.8 Inferential statistics ................................................................................................................... 121 4.8.1 Testing the multivariate analysis assumptions .................................................................. 121 4.8.2 Regression analysis for social impact of CSI initiatives ................................................... 126 4.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 130 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 132 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 132 5.2 Key findings .............................................................................................................................. 133 5.3 Phase 1: Qualitative Data Discussion ....................................................................................... 133 5.3.1 What is the social impact of CSI? ..................................................................................... 133 xii 5.3.2 CSH in CSI ....................................................................................................................... 135 5.4 Phase 2: Quantitative Data Discussion ..................................................................................... 141 5.4.1 What is the relationship between social impact (dependant variable) and CSI/CSR (independent variable), if any? Adequacy of the Model ................................................................... 142 5.4.2 Legitimacy source ............................................................................................................. 144 5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 147 6. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEACH ....... 149 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 149 6.2 Purpose of the research ............................................................................................................. 149 6.3 Summary of key findings .......................................................................................................... 150 6.4 Empirical contributions of the research .................................................................................... 152 6.5 Theoretical contribution ............................................................................................................ 153 6.6 Practical and political contributions .......................................................................................... 155 6.7 Methodological Contributions .................................................................................................. 157 6.8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 159 6.8.1 Motivation and values ....................................................................................................... 159 6.8.2 Structures for decision-making ......................................................................................... 159 6.8.3 Bases for knowledge generation ....................................................................................... 160 6.8.4 Moral and legitimacy bases ............................................................................................... 161 6.9 Areas for future research ........................................................................................................... 162 7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 163 8. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 182 8.1 Appendix 1: Qualitative data collection instrument .................................................................. 182 8.2 Appendix 2: Quantitative data collection instrument ................................................................ 185 xiii List of figures Figure 1: Most frequently cited CSR articles (2008-2018) ........................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Summary of knowledge gap analysis .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Connection of CSR, Corporate Philanthropy and CSI ................................................................ 21 Figure 4: Population of South Africa by province ...................................................................................... 26 Figure 5: Arrangement of BEE Codes ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure 6: Relationship between sustainability and these three dimensions ................................................ 35 Figure 7: Social Impact Measurement Methods Overview ......................................................................... 38 Figure 8: History of OECD and DAC criteria ............................................................................................ 39 Figure 9: Summary of the types of systems thinking models ..................................................................... 44 Figure 10: Three dimensions of critical systems heuristics ........................................................................ 48 Figure 11: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 51 Figure 12: Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Method Approach .................................................................... 54 Figure 13:Example of network diagram ..................................................................................................... 66 Figure 14: Qualitative to quantitative data conversion framework (integration of qualitative and quantitative phase) ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 15: Themes deducted from the theoretical framework .................................................................... 82 Figure 16: Years of experience doing CSI at current organisation ........................................................... 115 Figure 17: Age group of respondents ........................................................................................................ 116 Figure 18: Level of Education .................................................................................................................. 117 Figure 19: Industry in which company doing CSI operates in .................................................................. 118 Figure 20: Number of employees conducting CSI .................................................................................... 119 Figure 21: CSI Budget allocated to monitoring and evaluation ................................................................ 120 Figure 22: Scatter plot matrix for all variables ......................................................................................... 122 Figure 23: Plot of residuals against predictor variable.............................................................................. 123 Figure 24: Histogram for the normality of standardised errors ................................................................. 125 Figure 25: P-P Plot for normality of residuals .......................................................................................... 126 xiv List of tables Table 1: Breakdown of sample quotas ........................................................................................................ 60 Table 2: Example of top-down coding based on theoretical framework .................................................... 64 Table 3: Relevance Item-Total Statistics .................................................................................................... 72 Table 4: Coherence Item-Total Statistics .................................................................................................... 73 Table 5: Effectiveness Item-Total Statistics ............................................................................................... 74 Table 6: Efficiency Item-Total Statistics .................................................................................................... 75 Table 7: Impact Item-Total Statistics .......................................................................................................... 76 Table 8: Sustainability Item-Total Statistics ............................................................................................... 78 Table 9: Summary of interview participants ............................................................................................... 83 Table 10: Measures for multicollinearity .................................................................................................. 123 Table 11: Beta Coefficients for the regression analysis ............................................................................ 128 Table 12: Fit of regression model ............................................................................................................. 129 Table 13: F-Statistic .................................................................................................................................. 