5. A model for measuring social added value

Transkrypt

LEARNING FOR CHANGE
THE NETWORK FOR BETTER FUTURE OF SOCIAL ECONOMY - BFSE
STRAND II – MEASURING SOCIAL ADDED VALUE
FINAL REPORT
The Network for better future of Social Economy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3
2.
DESK RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.
PROJECT PARTNERS QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................................... 5
4.
CONSULTATION OF RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................... 7
5.
A MODEL FOR MEASURING SOCIAL ADDED VALUE .............................................................................. 8
6.
TESTING PHASE ................................................................................................................................................. 11
7.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 14
8.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 15
ATTACHMENT 1 – REPORT FROM THE SROI EXPERIENCE ......................................................................... 18
ATTACHMENT 2 – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: LOMBARDY, POLISH AND CZECH TOOLS ................ 39
ATTACHMENT 3 – BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 61
2
1. Objectives and methodology
Following the first meetings with partners (and particularly the meeting in Warsaw in March 2010),
it was agreed that the main focus of the work within this strand should be on public authorities and
on a tool which could help them better allocate funding to social enterprises through ex-ante
evaluations of social added value. Hence, the research and analysis work carried out within the
strand has had the main aim of providing a solid basis for the elaboration of a model for the
evaluation of the social added value produced by a social enterprise both from the point of view of
the enterprise itself or of single projects it may undertake. The system intends to provide potential
sponsors and investors (particularly public entities but also other types of sponsors such as banks
and credit institutions) with a tool which could assess the social added value created by such social
enterprises by using parameters as objective as possible. The evaluation process should allow
potential investors to make informed choices and to better monitor the utilization of resources (in
terms of financial investments or subcontracting of work or services). As far as the project partners
(as well as other ESF managing authorities throughout the EU) are concerned, the work carried out
within this strand aims at providing an overall model for the measurement of social added value
which could be applied within each country or region on the basis of a specific adaptation to
particular needs (which could be legal, cultural etc.).
The research work has implemented the following specific interlinked phases which have been
carried out partially in parallel:
 Desk research
To provide a solid theoretical and practical basis for the development of a European model for
measuring social added value.
 Questionnaire for project partners
To be able to draft an overall model taking into account most relevant needs and specific
situations so as to elaborate an overall model which could indeed be adapted to specific national
and/or regional contexts.
 Consultation of relevant stakeholders
To improve the quality of the work carried out concerning the model (also at the EU level) and
help identify the specific needs and contexts within the Lombardy Region (hence establishing
the basis for the creation of a regional-specific tool extracted from the overall model)
 A model for measuring social added value
A draft of the overall model for measuring social added value on the basis of which each partner
(or interested MA) could extract a specific tool to be adapted and applied within each country or
region.
3
 Pilot project
Implementation of the model in at least one regional context of the project (i.e. the Lombardy
Region) through the elaboration of a specific tool and its application.
 Comparative Analysis
A comparative analysis concerning 3 projects which have dealt with measuring social added value:
the BSFE project, the TESSEA project in the Czech Republic and a study on social value
measurement carried out by the Krakow University of Economics in Poland.
The work phases are described in the following chapters.
2. Desk Research
The desk research has represented the starting point of the overall work. The first step consisted in a
bibliographic and website survey to identify the relevant areas and sensitive aspects to be taken into
account. Moreover, the survey has considered models and approaches concerning social quality and
responsibility. The survey was mainly focused on material and documentation produced in Italy and
in the Anglo-Saxon world.
The first phase of the research has deeply investigated into the meanings and practices of evaluation
in the social sphere with particular reference to the two main stakeholders of the work i.e. public
authorities and social enterprises.
The transformations currently characterising welfare systems (at national and international level)
have promoted a strong push towards evaluation. In fact, in a context of reduction and scarcity of
resources, it becomes indispensable to improve efficiency and effectiveness of decisions made and
actions undertaken. This is true for both public authorities and social enterprises. Hence, the
introduction of evaluation practices within public authorities responds to a number of questions
such as the necessity of playing a strong guidance role; of containing costs and rationalising
spending; of increasing investment accountability and of introducing systems and tools to ensure
equality of treatment in the allocation of resources. Therefore, the measurement of performances,
the efficiency and costs of services, comparability and transparency are the main drives which are
currently bringing public authorities in considering evaluation tools.
