Social Impact Measurements

Social Impact Measurement:
classification of methods..
Karen Maas, PhD*, Department of Business Economics, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, maas@ese.eur.nl
Kellie i!et, Msc, Erasmus "entre for #trate$ic Philanthropy, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, li!et@ese.eur.nl
%&stract
'his paper analyses and cate$ori(es thirty contemporary social impact
measurement methods. 'hese methods have &een developed in response to the
chan$in$ needs for mana$ement information resultin$ from increased interest of
corporations in socially responsi&le activities. 'he social impact measurement
methods )ere found to differ on the follo)in$ dimensions* purpose, time frame,
orientation, length of time frame, perspective and approach. 'he main
commonalities and differences &et)een the methods are analysed and the
characteristics of the methods are defined. 'he classification system developed in
this paper allo)s for mana$ers to navi$ate their )ay throu$h the landscape of
social impact methods. Moreover, the classification clearly illustrates the need for
more social impact methods that truly measure impact, ta!e an output orientation,
and concentrate on lon$er term effects. +urthermore, this paper discusses the lac!
of consensus in definin$ social impact. 'he paper concludes )ith a &rief
discussion on theoretical and practical implications.
,
1. Introduction
-n the last decade responsi&le corporate &ehaviour has &een a ma.or topic of &oth
academic and pu&lic discourse. "onse/uently, tools have &een developed for &oth
the mana$in$ and reportin$ of the )ide ran$e of corporate responsi&ility activities.
'his paper outlines a classification system for the cate$ori(ation of contemporary
measurement methods developed to measure social impact. 'he term social impact
is used for the impact of a corporation on society on the economic, environmental
and social dimension. 0hereas environmental accountin$ methods have &een
em&raced &y &oth academic analysis and a )ide ran$e of corporations 1Burritt and
#a!a 2334, #chalte$$er et al. 23325, the landscape of social impact methods has
yet to &e cate$ori(ed. 'he purpose that the cate$ori(ation performed in this paper
serves is t)ofold. +irstly, it allo)s for the analysis of status /uo of the social
impact methods for corporate social responsi&ility 1"#R5. #econdly, it aids the
"#R mana$er in the navi$ation throu$h the )ide ran$e of e6istin$ tools.
%nalo$ous to financial accountin$ methods, environmental and social accountin$
methods aim to measure the impact of corporate activities on society. #uch social
and environmental impacts are often not e6pressed &y the mar!et, do not have a
mar!et value and are therefore often i$nored &y corporations 1El!in$ton ,777,
#chalte$$er and Burritt 2333, am&erton 23385. 9o)ever, accountin$ methods
provide crucial information for mana$erial decision:ma!in$ 1accountin$ for
decision:ma!in$5 and for internal and e6ternal reportin$ 1accountin$ for control5
1;immerman 23375. 0hereas environmental accountin$ methods are relatively
)idespread, as sho)n &y their fre/uent occurrence in annual reports, "#R
activities often e6tend to more numerous dimensions than the environmental one,
)ith impact on &oth the economy and society. 'he lac! of consensus on the
definition of social impact and the &est )ay to measure it hampers &oth the
academic de&ate on social impact, as )ell as the usa$e of social impact methods
1Maas and Boons 23,35. 'his paper is a first attempt at increasin$ the consensus
&y analysin$ social impact and cate$ori(in$ the contemporary social impact
methods.
2. From a single towards a multiple bottom line
%lthou$h "#R is )idely used, numerous terms refer to the social &ehaviour of
corporations, such as community involvement, corporate responsiveness,
corporate citi(enship, corporate social performance, and many others 1Matten et
al. 233<, de Ba!!er et al. 2338, Maas and Bouma 23385. =evertheless, all terms
refer to actions that have &een defined &y Mc0illiams and #ie$el 1233,*,,>5 as
?...an action that appears to further some social good, beyond the interest of the
corporation and that which is required by law@. -t is important to reco$ni(e that
these actions are not specific to the private sector 1"lar! et al. 233A5, as &oth
2
$overnments and non:profit or$anisations underta!e actions to provide value for
society. 'he demands for more tan$i&le accounta&ility in these sectors have also
increased their attention on the need for social impact methods 1ondon 23375.

'raditionally, it )as &elieved that value is either economic 1created &y for:profit
or$anisations5 or social 1created &y non:profit or non$overnmental or$anisations5
10eis&rod ,7BB, Ben:=er and 9oomissen ,7725. -n ali$nment )ith this &elief it is
not surprisin$ to find that social impacts are often not e6plicitly included in
valuation studies or are even i$nored. Moreover, e6istin$ research puts most
emphasis on the &usiness case or the pay&ac! results of social initiatives for
corporations, instead of an emphasis on the impact of social initiatives 1+ry et al.
,7B2, Mar$olis and 0alsh 233<, Cuholin 233A, %$uilera et al. 233>5. 9o)ever,
Emerson 1233<5 finds that, more recently, the num&er of mainstream corporate
"EDs discussin$ the social and environmental impacts of their corporations as a
strate$y for increasin$ the total value of their corporations has increased.
El!in$ton 1,7775 has predictions of the evolution of )in:)in thin!in$ in &usiness
providin$ support for a more active attitude to)ards "#R. % similar inte$rated
approach to "#R is the triple &ottom line 1'B5 concept. 'he 'B concept
focuses on value creation
i
across the three dimensions of sustaina&ilityE the
economic, social and environmental dimensions. %lthou$h this concept has &een
)idely used, the interpretation of value creation differs amon$ usersE some
interpret 'B as a (ero:sum $ame )hile others interpret 'B as an optimisation
$ame of &lended value 1Emerson 233<). 'he idea &ehind the &lended value is that
all corporations, whether for-profit or not, create value that consist of economic,
social and environmental value components; and this value is itself non-divisible
and, therefore, a blend of these three elements 1%nn et al. ,777, El!in$ton et al.
23345. "onse/uently, the challen$e for any or$anisation, non:profit,
non$overnmental or for:profit, is to optimi(e impacts on several dimensions
instead of ma6imi(in$ impacts a$ainst any sin$le dimension.
Dver time, the movement to)ards a more inte$rated approach to)ards value
creation &y corporations has shifted from a more defensive to a more
encompassin$ approach. Under numerous e6ternal pressures, ori$inatin$ from
sta!eholders such as consumers, ratin$ a$encies and $overnments, corporations
$radually chan$ed their attitudes to)ards "#R 1see +i$ure ,5. 0hereas the ,7>3s
)ere characteri(ed &y defensive attitudes, in the ,7B3s corporations started to
)or! )ith environmental mana$ers. -t )as not until the ,773s that the attention for
"#R in process and product desi$n $re), e6tendin$ the involvement to mar!etin$
mana$ers. -n the 2333s "#R entered the &oard rooms and re/uired the
involvement of "EDs. El!in$ton et al. 123345 predict that in the future
involvement )ill e6tend to "+Ds, investment &an!ers and venture capitalists.
,,,,,
<