129 1 1. INTRODUCTION "It is the absence of broad-based business activity, not its presence, which condemns much of humanity to suffering. Indeed, what is utopian is the notion that poverty can be overcome without the active engagement of business."1 – Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, 14 June 2005. We explored the social impact of corporate social investment (CSI) in South Africa from 2012 when the National Development Plan (NDP) of South Africa was developed. South Africa was able to then contextualise the September 2000 Millenium Development Goals which had targets for 2015 (Cleote, 2018). These led to the development of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) post-2015. As a result, 59% of corporates align their CSI with the SDGs, while 54% align their CSI with the NDP (Trialogue, 2020). Social impact was referred to as planned interventions (in our case, the planned intervention was CSI/corporate social responsibility (CSR) that produce results. These results could be good or bad and intended or unintended. Therefore, we accepted the logic model from evaluation theory that elucidated the difference between outputs and impacts (Clark, Rosenweig, Long & Olsen, 2004; Serje, 2017). With this 1 Annan, K. (2005). The Business Case to Support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Retrieved from https://climatechange-theneweconomy.com/2030-agenda-g7-business-case-support-sustainable-development-goals- sdgs/ (accessed 23 June 2021) https://climatechange-theneweconomy.com/2030-agenda-g7-business-case-support-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/ https://climatechange-theneweconomy.com/2030-agenda-g7-business-case-support-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/ 2 understanding of social impact, it was prudent to use the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to measure the success of CSI initiatives to show social impacts. The reason for this is that it is the internationally accepted practice/criteria to evaluate interventions (in our case CSI/CSR), success (high quality) and unsuccessfulness (low quality) projects, programmes, plans and policies (Chianca, 2008; Teasdale, 2021; Patton, 2021). However, while we acknowledge there is critique of the DAC criteria, there quantitative and qualitative data that supported our use of the DAC criteria. Over 89% of the 691 surveys that were received on whether to retain, adapt or remove the criteria said it should be retained (DAC Network on Development Evaluation, 2018; Patton, 2021). Additionally, Patton highlights that over 700 pages of qualitative comments also constituted part of the decision to retain the criteria providing us with a basis to accept their continued support for use on interventions as defined here. By interventions, we accepted referring to projects, programs, policies, and initiatives as highlighted by Patton (2021). To shift focus from inputs, activities and outputs (implementation) to results (outcomes and impact), the DAC and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) redefined a criterion (DAC criteria) in 2019 (Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation [DPME], 2019). The criteria were based on the assumption that its use was contextualised and adapted to achieve the evaluation's purpose. We adopted the definitions provided in Better Criteria for Better Evaluation (OECD/DAC, 2019, p. 7 – 12) verbatim. There are six revised of these criteria. The first is relevance is “the extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities and continue to do so if circumstances change.” The second measures effectiveness which is “the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, 3 its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups.” Third, efficiency, “the extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.” The fourth measures coherence “the compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution.” The fifth measures impact “he extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.” Sixth and final, measures sustainability as “the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue.” Thus, (i) outputs are what the activities produce on completion immediately, (ii) outcomes are alterations in the performance, behaviours or attitudes of the communities/society after the achievement of the outputs and (iii) impacts are the long-term social change of what would have happened without CSI intervention(s) minus outcomes (Kolodinsky, Stewart & Bullard, 2006; Maas & Liket, 2011). Usually, social impacts are associated with users. However, to broaden this definition, we accepted the inclusion of social relations as brought forward by Serje (2017) in the description of social impact. She argued that social relationships are a product of history and can be redesigned, improved or abandoned. Therefore, such consideration were added to the currently accepted causal definition of social impact. Another essential definition consideration included understanding CSR and CSI within South Africa. Here we offered a brief working definition of both terms. CSI was a discretionary activity of business conducted to achieve community relations and development for social good, sometimes commonly known as corporate philanthropy (Fig, 2005; Hamann, 2009). On the other hand, there is extensive literature (for example, Noyoo, 2016; Chakamera, 2020; Barnett, Henriques & Husted, 2020) which confirms that CSR was the umbrella of corporate philanthropy 4 and that CSI was the activity of corporate philanthropy, allowing for the operationalisation of CSR initiatives. Consequently, it was crucial to understand that while CRS and CSI are related, they are different in that CSI was focused solely on discretionary activities whereas CSR was broader and required the business to operate in society to make profits ethical while minimising environmental harm (Slavova, 2013; Fontaine, 2013). Therefore, we accepted the interchangeable usage of the two terms within South Africa for our research, cognisant that they were fundamentally different. Additionally, we welcomed Slavova (2013) and Fontaine (2013) distinction made in this paragraph. The quote above captured the heart of the themes as well as the discourse from which our research stemmed and sought to explore what we thought throughout the study. Most of the literature, both locally and globally, had been from the field of commerce, mainly concerned with increasing and managing wealth for business shareholders. So it was common to find literature on (i) increasing share value, (ii) relationships of CSI and legitimacy, (iii) governance of CSI and (iv) the use of theories like ethics theory, stakeholder theory, institutional theory and agency theory. Unfortunately, most of the research in CSI has fallen short of reporting on the results (outcomes and social impacts) of CSI interventions, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. However, little is known about the social impact of CSI and the gaps that remain a blind spot. 5 These gaps include whether CSI benefits the intended beneficiaries, how they benefit, whether a contribution to achieving the National Development Plan2 is made, and whether there could be a systemic issue with the current CSI system. The current research helped in closing knowledge gaps by exploring the social impact of CSI in South Africa. It was not within the scope of our study to completely close these gaps but to contribute to the process. To do this, we employed the mixed-methods approach where the samples selected for qualitative research used non-probability sampling while probability sampling methods were used for the quantitative questions. Our theoretical framework was critical systems heuristics (CSH) which is a form of systems thinking and critical science, as Gates (2017) and Gates (2018) highlighted. We adopted Ulrich’s (2005, p. 1) definition of CSH as “a framework for reflective practice based on practical philosophy and systems thinking.” It used the boundary questions of critical systems heuristics as developed by Ulrich (1987) and modified by Ulrich and Reynolds (2010). Importantly, this was applied to address the research problem and answer the research questions. 2 South Africa was able to then contextualise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda by creating the National Development Plan (NDP) in 2012 using the Millenium Development Goals, the predecessor of the SDGs (Cleote, 2018). It is a member of the African Union (AU) and subscribes to international development goals. In Africa it is subscribed to the Vission 2063 agenda. Therefore, by achieving the NDP goals CSI is able to contextually achieve the SDGs. 6 Figure 1: Most frequently cited CSR articles (2008-2018) Source: Adaptation by the Researcher (Barnett, Henriques & Husted, 2020) 7 The rest of the chapter begins by defining our literature and knowledge gap contribution. Then, we state the research problem statement and the supporting research questions we answered to address the identified problem. After this, our research objectives are stated, leading to the delimitations and justification of the study. Finally, the chapter closes with the organisation of the rest of the research. 