Assessing the Impacts ofSocial and Environmental
Standards Systems
ISEAL Code of Good PracticeVersion 2.0 – December 2014

Contents2

Foreword

3

Code Review Process

4

Introduction

5

1. Scope

6

2. Referenced Publications

6

3. Definitions

6

4. Credibility Principles and Monitoring and Evaluation

8

5. Monitoring and Evaluation System Requirements

10

6. Stakeholder Engagement in M&E System Design13

7. Defining the Intended Change

14

8. Monitoring and Evaluation

16

9. Learning and Improving

21

10. Transparency and Public Information

22

Appendix A: Compliance Criteria

24

Foreword
ISEAL Alliance is the global membership association forsustainability standards. ISEAL is a non-governmental organisation
whose mission is to strengthen sustainability standards systems
for the benefit of people and the environment.
ISEAL is the global leader in defining and communicating
what good practice looks like for sustainability standards
through guidance and credibility tools such as the Codes
of Good Practice. The four goals of ISEAL are to:
Demonstrate and improve the impacts ofsustainability standards systems;
Improve the effectiveness of sustainability
standards systems;
Increase the adoption of sustainability standards
systems; andDefine credibility for sustainability standards
systems;
ISEAL’s membership is open to all multi-stakeholder
sustainability standards and accreditation bodies that
demonstrate their ability to meet the ISEAL Codes ofGood Practice and accompanying requirements, and thatcommit to learning and improving. ISEAL also has a nonmember, subscriber category to engage with standards
systems in development and other stakeholders witha demonstrable commitment to the ISEAL objectives.
Further information about the ISEAL Alliance and its
membership is available at www.iseal.org

ISEAL Codes of Good Practice build credibility
The goal of all ISEAL Codes of Good Practice is tosupport standards systems to deliver positive social andenvironmental impact. ISEAL Codes of Good Practicework together to achieve this:The ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Socialand Environmental Standards (Standard-SettingCode) supports the development of standards thatare relevant and transparent and that reflect abalance of stakeholder interests;
The ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Assuring
Compliance with Social and Environmental Standards(Assurance Code) helps to ensure accurate resultsfrom assessments of compliance and to encourage
the use of assurance to support learning; andThe ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Assessing the
Impacts of Social and Environmental Standards
Systems (Impacts Code) supports standards systems
to measure and improve the results of their workand to ensure that standards are delivering thedesired impact.
Individually, each Code is useful in strengthening acomponent of a standards system. However, only when
the Codes are taken together do they provide end users
and other interested parties with confidence in theeffectiveness of the standards system as a whole.

Implementation
This version of the Code (v2.0) was approved by the
ISEAL Board of Directors on 10 December 2014. It
becomes effective from 1 January 2015. Organisations
who wish to apply for ISEAL Associate Membership canapply using either v1.0 or v2.0 of the Impacts Code up
to 31 March 2015. Applications received after this datemust relate to v2.0 only.
For more information on implementation timelines forv2.0 of the Code, please visit the ISEAL Alliance website:www.isealalliance.org/our-work/defining-credibility/
codes-of-good-practice3

Code Review Process
The public review and revision process for the Impacts Code takes
place every four years. The next review is scheduled for 2018. For
each review and revision process, the ISEAL Secretariat preparesthe draft revisions and coordinates the revision process.
The ISEAL Technical Committee, a permanent multistakeholder governance body, is responsible formonitoring the Code revision process, signing off
on drafts, and recommending approval to the ISEAL
Board of Directors of the revised Code based on boththe content of the Code and on the quality of therevision process.
The ISEAL Alliance welcomes comments on the Impacts
Code at any time. Comments will be incorporated into
the next review process. Please submit comments by
mail or email to the address below. You can choose to
use the comment submission form that is available on
the ISEAL Alliance website: www.isealalliance.org/ourwork/defining-credibility/codes-of-good-practice
ISEAL Alliance
The Wenlock Centre
50-52 Wharf Road
LondonN1 7EU
United Kingdom
Email: impacts@isealalliance.org

4Introduction
ISEAL Alliance facilitated the development of the Code of Good Practicefor Assessing the Impacts of Social and Environmental Standards Systems(Impacts Code) in 2010 as a means to guide the development of monitoringand evaluation (M&E) programmes by sustainability standards systems.
M&E systems track progress toward achieving intended
outcomes and evaluate the contribution that thestandards system makes toward achieving long-termsocial, environmental or economic impacts.
There are a number of reasons for standards systems
to monitor their performance and evaluate theircontribution to impact:
1. Improve the standards system and its effectivenessin achieving its stated social, environmental andeconomic objectives;
2. Build capacity by learning from experience, notonly for the standards system but also for clientsand others involved in the standards system;
3. Inform strategy regarding policy decisions;4. Provide accountability to stakeholders and to
those who are affected by, and are meant tobenefit from the activities of the standards system;
5. Earn credibility through willingness to be open
about the results (good or bad) of the standards
system; andThe ISEAL Impacts Code normative Requirements are
structured around Desired Outcomes in sections 5 to
10 in this document. The Desired Outcomes are theresults that standard-setting organisations shouldseek to achieve. Complying with the Requirementsthat are linked to each Desired Outcome should leadan organisation to achieve those outcomes.
The Impacts Code includes a number of Aspirational
Good Practices. While these practices arerecommended, they are not mandatory Requirements
for complying with the Impacts Code. To make this
distinction clear, the Aspirational Good Practices arepresented separately from requirements in green
shaded boxes.
The Impacts Code also includes Guidance thatprovides supplementary information to theRequirements, as well as interpretation of key
phrases in the Requirements. The Guidance isan important non-binding supplement to the
Impacts Code and should be taken into accountwhen undertaking monitoring and evaluation.
The Guidance can be found in a separate column
adjacent to the Requirements.