At the same time, social enterprises themselves also show the need for performance monitoring and
costs containment to be able to improve organisational and management processes. However, also
as a consequence of the implementation of evaluation processes, social enterprises are increasingly
reclaiming their identity with the aim of enhancing and reaffirming the distinctive value of their
activities.
4
Taking into account such key considerations, it becomes clear that evaluation can only partially be
traced back to standard schemes. On the contrary, it is necessary to build evaluation systems
directed towards the recognition of relevant issues and outputs for the territories, the involvement of
the stakeholders as well as towards the creation of new visions and perspectives.
Yet, differences in perspectives (as already mentioned) can represent an obstacle for the
dissemination and implementation of evaluation systems. It is not so much a matter of letting a
specific need to prevail against others but more a matter of finding ways for both public authorities
and social enterprises to implement evaluation systems in a coherent and fruitful way.
Subsequently, the research has focused the analysis on:
 International systems of quality evaluation (and particularly the ISO, SA8000 and EFQM
rules)
 Evaluation systems promoted by EU projects within the last few years (e.g. several projects
under EQUAL Initiative)
 Experiences of social accounting developed in Italy and Europe during the last twenty years.
Following the decisions made during the meeting of partners of the BFSE project held in Warsaw in
March 2010, the research has particularly concentrated on the analysis of experiences based on the
utilisation of two main tools i.e. Social Accounting and SROI (Social Return On Investment).
In this context it has been considered necessary to delve into the links between evaluation and
financial reporting processes i.e. two tightly interlinked processes of which the boundaries are often
(however wrongly) blurred. In sum, it is possible to state that evaluation research aims at increasing
accountability and at the same time social accounting has an evaluation function. This creates a
process of circular relations.
The model elaborated under the present project has hence drawn on currently used financial
reporting system however using structures, methods for analysis and calculations which are
characteristics of evaluation and measurement.
Annex 2 shows the bibliography consulted during the desk research.
3. Project partners questionnaire
The first consultation steps consisted in the involvement of project partners through the elaboration
of a questionnaire. The main aim of the questionnaire was to gather information concerning the
specific national or regional contexts of each project partner.
The questionnaire tackled the following items in detail:
I.
Context analysis: the questions asked to describe the main programmes or funding lines
dedicated to social enterprises in each country and the currently used tools for the evaluation
5
II.
III.
IV.
of the “social added value” of beneficiaries’ organizations and their projects (if they
existed).
Currently used evaluation systems: in this part the partners were asked to describe in
depth the currently used evaluation systems, providing, if possible, examples in
English/French language
Objectives and perspectives for a new evaluation tool: the aim was to understand the
main objectives that each partner had in relation to evaluation of social enterprises accessing
public funding. Moreover the partners were asked to describe the features which should
characterize a new evaluation system.
Questions concerning a possible evaluation tool integrating Social Accounting and
SROI. In this sections there were questions concerning Social Accounting and SROI, in
relation to their main strengths and weakness, their features, the need for indipendent
evaluation and the applicability of the two instruments within the social enterprises context
of each country.
The questionnaires were sent in June. Filled-in questionnaires were then received in summer (2 in
total) and just before Christmas (another 2). Due to this delay, the model for the measurement of
social added value was initially elaborated before a complete framework of partners’ ideas and
suggestions (hence on the basis of mainly desk research and consultations with stakeholders).
Questionnaires were received from:
 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic
 Krakow University of Economics
 Department of Work and social economy - Flemish government
 Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth – Tillväxtverket
In December comments on the questionnaire were received by the English partner.
The national context of each partner presented specific characteristics. In most of the countries,
public authorities do not use tools for ex-ante evaluation of social added value of social enterpises
organisation. In all countries, the organization which submits an application for public funds usually
has to fulfill a number of conditions concerning compliance to regulations or quality of work and
internal work guidelines. Moreover the organisation is generally asked to present a detailed work
plan (type of activities, objectives, employments, business and financial plan).