1.1 Background to the study This section highlights what we (the researcher) know about CSR and/or CSI currently from the literature. In other words, it elucidates the knowledge gap that the research contributes by exposing what we had presently known within the field. Furthermore, it examines (i) objectives and theories, (ii) methodology and (iii) results and discussions from previous literature on the topic. We were guided by trend analysis and the theory of constraints described by Wotela (2019) to achieve this. Furthermore, Wotela details a knowledge gap analysis technique as part of the research conceptualisation presented below. There is extensive literature that CSR models (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Wry & Haugh, 2018; Barnett, Henriques & Husted, 2020). Additionally, it is also a known fact that there were attempts to link philanthropy and corporate social investment to results (outcomes and impact). However, this literature falls short because the concentration is mainly in the beginning stages (inputs and outputs). Therefore, we contributed to the body of knowledge by offering a model that goes a step further by shifting focus to the social impact of CSI. Our research built upon two studies by Noyoo (2016) and Barnett, Henriques & Husted (2020), even though the former was in the South African context while the latter was in the American context. Noyoo (2016) argued that most literature on CSR was based on the business 8 sector and the literature seriously lacked a social policy perspective from both practice and academia globally. The objective of his research was to look at the evolution of CSR in Zambia and South Africa. Similarly, Barnett, Henriques & Husted (2020) were interested in the effectiveness of CSR initiatives and drew on development studies’ logic models in their review of a sample of over 6000 journal articles. With the aid of the Web of Science, they were able to identify 69 frequently cited articles on CSR performance. Of these, 30 (43%) were on CSR activities, 35 (51%) focused on outputs which are products of activities and the literature on results (outcomes & social impact) were scant, with only 4 (6%) addressing this. What this showed was that literature on CSI/CSR would greatly benefit from a shift from its current concentration to that of outcomes and social impacts (results) of CSI interventions, ultimately enhancing the quality of CSI literature. Additionally, in the nascent literature from the philanthropy and social investment sector, Ouma (2020) reverted to the business sector focus areas expressed by Noyoo (2016) of finding out the effect on firm value caused by corporate philanthropy3. Ouma's research relied on Collin, Pincus and Xie's corporate valuation model in which the firm’s value is determined by the equity’s book value. The sample consisted of data from individual company websites, DataStream, Bloomberg, and Worldscospe databases. The results indicated that stock returns had 3 CSI is a the form of corporate philanthropy that CSR for social and development of the society is practiced. The connection is not relevant to the conceptualisation focus of this section and therefore not detailed here intentionally. It is detailed in the said section because this is where it can be coherently placed for this research. 9 a lesser statistical influence on firm value than corporate philanthropy (CSI). Interestingly, the research from Barnett, Henriques & Husted (2020) was from the management field. It highlighted the cognisance of a need to shift from this current interest reflected by Ouma. The shift was to one that was focused on social impact highlighted in the social work field of Noyoo (2016). The dominant literature around CSR held the skewed perspective. It was from the business, marketing and consumer management, management, finance and commerce perspective (Viviers, Ractliffe, & Hand, 2011; Robert, Hinson & Ndhlovu, 2011; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015; Urban & George, 2018; Mogapi, Sutherland & Wilson- Prangley, 2019; Ouma, 2020). Naturally, it addressed issues of (i) legal and economic obligations, (ii) return on investment, (iii) maximising shareholders' wealth, (iv) CSR performance and (v) value creation (share value) of philanthropy and corporate social investment. It is no wonder that the social impact on societies often took the back seat to returns on investment in social initiatives like CSI and their business case (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams & Ganapathi, 2007: Maas & Liket, 2011a). The purpose of CSR and CSI, as it was understood in the South African context, was also another consideration that was evident in the literature (Everatt, Habib, Maharaj & Nyar, 2005; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015; Raliphada & Horne, 2017; Makka & Nieuwenhuizen, 2018). For example, in the Habib, Maharaj and Nyar (2005) and Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen and Petersen (2015) articles, one of the objectives of these two journal articles was to explore the motives and intentions of CSR within the African continent and more specifically, South Africa. However, the former was quantitative research which relied on a national survey as the data collection instrument. Though, the latter took a qualitative methods 10 approach relying on secondary data, results showed that it was not clear whether there was any positive social impact on people's lives. Instead, corporates could reinforce the inequalities and disparities that corporate CSR/CSI should eradicate by maintaining the status quo. To this, Raliphada and Horne (2017) argued their research objective was to scrutinise the impact created on the social needs of society by banks labelling them as development venture capitalists. However, capitalism was not associated with the development or social impact. Nevertheless, the Raliphada and Horne research utilised purposive sampling methods, triangulating interviews, secondary data and field notes. It was purported that the social impact expected from the banks had improved life for the societies through borrowings of funds made available to them. However, it had worsened the situation because now the intended beneficiaries were worse off than they were before incurring debt with interest. It was not overtly apparent what the interpretive frameworks/theories applied for some of the research regarding CSR/CSI, which indicates a theoretical gap in the literature needing bridging. For example, Chakamera (2020) analysed the CSR of non-African founded Multinational Corporations and African internationalisers. His research was overtly visible in the methodology applied to derive his results without clarity on the interpretive framework. Similarly, Hogan, Olson and Sharma (2014) argued that shareholder value was affected by the CSR rating that rating firms gave companies participating in CSR. While making a brief reference to expanding on Godfrey's research and using a sample from the Bloomberg database from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2011, the study found that (i) more was given to communities when the size of the Board was big, (ii) the same applied with a Board with a large number of women, (iii) chances of going bankrupt were reduced and (iv) for different measures of CSR, the firm score and corporate philanthropy relationship differed. These theoretical gaps 11 were also evidenced in the Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen (2015) and Makka & Nieuwenhuizen (2018) previously described. Notwithstanding, some studies used theories in the respective fields to provide empirical evidence of philanthropy and social investment. Examples include4: (i) shareholder wealth maximisation theory, (ii) sociological institutionalism, (iii) New Institutional Economics theory, (iv) Keynesian theory, (v) stakeholder theory, (vi) agency theory, (vii) corporate valuation model of Collins, (viii) Pincus and Xie paradox theory, (ix) neoclassic economics, (x) signalling theory and (xi) institutional economics. Therefore, research forwarding the argument of the social impact of CSI in South Africa added to this current body of knowledge by providing a different perspective from a critical systems heuristics perspective (Noyoo, 2016; Ülkü, Bell & Wilson, 2015; Gates, 2017; Gates, 2018; Urrea & Pedraza-Martinez, 2019; Schad, Oztanriseven & Grabowski, 2020). Our research contributed to bridging this gap in the current philanthropy and corporate social responsibility literature. Furthermore, doing so contributed to the scant contemporary theory, which was developmental, of achieving the social impact reflected in the lives of the intended beneficiaries from corporate social investment. As Noyoo (2016) states, these theories are from commerce, including auditing, accounting, finance, business, business management, economics and strategy fields. This meant 4 Refer to (Muller & Whiteman, 2009; Ndhlovu, 2011; Viviers, Ractliffe, & Hand, 2011; Robert, Hinson & Ndhlovu, 2011; Van Cranenburgh, & Arenas, 2014; Masulis & Reza, 2015; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015; Urban & George, 2018; Mogapi, Sutherland & Wilson-Prangley, 2019; Ouma, 2020) 12 that only business impacts and financial results got measured, ignoring that social goals were the epicentre of their business operations (Maas & Liket, 2011b). Furthermore, Clark, Rosenweig, Long & Olsen (2004), as well as Maas and Liket (2011b), posited that the orthodox accounting standards did not account for social and environmental impact because they were alleged to have no market value and therefore omitted by the markets. Thus, for example, Mogapi, Sutherland and Wilson-Prangley (2019) set out to balance the financial returns versus good social change to impact investors' problems. The theory applied by Mogapi, Sutherland and Wilson-Prangley to their qualitative research was paradox theory through 23 semi-structured interview questions from 15 South African investment professionals purposefully selected. It was discovered that identifying sectors, ensuring leadership was involved and watching how contracts are processed and aligned with values were the four suggested solutions. Therefore, guided by trend analysis and the theory of constraints described by Wotela (2019), we summarised our knowledge gap analysis in Figure 2 below. In this figure, we summarised the above into three categories that led us to identify what areas of focus are shown in the literature, the theories that are most commonly used and therefore, the issues they are able and have addressed. With this, we then identified our research problem, research questions and research objectives. 13 Figure 2: Summary of knowledge gap analysis Source: Adapter from Literature (Muller & Whiteman, 2009; Ndhlovu, 2011; Viviers, Ractliffe, & Hand, 2011; Robert, Hinson & Ndhlovu, 2011; Van Cranenburgh, & Arenas, 2014; Masulis & Reza, 2015; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015; Urban & George, 2018; Mogapi, Suherland & Wilson-Prangley, 2019; Ouma, 2020). 