6. Enhance societal learning by feeding results
into the sustainability tools landscape tounderstand the cumulative impacts ofsustainability standards systems.

5

1. Scope
The ISEAL Impacts Code specifies general requirements
for the development and implementation of amonitoring and evaluation system by sustainability
standards systems.
The Impacts Code applies to all social and environmental
standards system owners (the scheme owner).
Additionally, the logic and requirements in the Impacts
Code could be applied equally well by other actors withina standards system (e.g. accreditation and certification
bodies) or to other complex, ongoing development
processes (e.g. development organisations).

2. Referenced Publications
3ie (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation)
Impact Evaluation Glossary: 2012
ISEAL Credibility Principles: 2013

Counterfactual
The state of the world in the absence of the intervention.
The situation or condition which hypothetically would
prevail in the absence of an intervention. (Adaptedfrom OECD Glossary, 2002 and 3ie Impact Evaluation
Glossary, 2012).

Effects
Intended or unintended change due directly or indirectly
to an intervention. (Adapted from OECD Glossary, 2002).

EntityThe product, process, business, or service thatis the subject of the standard. (ISEAL Credibility
Principles, 2013).

Impacts

ISEAL Standard-Setting Code: 2014. Code of Good
Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards

Positive and negative long-term effects resulting
from the implementation of a standards system,
either directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
(Adapted from OECD Glossary).

ISEAL Assurance Code: 2012. Code of Good
Practice for Assuring Compliance with Social andEnvironmental Standards.

Impact Evaluation

ISO 26000:2010. Guidance on Social Responsibility
OECD Glossary: 2002. OECD Glossary of Key Terms
in Evaluation and Results Based Management
Rainforest Alliance Glossary: 2013

3. Definitions
Attribution
The extent to which the observed change in outcome isa result of the intervention, having allowed for all otherfactors that may also affect the outcome(s) of interest.
(3ie Impact Evaluation Glossary, 2012).

Causal Pathway
The logical and causal relationships between inputs,
activities/support strategies, outputs, outcomes,
and impacts. (Adapted from Rainforest Alliance
Glossary, 2013).

6

NOTE: This is also sometimes referred to as a results
chain or impact pathway.

A systematic, objective and in depth, ex-post assessmentof the medium or long-term effects; positive or negative,
intended or unintended, of the implementationof a standards system. Impact evaluations employ
methodologies that are designed to enable evaluation
users to understand the extent to which an observedchange can be attributed to the standard systemor another intervention. (Adapted from 3ie Impact
Evaluation Glossary, 2012 and World Bank).

Indicator
Quantitative or qualitative factor or variable thatprovides a simple and reliable means to measureachievement of outcomes, to reflect the changes
connected to a standards system, or to help assess
the performance of an organisation. (Adapted from
OECD Glossary, 2002).

Indicator Protocol
An indicator protocol is a detailed description that
explains how an indicator is constructed. It includes
the metrics needed for an indicator, units of measure,definitions for key terms, data source(s), data collection
frequency and approach, scope and other technicalreferences.

Publicly Available

Input

NOTE – Information that is published on anorganisation’s website and can be found through abasic and quick search is considered to be publicly
available. ‘Available on request’ is not the same as
publicly available.

A resource mobilized by a standards system to support
activities to further desired long-term impacts. Examples
of inputs include physical, human, financial, and capital
resources. (Adapted from Rainforest Alliance Glossary,2013).

Monitoring and Evaluation System
An ongoing process through which an organisation
draws conclusions about its contribution to intended
outcomes and impacts. A monitoring and evaluation
system consists of a set of interconnected functions,processes and activities, including systematic collectionof monitoring data on specified indicators and theimplementation of outcome and impact evaluations.

OutcomeThe likely or achieved short-term and medium-term
results from the implementation of a standards system’s
strategies. (Adapted from OECD Glossary, 2002).

Outcome Evaluation
Systematic and objective in depth ex-post assessmentof the short-term and medium-term results or effects
from the implementation of a standards system.
These studies seek to shed light on the extent to which
standards system’s desired changes are occurring as wellas why the system is or is not working. Unlike impact
evaluations, outcome evaluations are not designed
to draw conclusions about the extent to which anintervention can be attributed to the interventionof a standards system.

Obtainable by any person, without unreasonablebarriers of access.

Results
The outputs, outcomes and impacts resulting from theimplementation of a standards system. (Adapted from
OECD Glossary, 2002).

Scheme owner
The organisation that determines the objectives andscope of the standards system, as well as the rules for
how the scheme will operate and the standards against
which conformance will be assessed. In most cases thisis the standard-setting organisation. However it may
also be an assurance provider, a governmental authority,
trade association, group of assurance providers or otherbody. (Adapted from ‘Standards system owner’ in the
ISEAL Assurance Code).

