Overview of monitoring & evaluation practice in South Africa

South African companies and nonprofits are increasingly using monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to assess the impact of their programmes, as well as to learn and adjust their projects. Most large companies have M&E policies and some are setting aside funding for M&E, as are some nonprofits. This section presents the insights on M&E practices based on data collected from 70 companies and 110 nonprofits between May and August 2025.  

M&E policies and funding  

• Most surveyed companies (68%) had a stated M&E policy in 2025, up from less than half (45%) in 2020. 
• Even though they may have a policy, most companies (64%) do not earmark specific funding for M&E. Only a little more than a third of companies (36%) allocated a portion of the CSI budget to M&E. Of these, the vast majority (88%, or 32% of the total) allocated 5% or less of their budget to M&E. Allocations ranged from less than 1% to 15%, with a median of 5% and an average of 4%.  
• Similarly, most nonprofits (70%) do not have a budget for M&E. Almost a third of nonprofit respondents (30%, 43 nonprofits) had an M&E budget, slightly up from 25% in 2024. Of the 27 nonprofits that provided a detailed breakdown, just over half (56%, or 17% of the total) allocated 5% or less of their organisational budget to M&E. Nonprofit allocations were higher than those of companies, ranging from 1% to 25%, with a median of 5% and an average of 8%. 
• In line with good practice, most nonprofits (77%) included M&E costs in project funding, up from 58% in 2015.  
• Somewhat alarmingly, almost a third of companies (30%) do not pay any external project evaluation costs. The proportion of companies paying for all external evaluation costs declined slightly to 44% in 2025 from 52% when last measured in 2016. 

M&E staffing  

• Most companies (71%) have staff dedicated to managing M&E, continuing the trend of internalising this important function – up from only half of companies in 2020. Only 17% of companies did not have any internal or external resources to manage M&E, down from 33% in 2020. 
• The proportion of companies with more than one person working on M&E increased to 34% in 2025 from 18% in 2020. 
• About three quarters of nonprofits (73%) reported that M&E was managed by internal staff, remaining fairly consistent with the previous rate of 78% in 2020. 
• More companies (12%) than nonprofits (2%) used external consultants for M&E. 

M&E by project stage

• More than seven in 10 companies (71%) and nonprofits (73%) require M&E processes to be in place before or at the start of a project. Although this percentage increased only slightly among companies (from 67% in 2018), it almost doubled for nonprofits since last measured in 2018 (up from 37%). 
• A fifth of companies (20%) require M&E after they have invested in a project and it has been running for some time. Almost one in 10 companies only require M&E at the end of a project.  

M&E technology 

• Most companies and nonprofits reported using either manual processes or Microsoft suite programs (such as Excel or Power BI) for M&E. 
• The highest proportion of both companies (48%) and nonprofits (57%) used manual processes for M&E project management. 
• More than half of surveyed companies used Microsoft programs for data collection (54%), reporting (52%) and analysis (54%). 
• Nonprofits also used Microsoft programs for the full range of M&E processes but at slightly lower rates than companies, ranging from 36% to 45%. 
• Nonprofits used specialised M&E software more than companies, particularly for data collection (26%).  
• Few companies or nonprofits used AI for M&E in 2025. 

Aspects measured  

• Most surveyed companies and nonprofits stated that they measure inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts for all their projects in 2025. 
• As expected, the highest percentage of companies (91%) measured CSI project outputs (such as the number of beneficiaries reached or services delivered), which is slightly up from 83% in 2016. Similarly, most nonprofits (87%) measured programme outputs, up from 81% in 2016. 
• Nine in 10 companies (90%) also reported measuring CSI project outcomes (the short to medium-term changes or benefits that result from outputs), up from 76% in 2016.Over three quarters of nonprofits (77%) measured outcomes, an increase from 69% in 2016. 
• More companies (76%) and nonprofits (68%) claimed to measure impact (the broader, long-term effects of the intervention) in 2025, up from 62% and 52% respectively in 2016. This is surprising given how difficult it is to measure impact and how rarely we see examples in practice. 

M&E tools and approaches

• Surveyed companies reported using additional M&E tools and analysis methods more frequently than nonprofits. 
• More than half of companies (56%) had conducted social return on investment (SROI) analyses on CSI expenditure. In contrast, only 13% of nonprofits had conducted SROIs, though three-quarters (75%) said they would consider using this approach. 
• About half of the surveyed companies (47%) had conducted cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, a notable increase from the 32% that answered in this way in 2017. While fewer nonprofits (26%) used these methods, 64% said they would consider doing so.  
• Although 47% of companies used participatory methods, a fifth (21%) would not consider using them. Participatory methods were the most practiced approach among nonprofits (35%), although this decreased from 48% in 2017. 