1.2 Problem Statement The South African government had continued to grapple with the legacy issues from the colonial and apartheid era. The government currently needed a hands-on approach from the private sector to better tackle the social problems the country was now facing. The private sector did this through CSI programmes and better-aligned projects to achieve social impact. As demonstrated above, little was known about this phenomenon of the social impact of CSI initiatives. Therefore, there was a possibility that companies social impact of their CSI initiatives 14 was overstated. Consequently, contributing more to the status quo of inequality, poverty and unemployment (unintended social impact) instead of alleviating it (intended social impact). Thus, contributing to ineffective CSI initiatives resulting in limited to no social impact and poor accountability. Additionally, this indicated a system fault within CSI practice in South Africa. In South Africa, it was reported that approximately R10.7 billion was spent on CSI in 2020. However, 46% of companies still had fallen short of integrating their overall strategy with the National Development Plan and 48% of companies still fell short of measuring outcomes of their grants. To facilitate alignment of national plans and development, there was a growing need to increase accountability and beneficiary social impact by measuring CSI's effectiveness and increasing relevance. By focusing on the social impact component of CSI, we intended to further the knowledge of industry-accepted best practices to achieve more socially impactful CSI in South Africa and therefore, enhanced the larger body of knowledge in Africa. This provided a different perspective that had potential broader impact of assisting South Africa to realise the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Development Plan goals globally and nationally. It also had the potential to elucidate if there was a systematic issue within the CSI profession as it was practiced in South Africa. There had been no known systematic assessment of the social impact of CSI from a critical systems heuristics perspective to date and its potential relationship with beneficiation to intended beneficiaries, whether good or bad. Therefore, we aimed to assess the social impact of CSI in South Africa from 2012, such as their effectiveness and offered a model to improve them. 15 1.3 Research Questions The following questions guided us: 1.3.1 Primary question 1. What is the social impact of CSR/CSI in South Africa? (RQ1) 1.3.2 Secondary questions 2. What is the relationship between social impact (dependant variable) and CSI/CSR (independent variable), if any? (RQ2) 1.4 Objectives of the Research We aimed to explore the social impact of corporate social investment in South Africa from 2012. We achieved this by addressing our problem of companies possibly overstating the social impact of their CSI initiatives. Consequently, this contributed more to the status quo of inequality, poverty and unemployment (which is an unintended social impact) instead of alleviating it (which is an intended social impact). Ultimately, this contributed to ineffective CSI initiatives and resulted in limited to no social impact and poor accountability. Additionally, this was achieved by answering the research’s primary and secondary questions articulated. However, to do this, it was essential to be specific and we formulated the guiding objectives as follows: I. We explored the effect (if any) of corporate social investment on achieving social impact in South Africa from 2012. (RO1) 16 II. We reviewed the relationship of social impact (dependant variable) had with the independent variable. (RO2) 1.5 Delimitations To keep our research, narrow and focused on addressing the identified problem and answering the related proposed research questions, we acknowledged the financial impact side to CSI and an environmental element. Neither of these two formed the core of our research. It was because this was beyond the scope of our research. We focused solely on the social impact component, even if the environment element can borrow and adapt the same principles. Furthermore, our research acknowledged that in the South African context, CSR is the umbrella under CSI falls and only engaged in a discussion of it only to the extent that it was related to the social impact of CSI. Further investigations into CSR were not a part of our research and was not delved deeper. With these delimitations, the research was narrow and focused. 1.6 Justification/Original contribution of the research CSI literature, which spoke to getting value for money in terms of the social impact and cushioning against disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic, was scant. An American and European perspective dominated current literature. Furthermore, in Africa, it appeared that practice preceded literature. Therefore, our research sought to bridge the gap between tradition and literature and act as a steppingstone to further African discussions. The conducted research: I. Helped bridge the gap between the current practice of excluding the social impact of corporate social investment and literature. 17 II. Provided an alternative perspective of reviewing the social impact of philanthropy and corporate social investment in South Africa to the currently dominated view of business, finance, economics, management, and commerce. Ultimately, this contributed to the theory available in the field. III. Provided a developmental perspective of the social impact of corporate social investment from a South African context which is African and divergent from the dominant Global North and European context. IV. It proposed a model that can be further scrutinised by other researchers in the future and provide a steppingstone for initiating debate around the social impact on intended beneficiaries of corporate social investment. 1.7 Organisation of the Study Chapter one begins with setting the context of the proposed research. This leads to the literature and knowledge gap contribution, problem statement, research questions, objectives of the study, delimitations and the justification of our research to add to the body of knowledge regarding philanthropy and corporate social investment-. Chapter two provides the conceptual framework and theoretical framework. This chapter establishes an academic home for the study, namely CSI. This entailed going beyond just defining essential terms and breaking down our understanding of CSI. Thus, this research was situated in the grander scheme of CSR. Chapter three describes the methods that were applied to the study. It provided details about (i) what the study strategy was; (ii) what the research design was; (iii) what the research 18 paradigm was; (iv) what instruments were used to collect data; (v) how its samples were selected; (vi) what the sample size was; (vii) details on how the data were analysed; (viii) addressed ethics considerations; (ix) limitations of the study; and (x) concluded with how validity and reliability were dealt with. Chapter four presented the data collected, as discussed in chapter three. The facts and data were categorised and answered the research questions. Chapter five discusses the findings chapter. This chapter integrated the qualitative data collection and analysis phase with the data collection and analysis of the quantitative phase in our exploratory mixed-method research. Finally, chapter six concluded our entire research based on the knowledge gap and provides recommendations. 1.8 Conclusion This chapter provided an introduction CSI and a background of the discussions around it in literature. This then led to the identification of the knowledge gap in the literature and the problem statement was set to introduce the research questions. We now move on to deriving the conceptual framework in the literature review that follows. 19 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction We used this chapter to interrogate literature to ultimately produce the conceptual framework which informed how we went about our research (Wotela, 2019). We contextualised our research and provided an academic home (CSI) and a physical home (South Africa). By so doing we were able to conceptualise our research and keep it focused by providing the contextual boundaries. It was with this contextualised conceptualisation that we were able identify the gaps in the literature which allowed us to pursue the objectives stated in Chapter 1 (section 1.4). The order of this discussion will begin by our understanding of CSI, followed by provision of a historical context of South Africa and CSI. However, before engaging in a discussion of the theoretical framework, we define social impact as used in our research. Before ending the chapter with a conclusion we discuss the conceptual framework. 2.2 Understanding Corporate Social Investment Our research began with a 2005 quote from the late Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan. He highlighted that it is unrealistic for poverty to be eradicated without active involvement by businesses/corporates. Interestingly, this quote, which our research was rooted in, was consistent with the earliest recognised definition of CSR (then referred to as social responsibility) provided by Howard R. Bowen in his 1953 seminal book titled Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. According to Caroll (1999) and later Caroll (2008), Howard defined social responsibility as the obligation bestowed on businessmen to ensure they conducted themselves for the greater benefit of the values and objectives of the society (Bowen, 1953). 