Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI)
By Malin Arvidson, Fergus Lyon, S. McKay, Domenico Moro. 2013
191 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The concept of 'social return on investment' (SROI) has come to play an important role in debates about how social enterprises and charities conceptualise, measure and communicate their achievements. In this paper we analyse the nature and role of SROI as used in the United Kingdom for impact assessment of such organisations. The paper offers insight into methodological and procedural aspects of the framework. Key issues explored include the quantification of benefits, the valuing of volunteering and the ways in which judgement and discretion are exercised. There is a particular tension between the participatory element in the design of each SROI exercise and its use for the purpose of competition. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda that includes an examination of the context in which discretion and judgement are applied and the use and usefulness of SROI in the new policy and funding environment in which third sector organisations currently find themselves.
Subfields: Finance, Management of Technology and Innovation, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7519965f5ea536f8d9cd4fc7865244edfa9b4a6a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Finance
In Management of Technology and Innovation
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Social impact bonds: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? (2013, unknown): “This reflects difficulties of attribution of changes in outcomes to specific policy actions as articulated by Pawson et al. (2004) and in literature on Social Return on Investment (SROI) (Arvidson et al. , 2013).”
- Social finance and crowdfunding for social enterprises: a public–private case study providing legitimacy and leverage (2014, background): “…2005), albeit within a certain scholarly stream only, and on the other hand, the very nature and legitimacy of measuring and accounting in SEs are currently put under scrutiny in some length (Wirgau, Farley, and Jensen 2010; Manetti 2012; Luke, Barraket, and Eversole 2013; Arvidson et al. 2013).”
- Who and What Really Counts? Stakeholder Prioritization and Accounting for Social Value (2015, unknown): “Research in accounting suggests different types and forms of information are considered more (or less) valid and appropriate according to the prevailing sets of epistemic beliefs held by managers (Arvidson et al., 2013; Medawar, 1976).”