Stakeholder
Individual or group that has an interest in any decisionor activity of an organisation. (ISO 26000: 2010).

Standards system
The collective of organisations responsible for theactivities involved in the implementation of a standard,
including standard-setting, capacity building, assurance,labelling, and monitoring. (ISEAL Credibility Principles:2013).

OutputStrategies

The products, capital goods, and services that result
directly from the activities of a standards system.
(Adapted from OECD Glossary, 2002).

Approaches and activities that standards systems use
to effect change, including standards development
and implementation, assurance, incentives, outreach,training, and advocacy.

Performance Monitoring
A continuing function that uses systematic collectionof data on specified indicators to provide indicationsof the extent to which outputs and short and mediumterm results are being achieved. (Adapted from OECD
Glossary,2002).

7

4. Credibility Principles andMonitoring and Evaluation
The ISEAL Credibility Principles underpin effective practices for sustainability
standards systems, supporting those systems to achieve more positive social,environmental and economic impacts, while decreasing negative impacts.
The ten ISEAL Credibility Principles were published in2013 as the result of a year-long global consultation
with contributions from more than 400 stakeholders
on five continents.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

8

Sustainability
Improvement
Relevance
RigourEngagement

6. Impartiality
7. Transparency
8. Accessibility
9. Truthfulness
10. Efficiency

The ISEAL Credibility Principles provide the foundation
for the normative sections of the Impacts Code.
Since the Impacts Code does not include detailed
requirements for all situations that can occur, theprinciples should be used as guidance for making
decisions in unanticipated situations where there is needto interpret the Code’s requirements. The Impacts Codeis underpinned by five of the ten Credibility Principles.
The table opposite presents these five principles
and articulates how they relate to monitoringand evaluation.1

Credibility Principle

Relation to Impacts

1. Sustainability

Standards systems articulate their sustainability
objectives (the intended outcomes and impacts of theirsystem). There is a monitoring and evaluation system
in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards
system in achieving its stated sustainability objectives.

Standards scheme owners clearly define andcommunicate their sustainability objectives andapproach to achieving them. They make decisions
that best advance these objectives.
2. Improvement
Standards scheme owners seek to understand theirimpacts, and measure and demonstrate progress
towards their intended outcomes. They regularly
integrate learning and encourage innovation toincrease benefits to people and the environment.

4. RigourAll components of a standards system are structured
to deliver quality outcomes. In particular, standards
are set at a performance level that results inmeasurable progress towards the scheme’ssustainability objectives, while assessments ofcompliance provide an accurate picture of whether
an entity meets the standard’s requirements.

7. Transparency
Standards systems make relevant information freely
available about the development and content of thestandard, how the system is governed, who is evaluatedand under what process, impact information and thevarious ways in which stakeholders can engage.

9. Truthfulness
Claims and communications made by actors withinstandards systems and by certified entities about
the benefits or impacts that derive from the systemor from the purchase or use of a certified product orservice are verifiable, not misleading, and enable an
informed choice.

1

Results and learning from the monitoring andevaluation system are integrated to improve thestructure and functioning of the standards system,
the content of the standards and other strategies,
and the monitoring and evaluation system itself, so
as to achieve the desired sustainability objectives.

The monitoring and evaluation system delivers clear
and verifiable information about the effectivenessof the standard and other strategies in achieving
sustainability objectives. The standards system
employs mechanisms to ensure the quality of
performance monitoring data and of outcome
and impact evaluations.

Standards systems make information about the monitoringand evaluation system and about the results of outcome
and impact evaluations publicly available. Stakeholders areaware of the standards system’s intended outcomes andimpacts, and how the monitoring and evaluation system
will assess progress towards those objectives. Evaluation
results are also open to the scrutiny of all stakeholders.

Claims made about outcomes and impacts are basedon knowledge generated through performancemonitoring and/or outcome and impact evaluations.
Claims are revised over time in response to learningfrom the monitoring and evaluation system.

The text in the right hand column is an adaptation and expansion of the Credibility Principles document (2013), which described how each principle relates
to “impacts.” In case of any contradiction between this table and the original Credibility Principles document, the text in this table should be used to aidinterpretation of the Impacts Code.

95. Monitoring and Evaluation System Requirements
Clause 5.1 Monitoring and Evaluation System
Desired Outcome

Requirement

The scheme ownerhas a functioning
and effective M&E
system in place.

1. The scheme owner shall develop,
document and implement a monitoringand evaluation system that is compliant
with this Impacts Code.

Guidance

Clause 5.2 Scope and Boundaries of the M&E System
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The schemeowner ensuresthat the M&E
system monitorsand evaluates thestandards system’sability to achieve
its intended social,environmental, andeconomic effects.

1. The scheme owner shall define andregularly update documentation of thescope and boundaries of its monitoringand evaluation system.

‘Regularly updating’ requires the schemeowner to assess the scope and boundaries
on at least an annual basis and update them
if required.
Defining the scope and boundaries ofthe M&E system entails identifying thestandards system’s intended and unintended
effects (outcomes and impacts) and thestrategies, standards and/or programmesthat will be monitored and evaluatedthrough the M&E system. It may also include
defining geographic and time boundaries forthe activities of the M&E system. Minimum
documentation of the scope and boundaries
includes stating and justifying what is andis not included within the scope of the
M&E system.