20 However, as Caroll rightfully noted, the title of this seminal book purported the absence of businesswomen. However, our research acknowledged businesswomen and therefore replaced the notion of businessmen with businesses/corporates, which was exclusive of all sexual orientations and legal beings. Nevertheless, this notion was met with scepticism by authors like Levitt (1958). Levitt cautioned against businessmen losing focus on the capitalist objective and termed Bowmen's argument a church's approach. At the end of the 1950s, what remained constant was (i) altruistic nature of philanthropy by businessmen, (ii) managers of corporates being viewed as trustees of the public, (iii) there was more talk of CSR than actioning of it in the 1950s and (iv) balancing of corporate resources with social responsibility spending (Caroll, 2008). Even though the 1960s understanding of CSR reflected the more talk and less action notion forwarded by the 1950s thinking of the phenomenon, there appeared to be an improved meaning birthed by Keith Davis (Caroll, 1999, Caroll, 2008). Caroll noted several scholars that forwarded (i) the importance of CSR that focused less on economic and selfish growth and looked outward to the beneficiation of the communities. Additionally, he noted definitions (ii) shifted focus from a coerced application of CSR to a volunteer application. He added that (iii) return on investment should be trumped by accepting the cost of improving the societies in which the corporations operated (Caroll, 2008). Additionally, Caroll (1999) argued (iv) corporate management being cognisant of society needs as they seek their own and manage the relationship intimately. The 1970s were very active regarding CSR in that, like previously, talk amongst academics increased as action amongst practitioners still fell behind. Nevertheless, mandates for CSR began to show and new concepts started to become prominent. However, this was only at 21 the end of the 1970s. The earliest writers in this era stuck to previous era definitions (Caroll, 1999). Caroll (2008) argued that in 1970 no clear and concise explanation of CSR had been given, although vague definitions leaned towards what was already known. However, Carol (2008) noted a definition that included a shift from (i) company economic benefits, (ii) legal company compliance and (iii) technical company benefits to social benefits for the society. This definition later formed the basis for the industry dominant and accepted definition forwarded by Caroll (1979) and improved to Caroll's pyramid in 1991 as we know it today (Caroll, 2009). The components Caroll came up with for CSR to include are (i) legal, (ii) economic, (iii) discretionary/philanthropic and (iv) ethical. These are all shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Connection of CSR, Corporate Philanthropy and CSI Source: This is an adaptation of engaging various literature by the Researcher (Noyoo, 2016; Chakamera, 2020; Barnett, Henriques & Husted, 2020). Following this era, the 1980s brought about new theories and concepts as no new definitions were offered. Some of these possibly helped answer why the focus of CSR had fallen short of describing the social impact of CSI in South Africa. For example, the focus changed to 22 the operationalisation of CSR in (Jones, 1980). Jones and Caroll (2008)argued that the process of CSR should be the focus rather than consensus on the definition of what it was because it was a complex thing. Additionally, other new concepts that flourished in this era include socially responsible investments, which got the United States to rethink their investments in South Africa during apartheid as socially irresponsible to encourage responsible investments (Ferris & Rykaczewski, 1986; Kaempfer, Lehman & Lowenberg, 1987; Bond, 1988; Viviers & Eccles, 2012). A turning point in CSR finally came in the 1990s, when the action started to be propelled faster with more theory and improvements to the themes developed in the 1980s. In previous decades there had been more talk than action. In addition to the stakeholder theory and business ethics advanced in the 1980s, we saw the birth of other concepts like sustainability, including stakeholder social environment and corporate citizenship encompassing the broader social ecosystem (Reilly & Kyj, 1994; Caroll, 2008). Additionally, Caroll (1999) updated his pyramid, which had grown in popularity, adding it did not need to be followed sequentially and replaced discretionary component as philanthropic. Similarly, organisations like Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson and IBM received a great reputation due to their CSR practises (Caroll, 2008). As a result, the hiring of CSR managers surged in workplaces in the United States (Caroll, 2008). Further development in the CSR discussion was evidenced from the 21st Century, where the focus shifted from the definition of CSR and the development of theories associated with CSR which dominated the 20th Century. An illustration of this is evidenced and detailed in the work of Caroll (2008) where he identifies the shift going towards discussions of the relationship between CSR and corporate social performance (CSP) as well as other variables. In this research 23 Caroll noted how influential a company's CSP was on potential job seekers. Another development included the business case construction for CSR which Caroll highlighted. Interestingly, Caroll also highlighted how his four components were compressed into three by Schwartz and Carroll (2003) who collapsed the philanthropy component of Caroll's pyramid into ethics and ultimately a three-component concept. However, it is crucial to note this literature is mainly based on the global North and European perspective where there is a well-documented literature on CSR. The terminology and literature in South Africa differed as scant as it was. CSI is a South African term used interchangeably with corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, the two are entirely different concepts and were not be used as meaning the same thing even if their interchangeable use was acceptable practice in South Africa and our research (Hamman, 2003; Fig, 2005). With that clarity provided, CSI was a charitable activity of business conducted to achieve community relations and development for social good and was sometimes commonly known as corporate philanthropy (Fig, 2005; Hamann, 2009). Future organisation survival was dependent on these activities that were not core business operations and conducted through philanthropic contributions to a critical area like education and health in marginalised communities (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Babarinde, 2009). Therefore, it was crucial to understand that while CSI and CSR are related there are also some dissimilarities. For example, CSI was focused solely on charitable activities, while CSR was broader and required the business to make profits ethically while minimising environmental harm within the society that it operates (Slavova, 2013; Fontaine, 2013). However, another 24 definition argued in literature was that CSR was related to business operations internally while CSI as understood in South Africa was wider in its inclusion of communities that were outside the business operations (Mueller-Hirth, 2016). It was agreed in various literature (Noyoo, 2016; Chakamera, 2020; Barnett, Henriques & Husted, 2020) that CSR was the umbrella of corporate philanthropy. Additionally, CSI was the activity of corporate philanthropy. In addition, however, (i) considerations of public relations management would speak to reputation control, (ii) ethics to governance issues, (iii) legal referred to legislation such as the Mining Charter and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE), (iv) while economics conveyed financial rewards (Noyoo, 2016; Chakamera, 2020). This conception allowed for seeking the meaning of CSI in South Africa. A business was only referred to as socially responsible if it achieved all the aspects shown in Figure 3, establishing the connection between CSR and CSI (Safwat, 2015; Gazolla & Colombo, 2014). Additionally, doing it once off did not make a business socially responsible, this only applied if it was done daily (Caroll, 2008). A final distinction in understanding CSI in the South African context was that globally and sometimes locally, the terms impact investment, social impact investment and social investment were also used interchangeably with CSI even though, like CSR, they were different (Viviers, Ractliffe & Hand, 2011; Raliphada & Horne, 2017; Urban & George, 2018; Mogapi, Sutherland & Wilson-Prangley, 2019). The three terms were similar in that their intent, process and impact were two-fold and grounded in getting a financial as well as a social and/or environmental return (Lomax & Wharton, 2014; Schrötgens & Boenigk, 2017; Godeke & Briaud, 2020). Wilson, Silva & Ricardson (2015) clearly described their foreign origin and how they became popular over the years. However, the similarity lied in that CSI solely advocated for 25 communities' social and/or environmental gain. In contrast, the second aspect, investment for social and/or ecological growth, of these three terms aimed to achieve the same. This term investment implies a financial return. Ndhlovu (2011) defined CSI as if it were to be taken like these three foreign terms (social investment, impact investment and social impact investment). However, as Hamann (2009) highlighted, the industry was full of buzz words and Ndhlovu could not be faulted for his view. The more suitable expression used in Europe in 2000 was a social investment (SI) and UK's Social Investment Taskforce coined it. In 2007 the USA's Rockefeller Foundation preferred impact investment (II). Only in 2013, the G8 Social Impact Investment Forum participants settled on social impact investment (SII) (Wilson, Silva & Ricardson, 2015 ). Therefore, it was acceptable for our research