+i$ure ,* -nternal involvement in the corporate $oals 1&ased on El!in$ton et
al. 23345
-t is important to note that the involvement of a )ide variety of constituents )ithin
the corporation does not $uarantee socially responsi&le &ehaviour. 'he de&ate on
the intentions of corporations in their en$a$ement in "#R can &e cate$ori(ed in
three perspectives. 0hereas the first perspective faithfully pursues +riedman@s
ar$ument that a &usiness its &usiness is &usiness 1+riedman ,7>3, Matten et al.
233<5, the opposite perspective points to the $ood intentions of corporate leaders
or "#R mana$ers 1e.$. 9usted and #ala(ar 2334, Porter and Kramer 23345. 'he
third perspective ta!es a middle:)ay in that it attempts to inte$rate $ood intentions
)ith financial $ains, &y pointin$ out the indirect &enefits of "#R throu$h
employee satisfaction or corporate reputation (Mar$olish and 0alsh 233<).
Re$ardless of the perspective ta!en, it is reasona&le to assume that corporations
have an interest in social impact measurement for reportin$ and decision ma!in$
purposes. -n the latter case, social impact measurement allo)s for a first step in the
process to)ards optimisin$ value on multiple dimensions. +or corporations, &ut
also for their investors, relatively standardi(ed measurement and reportin$
$uidelines have &een developed that provide clear insi$ht into the financial
efficiency of a corporation. Measurin$ the impact upon the society, ho)ever,
remains a much $reater challen$e.
3. efinitions of social impact
'he lac! of consensus on the definition of social impact causes confusion and
hampers the a&ility to study the phenomenon. Fariations are found &et)een the
various academic fields such as &usiness and society studies, mana$ement
accountin$, and strate$ic mana$ement. %n overvie) of a num&er of definitions
can &e found in 'a&le , 1e.$. atanG ,7B,, Burd$e and Fanclay ,7745. Main
differences are found in the usa$e of )ords such as ?impact@, ?output@, ?effect@ and
?outcome@. Moreover, the term social impact is often replaced &y terms such as
?social value creation@ 1Emerson et al. 23335 and ?social return@ 1"lar! et al. 233A5.
A
1!"#s
a)yers,
pu&lic relations
1!$#s
Environmental
mana$ers
1!!#s
Process and
product desi$n,
mar!etin$,
mana$ers
2###s
"EDs, &oards,
investor
relations
%omorrow
"+Ds,
investment
&an!ers, venture
capitalists
%erm efinition
#ocial impact
1Burd$e and
Fanclay ,7745
By social impacts )e mean the conse/uences to human populations of
any pu&lic or private actions that alter the )ays in )hich people live,
)or!, play, relate to one another, or$anise to meet their needs and
$enerally act as a mem&er of society.
#ocial impact
1atanG ,7B,5
By social impact, )e mean any of the $reat variety of chan$es in
physiolo$ical states and su&.ective feelin$s, motives and emotions,
co$nitions and &eliefs, values and &ehaviour, that occur in an
individual, human or animal, as a result of the real, implied, or
ima$ined presence or actions of other individuals.
-mpact
1"lar! et al.
233A5
By impact )e mean the portion of the total outcome that happened as a
result of the activity of the venture, a&ove and &eyond )hat )ould
have happened any)ay.
#ocial Falue
1Emerson et al.
23335
#ocial value is created )hen resources, inputs, processes or policies are
com&ined to $enerate improvements in the lives of individuals or
society as a )hole.
#ocial -mpact
1+reuden&ur$
,7B45
#ocial impact refers to impacts 1or effects, or conse/uences5 that are
li!ely to &e e6perienced &y an e/ually &road ran$e of social $roups as a
result of some course of action.
#ocial -mpact
1Hentile 23335
#ocial impacts are the )ider societal concerns that reflects and respects
the comple6 interdependency &et)een &usiness practice and society.
#ocial -mpact
1-%-%
ii
&y
0i!ipedia
23375
#ocial impacts are intended and unintended social conse/uences, &oth
positive and ne$ative, of planned interventions 1policies, pro$rams,
plans, pro.ects5 and any social chan$e processes invo!ed &y those
interventions.
'a&le ,* Definitions of social impact and related terms
9ere, the definition of #ocial -mpact as developed &y "lar! et al. 1233A5 is usedE
by impact we mean the portion of the total outcome that happened as a result of
the activity of an organisation, above and beyond what would have happened
anyway.
'his definition is &ased on the so called -mpact Falue "hain 1see +i$ure 25 and is
used to differentiate outputs from outcomes and impacts. By includin$ what
would have happened anyway in the definition, the use of a &enchmar! or
counterfactual is inferred. Differentiation &et)een the elements of the social value
chain illustrate the conceptualisation of the idea that impacts are different from
outputs. 0hile outputs and outcomes are related to the provider of the product,
activity or service, impacts are associated )ith the user 1Kolodins!y et al. 23345. -t
is important to note that impacts include intended as )ell as unintended effects,
ne$ative as )ell as positive effects and &oth lon$ term and short term effects
10ain)ri$ht 23325. -deally, evaluation of the impact is utili(ed to inform $oal
ali$nment.
8
+i$ure 2* -mpact value chain 1adapted from "lar! et al. 233A5
&. e'elopments in performance measurement
+rom an economic perspective, the purpose of economic &ehaviour is &elieved to
&e the ma6imisation of )ealth or profit, attained &y the mana$ement of scarce
resources in the &est possi&le manner. 'herefore, emphasis is placed on the need
for mana$ers to see! efficient outcomes 1Burritt and #a!a 23345. Efficiency
measures the relation &et)een outputs and inputs to a process. 'he hi$her the
output for a $iven input, or the lo)er the input for a $iven output, the more
efficient the activity, product, or corporation is. 'he $eneral understandin$ of &oth
investment and return is founded upon a traditional separation of social value and
economic value. 9o)ever, the pursuit of a &lended value is for investments and
returns not to separate social and financial impacts, &ut to &e composed of &oth
1Emerson 233<5.
"onventional performance measurement is often &ased on the so:called $oal:
attainment approach and does not usually consider social or environmental
/uestions. 'he assumption that underlies the $oal:attainment approach is that the
$oals of an or$anisation are identifia&le and unam&i$uous 1+or&es ,77B5. %n
or$anisation@s effectiveness is represented &y the attainment or pro$ress to)ards
these or$anisational $oals. %ttainin$ or$anisational $oals such as increasin$
production, increasin$ profit or reducin$ costs, can &e researched &y usin$
conventional performance measurement methods. -ncludin$ impact upon society
alon$ various dimensions : economic, environmental, social I of performance
measurement complicates the a&ility to identify, measure and value these impacts.
0hile $enerally accepted principles of financial accountin$ are esta&lished to
4
-nput %ctivities Dutput Hoal
ali$nment
"han$es to social systems
:
J -MP%"'
Dutcomes
0hat )ould have
happened any)ay
measure and report on the economic impact at an or$anisational level, compara&le
standards for measurin$ the impact upon society have yet to &e developed 1Maas
and Bouma 23385. "onse/uently, current practice in performance measurement
tends to focus on measurin$ only a part of the total impact that or$anisations have
on society.
-n order to develop this inte$rated &lended value perspective accountin$ methods
)ould have to inte$rate all three dimensions. -n ,77,, Eccles 1,77,5 envisa$ed the
start of a revolution in performance measurement and predicted that ?within the
next five years, every corporation will have to redesign how it measures its
business performance@ 1p. ,<,5. "orporations traditionally have relied almost
e6clusively on financial measures of performance 1-ttner and arc!er ,77B5. =e)
strate$ies and competitive realities demand ne) measurement systems for
inte$ratin$ social dimensions of corporate performance.
=e) information systems and processes capa&le of measurin$ the creation of
value in this chan$ed conte6t are needed. Dne step for)ard is to loo! &eyond our
traditional financial, monetary and /uantifia&le measures of impacts of activities,
and start to e6plore and incorporate methodolo$ies &orro)ed from other
disciplines, such as sociolo$y. "orporations .ud$e their success on the &asis of the
tas!s completed and milestones achieved I the amount of money invested,
/uantity of products distri&uted, and so on I rather than on ho) )ell their
activities translate into chan$es on the $round 1ondon 23375. -mpacts can &e
measured at different levels, the individual level, the corporation level, and the
societal level. 'he inte$ration of social impact into the processes of decision
ma!in$, plannin$ and pro&lem solvin$ re/uires an innovative and interdisciplinary
approach. Behind the scenes, scientists, practitioners, and consultants develop
improved 1multidisciplinary5 methodolo$ies for assessin$ impacts a$ainst the
dou&le &ottom line, the triple &ottom line, or other concepts lin!ed to multi:
dimensional value creation. %n overvie) of methods is provided in the ne6t
section.
( Social impact measurement
(.1. )bsence of a categorisation
Despite the practical and theoretical importance of cate$orisin$ social impact
measurement methods, a system to do so has not yet &een developed. Multiple
reasons could have contri&uted to this a&sence. +or one, social impacts are often
difficult to measure and /uantify. 'his is &ecause of the /ualitative nature of social
impact, )hich ma!es it hard to attach an o&.ective value to the impact and to sum
>
the various /ualitative e6pressions of impact. #econdly, corporations can have a
positive or ne$ative impact upon the society alon$ several dimensions* the
environmental dimension, economic dimension and social dimension. #imilarly,
this can cause pro&lems )ith addin$ the various impact dimensions. 'hirdly,
social impact includes short term as )ell as lon$ term effects on society.
Moreover, many components can contri&ute to economic, environmental and
social impact. "onse/uently it is often hard to lin! activities and impact &ecause of
difficulties )ith attri&ution and causality /uestions. "urrently, no )idely accepted
scientific approach to attri&ution and causality /uestions in impact measurement
e6ists. astly, the $reatest difficulty mi$ht &e the challen$es around findin$ a
consensus on the definition of social impact. 0hereas some researchers solely
refer to social impact )hen it includes positive, ne$ative, intended and unintended
effects, others solely refer to the intended positive effects 1Boyne 2332, E&rahim
23385. Moreover, consensus is a&sent on the use of a counterfactual or &enchmar!,
and )hether or not social impact &y definition re/uires data collection in a
participatory manner.
(.2 )n o'er'iew of methods
+rom the ,773s on)ards, many methods have &een developed to measure social
impact. iterature research, internet search and e6pert information resulted in a list
of thirty /uantitative 1social5 impact measurement methods
iii
1see 'a&le 25 1e.$.
#chalte$$er et al. 2332, "lar! et al. 233A, Epstein 233B5. Kuantitative methods are
needed for corporations to ma!e intan$i&le results more tan$i&le and to use social
impact measurement for decision:ma!in$ and control issues. 'his list is not
intended to &e e6haustive, &ut provides an overvie) of social impact measurement
methods.
#everal methods have &een developed &y, or for, non profit or $overnmental
corporations. E6amples 1see 'a&le 25 are #RD-, D%#-#, #"B%, and EM. Dther
methods are mainly developed for, and used &y, for:profit corporations. E6amples
are #R%, %"%+-, 'B, M-+, and B%"D. %lthou$h a method mi$ht initially have
&een developed for a certain !ind of or$anisation, the method could &e used and
adapted &y other !inds of or$anisations. 'he use of #RD- is a $ood e6ample of
this phenomenon. 'his method )as initially developed for non:profit or$anisation
and is currently increasin$ly used &y profit corporations. =e6t to these /uantitative
impact measurement methods several corporations, non:$overnment
or$ani(ation@s 1=HD@s5 and associations developed $uidelines or frame)or!s,
often &ased on one or more e6istin$ methods, on ho) to measure social impact. %
fe) e6amples are the ?$uidance document for the oil and $as industry@ 1-P-E"%
233B5 and t)o $uidelines developed &y #hell 1#hell 233Ba, 233B&5.
B
(Social) Impact measurement methods
,. %cumen #corecard
2. %t!insson "ompass %ssessment for -nvestors 1%"%+-5
<. Balanced #corecard 1B#c5
A. Best %vaila&le "harita&le Dption 1B%"D5
8. BoP -mpact %ssessment +rame)or!
4. "enter for 9i$h -mpact Philanthropy "ost per -mpact
>. "harity %ssessment Method of Performance 1"9%MP5
B. +oundation -nvestment Bu&&le "hart
7. 9e)lett +oundation E6pected Return
,3. ocal Economic Multiplier 1EM5
,,. Measurin$ -mpact +rame)or! 1M-+5
,2. Millennium Development Hoal scan 1MDH:scan5
,<. Measurin$ -mpacts 'ool!it
,A. Dn$oin$ %ssessment of #ocial -mpacts 1D%#-#5
,8. Participatory -mpact %ssessment
,4. Poverty #ocial -mpact %ssessment 1P#-%5
,>. Pu&lic Falue #corecard 1PF#c5
,B. Ro&in 9ood +oundation Benefit:"ost Ratio
,7. #ocial "ompati&ility %nalysis 1#"%5
23. #ocial "osts:Benefit %nalysis 1#"B%5
2,. #ocial "ost:Effectiveness %nalysis 1#"E%5
22. #ocial e:valuator
2<. #ocial +ootprint
2A. #ocial -mpact %ssessment 1#-%5
28. #ocial return %ssessment 1#R%5
24. #ocial return on -nvestment 1#RD-5
2>. #ocio:Economic %ssessment 'ool&o6 1#E%'5
2B. #ta!eholder Falue %dded 1#F%5
27. 'ool&o6 for %nalysin$ #ustaina&le Fentures in Developin$ "ountries
<3. 0ellventure Monitor
'a&le 2* Dvervie) of social impact measurement methods
(.3 *haracteristics of methods
'here is a need for a )ide ran$e of methods tailored to the re/uirements of
different types of corporations, dependin$ on their activities, o&.ectives and the
aspects of impacts they )ant to measure. =e6t to this, there is no sin$le tool or
method that can capture the )hole ran$e of impacts or that can &e applied &y all
corporations. 'he multitude of e6istin$ social impact measurement methods is
confusin$ for mana$ers )hen selectin$ a methods or academics )hen analysin$
7
the pro$ress in social impact measurement. E6istin$ measurement methods do not
sho) a common understandin$ of )hat to measure, )hy or for )hom to measure,
or ho) to measure.
Borro)in$ insi$hts from environmental accountin$ for a system to cate$orise
measurement methods, four su$$estions for cate$orisation can &e found*
#chalte$$er et al. 123335 develop a frame)or! for the instruments of
environmental accountin$
oe) et al. 1233,5 and oe) 1233<5 systematise cost concepts &y com&inin$
environmental impact and environmental costs
"lar! et al. 1233A5 cate$orise measurement methods into three* process
methods, impact methods and monetarisation methods
'he U#:EP% 1,7785 pu&lishes a study )ith !ey concepts and terms related
to environmental accountin$.
#pecifications of these systems mi$ht &e useful to characterise social impact
methods. +rom careful analysis it is found that the frame)or! as developed &y
#chalte$$er et al. 123335 and the cate$orisation from "lar! et al. 1233A5 are useful
to the cate$orisation of social impact methods. 'he other frame)or!s focus more
on output and cost relations 1oe) et al. 233,5, or on concepts and terms 1U#:
EP% ,7785 instead of classification of methods. #chalte$$er et al. 123335
distin$uish five dimensions of environmental accountin$ methods*
1,5 information typeE monetary versus physical
125 scopeE internal versus e6ternal
1<5 len$th of time frameE short term focus versus lon$ term focus
1A5 time frameE past orientated versus future orientated
185 routineness of informationE routinely $enerated information versus ad hoc
information.
+rom this cate$orisation the time frame and len$th of time frame dimensions are
relevant for the cate$ori(ation of social impact methods. +rom "lar! et al. 1233A5
the cate$orisation to)ards the approach to methods is relevant for the
cate$ori(ation of social impact methods.
,3
%s a result, it is found that methods differ on the follo)in$ dimensions* purpose,
time frame, orientation, len$th of time frame, perspective and approach. 'a&le <
provides an overvie) of method characteristics relevant for method selection.
'a&le <* "haracteristics of social impact measurement methods.
Purpose
Measurement methods can &e developed for different purposes dependin$ on )hat
it is intended to measure. Methods that are particularly suited for 1a5 screenin$, 1&5
monitorin$, 1c5 reportin$ and 1d5 evaluation )ere identified. Methods suited for 1a5
screenin$ facilitate evaluation of investment opportunities and of their
performance )ith respect to investors@ specific social and financial o&.ectives.
Methods suited for 1&5 monitorin$ assist mana$ement )ith on$oin$ operational
decision:ma!in$ and provide data for investor oversi$ht. -t may also help
entrepreneurs to identify &usiness model modifications or mar!et opportunities.
Methods for 1c5 reportin$ are particularly useful to report to e6ternal sta!eholders,
such as potential investors, the pu&lic or other entities that re/uire or re/uest
performance reports on a re$ular &asis. Methods for 1d5 evaluation may &e used
for retrospective, e6:post impact assessment of achievements for academic
purposes &ut also for or$anisational learnin$.
,,
*haracteristics %+pes
Purposes #creenin$
Monitor
Reportin$
Evaluation
ime frame Prospective
Dn$oin$
Retrospective
!rientation -nput
Dutput
"ength of ime frame #hort term
on$ term
Perspective Micro 1-ndividual5
Meso 1"orporation5
Macro 1#ociety5
#pproach Process Methods
-mpact Methods
Monetarisation
ime frame
Methods may use a different time frame for the assessment. #ome methods can &e
applied prospectively to assess impacts )hich can, for e6ample &e e6pected from
planned reforms and pro$rams. 'hose methods have the a&ility to open up space
for different options, support the desi$n of miti$ation measures and modifications,
and assist decision ma!ers in choosin$ the options )hich &est fit 1-P" 233B5.
Methods can also &e developed )ith a focus on on$oin$ or retrospective purposes.
Methods focusin$ on the on$oin$ events are useful for testin$ assumptions alon$
the )ay. Retrospective methods are useful for evaluation of past activities.
!rientation
Methods can have either an orientation on the inputs or an orientation on the
outputs. -nput orientated methods are useful to assess differences in input 1for
e6ample e6penditure saved &y increased employee satisfaction5 as a result of a
social activity. Dutput orientated methods, on the other hand, are useful to assess
differences in output as a result of a social activity 1for e6ample a &etter
reputation5.
"ength of ime frame
Methods can have a length of time frame focusin$ on the lon$ term or on the short
term. -n more traditional measurement methods the focus is normally on the short
term. 9o)ever, for social impact measurement, &oth a short term and a lon$ term
focus can &e needed. -mpacts often do not occur in total after a short timeE it can
ta!e a lon$ time &efore social impacts occur. %n e6ample is the $lo&al )armin$
effects resultin$ from $reenhouse $asses.
Perspective
Measurement methods can use a different perspective. Measurement methods
ori$inatin$ from, for e6ample, &usiness measurement, social science evaluation,
policy or pro$ram evaluation all use different perspectives. %n initial inventory
sho)s that social impact measurement from a &usiness 1micro5 perspective does
include, for e6ample, different indicators than social impact measurement from a
1macro5 socio:economic perspective 1Maas and Bouma 23385. Dependin$ on the
perspective used, different indicators )ill &e used and therefore different impacts
)ill &e measured. "onse/uently, the perspective used is decisive for the results of
the measurement.
#pproach
Methods can have different approaches to measurin$ social impact. -n the
literature, three &road cate$ories are defined* process methods, impact methods
and monetarisation methods 1"lar! et al. 233A5. Process methods monitor the
efficiency and cost:effectiveness of on$oin$ operational processes. %s such, they
do not provide an a&solute measure of social returns. 9o)ever, outputs can &e
,2
evaluated &y the e6tent to )hich they correlate )ith, or cause desired social
outcomes. -mpact methods measure operational outputs and their impact, i.e. the
incremental outcome &eyond and a&ove )hat )ould have happened if the
or$anisation did not e6ist. -mpact can &e measured in several )ays. 'here are
methods that measure impact &y lin!in$ "orporate #ocial Performance 1"#P5 and
"orporate +inancial Performance 1"+P5 1Mc0illiams and #ie$el 2333, Mar$olis
et al. 233<, Dentchev 233A5. %nother e6ample of impact methods is the so called
<P approach )here the economic dimension 1Profit5, social dimension 1People5
and environmental dimension 1Planet5 are all measured in their o)n unit
1El!in$ton ,777, a&uscha$ne et al. 2338, HR- 23345. =e6t to this, monetarisation
methods /uantify social and environmental indicators and translate those
indicators into a monetary value to &e compara&le )ith traditional financial data
1am&erton 2338, Pearce et al. 23345. % comprehensive overvie) of several
monetarisation methods can &e found in the environmental economic literature
1Pearce et al. ,77A, Pearce et al. 23345.
(.& *lassification of methods
%ll methods are classified &ased on the characteristics as specified in the previous
section. 'he classification is &ased on descriptions of the individual tools
iv
provided &y the developers, researchers or o&tained from the internet. 'he results
are sho)n in 'a&les Aa and A&.
'he ta&le sho)s the characteristics of the different methods. By doin$ this it can
&e easily seen for )hich purpose the different methods can &e used 1screenin$,
monitorin$, reportin$ and evaluation5. =e6t to this, the ta&le sho)s )hich time
frame, orientation, len$th of time frame, and perspective the methods adopt.
+inally, the approach used &y the methods can &e o&served.
,<
1
.