2. At a minimum, the M&E system shallenable the scheme owner to monitor
and evaluate its most significant intendedsocial, economic and environmental
effects (see 7.1), through a combinationof performance monitoring and outcome
and impact evaluations (see section 8).

Most significant intended effects may bethose most central to the stated mission andsustainability objectives of the standard system
and/or those considered most critical tomonitor by stakeholders. Stakeholders’ viewson this may be captured during stakeholder
consultation processes (see section 6).
Minimum documentation of compliance withthis requirement will identify how each of
the most significant effects is covered in the
M&E system - by performance monitoring or
through outcome and impact evaluations(see 8.1).

10Clause 5.3 Plan for Expansion
Desired Outcome

Requirement

The scheme ownertakes a realistic
approach tomonitoring andevaluation, linked
to capacity.

1. A scheme owner that is not able to include
all of its intended social, economic andenvironmental effects (see 7.1) and its
most significant unintended effects (see7.3) within its M&E system due to a lackof capacity (human or financial) shalldocument how its system is expected to
evolve over time, in order to permit thescheme owner to monitor and evaluate
its intended and unintended effects.

Guidance

Clause 5.4 Resources
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The schemeowner adequately
resources the M&E
system over time.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure thatit plans for and provides sufficient,skilled staff members or consultants,
and commensurate budget for thedevelopment and implementationof the M&E system.

A sufficient financial and staffing budget
is one that will allow the organisation to
conform with this Impacts Code within areasonable period of time (e.g. 3 years for
ISEAL members). Conformance with thisclause is illustrated in part by undertaking
an assessment of the financial and humanresources required to implement the M&E
system over time. Skilled staff members or
consultants are those who have the skills
and training necessary to take on the M&E
responsibilities assigned to them.

Clause 5.5 Roles and Responsibilities
Desired Outcome

Requirement

There is competentstaff with clear
responsibilities
and capacity for
implementing the
M&E system.

1. The scheme owner shall designate atleast one person to be responsible for
implementation of the M&E system.
2. In organisations that have more staff
working in monitoring and evaluation,
the scheme owner shall specify the
M&E roles and responsibilities of those
staff members.

Guidance

This may include staff outside the M&E
department – see also 5.8.

11

Clause 5.6 Data Management
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Information
technology systems
support the M&E
system by ensuringthat monitoring data
is safely stored andeasily accessible foranalysis and use.

1. The scheme owner shall have in placea data management system for storing,organising and facilitating analysis and useof performance monitoring data.

Guidance

Clause 5.7 Data Confidentiality and Use
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Confidential
information isrespected andprotected.

1. The scheme owner shall have proceduresin place to protect confidential andproprietary data.

The scheme ownerhas addressed any
legal requirements
around data
confidentiality anduse that would
prevent it fromanalysing relevant
data for monitoringand evaluation
purposes.

2. The scheme owner shall have proceduresin place to address any legal barriers
to the use of relevant data for the
implementation of the organisation’s
monitoring and evaluation system

Guidance

Clause 5.8 Integrating M&E in the Organisation
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Aspirational Good Practice
The M&E system
is integrated
throughout
the organisation andhas the support ofsenior executives.

12

1. The scheme owner shall seek to integrate
the M&E system throughout theorganisation by defining responsibilities
for, and seeking involvement of and input
from, senior staff and staff in departments
or programmes that contribute to or
can benefit from the M&E system.

Guidance

Clause 5.9 Cooperation and Coordination
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good PracticeStandards systems
achieve efficiency
and quality in their
M&E systems andfacilitate crossorganisational
learning andincreased
understandingof sustainability
impacts.

1. The scheme owner shall:a. assess the potential for co-operation,
co-ordination and partnerships withother organisations (e.g. standards
systems, research institutes, companies)
in the implementation of the scheme’s
M&E system; andb. engage with these organisations
whenever practicable.
2. The scheme owner shall use and reporton common or standardized indicators
recommended by the ISEAL Allianceand/or other sector-specific reporting
initiatives, whenever practicable.

6. Stakeholder Engagement in M&E System Design
Clause 6.1 Stakeholder Identification
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The scheme owneris better able
to consult withstakeholders during
the design andimplementation of
the M&E system.

1. The scheme owner shall:

In identifying stakeholders with aninterest in the monitoring and evaluation
system, the scheme owner should, at aminimum, consider users of the standards
system, stakeholders that are affected by
the activities of the standards systems,
and organisations (such as ISEAL, otherstandards systems, and research orreporting initiatives) with which alignment,
coordination and cooperation in theimplementation of the M&E system could
be valuable. The scheme owner may also
consider stakeholders within their own
organisation (see 5.8)

a. identify categories of stakeholders who
have an interest in different aspects of
the M&E system; andb. document this exercise either using
existing protocols or by developing
new ones.

See ‘Stakeholder Mapping’ in the ISEALStandard Setting Code13

Clause 6.2 Stakeholder Consultation
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Stakeholders haveopportunities toprovide input atdifferent stages
in the design andperiodic revision of
the M&E system.