to use CSI and CSR interchangeably consistent with this acceptance in the South African context. Additionally, it was acceptable to use the globally acceptable terms for CSI in the South African context interchangeably, but to a lesser degree. More references were made to CSI. 2.3 CSI/CSR in South Africa According to the latest figures from Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), as of 2016 the total population of South Africa was 55.7 million as shown in Figure 4. However, at face value by looking at the map and size of the different provinces the Northern Cape is the biggest province and they would not be wrong if size was what we went by. However, if they were to consider the 1.2 million ((2.1%) population of people in the province like we did, they would soon see that this is the smallest province in the country by population size. Gauteng on the other hand, while it appears smallest in size on the map has almost a quarter of the total population of the country with 13.4 million (24.1%)`of the total population. The Western Cape has a population of 6.3 26 million (11.3%) and Mpumalanga has a population of 4.3 million (7.8%). These last three provinces were where our data was collected for the qualitative phase of our research. Our quantitative phase was able to collect data from all nine provinces. Figure 4: Population of South Africa by province Source: StatsSA (2023) With this narrowed down visual within our landscape, South Africa, we focused on CSI as well as the difference and linkage to CSR with South Africa's history under apartheid and colonialism. With this understanding, the use of terms and the practices that prevailed as CSI became more meaningful and comprehended. Before the below-average and underdevelopment eventuality of apartheid and colonialism, local South Africans depended on thriving agriculture for survival, which changed to exploited labour through employment while their land was taken from them (Bundy, 1972; Mangaliso, 1997). However, the problem brought by these apartheid and colonialism invasions was two-fold. First, it was along racial lines and second, it was reflected in the greed for the mineral-rich country discovered later (Mangaliso, 1997). Consequently, as Noyoo (2016) argued it was important to take a social policy perspective towards CSI as it relates to the South African 27 context and it dealt with the issues that were specific to South Africa without implying that CSI was a novel social policy. Additionally, he noted that this was why CSI was preferred to CSR because the latter favoured the minority settlers who were white. This context was divergent from the international understanding of CSR and was accepted as so during our research. Similarly, Makka and Nieuwenhuizen (2018) argued how unique CSR in South Africa was to the global understanding in that it had colonial and apartheid linkages hence being labelled differently and practiced equality differently. The history of South Africa dates as far back as 1652, when Jan van Riebeck was the head of a group of sailors from the Dutch East Indian Company that entered the South African shores. From 1790 through 1890, the Bantu were displaced in the century after more than ten wars had occurred between them, the Britons and the Boers. After that, the emergence of Dutch Farmers was rife as the British began to follow suit and settle in the country in 1820. After discovering the diamond in 1867 came the discovery of gold in 1885. More British settlers entered the country, Black labour regulation was formed and low wage regulations were set. There was a perpetuation of labour exploitation laws that occurred from 1910, including the land laws that exiled the Blacks to 13% of the total land (Mangaliso, 1997). The 1970s were filled with explicit dislike for the colonialist and apartheid rule that prevailed, especially from the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Europe and Canada, which saw the introduction of the Sullivan Principles in 1977 (Mangaliso, 1997; Ackers & Eccles, 2015). These were, (i) Black presence in management, (ii) equal pay for equal work, (iii) no segregation at work, (iv) training and promotion for Blacks, (v) life from work for Blacks should be improved and (vi) fair recruitment processes. However, locally, in 1972, Professor Meyer Feldberg called for the adaptation of the American CSR model and this started to filter through 28 local companies resulting in the formation of the Urban Foundation in 1976 with the goal of improving the lives of those who lived in the Townships (Soweto particularly) by providing for education and housing as well as eradicating the most profound elements of apartheid (Hamann, 2009; Babarinde, 2009; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015). This foundation was formed by Anton Rupert and Harry Oppenheimer from an alcohol and tobacco company called Rembrandt and the mining company Anglo American, respectively. In 1995, it was re- established through a partnership with the Chairman's Fund (established in 1973) and called the National Business Initiative (Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015). This newly found local company led philanthropy resulted in an influx in philanthropy in this period, which saw the birth of the term CSR in 1972 (Hamann, 2009). However, Hamann (2009) made the crucial distinction in the function of the Sullivan Principles, which focused on business operations and that of CSR which was more philanthropic. Regardless of these distinctions, Mangaliso (1997) argued how minimal the Sullivan Principles contributed to ending apartheid. They catered more for the 1% of Africans in American owned MNCs rather than the majority of South Africans that endured apartheid and capitalism at the hands of these MNCs (Mueller-Hirth, 2016). Such argumentation was borne in the misconception or misunderstanding for companies engaging in the transformative goal of CSR practice. De Jongh (2004) elucidates this clearly in the illusion presented by a large oil company (Sasol) in South Africa that considered black economic empowerment (BEE) a risk. However, this notion was reported by de Jongh to have been refused by then-president Thabo Mbeki, citing the company's failure to understand and commit to the transformation intended by BEE and a lack of commitment to the cause. Even though de Jongh later highlighted the company proved its commitment adequately, this was 29 argued otherwise, as evidenced in the current reporting on CSR/CSI. The reporting falls short of the social impact of CSI initiatives in South Africa, hence maintained the status quo and promoted the business case for conducting CSI instead. Also, as Babarinde (2009) argued, the rise in CSI initiatives was first to ease pressure from the international business community from divesting in South Africa and later to influence CSI laws that might govern companies post- apartheid. Similarly, the Sullivan Principles addressed operational business issues within the corporations limiting the broader effect they could have had if they focused wide enough to get out of the office and into society at black society at large (Hamann, 2009). However, to help address the inequality, poverty and unemployment, argued here, the government introduced economic policies. These were the (i) Growth, Employment, and Redistribution (GEAR) Initiative in 1996, (ii) the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA) in 2004 and Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP) in 1994 (Babarinde, 2009). Notwithstanding, these three evils of the apartheid system (inequality, poverty and unemployment) were arguably the highest now since independence and the introduction of these policies described by Babarinde. Unfortunately, the RDP was not popular with the business community, which argued it already complied with its principles. Therefore, this led to adopting the Black Economic Empowerment Act in 2003 (Babarinde, 2009; Hamann, 2009; Arya & Bassi, 2011). Critics of this policy argued that it was reverse apartheid, although its real purpose was to progressively right the disparities created by the apartheid system by redistribution of ownership and upskilling of all non-whites and previously disadvantaged groups as broadly defined in the Act (Esser & Dekker, 2008; Hamann, 2009; Arya & Bassi, 2011; Ramlall, 2012). However, (i) preferential 30 procurement, (ii) employment equity, human resource development were some of the tools used to expand the narrowness identified in the initial BEE, which became "broad-based Black economic empowerment (BBEEE) (Ramlall, 2012). This expansion and understanding were crucial to give foreign companies context of South Africa so that they too could link their CSI initiatives with BBEEE and understand it as applied in the country to redistribute and undo the injustices under apartheid (Ramlall, 2012). Of the 15 codes, the first eight refer to large firms and the remainder are small firms not considered large. Figure 5 show these codes and their contents. Figure 5: Arrangement of BEE Codes Source: Arya & Bassi (2011) 31 Unlike the rest of the world, where CSR was practised by companies conscious of their community engagement, it ran parallel with the disparities created by the oppression from capitalism and apartheid in South Africa (Hamann, 2009). The importance of this distinction lies in that it elucidated the philanthropic implementation of CSR through CSI and why this was the preferred terminology in South Africa (Fig, 2005; Hamann, 2009; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015). Furthermore, although called an investment, in reality it was charity or corporate philanthropy. However, it sounded better and appeared as the new buzz word (Hamann, 2009). Additionally, Skinner and Mersham (2008) and Fig (2005) added that the term CSI did not remind the South African communities of the failures, previously discussed, underlined by the capitalist and apartheid systems when using CSR. Therefore, for our research, we accepted the overarching quality of CSR for sustainability and the more focused quality of CSI reflected in its commitment to ensuring the social development of the communities (de Jongh, 2009). Although slow and dampened by the apartheid and capitalist regimes, CSI in South Africa began to gain momentum after the end of that era (Ramlall, 2012). The new government introduced regulations locally and adopted international rules to facilitate socio-economic growth through CSR practice and socially responsible business operations (Ramlall, 2012; Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015). Notably, no law per se regulated CSR practice in South Africa, although the frameworks adhered to are products of the rights enshrined in the constitution of South Africa (Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen, 2015). The lack of policy was an important distinction as this was not the same with the global North and West but pervasive in Africa. 