M&E requirements and practices

 

Here is the text with the bullet points removed and converted into clean paragraphs:

• Most companies (83%) required project reports from implementing partners for all CSI projects. Similarly, 89% of nonprofits produced reports for at least some of their projects (driven by requirements for 22% of them).
• Three-quarters of companies (76%) required measurement of outcomes for all CSI projects, while 20% measured outcomes for flagship projects or those over a certain size only. Similarly, 89% of nonprofits measured outcomes for at least some of their projects.
• Nearly half of the surveyed companies (46%) required a documented theory of change (ToC) for all CSI projects, while 27% did not require a ToC at all. Around a third of nonprofits (35%) had a ToC for all projects, while a quarter (24%) only produced them when linked to funding conditions.
• More companies (40%) than nonprofits (19%) required external evaluations for all projects. Around a third of companies (31%) and nonprofits (27%) do not require external evaluations for any projects.
• The percentage of companies that developed reporting templates collaboratively with nonprofits increased to 60% in 2025, up from 52% in 2019. This is higher than the 37% of nonprofits that reported developing reporting templates collaboratively with corporate donors.
• Consistent with previous surveys, 39% of companies provided implementing partners with a reporting template. Closely aligned with this, 38% of nonprofits received reporting templates from corporate donors.
• Only one company (1%) allowed nonprofits to determine the insights they wanted to share, a decrease from 10% in 2019. A higher proportion of nonprofits (25%) reported determining the insights they share with their donors.
• Consistent with previous surveys, companies differed on their approaches to metrics required from grant applicants and grantees.
• Close to a third each requested a mix of both standard and unique metrics from applicants and grantees (36%), the same reporting metrics from all applicants and grantees (30%), or different metrics from each applicant and grantee (29%).
• Over half of companies (53%) required implementing partners to report on a quarterly basis, followed by monthly reporting requirements (24%). Only 7% of companies required annual reporting from implementing partners.
• In comparison, the highest percentage of nonprofits (37%) answered that corporate donors required annual reports, while quarterly (22%) and semi-annual (24%) reporting were less common.
• Nine percent of nonprofits were never asked to report to corporate donors.
• Most nonprofits (82%) found corporate donor reporting requirements reasonable. Only 12% viewed the requirements as excessive, while the remaining 6% felt the reporting requirements were not rigorous enough.

Working together  

• Overall, companies and nonprofits collaborated more with one another in M&E implementation than directly with beneficiaries.
• Over 80% of companies collaborated with implementing partner organisations on all of the M&E processes mentioned in the survey.
• Companies most often involved implementing partners in designing M&E methodologies (95%) and programming (92%). Similarly, 89% of nonprofits said that their corporate partners involved them in M&E methodology design with corporate donors and 91% in programme design.
• These results suggest increased collaboration compared to previous surveys. In 2021, only 35% of companies involved implementing partners in designing M&E methodologies and only a fifth (21%) of nonprofits reported being involved in these processes with corporate donors.
• The percentage of companies involving implementing partners in sharing feedback on M&E findings increased from 69% in 2021 to 87% in 2025.
• Companies engaged more with beneficiaries in feedback on M&E findings (76%) and interviews/data gathering (78%) than in programme design (44%) or methodology (41%).
• Surveyed nonprofits were less likely to report that their corporate partners involved programme beneficiaries in M&E processes. Fewer than half said that their corporate partners included beneficiaries in interviews/data gathering (45%) or feedback on findings (45%), with even lower involvement in programme design (30%) and M&E methodology (21%).

Use of M&E data  

• Both companies and nonprofits used M&E data gathered through evaluations in multiple ways. 
• Almost all companies (89%) and nonprofits (82%) reported evaluation data to their boards, remaining fairly consistent since this question was first asked in 2015 (93% for companies). 
• More than three-quarters of companies also used evaluation data when deciding to exit or continue supporting projects (79%), for planning or revising strategies (76%) and for planning or revising programmes or projects (74%).  
• Companies were least likely to use evaluation data to attempt to influence public policy or government funding choices, although about a fifth (19%) had done so. Nonprofits were slightly more likely than companies to use evaluation data for this purpose at 27%, up from 16% in 2024. 
• Nonprofit use of evaluation data increased across all activities described in 2025.  
• Like companies, nonprofits were most likely to have shared evaluation results with their boards (82%). Almost three-quarters (74%) also shared evaluation data with other grant makers/stakeholders, compared with only 44% of companies. 
• More than half of nonprofits also used evaluation data for deciding to exit or continue supporting projects (57%), planning/revising strategies (68%) and planning/revising programmes or projects (60%), although at slightly lower rates than companies.  

Measuring business benefits

 

• Only about half of the surveyed companies (54%, 38 companies) measured the business benefits of their community investments. This is higher than in the US, where 46% of companies measured the employee-related value of their community investments and 35% measured brand-related outcomes in 2024.  
• Most companies that measured business benefits assessed improvements in community relations (84%) and brand perceptions (79%), followed by government relations (63%) and reputations/trust scores (61%). 
• Just under a third of companies measured the business benefits in terms of customer loyalty (32%), acquisition (29%) and referrals (26%). Of the 27 companies that provided detailed information on how they measured customer or brand benefits from community investments, this was most frequently done through customer surveys (81%), followed by market data analysis (48%). 
• In terms of employees, companies most frequently measured the business benefits of increased employee engagement (55%), while identifying rising leaders (18%) was least common. Of the 31 companies that provided details on how they measured employee benefits from community investments, this was most frequently done by surveying volunteers (61%) and analysing HR data to compare volunteers and non-volunteers (32%). Companies were less likely to lever existing employee surveys (23%) to measure employee benefits, much lower than in the US where this was the most common approach (72%).  
• Improved supplier relations was the least measured stakeholder benefit (3%).