Turning Social Return on Investment on Its Head

Abstract

This article undertakes a critique of social return on investment (SROI),

Advancing Performance Measurement Theory by Focusing on Subjects: Lessons from the Measurement of Social Value

“…In particular, SVM typically consists of the introduction of a variety of measurement instruments such as SROI and the Outcome Star, but the use of which is intimately related to understanding and engaging stakeholders and subjects. Today, SVM is regarded as a way to understand and enhance subjects' wellbeing (Benjamin 2013;Brickson 2007;Kroeger and Weber 2014;Mook et al 2015;Vanclay 2002) and it focuses on assessing whether and how individuals are physically, cognitively or emotionally affected by organizational activities (Burdge and Vanclay 1996;Kroeger and Weber 2014). Social value measurement accomplishes this by considering multiple perspectives on the changes in condition of people and/or communities interacting with an organization (Costa and Pesci 2016;Esteves et al 2012;Smith 1995b;Vanclay 2002).…”

“…Indeed, from its inception, SVM has been introduced as a mechanism to make visible and actionable the human implications of organizational operations (Ogburn 1933;Wilcox et al 1972). The SVM process is therefore presented as inclusive and participatory (Ellis and Hogard 2006;Hall et al 2015;Millar and Hall 2013), and social value measures aim to be authentic, genuine and adequate (Freudenburg 1986;Mook et al 2015). Today, SVM is regarded as a way to understand and enhance subjects' wellbeing (Benjamin 2013;Brickson 2007;Kroeger and Weber 2014;Mook et al 2015;Vanclay 2002) and it focuses on assessing whether and how individuals are physically, cognitively or emotionally affected by organizational activities (Burdge and Vanclay 1996;Kroeger and Weber 2014).…”

“…Beer and P. Micheli Measurement design and implementation should focus not only on tools, processes and results, but also on how subjects interact with the measurement process. employees and service users), and as a learning mechanism for understanding what creates changes in subjects' conditions (Ellis and Hogard 2006;Hall et al 2015;Mook et al 2015). SVM is used for accountability to, and engagement of, stakeholders (e.g.…”

“…Some authors have also argued that the focus of SVM should be to enable an understanding of subjects' lived experiences (Mook et al 2015), rather than to attempt to estimate performance, as SROI does (Arvidson et al 2013). In this manner, the measurement process could generate information that is relevant on an individual level to those involved in social value creation (Costa and Pesci 2016), and thereby assist them in aligning their own positions with those required to lead to changes-in conditions (Poole et al 2001).…”

“…Yet, although it is found to enhance transparency and legitimacy externally (Maier et al 2015), internally the method is cumbersome and time consuming (Millar and Hall 2013), tends to overlook overall financial performance by focusing on how much social value is generated per amount of money spent (Mook et al 2015), and has even been said to 'dumb-down' (Gibbon and Dey 2011) the social value activities within an organization. Interestingly, the most popular SVM tools are found to play different roles once introduced, most distinctively either as mechanisms for understanding internal social value performance or, alternatively, to report to external stakeholders, but rarely for both.…”