32 Mistakenly, Kabir, Mukuddem-Petersen & Petersen (2015) omitted the four King reports that had since been published in 1994 for the first time (Hamann, 2009; Ackers & Eccles, 2015). Nevertheless, this was a crucial report documenting that disclosure of voluntary CSR activity should be made and if not, an explanation of nondisclosure should be provided. Additionally, this standard was applied globally and not just focused on South Africa, although it played a significant role. In South Africa, to be listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), companies were required to adhere to the King Code of Governance (Ackers & Eccles, 2015) and this had boosted the advance of the Social Responsibility Investment market (Viviers & Els, 2017). Noticeably, according to Ackers and Eccles (2015), CSI was practised for (i) moral reasons and (ii) stakeholder satisfaction, although by stakeholder it was shareholders that ultimately benefit, excluding other stakeholders like the communities who were purported to have been beneficiaries. The implication was that the reported CSI social impact tended to be writing less about the targeted communities of the CSI initiatives and more about the business itself. This was evidenced in Delmas and Burbano (2011) as well as Ackers and Eccles (2015). They argued how companies could be deceptive in their CSR reporting to gain favour with shareholders while not being role model corporate citizens and ultimately failing to alleviate the apartheid disparities which CSI sought to eliminate. To do this, only positively oriented CSR- related information was disclosed. Ultimately, this questioned the corporate's reliability and transparency that the King Code of Governance tried to advance regarding CSR in South Africa. 33 2.4 Defining Social Impact 2.4.1 Adapting a working definition Social impact is a diverse field and therefore, there is not one consensual definition provided for it. One meaning was when development policy, programmes, projects and plans result in a worsening or enhancement in (i) communities, (ii) population and (iii) social relationships (Vanclay, 2002; Vanclay, 2003; Serje, 2017). International bodies like the United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, International Finance Corporation and the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) have adopted this definition. Additionally, the IAIA also adapted Vanclay's (2003) view of social impact, referring to a variation of one or more of the following: • people's way of life—that is, how they live, work, play, and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis; • their culture—that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values, and language or dialect; • their community—its cohesion, stability, character, services, and facilities; • their political systems—the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose; • their environment—the quality of the air and water that people use; the availability and quality of the food that they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust, and noise in which they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources; 34 • their health and wellbeing—where 'health' is understood in a manner similar to the World Health Organisation definition: "a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". • their personal and property rights—particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage, which may include a violation of their civil liberties; and • their fears and aspirations—their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children (Vanclay, 2003, p. 8). The definition provided by Vanclay and forwarded by the international bodies was consistent with that proposed by Serje (2017) in that social relationships were considered in the definition of social impact. However, Serje argued that the cause-and-effect definition on its own is shallow. It fails to consider other influences at play either before or during an intervention that were always in play. She argued that social relationships were a product of history and could be redesigned, improved or abandoned. Such consideration was added to the currently accepted causal definition of social impact. Social relations were considered for our research as they blended well with the theoretical framework. For example, Serje forwarded that when considering social relations, one should ask questions surrounding the power relations between groups in terms of decision-makers, the marginalised and those in control. Similarly, in critical systems heuristics, the boundary judgement questions solicited inquiry of who is and who ought to be the beneficiaries as well as who are and who ought to be in control. 35 As depicted in the forgone argument above, resulting from this social impact, was sustainability required to be cojoined with this social impact within the development sector. This included CSI initiatives in our case. Sustainability birthed traction with the Brundtland Report in 1987 (United Nations, 1987; Smith, 2011). The three most widely used dimensions of sustainability were (i) social, (ii) ecological (also known as environmental) and economical (Keiner, 2004). Other authors have called for different dimensions to be integrated into the sustainability conversation, including (iv) spirituality and (v) politics (Paehlke, 2001; Chile & Simpson, 2004; O’Connor, 2007). While adopting Smith’s (2011) understanding of sustainability, which comprised the first three dimensions, we focused on the social aspect only as Keiner (2004) argued the need for the increased representation of this aspect of sustainability. The relationship between sustainability and these three dimensions is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between sustainability and these three dimensions Source: Smith (2011) 36 Therefore, by adopting the notion that planned interventions (in this case CSI/CSR) produce results – social impact – we accept the logic model from evaluation theory that elucidates the difference between outputs and impacts (Clark, Rosenweig, Long & Olsen, 2004; Serje 2017). Thus, outputs were what the activities produce on completion, outcomes were alterations in the attitudes of the communities/society after the achievement of the outputs and impacts were the long-term differences of what would have happened and outcomes (Kolodinsky, Stewart & Bullard, 2006; Maas & Liket, 2011a). Usually, beneficiaries were associated with users. In contrast, producers of the product/service were associated with the outputs and outcomes, according to Kolodinsky, Stewart and Bullard (2006) as well as Maas and Liket (2011). 2.4.2 Towards measurement of social impact With this understanding of social impact, it was prudent to use the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for our research. The reason for this was that its the internationally accepted practice/criteria to evaluate interventions (in our case CSI/CSR), success (high quality) and unsuccessfulness (low quality) projects, programmes, plans and policies (Chianca, 2008; Teasdale, 2021; Patton, 2021). However, it was important to know that there were many other ways to measure social impact and our choice was based on widely accepted evaluation practise for development aid as described in Section 2.5. The presence of many definitions no doubt contributes to there being many other ways of measuring social impact. But, as Maas and Liket (2011) conclude there were only eight out of the 30 other methods that actually measured social impact from their unexhaustive list shown in Figure 7 below. The eight methods noted in their work were (i) 37 Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) Impact Assessment Framework, (ii) Measuring Impact Framework (MIF), (iii) Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts (OASIS), (iv) Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA), (v) Poverty Social Impact Assessment (PSIA), (vi) Robin Hood Foundation Benefit–Cost Ratio, (vii) Social Costs–Benefit Analysis (SCBA) and (viii) Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Furthermore, they made an important distinction that these were skewed more to measuring inputs rather than outputs. The DAC criteria were able to measure results (outcomes and impact) and therefore further emphasised our reason for their adaptation for our research. Additionally, Maas and Likert highlighted the need to have quantitative methods to measure social impact which is why we then used a Likert Scale to quantify an otherwise qualitative instrument (the DAC criteria) which is both reliable and valid in the evaluation field. 