1. The scheme owner shall provide andpublicize (10.1) opportunities for theidentified stakeholders to comment on
at least the following aspects of the M&E
system:These opportunities for comment should
be available both when the M&E system isfirst being designed and also for periodic
revisions of the system (see 9.2).

a. the intended impacts and outcomesof the standards system (7.1);
b. the unintended effects of the system(7.3), including identifying the mostsignificant and potentially damaging
unintended negative effects; andc. the scope and boundaries of the M&E
system (5.2).

7. Defining the Intended Change
Clause 7.1 Intended Impact and Outcomes
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The scheme ownerhas determined
the sustainability
impacts andoutcomes they are
striving to achieve.

1. The scheme owner shall define anddocument the intended long-termsocial, environmental or economic
impacts of the standards system.

Scheme owners should make use of activities
required by the ISEAL Standard-Setting Codeto articulate the sustainability objectives forthe standard. The intended impacts (goals) of astandards system are aligned with, but generally
broader than the objectives of a specific standard.
Standard systems may implement various
activities and strategies (see 7.2.1) to achieve
their goals, one of which is the standard itself.

2. The scheme owner shall define anddocument the short and medium-termsocial, environmental or economic
outcomes they expect to see asa result of compliance with theirstandard and through other strategies
that the standards system employs(see 7.2.1).

14

Clause 7.2 Causal Pathways
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The schemeowner has anunderstanding of
how the strategies
they employ
are expected tocontributeto their intended
impacts andoutcome.

1. The scheme owner shall identify thestrategies that the standards system
employs to contribute to its intended
outcomes and impacts.

See ‘Strategies’ definition. If these strategies
are not already explicitly documented,
scheme owners should consider the various
activities (or intended activities) of thestandards system and describe the strategies
it will use to contribute to desired outcomes.

2. The scheme owner shall illustrate or
describe the causal pathways that explain
how identified strategies are expected
to contribute to the intended outcomes
and impacts.

Clause 7.3 Unintended Effects
Desired Outcome

Requirement

The schemeowner is aware ofpossible unintended
consequences of
its activities.

1. The scheme owner shall:

Guidance

a. consult with stakeholders to identify
the possible unintended effects (bothpositive and negative), including
the most significant and potentiallydamaging negative unintended effectsof the standards system’s activities; andb. document the results of this consultation.

Clause 7.4 Influencing Factors
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good Practice
1. The scheme owner shall define andregularly review the external factors
most likely to influence (both positively
and negatively) the achievement ofintended impacts and outcomes, toassess whether the organisation cantake action to avoid or mitigate risks
and/or take advantage of favourable
factors and conditions.

These may include factors such as weather,complementary or detrimental interventions byother actors, political or social unrest, financial
crisis, market structure, availability and qualityof infrastructure, etc.

15

8. Monitoring and Evaluation
Clause 8.1 Performance Monitoring and Outcome and Impact Evaluation
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The M&E systemboth regularly tracks
progress towards
intended outcomesand provides indepth insight into
how the standards
system is functioning
and why it is or is
not achieving its
desired impacts.

1. The scheme owner shall implement
an M&E system that includes both
performance monitoring, andoutcome and impact evaluations.

See definitions of ‘performancemonitoring’, ‘outcome evaluation’,and ‘impact evaluation’.

Clause 8.2 Indicators
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The schemeowner has definedindicators for
performancemonitoring andfor outcome andimpact evaluations
that will provide thedata necessary tomeasure progressand monitor
unintended effects
in a standardized
way over time andacross studies.

1. The scheme owner shall:

The scheme owner may use common or
standardized indicators recommended
by the ISEAL Alliance and/or other sectorspecific reporting initiatives (see 5.9 and
8.8).

a. define and document the indicators tobe employed in the M&E system; andb. show to which sustainability outcomes,
impacts and unintended effects eachindicator contributes.
2. The scheme owner shall identify
which indicators are to be included inperformance monitoring activities, whichin outcome and impact evaluations, andwhich in both.

Clause 8.3 Performance Monitoring

16

Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The scheme ownerhas sufficient
information todetermine theextent to which
outputs and shortand medium-term
results are being
achieved.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure that datais collected on an ongoing basis to track
and report progress on their current
performance monitoring indicators.

Data is collected on an on-going basis whendata collection is recurrent and on a regularschedule (e.g. once a year, during each audit,
each time a new certificate is issued, etc.).

2. The scheme owner shall compile,
analyse and produce reports on the
results observed through performancemonitoring at least once per year forinternal purposes.

For ‘internal purposes’ means that thesereports should be used and circulated
internally. They are not required to bemade publically available, but publishingmonitoring reports is aspirational bestpractice (see 10.4)

Clause 8.4 Quality Assurance for Performance Monitoring
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Monitoring data iscollected accurately
and consistently.

1. The scheme owner shall implement data
quality assurance measures to help ensure
the quality, reliability and accuracy of data
used for performance monitoring. At aminimum, these measures shall include
creating and following specific indicator
protocols for each monitoring indicator
currently in use.

Data quality assurance measures can also
include building cross-checks into data entry
systems; defining procedures for identifying
and handling outliers and missing values;
and following recognized data quality
assurance guidelines.

Clause 8.5 Outcome and Impact Evaluations
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Periodic in-depth
evaluations provide thescheme owner with theinformation necessary
to understand theextent to which its
desired changes are
occurring as well as
why the system is
or is not producing
intended results.