In the Czech Republic the organizations have also to fulfil the main principles of social enterprises:
(disadvantaged employees representing at least 30% of all employees, strong support in the
empowerment of the target groups and social inclusion, at least 51% of return/ revenues have to be
reinvested into the development of the enterprise; social enterprises act locally, use local resources,
participate to local partnerships and contribute to the local development).
Even if the starting contexts were quite different, all the partners agreed on the following items:
 Need to develop a solid and transparent evaluation framework for all stakeholders
 The system has to consider economic, social and environmental results (completeness)
6





The system should be relatively easy to carry out (no experts needed)
The system should be clear enough for those who are supposed to use the results of the
evaluation
The system should take into account small social enterprises, which lack human and
economic resources
The results of social evaluation should be comparable between organizations (this is the
main reason why indicators should be defined)
The systems should support social enterprises’ empowerment.
On the contrary, as regards the need of indipendent evaluations of the instrument, partners had
different ideas: on the one hand, evaluations from a third party represent a guarantee for data
correctness; on the other hand it is an additonal cost for social enterprises.
All the partners agreed in developing a system which used the methodology of both social
accounting and SROI. The partners generally asked for a simplification of the two tools:
 there was the idea to have a short number of core indicators, and a number of optional
indicators (different levels of complexity, but with a common boundary)
 SROI should be applied only to single projects / activities.
However the partners recognized the need that social enterprises should be aware of advantages for
themselves from social reporting and SROI, and, at the same time, the governing authorities should
promote the use of evaluation systems.
All the contents and suggestions deriving from the questionnaires have been used to develop the
evaluation system and the overall model for measuring social added value.
4. Consultation of relevant stakeholders
The research framework has been based on two principles: attention to direct experiences and
participative approach. Particular consideration has in fact been placed in the involvement of all
relevant stakeholders i.e. project partners, institutions or entities which in the future might use the
evaluation tool but also social enterprises (which will be the subjects of such evaluation). At the
same time, by looking at and learning from past experiences, it has been possible to elaborate a tool
effectively responding the actual needs of the actors involved and hence applicable within their
daily workings.
As a first step, a focus group with selected local stakeholders was organized (in June 2010). In
particular, the focus group involved representatives of the Lombardy Region, of Italian
Cooperatives’ National Agencies and of Finlombarda (i.e. the finance public company of the
Lombardy Region). During the focus group the following dimensions of the social added value
analysis were identified as relevant and significant: financial and economic soundness; democratic
features and governance; organizational functioning, professional resources, equal opportunities,
employment and social inclusion, clients, networks and partnerships, project design abilities and
innovation.
7
Subsequently, a number of one-to-one interviews have been conducted with other relevant
stakeholders. Particularly important to underline the following:
 Interviews with representatives of banks working closely with the Third Sector both directly
and through initiatives and agreements with the Lombardy Region and other public
investors. The following banking institutions were interviewed: Banca Etica (Ethic Bank),
Banca Popolare di Milano (Cooperative Bank of Milano), Banca di Credito Cooperativo
(Cooperative Credit Bank).
 Interviews with representatives of employers’ organizations of social cooperatives (i.e.
Legacoop and Confcooperative)
 Interview with a representative of a guarantee funds Institution: Cooperfidi
The one-to-one interviews have tackled the following themes in detail:
 Definition of social enterprise and of social value
 Main elements which could be considered indicators of a virtuous social enterprises
 Main elements which could be considered indicators of problematic aspects within social
enterprises
 Evaluation tools already used to take decisions concerning the allocation of funding or loans
 Main characteristics of a system which could help public investors in evaluating the social
added value of social enterprises
 Analyse a selection of indicators to provide comments, changes and additions
The interviews have allowed for the collecting of the points of view of different stakeholders. Their
results have been assessed also through the utilization of a matrix system. One of the points which
has seen the agreement of all stakeholders involved was the necessity to elaborate simple tools
which could be easily and effectively used within daily activities. As far as the efficacy of
evaluation processes is concerned, a few important points emerged during the interviews. A first
point related to the importance of the relation between the evaluator and the evaluated entities
which is the necessary basis for a coherent and adequate evaluation. Hence, evaluation systems
represent a first step of analysis but not the only one. A second point concerned the importance of
training and competence acquisition for evaluators. Finally, a further point highlighted how the
widespread introduction of evaluation systems could be very useful in promoting the organizational
empowerment of social enterpises.