)
c
u
m
e
n

s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
2
.

)
*
)
F
I
3
.

,
a
l
a
n
c
e
d

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
&
.

,
)
*
-
(
.

,
o
.

I
m
p
a
c
t

)
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
/
0
.

*
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

h
i
g
h

i
m
p
a
c
t

p
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
+

c
o
s
t

p
e
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
"
.

*
1
)
M
.
$
.

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
'
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

,
u
b
b
l
e

!
.

1
e
w
l
e
t
t

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

2
3
p
e
c
t
e
d

4
e
t
u
r
n
1
#
.

5
o
c
a
l

2
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

M
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
s
1
1
.

M
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g

I
m
p
a
c
t

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
/
1
2
.

M
6
7
s
c
a
n
1
3
.
M
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

%
o
o
l
/
i
t
1
&
.

-
)
S
I
S
1
(
.

.
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
o
r
+

I
m
p
a
c
t

)
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Purposes #creenin$ L : L L L L : : L L L : : : L
Monitorin$ L L L L L L : : : : L : : L L
Reportin$ L L L L L L L L : : L L : L L
Evaluation : : L : L L L L : L L L L L L
'ime +rame Prospective L L L L L L : : L L L : : : L
Dn$oin$ L L L L L L : L : : L : : L L
Retrospective : : L L L : L L : L L L L L L
Drientation -nput L L : L L L L : : L L : L L L
Dutput : : L : : : : L L : : L : L :
en$th of 'ime
+rame
#hort 'erm L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
on$ 'erm L L : : : L : : : : L : : : L
Perspective Micro 1-ndividual5 : L : : L L L L L L : : L L L
Meso
1corporation5
L L L L L : : : : L L : L : :
Macro 1society5 : : L L L L L L L : L L L L L
%pproach Process methods L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
-mpact methods : : D : L : : : : L D : L L
Monetisation : : : L : : : : : L : : L L :
"haracteristic of toolE L* yes, D* partially, :* no
'a&le Aa* "lassification of social impact measurement tools.
,A
1
0
.

.
S
I
)
1
"
.

.
u
b
l
i
c

8
a
l
u
e

S
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
1
$
.

4
o
b
i
n

1
o
o
d

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

,
e
n
e
f
i
t
7
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
1
!
.

S
*
)
2
#
.

S
*
,
)
2
1
.

S
*
2
)
2
2
.

S
o
c
i
a
l

e
7
'
a
l
u
a
t
o
r
2
3
.

S
o
c
i
a
l

F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
2
&
.

S
I
)
2
(
.

S
o
c
i
a
l

4
e
t
u
r
n

)
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
2
0
.

S
4
-
I
2
"
.

S
2
)
%
2
$
.

S
8
)
2
!
.

%
o
o
l
b
o
3

f
o
r

)
n
a
l
+
s
i
n
g

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

8
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
3
#
.