1. If the scheme owner has had an
operational standards system for at least
two years, it shall conduct, commission
or otherwise undergo at least one indepth outcome or impact evaluation
per year.

A standards system becomes operational
when it certifies or verifies the first entity
to its standard.

2. The scheme owner shall ensure that atleast some of these in-depth evaluations
are independent impact evaluations,designed to determine whether it ispossible to attribute observed changes
to the standards system.

The number, regularity and extent
of impact evaluations should becommensurate with the maturity, scale andintensity of the activities of the standards
system. Impact evaluations generally takea number of years to complete as a goal is
to see change over time. Thus, standards
systems are unlikely to have any fullycompleted independent impact evaluations
until they have been operational for three
to five years.

3. The scheme owner shall ensure thateach outcome and impact evaluation
addresses at least the following
questions:

Outcome and impact evaluations can also
include investigation of how standards
content or other supporting strategies
should be refined to strengthen thelikelihood of achieving the desired
outcomes and impacts and/or to avoid
negative unintended effects.

a. Is the standards system intervention
producing desired and intended
sustainability outcomes or impacts?

Outcome or impact evaluations that areconsistent with the spirit of the definitionsin the glossary and meet the requirementsof 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 10.2 are eligible tocount towards compliance with thisrequirement.

b. What unintended effects (positive or
negative) resulted from the activities
or intervention assessed?

17

c. To what extent is it possible to attributethe observed effects to the activity orintervention of the standards systemusing the methodology applied inthis evaluation?
d. What factors could have influenced
the results (factors within the controlof the standards system and otherexternal factors)?

Clause 8.6 Quality Assurance for Outcome and Impact Evaluations
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Outcome and impact
evaluations produce
accurate, reliable,
and relevant results
and analysis.

1. The scheme owner shall:

Quality assurance measures can be
documented through policies andprocedures, in the evaluation reports
themselves or through other means.

a. take measures to help ensure thateach outcome and impact evaluation
it commissions or undertakes produces
accurate, reliable, and relevant findings;
andb. document these measures.

Such quality assurance measures
may include:• following recognized guidelines forevaluation quality;• ensuring that personnel undertaking
impact evaluations are independent of
the entity or system being evaluated;• publicly committing to publish fullevaluation reports;• peer review or scientific review of termsof reference, methodology, and/or ofevaluation reports and articles;• use (in impact evaluations) ofcounterfactuals or control groups
following widely-recognizedmethodologies;• obtaining pre-intervention baseline
measures;• ensuring that evaluators understand thecontext in which the evaluation takes
place as well as the standards system’s
intended change and strategies;• checking interpretations by presenting
evaluation results to those who
participated in the evaluation and to
local stakeholders prior to finalizing thestudy; and• making evaluation data available toother researchers to replicate findings.

18

Clause 8.7 Monitoring and Evaluation Reports
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Reports containenough information
for the schemeowner and otherstakeholders tounderstand how
conclusions werereached and tojudge the qualityof the underlying
analysis.

1. The scheme owner shall include at least
the following information in performancemonitoring reports (8.3) and reports ofoutcome and impact evaluations (8.5):

Guidancea. The purpose of the evaluation or
analysis and the guiding evaluationquestions;b. (For outcome and impact evaluations)Names of people involved in
conducting the evaluation, their
qualifications, and their connection to
the entity or system being evaluated;
c. Methodology (e.g. what data wascollected; specific methods used togather data; thresholds employed;
sampling; data manipulation; how data
was analysed and conclusions drawn);
d. Findings and conclusions, including
both positive and negative effects;
e. Any limitations of the evaluationor analysis (including limitations
or uncertainties in the data, andassumptions);
f. (For outcome and impact evaluations)
How the context (e.g. internal andexternal factors) might have affected
the results of the intervention; andg. Recommendations, where appropriate.

Clause 8.8 Indicator Alignment
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good Practice
Monitoring data iscomparable acrossdifferent standards
systems and allows
for standardized
reporting andreporting ofcollective results.

1. Whenever practicable, the schemeowner shall use the same indicators
and unites of measure as those ofother standards systems.

For instance ISEAL Common Core
indicators and other industry specificreporting initiatives.

19Clause 8.9 Communication of Evaluation Results
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good Practice
Study participants
and otherstakeholders
are empowered
through a better
understanding of
the results achievedby the standards
system.

1. The scheme owner shall provide resultsof evaluations to study participants andshall seek effective and innovative waysof sharing and accurately communicating
evaluation results to different stakeholder
groups.

This includes sharing and communicatingwith the subjects of an evaluation.

Clause 8.10 Benefits of M&E for Entities Involved in the Standards System
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good Practice
The M&E systemprovides direct andtangible benefits,
and minimal extra
burden, to entities
that are involvedin the standards
system.

1. The scheme owner shall implement
activities and adopt practices toensure that the entities covered by
the standard derive benefits from
the M&E system.

“Entities covered by the standard” mayinclude, for example, certified enterprises,
producer organisations, producers, worker
organisations, etc.
This could include practices such asproviding support and capacity building
for data collection and management;
opportunities to be part of learning eventsor exchange on good practices and researchfindings; access to data; or analysis of
how they compare to other entities inthe standards system.