5. A model for measuring social added value
On the basis of the desk research, of the first results derived from the filled-in questionnaires, and of
the interviews with selected local stakeholders, a first draft of the model for the measurement of
social added value was elaborated. The following paragraphs briefly describe the main
characteristics of the model elaborated.
8
The model has been designed for social enterprises and their associations, public authorities, credit
and banking institutions and public utilities.
A founding characteristic of the evaluation system used for the model is its simplicity and
applicability at a wide scale. This has been done in view of its possible applicability within both the
context of public and private funds.
With the aim of building a tool which would be comprehensive but at the same simple, the model
was created with a high degree of modularity. Modularity means that the tool is highly flexible and
that it gives to opportunity of not using all of its part while still obtaining coherent and significant
results.
The first key element of modularity is represented by its structure. The evaluation system
introduced in the model is in fact made up of two main parts which could be used jointly or
separately by the relevant institutions or entities depending on the needs.
1. Evaluation of the overall social added value produced by the enterprise
The evaluation system introduced in this part of the model was built and elaborated largely on the
basis of the accounting reporting experiences developed in recent years at national and international
level. In particular, the system has taken into account the indicators developed during experiences
concerning the generation and distribution of “value”. “Value” needs to be understood in this
context as not only an economic resource but also as a resource which could support the
development of the social enterprise allowing for the improvement of the conditions of the
enterprise itself. The system takes into considerations the following dimensions:
 Financial and economic soundness
 Democracy and governance
 Organizational functioning
 Professional resources
 Equal opportunities
 Socio-occupational integration
 Clients
 Networks and partners
 Project design and innovation abilities
 Environmental sustainability
 Services delivered
Each of the above dimensions is made up of further sub-dimensions. For each sub-dimension the
model identifies the most relevant indicators. The division in dimensions and sub-dimensions has
the main aim of granting the modularity of the overall evaluation system hence allowing for a
partial use of the model itself (i.e. the selection of specific dimensions and indicators to suit specific
needs and hence build specific measurement tools). Moreover, the model provides an indication of
9
the indicators which should be considered as obligatory and those which could be regarded as
optional. This aspect is very important since it contributes to the modularity (and hence
applicability) of the model. Potential users will in fact be able to adapt the model to specific
circumstances. For example, if a public authority intends to allocate a small funding, it might
consider sufficient to use a limited number of indicators hence creating a lighter version of the tool.
On the contrary, if the same authority needs to allocate a wider amount of resources (e.g. a big
tender), then, it might decide to use the whole set of indicators so as to obtain a complete picture of
the enterprises participating to the tender.
2. Evaluation of the social added value produced by single projects or interventions
Very often, nowadays, allocation of public funding is bound to the quality of submitted projects.
For example, it is quite common that to request the funding, project proposers have to submit,
together with the project, a business plan which will then be assessed by the authority responsible
for the funding programme to check the economic and financial sustainability of the project.
However, a business plan is not a sufficient tool to also account for the social value, impact and
effects of each project. In fact, other things being equal (e.g. the same project costs), different
projects may have very different social impacts.
The tool elaborated by the project suggests the utilization of SROI techniques to evaluate the social
impact generated by projects and interventions. The calculation model used in the tool is based on
the analysis and modeling proposed by NEF (New Economic Foundation). However, the tool
proposes to simplify the system, as also suggested by partners’ questionnaires, with the aim of
having a sufficiently user-friendly and flexible tool to allow for an easy application. The main
simplification proposed consists in the application of SROI exclusively to single projects and
interventions and not to the entire enterprise. This has been done with the aim of creating a tool
sufficiently flexible and easy to use which would allow for specific implementations. Moreover,
SROI projects are generally thought as voluntary tools used by social enterprises to highlight the
important impacts of their work whereas the model developed by the project intends to develop the
basis for a tool which could be used by public and private investors in the process of taking
decisions concerning the allocation of resources. This approach has therefore been introduced to
promote the application of SROI techniques to a wide number of organizations in the context of
funding allocation.