9
e
l
l
'
e
n
t
r
u
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
Purposes #creenin$ L : L L L : : L L L : : : L :
Monitorin$ : L : L : : L L L L L L : L :
Reportin$ L L L : L L L L L L L L : L L
Evaluation L : L L L L L L L L L L L L L
'ime +rame Prospective : L L L L : : L L L : : : L :
Dn$oin$ : L L L L : L L L L L L : : :
Retrospective L : L : L L L L L L L L L L L
Drientation -nput L L : L L L L : L L L L : L :
Dutput : : L : : : : L : : : : L : L
en$th of 'ime
+rame
#hort 'erm L L L L L L L L L L L L : L :
on$ 'erm L : L : L L : L : : : : : L L
Perspective Micro 1-ndividual5 L : : : : : L L : L L : : L L
Meso 1corporation5 : L : L : : : L : L : L L L L
Macro 1society5 L L L L L L D L L L D L L L
%pproach Process methods L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
-mpact methods L : L : L : D : L : D : : : :
Monetisation : : L : L L L : : L L : L D :
"haracteristic of toolE L* yes, D* partially, :* no
'a&le A&* "lassification of social impact measurement tools.
,8
Purpose
%lmost all of the thirty methods can &e used for multiple purposes. More than half of the
methods 1,>M<35 allo) for 1a5 screenin$ purposes, facilitatin$ an evaluation of investment
opportunities or performance relative to the investor@s social and financial o&.ectives. %
similar num&er of methods 1,BM<35 can &e used to 1&5 monitor social impact. -n almost half of
the cases 1,3M,>5 the t)o purposes of monitorin$ and screenin$ overlap )ith one another. %
much more dominant purpose of the social impact measurement methods is 1c5 reportin$
12AM<35, )hich si$nals that measurin$ social impact is re$ularly motivated &y the need to
report to e6ternal sta!eholders. astly, the most dominant purpose 128M<35 of social impact
methods is 1d5 evaluation. 'he 1,<5 measuring impacts tool$its and the 12B5 %&# are solely
evaluation tools. 9o)ever, five of the methods allo) for evaluation and reportin$E 1>5
'(#)P, 1B5 *oundation +nvestment ,ubble, 1,25 )-. / scan, 12,5 %'0# and 1<35
1ellventure )onitor. 'he 1,35 "ocal 0conomic )ultiples allo)s for &oth evaluation and
screenin$. =ine 1in 'a&le num&ers <, 8, 4, ,,, ,8, 2<, 2A, 28 and 275 out of the thirty 17M<35
measures can &e used for all purposes of 1a5 screenin$, 1&5 monitorin$, 1c5 reportin$ and 1d5
evaluation.
ime *rame
'he social impact measurement methods most often allo) for the use of different time
frames. -n nine out of thirty methods 17M<35 only a retrospective time frame can &e ta!en. %s
e6pected, in all cases these methods have the purpose of evaluation, sometimes in
com&ination )ith other purposes. Dnly 175 (ewlett *oundation 0xpected 2eturn ta!es solely
a prospective time frame, as its purpose is screenin$ of the investment. 'he methods that
allo)ed for the use of all purposes 17M<35 also allo) for the use of all time frames in most
cases 1,3M<3 allo) for all time frames5, e6cept for 1275 oolbox for #nalysing %ustainable
&entures and 145 'entre for high impact philanthropy cost per impact. =one of the t)enty
methods that ta!e an on$oin$ perspective allo) for either a prospective or retrospective time
frame.
!rientation
Dnly one method 1,A5 D%#-#, has an orientation on &oth inputs and outputs for social
activity. Most methods loo! at the differences in inputs that result from a social activity
12,M<35. Dnly ei$ht methods 1BM<35 loo! at the differences in output as a result of the social
activity. 'hese methods )ith an output orientation also al)ays ta!e a retrospective time
frame.
"ength of ime *rame
ess than half of the methods 1,2M<35 ta!e a lon$ term frame of time. %ll methods e6cept for
12B5 #F%, )hich specifies no len$th of time frame, and the 1<5 0ellventure Monitor, )hich
solely ta!es a lon$ term time frame, also measure social impact for the short term.
Perspective
#i6 methods 14M<35 can analyse social impact from a micro, meso and macro perspective.
'hese are often methods that also allo) for all time frames and purposes. =e6t to these
methods, another eleven methods 1in total ,>M<35 ta!e a micro perspective. Moreover, ten
methods ne6t to those that adopt all perspectives analyse the meso perspective 1in total ,4M<35
and ei$hteen ta!e the macro perspective 1in total 2AM<35. ')o methods partially ta!e the
macro perspective 1ma!in$ the total 24M<35.
,4
#pproach
Dnly ei$ht out of the thirty 1BM<35 methods truly measure impact, )ith four methods partially
measurin$ impact 1ma!in$ the total ,2M<35. 'he process ho)ever, can &e measured )ith all
methods 1<3M<35. % relatively lar$e num&er of methods, eleven out of thirty 1,,M<35, allo) for
the monetarisation of the social impact measured, )ith one method partially doin$ so 1ma!in$
the total ,2M<35.
'he classification of methods sho)s that despite the development of numerous social impact
methods, only ei$ht of the thirty methods actually measure social impact, and four methods
are capa&le of partially
v
measurin$ social impact. Most of the methods have an orientation
to)ards inputs rather than outputs. 0hile most methods are useful for reportin$, hardly any
methods are specifically desi$ned for reportin$ purposes. 0ith the e6ception of three
methods, all are useful for evaluation purposes. Dnly one method, the 9e)lett +oundation
E6pected Return, is limited to a purely prospective time frame and is therefore only useful for
screenin$ purposes. %ll methods ta!e a process approach. Moreover, eleven methods are
developed to transfer all effects into monetary units. 'he methods that truly aim at measurin$
impact all have a macro, societal, perspective. %ll methods are desi$ned to include short term
effects, )hile only t)elve methods are capa&le of includin$ lon$ term effects.
0. *onclusions
'he )ide ran$e of social impact measurement methods ma!es it hard for mana$ers to select a
suita&le method for the measurement of the social impact of their social activities. Partially,
the difficulty stems from the lac! of consensus on the definition of social impact. 9o)ever,
the challen$es mostly stem from the a&sence of a cate$orisation system for these methods. -n
this paper, such a classification system has &een developed, providin$ mana$ers )ith a
frame)or! that allo)s for the selection of the most suita&le method dependin$ on their
specific needs.

-n the literature several frame)or!s, classification schemes, and systems of concepts e6ist.
9o)ever, these concentrate on environmental accountin$ and environmental mana$ement
accountin$. 'he classification system that has &een developed in this paper is a com&ination
of the frame)or! that is dominant in environmental accountin$ &y #chalte$$er et al. 123335
and a frame)or! &y "lar! et al. 1233A5 that specifies different approaches used &y impact
measurement methods. % num&er of additional characteristics are included as they are
specifically relevant to social impact methods, such as purpose, perspective and orientation.
Eventually, the classification system includes si6 characteristics* purposes, methods can &e
used for screenin$, monitorin$, reportin$, and evaluationE time frame, can &e either
prospective, on$oin$ or retrospectiveE orientation, methods can &e input or output orientatedE
"ength of time frame, methods can address a short term or a lon$ term time frameE
perspective, methods can use an individual, or$anisational or community or societal
perspectiveE approach, methods can use different approaches to measure impact, i.e. process
methods, impact methods, monetarisation methods.
0hile all methods identified have &een specifically developed to measure social impact, this
research sho)s that only ei$ht of the thirty methods actually do measure social impact. 'hese
methods all adopt a macro, societal, perspective. -n vie) of the risin$ interest in social impact
measurement the development of this classification )ill provide mana$ers )ith a )ay
for)ard in see!in$ to adopt social impact measurement. 'he classification clarifies the
concept and applica&ility of social impact tools.
,>
'his research is limited as the analysis of the methods is &ased on des! research, com&ined
)ith intervie)s )ith e6perts and users of the methods. 9o)ever, future research could ta!e
this analysis a step further &y conductin$ comparative analyses of the methods in an applied
research settin$. Measurin$ the practicality, relia&ility and validity of the methods could &e
underta!en &y usin$ a num&er of methods to capture the social impact of a sin$le social
activity. 'his could &e e6tended &y selectin$ a num&er of similar activities and also
comparin$ the results across them. 'hese analyses )ould provide a ri$orous )ay to compare
the features, possi&ilities and limitations of the methods. Moreover, it mi$ht &e helpful to
develop a $uideline for mana$ers )ith e6amples from practice to aid to the process of
choosin$ a social impact measurement method.
,B
4eferences
%$uilera RF, Rupp DE, 0illiams "% and Hanapathi C 233>, ?Puttin$ the s &ac! in corporate
social responsi&ility* % multilevel theory of social chan$e in or$ani(ations@, he #cademy of
)anagement, vol. <2, no.<, pp. B<4:B4<.
%nn KB, %llen "% and Matthe) %R ,777, ?Beyond resources* 'he mediatin$ effect of top
mana$ement discretion and values on corporate philanthropy@, ,usiness and %ociety, vol. <B,
no. 2, pp. ,4>:,B>.
Ben:=er % and v. 9oomissen ' ,772, ?%n empirical investi$ation of the .oint determination
of the si(e of for:profit, nonprofit and $overnmental sectors@, #nnals of Public and
'ooperative 0conomics, vol. 4<, no. <, pp. <72:A,8.

