Strategic decision making and evaluation in philanthropic giving and social investment requires good‐quality information about the social impacts of that investment. One way to meet this need is by calculating a social return on investment (SROI) measure, akin to the return on investment (ROI) approach used in business analysis. Despite much buzz in the field, SROI measurements are rarely used, in part because of the complexity of the calculations but also because of a number of thorny and often expensive organizational challenges associated with implementing an SROI process. This article explores these implementation challenges by comparing four social venture organizations in the health care field—two in the Netherlands and two in the United States—that have utilized some sort of SROI measurement. We summarize the SROI process and identify the specific organizational challenges in each case. Lessons learned from this analysis include the value of process versus product and the importance of fitting the type of measurement to the organizational context. We conclude with a summary of best practices for organizations and social investors who might try to make effective use of SROI measures.

In the last decade, new technologies for Unconventional Gas Development (UGD) have caused a sharp increase in production of natural gas. While technical and commercial factors influence the market penetration of emerging technologies, the "social license" to operate an emerging technology is also critical. Some state legislators and public officials have responded to public concerns about UGD by reinvesting a portion of the revenue earned from development for general use in the state or-in some jurisdictions-in communities where UGD is occurring. Despite these emerging trends in public finance and energy policy, the role of revenue reinvestment in shaping levels of public support for UGD is not well understood.

This article examines the large interstate variation in levels of unconventional gas development in the U.S. states. The following hypotheses are advanced to predict whether a state will be predisposed toward development: (H1) the availability of unconventional gas reserves; (H2) the availability of infrastructure to support development; (H3) a recent history of conventional oil and gas development; (H4) Republican party control of the Governor's office and state legislature; (H5) relatively low sensitivity to environmental issues; (H6) regulatory systems that treat UGD as a variant of conventional gas development; (H7) a pressing need for economic benefits as indicated by state and local measures of household income, unemployment and poverty; (H8) and public opinion supportive of development. To various degrees, each of the hypotheses is supported but important exceptions and surprises are uncovered in the qualitative and semi-quantitative analyses. Future research should continue the effort to explain the variation of development by expanding the geographical scope of inquiry and enlarging the sample of jurisdictions.

No abstract