The tool elaborated by the project (intended as part 1 and 2 together) is characterised by a relatively
complex structure which has the objective of taking into account the widest possible number of
dimensions related to social enterprises, their quality and social responsibility, their interventions
and projects and the impact produced. On the one hand, by applying the entire evaluation model,
investors (public or private) would obtain a complete and detailed picture of the social added value
and the impacts produced by each social enterprise examined. On the other hand, to allow for a
simplified and prompt implementation, the measurement tool is characterised by a high degree of
flexibility which allows for the adaptation of the model to specific local, regional or national
contexts. This means that the tool elaborated represents a model that requires further work to be
10
applied to specific levels. Therefore the model elaborated provides investors with a “European
Toolkit” from which each investor, public authority etc. can extract one or more specific tools
relating to specific economic contexts, sectors, types of social enterprises etc.
6. Testing phase
As already mentioned, the tool elaborated through the previous phases of the project represents a
“European Model” i.e. a global structure which can be used to create a specific tool adapted to the
needs and context of a specific country or region. Therefore, to be able to actually implement the
tool, it is necessary to further elaborate it through a testing phase. Such testing phase would for
example include the identification of specific indicators (or the choice of indicators from those
indicated by the tool), the elaboration of a rating model and a calculation model etc.
Within the project, this further testing phase has been carried out for the case of the Lombardy
Region. In this phase, the “European Model” elaborated has been used to create a specific tool
adapted to the needs and characteristics of the Lombardy context. In particular, an experimentation
of both parts of the model has been done after which the “Regional Tool for measuring social added
value” has been modified and finalised. The following paragraphs describe how this testing phase
was conducted while Attachment n. 1 contains a more detailed report on the SROI experience.
1. Testing of Part I of the tool - Measurement of the social value produced by a social
enterprise
The testing of the first part of the tool has been carried out on social enterprises accessing banking
financing through the utilisation of guarantees provided by “Fidi Consorzium” (i.e. a private entity
founded and financed by Italian social enterprises themselves to provide financial services essentially guarantees but not loans). The testing activity has been conducted in two main phases:
I-Elaboration and validation of the Regional tool
In this phase, the “Regional tool” was derived from the “European Tool" through meetings with
selected stakeholders. During these meetings, the relevance and clarity of each indicator proposed
in the European model was examined and the basic structure of the Lombardy model was
established.
II-Elaboration of a system of weights
In this phase, work was carried out to provide each analysis’s dimension with a relative weight so
as to guarantee the effectiveness and coherence of the evaluation model. The objective has been to
work out a synthetic score (for each dimension and sub-dimension but also overall) which could
allow for a straightforward reading of the results.
11
This was done by drafting a survey which was then sent to around 166 social enterprises in
Lombardy. The survey was structured in the following two main parts: the first was a general part
for all types of social enterprises; the second part specifically related to services and was sent
exclusively to those social enterprises directly managing services. The aim of the survey was
twofold. On the one hand, it aimed at further verifying the adequacy and clarity of the indicators.
On the other hand, it also aimed at gathering sufficient data to build the calculation and scoring
system. Around 29 (part 1 and 2) filled-in surveys were received (i.e. around 12% of the total)
which is a rather satisfactory level in consideration of the length and the voluntary character of the
survey.
As far as the quality and relevance of the indictors are concerned, the testing has allowed adjusting
those that were not clear and improve a few others. Overall, modifications were rather limited with
the exception of the dimension concerning economic and financial soundness which was
significantly restructured (i.e. balance sheet data and financial statement reclassification as required
by Basilea II rules).
As far as the calculation system is concerned, it was decided that the rating should be based on the
weighted averages of the data derived from the surveys for each dimension and sub-dimension.
This approach is characterised by numerous positive aspects:
-
-
It is not based on theoretical assumptions but on the actual functioning of social enterprises;
It is not based on assessments made by a limited number of stakeholders (which could be
brought into question);
It allows (where necessary) to continuously update the calculation system so that it will
always reflect the actual developments of the sector. In fact, once established, it will be
possible to also set up an IT system which will automatically gather data and recalculate the
weighted averages against which the scores are assessed;
It can represent a benchmarking tool which could be used by both the Region and the social
enterprises themselves to assess performances against those of other enterprises.