Boyne H 2332, ?Pu&lic and Private Mana$ement* 0hatNs the DifferenceO@, 3ournal of
)anagement %tudies, vol. <7, no. ,, pp. 7>:,2,.
Burd$e RC and Fanclay + ,774, ?#ocial impact assessment* % contri&ution to the state of the
art series@, +mpact #ssessment, vol. ,A, pp. 87:B4.
Burritt R and #a!a " 2334, ?Environmental mana$ement accountin$ applications and eco:
efficiency* "ase studies from Capan@, 3ournal of 'leaner Production, vol. ,A, pp. ,242:,2>8.
"lar! ", Rosen()ei$ 0, on$ D and Dlsen # 233A, -ouble bottom line pro4ect report5
#ssessing social impact in double bottom line ventures; methods catalog, viewed 67 may
6898, :http*MM))).shidler.ha)aii.eduMPortalsM,MresourcesMDou&leBottomine.pdfP.
"onner KR ,77,, ?% historical comparison of resource:&ased theory and five schools of
thou$ht )ithin industrial or$ani(ation economics* Do )e have a ne) theory of the firmO@,
3ournal of )anagement, vol. ,>, no. ,, pp.,2,:,8A.
de Ba!!er +H%, Hroene)e$en P and den 9ond + 2338, ?% &i&liometric analysis of <3 years
of research and theory on corporate social responsi&ility and corporate social performance@,
,usiness and %ociety, vol. AA, no.<, pp. 2B<:<,>.
Dentchev =% 233A, ?"orporate social performance as a &usiness strate$y@, 3ournal of
,usiness 0thics, vol. 88, no. A, pp. <78:A,3.
E&rahim % 2338, =HDs and Dr$ani(ational "han$e* Discourse, Reportin$, and earnin$,
"am&rid$e University Press, "am&rid$e
Eccles RH ,77,, ?'he performance measurement manifesto@, (arvard ,usiness
2eview, vol. 47, no. ,, pp. ,<,:,<>.
El!in$ton C ,777, 'annibal with for$s, the triple bottom line of 69st century business,
"apstone, D6ford.
El!in$ton C, Emerson C and Beloe # 2334, ?'he value palette* a tool for a full spectrum
strate$y@, 'alifornia )anagement 2eview, vol. AB, no.2, pp. 4:2B.
Emerson C, 0acho)ic( C and "hun # 2333, %ocial return on investment5 0xploring aspects of
value creation in the non-profit sector, 'he Ro&erts +oundation, #an +rancisco.
,7
Emerson C 233<, ?'he &lended value proposition* -nte$ratin$ social and financial returns,
'alifornia )anagement 2eview, vol. A8, no. A, pp. <8:8,.
Epstein MC 233B, )a$ing sustainability wor$5 ,est practices in managing and measuring
corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts, Hreenleaf Pu&lishin$ imited,
#heffield.
+or&es, DP ,77B, ?Measurin$ the unmeasura&le* Empirical studies of nonprofit or$ani(ation
effectiveness from ,7>> to ,77>@, ;onprofit and &oluntary %ector <uarterly, vol. 2>. no. 2,
pp. ,B<:232.
+reuden&ur$ 0R ,7B4, ?#ocial impact assessment@, #nnual 2eview of %ociology, vol. ,2, pp.
A8,:A>B.
+riedman, M ,7>3, ?'he social responsi&ility of &usiness is to increase its profits@, he ;ew
=or$ imes )aga>ine, ,< #eptem&er, p. <2:<<, ,22, ,24.
+ry 0, Keim HD and Meiners RE ,7B2, ?"orporate contri&utions* %ltruistic or for:profitO@,
he #cademy of )anagement 3ournal, vol. 28, no. ,, pp. 7A:,34.
Hentile M" 2333, %ocial impact management, a definition, Discussion Paper -- %spen -#-B*
'he %spen -nstitute, vie)ed 2B may 23,3, Qhttp*MM ))).aspenisi&.or$P.
HR- 2334, %ustainability reporting guidelines ?.@A, Hlo&al Reportin$ -nitiative, %msterdam.
9usted B0 and de Cesus #ala(ar, C 2334, ?'a!in$ +riedman seriously* Ma6imi(in$ profits
and social performance@, 3ournal of )anagement %tudies, vol. A<, no. ,, pp. >8:7,.
-P" 233B, P%+# gauging poverty impacts, Poverty in +ocus series ,A, -nternational Poverty
"entre, Brasilia.
-P-E"% 233B, 'reating successful, sustainable social investment; guidance document for the
oil and gas industry, -nternational Petroleum -ndustry Environmental "onservation
%ssociation, ondon.
-ttner "D and arc!er D+ ,77B, ?-nnovations in performance measurement* 'rends and
research implications@, 3ournal of )anagement #ccounting 2esearch, vol. ,3, pp. 238:2<B.
Cuholin E 233A, ?+or &usiness or the $ood of allO % +innish approach to corporate social
responsi&ility@, 'orporate .overnance, vol. A, no. < ,pp. 23:<,.
Kolodins!y C, #te)art " and Bullard % 2334, ?Measurin$ economic and social impacts of
mem&ershipo in a community development financial institution@, 3ournal of *amily and
0conomic +ssues, vol. 2>, no. ,, pp. 2>:A>.
a&uscha$ne ", Brent %" and van Erc! RPH 2338, ?%ssessin$ the sustaina&ility
performances of industries@, 3ournal of 'leaner Production, vol. ,<, no.A, pp. <><:<B8.
am&erton H 2338, #ustaina&ility accountin$::a &rief history and conceptual frame)or!,
#ccounting *orum, vol. 27, no.,, pp. >:24.
atanG B ,7B,, ?'he psycholo$y of social impact@, #merican Psychologist, vol. <4, no. A, pp.
<A<:<84.
23
epa!, DP, #mith, KH and 'aylor, M# 233>, ?Falue creation and value capture* % multilevel
perspective@, #cademy of )anagement 2eview, vol. <2, no. ,, pp. ,B3:,7A.
oe), ', +ichter, K, MRller, U, #chult(, 0+ and #tro&el, M 233,, #nsBt>e der
umwelt$ostenrechnung im vergleich / unverCffentlichter endbericht, Berlin 1in .erman5.
oe), ' 233<, ?Environmental cost accountin$* "lassifyin$ and comparin$ selected
approaches@, -n M Bennett, PM Ri!hardsson and # #chalte$$er 1Ed.5, 0nvironmental
management accounting - purpose and progress, Klu)er %cademis Pu&lishers, Dordrecht,
pp. A,:84.
ondon ' 2337, ?Ma!in$ &etter investments at the &ase of the pyramid@, (arvard ,usiness
2eview, vol. 8, pp. ,34:,,<.
Maas KE9 and Bouma CC 2338, ?#ociale meer)aarde van MFD* Een )elvaartseconomisch
perspectief@ in =% Dentchev, % 9eene, "%C 9erstroter and +C de Hraaf 1Ed.5,
?)aatschappeli4$A verantwoord ondernemen, pragmatisch be$e$en, %cademia Press, Hent,
pp. ,28:,<> 1%vaila&le only in Dutch5.
Maas, KE9 and Boons, + 23,3, ?"#R as a strate$ic activity* value creation, inte$ration and
redistri&ution@, in " ouche, #D -do)u and 0 +ilho 1ed5, +nnovative '%2, Hreenleaf
Pu&lishin$, #heffield, pp. ,8A:,>2.
Mar$olis CD and 0alsh CP 233<, ?Misery loves corporations* Rethin!in$ social initiatives &y
&usiness@, #dministrative %cience <uarterly, vol. AB, no. 2, pp. 24B:<38.
Matten D, "rane % and "happle 0 233<, ?Behind the mas!* Revealin$ the true face of
corporate citi(enship@, 3ournal of ,usiness 0thics, vol. A8, no.,, pp. ,37:,23.
Mc0illiams % and #ie$el D 2333, ?"orporate social responsi&ility and financial
performance* "orrelation or misspecificationO@, %trategic )anagement 3ournal, vol. 2,, no.
8, pp. 43<:437.

