Historically, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has mostly been used as a reputational tool. Businesses could operate in various ways—sometimes not very ethically or sustainably—and then implement social initiatives to somewhat “compensate” for the impact of their actions.
But times have changed. A few years ago, impact management entered the global agenda. This approach views social responsibility not just as a PR tool, but as a driver of real, positive change in society.
Impact management as an evolution of CSR
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals has been too slow. One reason is that in many—even highly respected—companies, CSR remained largely declarative for years, bringing few tangible results.
Today, what a company does is important—but how it does it is just as critical. This marks a new stage in the evolution of CSR, where it transforms into strategic management of a company’s social impact. It means resources are directed toward real and urgent needs, results are measured, and actions are adjusted accordingly—to achieve the greatest possible outcomes with effective resource use.
When I first started learning about this approach, I was amazed at how powerful it could be. Imagine: businesses spend enormous amounts annually on social and charitable initiatives—but do they always lead to real, positive change? And what progress could we achieve if we used all those resources in the most effective way?
There was a time I wanted everyone to learn about this approach as soon as possible.
Now I understand—it’s not for everyone. It’s for the most responsible business leaders who truly want to use their resources and capabilities to drive meaningful change in Ukraine. And importantly, it doesn’t mean turning into a social enterprise. It’s about using the potential of business to create additional value—social value alongside economic value—while staying true to the business role.
Is social respsonsibility an HR or PR tool?
At one event, I met a CSR lead from a large company. We were discussing CSR projects, and I mentioned that not all social initiatives have a positive impact—some can even do harm. For example, traditional holiday gift-giving to children in orphanages. There are even studies on this topic, showing that such efforts can retraumatize children and don’t improve their well-being in the long run.
She replied, “But our employees enjoy doing this!”
That’s a textbook example of confusing team building with social responsibility. Both may stem from good intentions, but social responsibility must be based on the needs of the people we aim to support—not the needs of those providing the support.
CSR projects can and should be communicated. But they shouldn’t be created just for the sake of communication—as PR tools—because this misconception is costly for both business and society.
So, if social responsibility is neither an HR nor a PR function, where does it belong in a company? Ideally—at the CEO level, because it’s a strategic approach.
From “good Intentions” to real impact: The Bicycle Case
One of the most striking examples I’ve heard involves an initiative to reduce mortality in small, remote communities. One organization allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase expensive medical equipment for rural clinics. It was a high-profile project—grateful communities, improved infrastructure.
That could have been the end of the story. But the team decided to visit the communities to see the outcomes firsthand. And what they found was that the equipment was still unopened. Why? Because there were no specialists trained to use it. Even if there had been, the poor road infrastructure made it nearly impossible to transport patients to the clinics.
When the team asked what would really help, a local doctor offered a simple answer: a bicycle—so she could reach patients more quickly.
Yes, a bicycle—hundreds of times cheaper than the equipment—turned out to be the more effective solution.
This example is not perfect, but it’s highly illustrative: to create real impact, we need a deep understanding of context and people’s actual needs.
Impact management doesn’t always require more money—often it requires less. But it demands more thoughtful work:
- Setting specific impact goals by asking: What exactly needs to change in people’s lives?
- Engaging stakeholders to understand the real context and real needs.
- Developing solutions that address root causes—not just symptoms—using a Theory of Change approach.
- Evaluating social impact by measuring interim outcomes and adjusting actions based on results.
How do you measure social impact?
If you’re doing social responsibility purely for PR, you can stop reading here. Measuring social impact is a waste if your only goal is to communicate.
But if your goal is to maximize impact, engage partners, or use limited resources effectively—then measuring impact is absolutely essential.
Traditionally, social and charitable initiatives were evaluated only with quantitative metrics—amount spent, number of people reached. But these don’t answer the key impact question: Did anyone’s life actually improve? Did the well-being of Ukrainian society improve?
There are several approaches to measuring social impact, and all of them require both quantitative and qualitative indicators: What actually changed?
One of the most promising, in my view, is the Social Return on Investment (Social ROI) methodology developed by UK colleagues and now used worldwide.
It translates qualitative changes in people’s lives into monetary terms using financial proxies, allowing us to compare the total value created with the investment made.
It’s a unique methodology that helps analyze and demonstrate the true effectiveness of social responsibility projects—capturing all types of value created: economic, social, cultural, environmental, and more.
Today, Ukraine already has several real-life Social ROI case studies, and we’re proud to be involved in some of them.
Who should respond to social challenges?
I’ve always liked the word “responsibility.” In English, it means exactly what it says: the ability to respond.
In Ukrainian culture, it often carries a negative connotation—something heavy that must be carried. But if we break it down, responsibility is really about having the capacity to respond to a challenge.
So whose responsibility is it to respond to society’s needs? Should business play a role?
If we talk about ability—then yes, business can respond very effectively. It knows how to develop solutions, has operational capacity and financial resources, and is often closer to communities than other actors.
“With great power comes great responsibility” – but whether a business chooses to embrace that responsibility—or to treat CSR as a mere reputation tool—depends entirely on the decisions of its leaders.
Iryna Ruban, Partner and Co-founder of Ruban Litvinova Social Impact Advisory