Clause 8.11 Ethical Guidelines
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good PracticeEvaluators respectand do not harmthe subjects ofthe evaluation.

20

1. Scheme owners that commission
evaluations shall develop or adopt ethics
guidelines for evaluation work, or shallreview and approve the researcher’s
own ethics guidelines.

Ethics guidelines could requireconsideration of risk for subjects involved in
evaluations, evaluation burden and fatigue
for entities involved in the evaluation,
guidelines on reporting of legal or standards
breaches, and other related factors.

9. Learning and Improving
Clause 9.1 Internalising Learning and Improving
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Information fromthe monitoring andevaluation system
is used within
the organisation
to improve theeffectiveness of thestandards system.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure thatthe standards system’s definition of
intended change (section 7), reports fromperformance monitoring and outcome
and impact evaluations (section 8), andthe learning from these activities, aredistributed and discussed throughout
the organisation, including at least to
the organisation’s senior management,
governance structures, and standards’committee.

Inclusion in meeting agendas and theminutes summarizing the discussion of thesepoints during relevant meetings, or similar
documentation, would constitute evidenceof distribution and discussion.

Clause 9.2 Improving M&E System Effectiveness
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

The scheme owner
regularly updates
and improves its
monitoring andevaluation system.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure that theresults from performance monitoring,outcome and impact evaluations andthe learning from these activities areused to inform a periodic review andrefinement of the intended change
and of the M&E strategy.

Documentation of conformance with thisrequirement will explain the approach toand chosen frequency of this ‘periodic
review.’ The scheme owner may review andrefine some aspects of an M&E system on
an on-going or annual basis. Other elementsof the system are more difficult to change(e.g. indicators embedded in audits) and thus
may be reviewed and refined less frequently.

Clause 9.3 Responding to and Using M&E Results
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good PracticeThe scheme ownerdocuments andshows how thestandards system is
responding to andusing M&E results.

1. The scheme owner shall issue external
and/or internal management responses toperformance monitoring and outcome andimpact evaluation reports.
2. The scheme owner shall document theuses of M&E results for management andlearning purposes and to build internal
support for the value of the M&E system.

21

10. Transparency and Public Information
Clause 10.1 Publicly Available Information About the M&E System
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Stakeholders havethe information theyneed to understandand contributeto the standards
system’s M&E
programme.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure thefollowing information is made publicly
available:

Having publicly available information about
the M&E system is a baseline requirement.
Of the list of required public information,
those that relate to improvement criteria
in the Code need not be made publicly
available as a baseline requirement.

a. A contact point for submission of any
comments, questions or complaints
about the M&E system;
b. A description of the current scopeand boundaries of the monitoringand evaluation system (5.2), and if
appropriate, the plan for expansion(5.3);
c. Procedures and opportunities forstakeholder engagement in the design
and revision of the M&E system andthe results of these consultations (6.2);
d. An explanation of the scheme’s
strategies, intended outcomes andimpacts, and the most significant
unintended effects ( 7.1, 7.2, 7.3);
e. A list of all indicators being used in
the monitoring and evaluation system(8.1); andf. A list of completed, ongoing and planned
outcome and impact evaluations (8.6).

Clause 10.2 Transparency of Evaluations
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Stakeholders
have access tothe conclusions ofoutcome and impact
evaluations andare able to judge
the quality of thesestudies.

1. The scheme owner shall make the resultsof outcome and impact evaluations
publicly available, either by providing
access to the full final reports of thesestudies or by providing public summaries.
2. The scheme owner shall ensure thata. public summaries of outcome andimpact evaluations are accurate
summaries of the original reports;
andb. they include at least the evaluationquestions, a description of themethodology employed, the positive
and negative conclusions, and therecommendations contained inthose reports.

22

Guidance

Clause 10.3 Substantiating Claims
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Claims made about
the results achievedby the standards
system are accurate
and are notoverstated.

1. The scheme owner shall ensure thatclaims made in any reports or statementsthat it issues about the outcomes andimpacts of the standards system areaccurate and linked to actual findings andconclusions from performance monitoringor outcome and impact evaluations.

Describing the contribution the standards
system makes towards impact, rather than
attributing impact directly to the standards
system is one way to ensure claims about
attribution are not overstated.
Documentation of conformance with thisrequirement could include a descriptionof procedures in place and/or assignmentof responsibility to check claims orstatements made by the scheme itself(e.g. in publications or on website) about
its outcomes and impacts.

Clause 10.4 Increased Transparency, Public Access, and Engagement
Desired Outcome

Requirement

Guidance

Aspirational Good Practice
Stakeholders havemore complete
information about
the impact andeffectiveness ofstandards systems.
They are better able
to scrutinise the
M&E system andprovide feedback

1. The scheme owner shall plan to increaselevels of transparency over time andto make additional outputs of the M&E
system publicly available, for example
by publicly tracking performancemonitoring indicators and making
annual performance monitoring reports
publicly available.
2. The scheme owner shall put mechanisms
in place to:a. encourage stakeholders, peers andthe scientific community to scrutinise
results and findings; andb. make comments received about resultsor reports publicly available.
3. When commissioning an outcome or
impact evaluation, the scheme ownershall publicly commit upfront to publish
the full evaluation report.