Mc0illiams % and #ie$el D 233,, ?"orporate social responsi&ility* % theory of the
corporation perspective@, he #cademy of )anagement 2eview, vol. 24, no. ,, pp. ,,>:,2>.
Pearce D, %t!inson H and Mourato # 2334, 'ost-benefit analysis and the environment5
2ecent development, DE"D Pu&lishin$, Paris.
Pearce D, 'urner RK and Bateman - ,77A, 0nvironmental economics, an elementary
introduction, 9arvester 0heatsheaf, ondon.
Porter, ME and Kramer, MR 2334, ?#trate$y and society* 'he lin! &et)een competitive
advanta$e and corporate social responsi&ility@, (arvard ,usiness 2eview, 2eprint 28D96-.
#chalte$$er # and Burritt R 2333, 'ontemporary environmental accounting, issues, concepts
and practice, Hreenleaf Pu&lishin$, #heffield.
#chalte$$er #, 9er(i$ ", Klei&er D and Muller C 2332, %ustainability management in
business enterprises5 'oncepts and instruments for sustainable corporation development,
"entre for #ustaina&ility Mana$ement 1"#M5, une&ur$.
#chalte$$er #, 9ahn ' and Burritt R 2333, 0nvironmental management accounting -
overview and main approaches, 0or!in$ paper, "entre for #ustaina&ility Mana$ement
1"#M5, unen&ur$
2,
#hell 233Ba, Mana$in$ social performance, deliverin$ &enefits, Den 9aa$, 'onfidential.
#hell 233B&, Mana$in$ social performance, measurin$ and communicatin$ social
performance, Den 9aa$, 'onfidential.
U#:EP% ,778, #n introduction to environmental accounting as a business management tool,
United #tates Environmental Protection %$ency, 0ashin$ton D".
Fer)aal, E, "ommandeur 9R and Fer&e!e 0 2337, ?Falue creation and value claimin$ in
strate$ic outsourcin$ decisions* % resource:contin$ency perspective@, 3ournal of
)anagement, vol. <8, no. 2, pp. A23:AAA.
0ain)ri$ht # 2332, )easuring impact5 # guide to resources, ="FD Pu&lications, ondon.
0eis&rod B ,7BB, he non-profit economy, 9arvard University Press, "am&rid$e.
0i!ipedia 233B, vie)ed on 2B may 23,3,
Q(ttp5EEen.wi$ipedia.orgEwi$iE%ocialFimpactFassessmentG.
;immerman, C 2337, #ccounting *or -ecision )a$ing #nd 'ontrol, McHra):9ill
Education, =e) Sor!.
22
)..2:I; ) 2S*4I.%I-: -F S-*I)5 IM.)*%
M2)S<42M2:% M2%1-S
1. )cumen Scorecard
%dapted from a description in "lar! et al. 233A.
Developed in 233, &y* %cumen +und in association )ith McKinsey, a non:profit enterprise that invests
in and $rants to &oth non:profit and for:profit ventures in its portfolio.
?'he system )as developed to assist &oth for profit &usinesses, and not:for:profit corporations focus on
actions that deliver &oth immediate results and improve an corporations lon$ term competitive
positionin$ in chan$in$ and dynamic mar!etplaces.@
?'he system assesses the social ventures investments in %cumen@s portfolio of for:profit and non:profit
corporations. -t entails trac!in$ pro$ress on short: and lon$ term outcomes, )hich is assessed in terms
of outcome milestones and &enchmar!s.@
http*MM))).acumensms.comM
2. )t/isson *ompass )ssessment for In'estors ()*)FI)
'his system is developed &y %tKisson -nc.in 2333.
?'his method &uilds on %tKisson@s "ompass -nde6 of #ustaina&ility, a tool for assessment of the
sustaina&ility of communities. 'he frame)or! for investors is desi$ned to inte$rate )ith the reportin$
$uidelines of ma.or "#R standards, particularly the Hlo&al Reportin$ -nitiative 1HR-5 and the Do)
Cones #ustaina&ility -nde6 1DC#-5, as a venture matures. 'he method incorporates a structure )ith five
!ey areas* = J nature 1environmental &enefits and impacts5 # J society 1community impacts and
involvement5 E J economy 1financial health and economic influence5, and 0 J )ell:&ein$ 1effect on
individual /uality of life5, and a fifth element, T J #yner$y 1lin!s &et)een the other four areas and
net)or!in$5, and includes a point:scale ratin$ system on each of the five areas. Each area has several
indicators each of )hich has specific criteria. 'he method has &een peer revie)ed &y corporate
e6ecutives, economic academicians, and investment professionals.@
http*MMat!isson.comM))dUtools.php
3. ,alanced Scorecard (,Sc)
'he Balanced #core "ard is developed &y Ro&ert Kaplan and David =orton in ,772.
?'he Balanced #corecard proposes that corporations measure operational performance in terms of
financial, customer, &usiness process, and learnin$:and:$ro)th outcomes, rather than e6clusively &y
financial measures, to arrive at a more po)erful vie) of near term and future performance. -t advocates
inte$ration of these outcomes into corporations@ strate$ic plannin$ processes. 'he scorecard is a
frame)or! for collectin$ and inte$ratin$ the ran$e of metrics alon$ the -mpact Falue "hain, and is
adapta&le to an or$anisation@s sta$e. -t helps coordinate evaluation, internal operations metrics, and
e6ternal &enchmar!s, &ut is not a su&stitute for them. Recently Kaplan has adapted the Balanced
#corecard for nonprofits, su$$estin$ that such institutions adopt strate$ic performance measures that
focus on user satisfaction 1"lar! et al. 233A5.@
http*MM))).&alancedscorecard.or$M
&. ,est )'ailable *haritable -ption (,)*-)
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337, http*MM&lo$.acumenfund.or$M)p:
contentMuploadsM233>M3,MB%"DV23"onceptV23PaperU3,.2A.3>,.pdf
2<
'his system is developed &y %cumen +und in 2334
?Rather than see! an a&solute standard for social return across an e6tremely diverse portfolio, %cumen
+und loo!s to /uantify an investment@s social impact and compare it to the universe of e6istin$
charita&le options for that e6plicit social issue. #pecifically, this tool B%"D helps inform investors
)here their philanthropic capital )ill &e most effectiveWans)erin$ X+or each dollar invested, ho)
much social output )ill this $enerate over the life of the investment relative to the &est availa&le
charita&le optionOY 'he B%"D ratio 1for &est availa&le charita&le option5, must &e seen as a startin$
point for assessin$ the social impact and cost:effectiveness of investments. 'he point of the analysis is
to inform our portfolio decision:ma!in$ )ith a /uantifia&le indication of )hether our social investment
)ill XoutperformY a plausi&le alternative.@
http*MM))).acumenfund.or$
(. ,o. Impact )ssessment Framewor/
Based on internet information, ccessed on 27 %u$ust 2337,
http*MM))).)di.umich.eduMfilesM"onferencesM233>MBoPM#pea!erV23PresentationsMPD+M#tateV23ofV23the
V23+ieldV231ondonV23+inal5.pdf
'he Bottom of the Pyramid -mpact %ssessment +rame)or! is developed &y 'ed ondon in 233>.
?'he aim of the BoP -mpact %ssessment +rame)or! is to understand )ho at the &ase of the pyramid is
impacted &y BoP ventures and ho) they are affected. 'he frame)or! is developed to evaluate and
articulate impacts, to $uide strate$y and to ena&le &etter investment decisions.
=e6t to this the system contri&utes to a deeper !no)led$e of the relationship &et)een profits and
poverty alleviation and to reco$ni(e the poverty alleviation implications of different types of ventures.
-t &uilds upon the different )ell:&ein$ constructs as developed &y ,77B =o&el Pri(e )inner %martya
#en.@
http*MM))).)di.umich.eduM
0. *enter for 1igh Impact .hilanthrop+ *ost per Impact
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337,
http*MM))).impact.upenn.eduMourU)or!MdocumentsM0hatis9i$h-mpactPhilanthropyUinitialconceptpaper%pril233>
U333.pdf
'his tool is developed &y the "enter for 9i$h -mpacts Philanthropy from the University of
Pennsylvania in 233>.
?9i$h impact philanthropy means $ettin$ the most $ood for your philanthropic &uc!. -t is the process
&y )hich a philanthropist ma!es the &i$$est difference possi&le, $iven the amount of capital invested.
-n order to assess cost per impact, philanthropists must &e a&le to assess, to the e6tent possi&le, its t)o
components* ,5 social impact, as measured &y specific, o&.ective criteria for successE and 25 cost, as
measured &y the investments made &y philanthropists or other sources to realise the impact.
%ssessment re/uires o&.ective, relia&le information on )hat@s effective, )hat@s not, and ho) much
capital is re/uired to achieve a $iven impact. 'he "enter for 9i$h -mpact Philanthropy aims to deliver
the information and analytic tools re/uired to ans)er these /uestions.@
http*MM))).impact.upenn.edu
". *harit+ )ssessment Method of .erformance (*1)M.)
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337
http*MM))).$oededoelentest.nlMUsharedMchampU.uniU233>.pdf and
http*MM))).$oededoelentest.nlMUsharedMchampU.uniU233>.pdf
'he "9%MP method is developed &y the Dutch charities test 1nationale $oede doelen test5 in 2334.
?'he performance of charity@s %D' are determined &y effectiveness : 0hat did )e achieveO : %nd
efficiency : ho) fast and in a cost:effective )ayO Effectiveness and efficiency can &e measured on five
distinct levels*
,. -mpact on society* ho) is society is affected &y the effect of the charity on their tar$et $roupO
2A
2. -mpact on the pu&lic* in )hat )ay is the situation of the tar$et $roup demonstra&ly improved &y the
output of the charityO
<. Dutput* )hat concrete results are produced &y the core activities of the charity usin$ the input factors
1money, volunteers, etc.5O
A. %ctivities* ho) effective are the core activities of the charityO
8. -nput* ho) effective and efficient are the activities related to the input factors such as fundraisin$
and recruitin$ volunteersO@
?'he "9%MP method provides indicators to measure the performance on all different levels. 'his tool
is developed to help donators, and volunteers to choose &et)een a )ide ran$e of non: profit
corporations.@
http*MM))).$oededoelentest.nl
$. Foundation In'estment ,ubble *hart
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337, http*MM))).$um&alluniversity.or$M&lo$Mstart:a:
ventureMmetrics:analytical:methods and http*MM))).$atesfoundation.or$Mlearnin$MDocumentsM00:profiles:ei$ht:
inte$rated:cost:approaches.pdf
?'his form of analysis is more of a visuali(ation tool that plots the /uantifia&le impact on the 6:a6is,
the percenta$e of implementation on the y:a6is, and the relative si(e of a foundation@s $rant in a $iven
field. 'his results in an easy comparison of the performance of corporations across a portfolio and can
have different varia&les for the 6:a6is, y:a6is and &u&&le relativity for fle6i&le data display. +oundation
&oard of directors and senior mana$ement teams could use the &u&&le chart to assess the relative
performance and cumulative foundation investment 1or total philanthropic investment5 a$ainst the
indices of performance they care a&out most. 'he analyses can &e used to discuss performance, e6plore
)hy one pro$ram or a $roup of pro$rams are positioned )here they are, and inform future
investments.@
!. 1ewlett Foundation 23pected 4eturn
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337, http*MM))).$um&alluniversity.or$M&lo$Mstart:a:
ventureMmetrics:analytical:methods and http*MM))).$atesfoundation.or$Mlearnin$MDocumentsM00:profiles:ei$ht:
inte$rated:cost:approaches.pdf
'his tool is developed &y the 0illiam and +lora 9e)lett +oundation. 'his foundation )as founded in
,744 to solve social and environmental pro&lems at home and around the )orld.
?'he method calculates the e6pected return of investments and is developed to ena&le foundations 'o
as! and ans)er the ri$ht /uestions for every investment portfolio* )hat?s the $oalO 9o) much $ood
can it doO -s it a $ood choiceO 9o) much difference )ill )e ma!eO 0hat?s the price ta$O 'he method
is purely prospective. 'he e6pected return provides a systematic, consistent, /uantitative process for
evaluatin$ potential charita&le investments, and is &ased heavily on cost:effectiveness analysis and
cost:&enefit analysis.@
http*MM))).he)lett.or$M
1#. 5ocal 2conomic Multiplier (52M)
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337,
http*MM))).sustaina&leseattle.or$MconffolderMconffolderMFi!i#onnta$Presentation.ppt and http*MM))).applet:
ma$ic.comMEM.htm
X'he Economic Multiplier is an central concept in Keynesian and post:Keynesian economics. A
multiplier is a factor of proportionality that measures ho) much an endo$enous varia&le chan$es in
response to a chan$e in some e6o$enous varia&le.Y
X'he local economic multiplier is &ased on the idea that dollars spend in locally:o)ned stores )ill
impact the local economy t)o or three times more in comparison to dollars spend in national retailers.
'he &asics of the local multiplier methodolo$y are the identification of income in three rounds. 'he
first round measures direct income of the study $roup, the second round measures indirect income, i.e.
28
local spendin$ of the study $roup, the third round measures induced income, i.e., local spendin$ &y
local recipients of study $roup spendin$. 'he local multiplier is the sum of direct, indirect and induced
income divided &y direct income.@
11. Measuring Impact Framewor/ (MIF)
Based on internet information, accessed on 2A %u$ust 2337,
http*MM&usinessfi$htspoverty.nin$.comMprofilesM&lo$sM)hat:$ets:measured:$ets:done and
http*MM))).)&csd.or$M)e&Mmeasurin$impact.htm
'he Measurin$ -mpact +rame)or! is developed in 233B &y the 0orld Business "ouncil for
#ustaina&le Development.
?'he Measurin$ -mpact +rame)or! is desi$ned to help corporations understand their contri&ution to
society and use this understandin$ to inform their operational and lon$:term investment decisions and
have &etter:informed conversations )ith sta!eholders. 'he frame)or! is &ased on a four:step
methodolo$y that attempts to mer$e the &usiness perspectives of its contri&ution to development )ith
the societal perspectives of )hat is important )here that &usiness operates. #tep one, set &oundaries*
determine the scope and depth of the overall assessment in terms of $eo$raphical &oundary 1local
versus re$ional5 and types of &usiness activities to &e assessed. #tep t)o, measure direct and indirect