38 Figure 7: Social Impact Measurement Methods Overview Source: Maas and Liket (2011) 2.5 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria The history of the OECD and DAC go back as far as 1960 where they were previously known as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) and the Development 39 Assistance Group (DAG). This was well documented in greater detail in the second edition of “DAC in Dates” published in 2006 by DAC. However, we provided a summary of the history in Figure 8 below. The original DAG members comprised the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Commission of the European Economic Community, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Portugal and Germany. However, the Netherlands and Japan were invited to join these countries in July 1960. Japan did not immediately give in to the invitation and talks were still being held as late as 1970. Figure 8: History of OECD and DAC criteria Source: OECD (2006) 40 Nevertheless, the DAC’s initiation was 1984, which found its endorsement only coming later in after a consultative process, from May to October 2018, where almost 90% of respondents to a survey voted that the criteria remain in practice (Patton, 2021). Literature provided many different events that led to the formation these criteria. As Patton noted that it was the need to improve evaluation of programmes, projects and policy for international (i) humanitarian efforts and (ii) development efforts in countries where development aid was provided by member countries. Similarly, Picciotto (2020) rightfully acknowledged that to account for the ever-changing development standpoints maintaining credible and reliable ways to assess projects there was a need to go beyond the cost-benefit evaluation technique and replace it with more rigorous option provided by the DAC criteria. Also, the development of the DAC criteria was preceded by improving (i) effectiveness of development aid, (ii) the relationship DAC members had with governments in transitional and developing countries, (iii) quality of aid and (iv) quantity of aid to such countries (OECD, 1992; Chianca, 2008). However, only later did the criteria begin to incorporate and accommodate gender and women equality in evaluation for developmental programmes, projects and policies (Espinosa, 2013; World Food Programme, 2017). It was on this basis that we adapted the same gender and women consideration for the purpose of our research because the future of evaluation of development projects and indeed CSI interventions would not be complete without such consideration. To make a paradigm shift and quality of evaluations of development work from the usual assessment of (i) inputs (e.g. money spent of development initiatives), (ii) outputs of the programmes, projects and policies or (iii) acceptance of economic rate of return as the gold standard for intervention assessments of aid there had to be a process gone through (Chianca, 2008; Picciotto, 2020). According to the OECD (1992, p.5), “These principles were endorsed by 41 development co-operation ministers and heads of aid agencies at various DAC High-Level Meetings.” Furthermore, the OECD (1992, p.5), states that “DAC Members have undertaken to review and adapt their current practices against these standards, which may imply significant reorientations in current aid practices; they have requested the DAC to monitor, in a systematic manner, their implementation.” Achievement of this will be through what they refer to as “Aid Reviews” done through field visits by the Secretariat. An example of such a review was the one mentioned in the paragraph above by Patton (2021) which Ishida (2020, p.16) also mentions and stated, “This has been considered the key programme/project evaluation document by most of the international and bilateral aid agencies over the past 30 years.” However, not to romanticise the DAC criteria, they have received much critic by different scholars and practitioners. Recently, Patton (2021) provided critic raising questions about context around climate emergency and transformation being unclear in the revision of the DAC criteria. Similarly, Chianca (2008) critics the criteria based on a panel of 10 professionals pursuing doctoral degrees in evaluation raising concerns about two missing criteria (quality of process and exportability), efficiency failing to include coverage of costs and lack of retrospective sustainability. However, both these concerns while relevant can be partially addressed in the work of Eggers (2009) who gave a detailed account of how thorough the DAC criteria creation was and how its substance is based on the Manual of Project Cycle Management (PCM) and documented in the Basic Format (BF). The BF was created using data from thousands of years in expert terms of evaluation leaders and therefore, contends that not much could have been left out regarding substance of the criteria. However, important to note here is that these years were skewed towards mainly donors as the composition was of all DAC members. This is not to take away from the comprehensiveness of the process to come up with 42 the DAC criteria. A perspective concluded by Picciotto (2020, p. 482) stating “Use of the time- tested DAC criteria have been shown to matter to the success of projects. They were forged through hard won lessons of experience.” They went on to mention “They should supplant traditional project management approaches that mistakenly concentrate on inputs and outputs without much attention to outcomes or impacts (Picciotto, 2020, p. 482).” Despite the rigour involved in the establishment of the DAC criteria by member donor multilateral agencies there is also the debate around the non-DAC member states that are rapidly penetrating the donor arena. Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for example adhere to effectiveness principles of the DAC criteria even though they are non-member countries as part of the Paris Declaration (Neumayer, 2004). However, their counterparts in China and India are not enclined and therefore the DAC has engaged in strategies that promote dialogue with these powerhouses to minimise deviation from the DAC principles like the DAC-China Study group (Paulo & Reisen, 2010). Similarly, Tan‐Mullins, Mohan & Power (2010) argue that rapidly industrialising countries are not exerting force on the current donor regime which then brings different criticisms to the DAC criteria as it stands and tries to have these sub-groups the minimise divergence from its core principles of development aid. Such developments are starting to threaten the status quo bringing up questions of how much longer this criteria will be internationally the default for evaluating development aid and how it will mitigate the dimensions brought about by the new industrialised world (Wood, 2008; Kim & Lightfoot, 2011). However, prior to this re-evaluation meeting of the DAC criteria there had been only five criteria to depict the quality of an evaluation and these were relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability where all five were retained with the addition of coherence (Chianca, 43 2008; Patton, 2021). However, as distinctly noted by Espinosa (2013, p.172) in 1990 “Evaluation focused on women was the first type of evaluative practice to examine inequality between women and men.” With the DAC criteria this provided best practices for organisations providing aid in various countries (Kim & Lighfoot, 2011). These criteria were widely adopted as a systematic way to evaluate development aid by both member and non-member countries at a micro level and by multilateral and bilateral donors as well as non-profit organisations (NGOs) and therefore were adequate for us to adopt for this research. 2.6 Theoretical Considerations 2.6.1 Understanding Critical Systems Heuristics Figure 9 shows the three different strands of systems thinking, their area of focus and examples of these types of systems thinking. Our strand for our research was the third strand, “critical” systems thinking, focusing on critical systems heuristics particularly. The other strands 44 Figure 9: Summary of the types of systems thinking models Source: This is an adaptation by the Researcher (Gates, 2018) of systems thinking were beyond the scope of our research and therefore were not engaged further than being acknowledged as other forms of systems thinking. CSH had two areas of focus, (i) building justifiable assumptions together with their supporting professional claims and (ii) normative professional practice core (Ulrich, 2012; Gates, 2018). Therefore, to fully address the stated problem and purpose of our research and answer our research questions as comprehensively as possible, Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) was adopted and adapted as the theoretical framework for our research. The reason for this was the reflective nature for which Werner Ulrich created it, which was required when exploring the CSI system (Ulrich & Reynolds, 2010, 2020; Gates, 2018). Thus, CSH was a framework that was used to bridge the gap between systems thinking and practical philosophy through reflective thinking by using systems ideas as a component of practical reasoning (Flood & Jackson, 1991; 45 Luckett, 2006). Flood and Jackson (1991) and Luckett (2006) defined critical as challenging empirical evidence with the normative practical form and not accepting the former as the only objective possibility. We did this by challenging what the participants reported as happening which is the empirical and compared it to what they said should be happening (the normative). These same authors submitted that it