23

Appendix A:
Compliance Criteria
Each of ISEAL’s Codes of Good Practice consists of a combinationof baseline, improvement and aspirational criteria.
This distinction is relevant for ISEAL members showing
compliance with the respective ISEAL Code:Baseline criteria are the minimum compliancerequirements that standards systems need to meet
to become an ISEAL Associate Member.
Improvement criteria provide a learning frameworkthat supports standards systems to improve overtime and with which ISEAL members make acommitment to comply within one to three
years, depending on the Code (three years for
the Impacts Code).

ClauseAspirational criteria (optional good practice) areeither new and innovative practices that can be
implemented and tested by standards systems
but for which compliance is not assessed, or arepractices that new organisations might not be able
to implement within the timeline for compliance.
All requirements from the Impacts Code are presented
in the table below with an indication of the level ofcompliance required. Where all requirements undera given clause have the same level of compliance,
only the clause is indicated:

Compliance Criteria

5. M&E System Requirements

24

5.1 Monitoring and Evaluation System

Improvement

5.2.1 Scope and Boundaries of the M&E System

Baseline

5.2.2 Scope and Boundaries of the M&E System

Improvement

5.3 Plan for Expansion

Improvement

5.4 Resources

Baseline

5.5. Roles and Responsibilities

Baseline

5.6 Data Management

Improvement

5.7.1 Data Confidentiality and Use

Baseline

5.7.2 Data Confidentiality and Use

Baseline

5.8 Integrating M&E in the Organisation

Aspirational

5.9.1 Cooperation and Coordination

Aspirational

5.9.2 Cooperation and Coordination

Aspirational

ClauseCompliance Criteria

6. Stakeholder Engagement
6.1 Stakeholder Identification

Baseline

6.2 Stakeholder Consultation

Improvement

ClauseCompliance Criteria

7. Defining the Intended Change
7.1.1 Intended Impact and Outcomes

Baseline

7.1.2 Intended Impact and Outcomes

Baseline

7.2.1 Causal Pathways

Improvement

7.2.2 Causal Pathways

Improvement

7.3 Unintended Effects

Improvement

7.4 Influencing Factors

Aspirational

ClauseCompliance Criteria

8. Monitoring and Evaluation
8.1 Performance Monitoring and Outcome and Impact Evaluation

Improvement

8.2.1 Indicators

Improvement

8.2.2 Indicators

Improvement

8.3.1 Performance Monitoring

Improvement

8.3.2 Performance Monitoring

Improvement

8.4 Quality Assurance for Performance Monitoring

Improvement

8.5.1 Outcome and Impact Evaluations

Improvement

8.5.2 Outcome and Impact Evaluations

Improvement

8.5.3 Outcome and Impact Evaluations

Improvement

8.6 Quality Assurance for Outcome and Impact Evaluations

Improvement

8.7 Monitoring and Evaluation Reports

Improvement

8.8 Indicator Alignment

Aspirational

8.9 Communication of Evaluation Results

Aspirational

8.10 Benefits of M&E for Entities Involved in the Standard System

Aspirational

8.11 Ethical Guidelines

Aspirational

25

ClauseCompliance Criteria

9. Learning and Improving
9.1 Internalising Learning and Improving

Improvement

9.2 Improving M&E System EffectivenessImprovement

9.3.1 Responding to and Using M&E Results

Aspirational

9.3.2 Responding to and Using M&E Results

Aspirational

ClauseCompliance Criteria

10. Transparency and Public Information

26

10.1 Publicly Available Information

Baseline

10.2.1 Transparency of Evaluations

Baseline

10.2.2 Transparency of Evaluations

Baseline

10.3 Substantiating Claims

Improvement

10.4.1 Increased Transparency, Public Access, and Engagement

Aspirational

10.4.2 Increased Transparency, Public Access, and Engagement

Aspirational

10.4.3 Increased Transparency, Public Access, and Engagement

Aspirational

Our Cover
These colourful yarns are used in handmade rugs and carpets in South Asia. ISEAL member GoodWeave works to stop
child labour in the carpet industry and to replicate its market-based approach in other sectors. © GoodWeave USA
Photography
We would like to thank all members that provided photography for this ISEAL code of Good Practice.
Page 4 © Union for Ethical BioTrade. Page 5 © Brigitte Ermel Joaillier | Responsible Jewellery Council. Page 8 © Responsible Jewellery Council.
Page 10 © Noah Jackson | Rainforest Alliance. Page 11 © Better Cotton Initiative. Page 12, 13 and 20 © Bonsucro. Page 14 © UTZ Certified.
Page 15 and 26 © Juhan Samuel | Marine Stewardship Council. Page 19 © Carlos Alberto Gonzalez | Rainforest Alliance. Page 21 © Walter
Smith | Rainforest Alliance. Page 23 © Danner Friedman | Rainforest Alliance. Page 27 © David Brazier | Union for Ethical BioTrade.
Editor ISEAL Secretariat
Graphic Designer Kelly Gregory | mail@kellygregory.co.uk

27

ISEAL Alliance
The Wenlock Centre
50-52 Wharf Road
London N1 7EU
United Kingdom+44 (0)20 3246 0066
info@isealalliance.org
twitter.com/isealalliancewww.iseal.org