impacts* -dentify and measure the direct and indirect impacts arisin$ from the corporation@s activities,
mappin$ out )hat impacts are )ithin the control of the corporation and )hat it can influence throu$h
its &usiness activities. #tep three, assess contri&ution to development. %ssess to )hat e6tent the
corporation@s impacts contri&ute to the development priorities in the assessment areas. #tep four,
prioritise mana$ement response* &ased on steps t)o and three e6tract the !ey ris!s and opportunities
relative to the corporation@s societal impact, and &ased on this, develop an appropriate mana$ement
response. 'here is no Xone si(e fits allY )ay to use this methodolo$y. -n order to appropriately tailor
the methodolo$y to the &usiness and its operatin$ conte6t, as )ell as ensure follo):up actions are
ta!en, corporations are encoura$ed to ma!e the assessment as participative as possi&le, consultin$
people &oth )ithin and if possi&le e6ternal to the corporation.@
http*MM))).)&csd.or$
12. Millennium e'elopment 6oal scan (M67scan)
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337, https*MM))).md$scan.comMinde6.phpO
pa$eJ'e6tpa$eZitemJcontactUdetails[pa$eJ'e6tpa$eZitemJa&outUscan
'he MDH:scan is developed in 2337 &y the Dutch =ational "ommittee for -nternational "ooperation
and #ustaina&le Development 1="DD5 and Dutch #ustaina&ility Research 1D#R5.
?'he MDH #can is a tool desi$ned for corporations to measure the positive contri&ution tot the
Millennium Development Hoals 1MDHs5 and demonstrate their role in the $lo&al initiative to reach
these ei$ht MDHs. 'he MDH #can measures each corporationNs MDH impact &y enterin$ !ey data in a
secured environment. Dnce the corporation approves the pu&lication of its results, they )ill &e visi&le
for everyone. 'he MDH #can is a practical tool for corporations. 0ithout spendin$ much time or
effort, corporations can $ain insi$ht in their MDH +ootprint. Based on !ey data on core &usiness and
community investment activities that can &e entered after re$isterin$, the MDH scan estimates your
corporationNs contri&ution to each of the MDHs. Real time results $eneration /uic!ly provides easy:to:
understand insi$hts, $lo&ally, per country or per sector M industry. Each corporation can do)nload a
personali(ed MDH impact results report, )hich facilitates internal discussions and in:depth analysis of
its MDH impact.@
http*MM))).md$scan.com
13. 8olunteering Impact )ssessment %ool/it
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337,
http*MM))).socialeconomyscotland.infoMscvoMcontentMpilotMimpact.asp and
https*MMecommerce.volunteerin$.or$.u!MPu&licationDetails.asp6OProduct-DJF<37
?'he Folunteerin$ -mpact %ssessment 'ool!it )as developed in 233A &y the -nstitute of Folunteerin$
Research 1-FR5 )ith input from the ondon #chool of Economics, 'he University of East ondon and
Roehampton University. -t is )idely reco$nised that volunteers ma!e a difference to the )or! of many
24
social economy corporations, &ut this is mainly supported &y anecdotal evidence. 'he 'ool!it is a )ay
of chan$in$ this. -t is easy to use, comprehensive and adapta&le. -t allo)s corporations to loo! at the
impact of volunteerin$ on the volunteer, the service user, the corporation and the )ider community. -t
can help corporations $ain a $reater understandin$ of ho) and )hy volunteerin$ )or!s in the
corporation as )ell as $ather evidence to support fundin$ &ids.@
?'his ne) tool!it )ill ena&le corporations to assess the impact of volunteerin$ on all !ey sta!eholders*
the volunteers, the corporation, the &eneficiaries, and the &roader community. Results over time can &e
compared. "orporations )ill &e a&le to use it to assess a )ide ran$e of impacts, from the s!ills
development of volunteers to the economic value of volunteerin$ corporations. Positive and ne$ative
results, intended and unintended impacts can &e e6plored.@
http*MM))).volunteerin$.or$.u!
1&. -ngoing )ssessment of Social Impacts (-)SIS)
%dapted from a description in "lar! et al. 233A
Developed in ,777 &y RED+ 1formerly 'he Ro&erts Enterprise Development +und5 a nonprofit
enterprise that creates .o& opportunities throu$h support of social enterprises that help people $ain the
s!ills to help themselves.
?RED+ developed this system for its internal use and that of the nonprofit a$encies in its portfolio to
assess the social outputs and outcomes of the a$encies overall, includin$ the social enterprises they
each operate. 'he system is a customised, comprehensive, on$oin$ social mana$ement information
system 1M-#5. -t entails &oth desi$nin$ an information mana$ement system that inte$rates )ith the
a$ency@s information trac!in$ practices and needs, and then implementin$ the trac!in$ process to trac!
pro$ress on short: to medium term 1t)o years5 outcomes.@
http*MM))).redf.or$M
1(. .articipator+ Impact )ssessment
https*MM)i!is.uit.tufts.eduMconfluenceMdisplayM+-"MParticipatoryT-mpactT%ssessment::TaTHuideTforTPractitioners
and
http*MM))).devnet.or$.n(Mconf2332Ma&stractsM=o)land:+oremanU#andra.pdf
?'he +einstein -nternational "enter has &een developin$ and adaptin$ participatory approaches to
measure the impact of livelihoods &ased interventions since the early nineties. Participatory -mpact
%ssessment 1P-%5 ta!es the participatory methodolo$y of these processes and applies it to the ori$inal
corporational o&.ectives in as!in$ the critical /uestions X)hat difference are )e ma!in$OY P-% offers
not only a useful tool for discoverin$ )hat chan$e has occurred, &ut also a )ay of understandin$ )hy it
has occurred. 'he frame)or! does not aim to provide a ri$id or detailed step &y step formula, or set of
tools to carry out pro.ect impact assessments, &ut descri&es an ei$ht sta$e approach, and presents
e6amples of tools )hich may &e adapted to different conte6ts. % $uide for practitioners is availa&le to
demonstrate ho) P-% can &e used to overcome some of the inherent )ea!nesses in conventional
humanitarian monitorin$ evaluation and impact assessment approaches, such asE the emphasis on
measurin$ process as opposed to real impact, the emphasis on e6ternal as opposed to community &ased
indicators of impact, and ho) to overcome the issue of )ea! or non:e6istent &aselines.@
https*MM)i!is.uit.tufts.eduMconfluenceMdisplayM+-"M+einsteinT-nternationalT"enter
10. .o'ert+ Social Impact )ssessment (.SI))
'his system has &een developed &y the 0orld Ban! in 2333.
?P#-% is a systematic analytic approach to Xthe analysis of the distri&utional impact of policy reforms
on the )ell:&ein$ of different sta!eholder $roups, )ith a particular focus on the poor and vulnera&le\Y
1P#-% User@s Huide5. -t is not a tool for impact assessment in and of itself, &ut is rather a process for
developin$ a systematic impact assessment for a $iven pro.ect. -ts components are not ne), &ut P#-%
2>
has &een formally articulated as a systematic approach &y the 0orld Ban! in 233<. 'he method
emphasises the importance of settin$ up the analysis &y identifyin$ the assumptions on )hich the
pro$ram is &ased, the transmission channels throu$h )hich pro$ram effects )ill occur, and the relevant
sta!eholders and institutional structures. 'hen pro$ram impacts are estimated, and the attendin$ social
ris!s are assessed, usin$ analytical techni/ues that are adapted to the pro.ect under study.@
http*MM))).)orld&an!.or$Mpsia
1". .ublic 8alue Scorecard (.8Sc)
http*MM))).e6infm.comM)or!shopUfilesMpu&licUsectorUscorecard.pdf
'he Pu&lic Falue #corecard is developed in 233< &y Prof. M.9. Moore, Director of the 9auser "enter
for =on:profit "orporations at the Cohn +. Kennedy #chool of Hovernment at 9arvard University.
?'he Pu&lic Falue #corecard is &ased on the concept of the Balanced #corecard. %ll the &asics of the
Balanced #corecardI that non:financial measures are important, that process measures are important as
)ell as outcome measures, that a measurement system ou$ht to support the e6ecution of an a$reed
upon strate$y I are used &ut put to )or! throu$h the use of strate$ic concept that seems more
appropriate to nonprofits. 'he ultimate $oal of non:profits is not to capture and sei(e value for
themselves, &ut to $ive a)ay their capa&ilities to achieve the lar$est impact on social conditions that
they can, and to find )ays to levera$e their capa&ilities )ith those of others. 'here are three crucial
differences &et)een the B#c and the PF#c. +irst, in the pu&lic value scorecard, the ultimate value to &e
produced &y the or$anisation is measured in non:financial terms. #econd, the pu&lic value scorecard
focuses attention not .ust on those customers )ho pay for the service, or the clients )ho &enefit from
the or$anisation@s operationsE it focuses as )ell on the third party payers. 'hird, the pu&lic value
scorecard focuses attention on productive capa&ilities for achievin$ lar$e social results outside the
&oundary of the or$anisation itself.@
1$. 4obin 1ood Foundation ,enefit7*ost 4atio
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337,
http*MM))).ro&inhood.or$MmediaM,2,B2>M/,U2334.pdf and
http*MM))).partnershipforsuccess.or$MdocsMiv!Mii!meetin$Uslides233>,,)einstein.pdf
'he Ro&in 9ood &enefit:cost ratio )as developed &y the Ro&in 9ood +oundation in 233A.
?-n 233A, )e determined that for truly effective $rant ma!in$, )e needed to !no) the value of similar
and dissimilar pro$rams. +or e6ample, is a certain .o& trainin$ pro$ram a &etter investment than a
particular education pro$ramO 'o ans)er this /uestion, Ro&in 9ood developed an innovative
methodolo$y of evaluation, or metrics. +irst, a common measure of success for pro$rams of all types is
applied* ho) much the pro$ram &oosts the future earnin$s 1or, more $enerally, livin$ standards5 of
poor families a&ove that )hich they )ould have earned in the a&sence of Ro&in 9ood@s help. #econd, a
&enefitMcost ratio is calculated for the pro$ramWdividin$ the estimated total earnin$s &oost &y the si(e
of Ro&in 9ood@s $rant. 'he ratio for each $rant measures the value it delivers to poor people per dollar
of cost to Ro&in 9oodWcompara&le to the commercial )orld@s rate of return.@
http*MM))).ro&inhood.or$
1!. Social *ompatibilit+ )nal+sis (S*))
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337 http*MM))).ifi&.uni:
!arlsruhe.deM)e&Mifi&Udo!umenteMdo)nloadsM&fsUa&stract.pdf
'his tool has &een developed in 233< &y the -nstitute for #ustaina&le Development at the ;urich
University of %pplied #ciences 0interthur 1;905, #)it(erland.
?'he #ocial "ompati&ility %nalysis 1#"%5. 'his method defines o&.ective criteria accordin$ to )hich
social compati&ility is evaluated. +irst, the user of the #"%:tool divides a system into a num&er of
su&systems, i.e. a product could &e divided into su&systems accordin$ to the life cycle phases
preproduction, production, use and disposal. #econd, relevant evaluation criteria are selected. +inally,
su&systems should &e assi$ned to classes % 1hi$hly relevant social pro&lems5, B 1of medium
relevance5, " 1of lo) relevance5 or Nnot relevantN for all the chosen criteria. 'he #"% is useful )hen the
2B
social dimension of a pro.ect is concerned, )hen the clarification of differin$ sta!eholder opinions is
needed or )hen sets of solutions are to &e ne$otiated.@
http*MM(sa.(h)in.ch
2#. Social *osts7,enefit )nal+sis (S*,))
'his is a $eneral economic tool for performance measurement. #ince the ,773s the traditional cost:
&enefit analysis has &een e6tended to include impacts upon the society.
?#ocial cost:&enefit analysis is a type of economic analysis in )hich the costs and social impacts of an
investment are e6pressed in monetary terms and then assessed accordin$ to one or more of three
measures* 1,5 net present value 1the a$$re$ate value of all costs, revenues, and social impacts,
discounted to reflect the same accountin$ periodE 125 &enefit:cost ratio 1the discounted value of
revenues and positive impacts divided &y discounted value of costs and ne$ative impacts5E and 1<5
internal rate of return 1the net value of revenues plus impacts e6pressed as an annual percenta$e return
on the total costs of the investment.@
21. Social *ost72ffecti'eness )nal+sis (S*2))
Based on internet information, accessed on 27 %u$ust 2337
http*MM))).caps.ucsf.eduMpu&sM+#Mcosteffectiverev.php
'he term cost:effectiveness analysis refers to the economic analysis of an intervention. 'his is a
$eneral economic tool for performance measurement. #ince the ,773s the traditional cost:effectiveness
analysis has &een e6tended to include impacts upon the society.
?+or e6ample, one measure of cost:effectiveness is the cost per 9-F infection averted. 'his is affected
&y many factors* intervention cost, num&er of people reached, their ris! &ehaviors and 9-F incidence,
and the effectiveness of the intervention in chan$in$ &ehavior. 'he purpose of cost:effectiveness
analysis is to /uantify ho) these factors com&ine to determine the overall value of a pro$ram. "ost:
effectiveness analysis can determine if an intervention is cost:savin$ 1cost per 9-F infection averted is
less than the lifetime cost of providin$ 9-FM%-D# treatment and care5 or cost:effective 1cost per 9-F
infection averted compares favora&ly to other health care services such as smo!in$ cessation or
dia&etes detection5.@
"ost:effectiveness analyses also &rea! do)n the costs and resources needed to implement interventions
Wpersonnel, trainin$, supplies, transportation, rent, overhead, volunteer services, etc.
22. Social e7'aluator
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337
http*MM))).socialevaluator.euM#RD-tool.asp6
'he social e:valuator is developed in 233> &y the d.o.&. +oundation and the =oa&er +oundation and
#cholten +ranssen, a Dutch consultancy corporation.

'he social e:valuator is a )e&:tool &ased on the #RD- methodolo$y. +or further description see
description of #RD-.
http*MM))).socialevaluator.eu
23. Social Footprint
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337, http*MM))).sustaina&leinnovation.or$M#ocial:
+ootprint.pdf
?'he social footprint is a measurement and reportin$ method that corporations can use to mana$e,
measure and report the sustaina&ility of their impacts on people and society in a &road ran$e of areas. -t
is a conte6t:&ased measurement tool that ta!es actual human and social conditions in the )orld into
account as a &asis for measurin$ the social sustaina&ility performance of corporations. 'he #ocial
+ootprint mi$ht &e seen as an adaptation of the concept of ecolo$ical footprint. Both footprints are
27
ali!e in the sense that &oth are a&out measurin$ $aps, &ut the similarity ends there. -n the case of the
Ecolo$ical +ootprint, the $aps of interest to us are &et)een resources )e need and resources )e are
stuc! )ithE in the case of the #ocial +ootprint, the $aps of interest to us are &et)een resources )e need
and resources )e have decided to produce. Ecolo$ical resources are fi6ed and limited, social resources
are not. 'he sustaina&ility metrics ma!e it possi&le to measure non:financial or$anisational
performance 1e.$., the triple &ottom line5 a$ainst standards of performance. =umerators e6press actual
impacts on vital capitals in the )orld, and denominators e6press norms for )hat such impacts ou$ht to
&e in order to ensure human )ell:&ein$.@
http*MM))).sustaina&leinnovation.or$M
2&. Social Impact )ssessment (SI))
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337, http*MM))).st.nmfs.noaa.$ovMtmMspoMspo,4.pdf and
http*MM))).dams.or$MdocsM!&aseMcontri&Mins223.pdf
?'he concept of #-% is understood to include adaptive mana$ement of impacts, pro.ects and policies
1as )ell as prediction, miti$ation and monitorin$5 and therefore needs to &e involved 1at least
considered5 in the plannin$ of the pro.ect or policy from inception. 'he #-% process can &e applied to a
)ide ran$e of interventions, and underta!en at the &ehest of a )ide ran$e of actors, and not .ust )ithin
a re$ulatory frame)or!. -t is implicit that social and &iophysical impacts 1and the human and
&iophysical environments5 are interconnected. 'he overall purpose of all impact assessment is to &rin$
a&out a more sustaina&le )orld, and that issues of social sustaina&ility and ecolo$ical sustaina&ility
need to &e considered in partnership. #-% is also understood to &e an um&rella or overarchin$
frame)or! that em&odies all human impacts includin$ aesthetic impacts 1landscape analysis5,
archaeolo$ical 1herita$e5 impacts, community impacts, cultural impacts, demo$raphic impacts,
development impacts, economic and fiscal impacts, $ender assessment, health impacts, indi$enous
ri$hts, infrastructural impacts, institutional impacts, political impacts 1human ri$hts, $overnance,
democratisation etc5, poverty assessment, psycholo$ical impacts, resource issues 1access and
o)nership of resources5, tourism impacts, and other impacts on societies.@
http*MM))).socialimpactassessment.netM
2(. Social return )ssessment (S4))
'his system )as developed in 2333 &y Pacific "ommunity Fentures 1P"F5, a nonprofit or$anisation
that mana$es t)o for:profit investment funds that invest in corporations that provide .o&s, role models,
and on:the:.o& trainin$ for lo):income people, and that are located in disadvanta$ed communities in
"alifornia.
?P"F developed the method for its o)n use in assessin$ the social return of each investor and of its
portfolio overall. 'he system entails trac!in$ pro$ress specifically on the num&er and /uality of .o&s
created &y P"F@s portfolio corporations. -t helps the fund tar$et and improve its services to its
investors and to a $roup of corporations to )hich it provides &usiness advisory services. 'he method is
separate from financial performance assessment.@
http*MM))).pacificcommunityventures.comM
20. Social return on In'estment (S4-I)
Developed in ,774 &y RED+ 1formerly 'he Ro&erts Enterprise Development +und5 a nonprofit
enterprise that creates .o& opportunities throu$h support of social enterprises that help people $ain the
s!ills to help themselves.
?RED+ developed social return on investment 1#RD-5 analysis to place a dollar value on ventures in its
portfolio )ith social as )ell as mar!et o&.ectives. 'he approach com&ines the tools of &enefit:cost
analysis, the method economists use to assess non:profit pro.ects and pro$rams, and the tools of
financial analysis used in the private sector. "onceptually, the approach differs from these esta&lished
types of analysis, nota&ly in )hat is considered a XsocialY &enefit. Practically, it is more accessi&le to a
<3
&road ran$e of users, su&stitutin$ readily understood terms and methods for technical .ar$on and
complicated techni/ues.@
http*MM))).redf.or$M
2". Socio72conomic )ssessment %oolbo3 (S2)%)
http*MM))).an$loamerican.co.u!MaaMdevelopmentMsocietyMen$a$ementMseatM
and http*MM))).an$loamerican.co.u!Mcorporateresponsi&ility
'he #ocio:Economic %ssessment 'ool&o6 )as first launched in 233< &y %n$lo %merican plc.
?'he tool&o6 &uilds on several steps. 1,5 profilin$ our o)n operations and our host community, 125
identifyin$ and en$a$in$ )ith !ey sta!eholders, 1<5 assessin$ the impacts of our operations I &oth
positive and ne$ative I and the community@s !ey socio:economic development needs, 1A5 developin$ a
mana$ement plan to miti$ate any ne$ative aspects of our presence and to ma!e the most of the &enefits
our operations &rin$, 185 )or!in$ )ith sta!eholders and communities to help address some of their
&roader development challen$es they )ould face even )ithout our presence, 145 producin$ a report
)ith sta!eholders to form the &asis for on$oin$ en$a$ement )ith and support for the community.@
http*MM))).an$loamerican.co.u!M
2$. Sta/eholder 8alue )dded (S8))
%dapted from a description in #chalte$$er et al. 123325.
?#ta!eholder value analysis is &ased on the sta!eholder approach or standard:settin$ and strate$ic
mana$ement of corporations, )hich is used to analyse relations &et)een sta!eholders 1interest $roups5
and corporations. Measurin$ the contri&ution to corporation value due to sta!eholder relations
1sta!eholder value5 is done in four steps. -n the first t)o steps, the return on sta!eholder 1Ro#t5 is
calculated for the corporation in /uestion and the reference corporation 1e.$.mar!et avera$e5. 'he Ro#t
represents the sta!eholder@s relative contri&ution to the value of the corporation. -n the third step the
Ro#t of the reference corporation is su&tracted from the Ro#t of the corporation in vie). -n the final
step this is multiplied &y the corporation@s sta!eholder costs to o&tain the sta!eholder value added.@
http*MM))).uni:luene&ur$.deMcsm
2!. %oolbo3 for )nal+sing Sustainable 8entures in e'eloping *ountries
http*MM))).roap.unep.or$Mpu&M'o)ardstripleimpactE=.pdf
'he tool&o6 for analysin$ sustaina&le ventures in Developin$ "ountries is developed &y U=EP 1United
=ations Environmental Pro$ramme5 in 2337.
?'he tool&o6 is developed to ans)er /uestions related to the identification of opportunities, the
understandin$ of the determinants of success and the assessment of costs and &enefits appear
repeatedly. -t addresses initiatives that support sustaina&le ventures includin$ donor pro$rammes,
a)ard schemes, private and pu&lic investors, professional education pro$rams and policy ma!ers. 'hey
can use the tools to systematically identify, evaluate, advice, and promote sustaina&le ventures. 'he
tools respond to three /uestions that appear over and a$ain in the process of &uildin$ and mana$in$ a
sustaina&le venture*
0here are opportunities to create value ] &y meetin$ needs &etter and more efficientlyO
0hat factors determine the success of the ventureO
0hat are costs and &enefits of the venture for the &usiness, society and the environmentOY
http*MM))).unep.or$
3#. 9ell'enture Monitor=
Based on internet information, accessed on , %u$ust 2337 http*MM))).)ellventuremonitor.nlM%&out.asp6O=umJ3
<,
'he 0ellventure Monitor^ is developed in 2334 &y the +ortis +oundation =etherlands 1++=5 and the
Erasmus University Rotterdam 1EUR5.
?'he 0ellventure Monitor^ measures the effects of community investment on several aspects. -t
ma!es clear )hat the tar$et $roup &enefits from the pro.ect, &ut also )hat the corporation, the
employees, and the social or$anisation $ains from it. 'he 0ellventure Monitor^ provides insi$ht into
the effects of a specific pro.ect. But more importantlyE it is also possi&le to see the sum of the different
pro.ects. 'his )ay, the lon$:term &enefits of community investment &ecome visi&le. 0ith the tool,
corporations and corporations can create a survey after finishin$ a pro.ect and send it to those involved
at the corporation, employees of the or$anisation, and to the tar$et $roup. 'he surveys are processed
automatically. 'he tool can &e used to vie), analy(e, and present the results. Per pro.ect, or over a
lon$er period of time.@
http*MM))).)ellventuremonitor.nl
<2
i
'he primary pursuit of corporations is to create value 1"onner ,77,5. Falue refers to the value created
minus cost incurred. 'his implies that value can &e either positive or ne$ative. Falue creation is a central
concept in mana$ement and or$anisational literature 1epa! et al. 233>E Fer)aal et al. 23375. 9o)ever, )hat
actually constitutes value is often left unaddressed in these theories 1Maas and Boons 23,35.
ii
-nternational %ssociation for -mpact %ssessment, ))).iaia.or$ .
iii
-t must &e emphasised that the focus here is on /uantitative methods that are a&le to measure impact on
society. -n addition to these methods many /ualitative methods e6ist, e.$. story tellin$, content analysis, and
)ord countin$. Huidelines, principles and standards such as HR-, %%,333, #%B333, -#D24333, are not
included in this list.
iv
-n %ppendi6 %, a short description of social impact measurement tools is provided.
v
0hen a method, for e6ample, only ta!es intended impacts into account or ma!es use of predetermined
indicators for impact measurement it is cate$ori(ed as ?partially@.

Social Impact Measurements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Impact Measurements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Impact Measurement:

You might also like