It is important to notice that the dimensions concerning services were not given a score. The
indicators have mainly a descriptive character and aim at providing a general picture of the services
delivered by the social enterprise (i.e. their dimension, the beneficiaries etc.). A detailed evaluation
of the services impact can in fact be obtained by applying the second part of the tool (i.e. the SROI)
to each specific service.
As far as the calculation system is concerned, it is important to highlight that:
- The scoring system is organised as follows: -1, 0 and +1 scores indicate respectively a
performance that is lower, in line and above regional standards;
- A synthetic score is calculated for each dimension;
12
-
The system also calculates a final synthetic score. To calculate such final score it has been
necessary to identify specific weights for the different dimensions. Currently, the system
provides a relatively higher weight for the economic dimension (i.e. 30%). Moreover, for
type B social enterprises (i.e. those engaging in work inclusion for disadvantaged people),
the dimension concerning work inclusion has been given a 15% weight. All other
dimensions have equal weight towards the determination of the final scoring. This internal
definition may of course be changed depending on specific needs (i.e. context, tender
specifications etc.).
2. Testing of Part II of the tool - Measurement of the social value produced by a project
The testing of the second part of the tool has been carried out through the implementation of a
SROI on an innovative project promoted by “Anni Versati” social enterprise. “Anni Versati” has in
fact undertaken an entrepreneurial project for the work inclusion of disadvantaged people. The
enterprise has opened (in January 2011) a food shop (“Polpetteria Ciccilla”) in the city centre of
Milan where it employs mentally disabled people. The project is characterised by a number of
innovative aspects: -the type of shop (it serves rissoles of any type –meatballs, vegetarian and fish
rissoles etc.) –the concept (the project intends to develop a business which can openly and
successfully compete on the local Milan market exclusively on the basis of product and service
quality. Therefore, the enterprise has invested on both an innovative idea (“polpetteria Ciccilla”)
and on a clear and effective entrepreneurial strategy which includes: the utilisation of organic or
local raw material; the quality of the products offered; the utilisation of biodegradable material (e.g.
food boxes etc.); an incisive marketing activity; the choice of an area of Milan (the central area of
Moscova) which is at the same time a challenge (i.e. several high-level shops are established in the
area) and an opportunity (e.g. sophisticated customers).
The implementation of SROI has been done on the basis of a strong collaboration with the
associates of the enterprise “Anni Versati” to define and identify stakeholders, outcomes and
economic proxies.
A considerable consultation of stakeholders has been carried out through the filling in of
questionnaires either directly by the stakeholders or through interviews. The following stakeholders
were involved:
- Workers of the “Polpetteria Ciccilla”
- Main contact persons or next of kin of the disadvantaged workers (e.g. family members,
psychiatrist, tutors)
- Clients of the shop
Attachment n. 1 describes in detail the experience and its results.
13
7. Comparative Analysis
During the BFSE project, there were other similar initiatives carried out in partner countries
concerning the measurement of social added value. Even though the aims of these experiences were
similar, the contexts and degrees of investigations were rather different due to a number of different
factors ranging from timing to social economy specificities etc. In spite of such differences, the
project has carried out a comparative analysis of those experiences with the help of project partners
and their experts. The two experiences examined include the TESSEA project in the Czech
Republic and a study on measuring social value carried out by the Krakow University of Economics
in Poland.
The TESSEA project (Thematic Network for the Development of Social Economy) was funded
through the Czech Republic’s Human Resources and Employment operational programme and
actively involved a wide range of experts who directly contributed to the work. Its general objective
was to support the development of social entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic by raising
awareness of the importance and role of the social economy and by carrying out a number of studies
on key issues. The work of the project was divided into thematic strands which covered all the key
issues such as definitions, finance and communication. One strand dealt with measuring social
value. The work within this strand allowed to build a model to assess social enterprises against a
number of principles and specific characteristics. On the basis of such principles, the project’s
experts have been able to identify and classify specific indicators related to social enterprises and
more specifically to work integration social enterprises (WISEs).Because of time and resource
constraints, the project has not been able to test the model, even though TESSEA experts plan to
fundraise for its piloting.
In Poland, the Krakow University of Economics has drafted and tested a tool to measure social
impact which looked at three aspects: social value added, social credibility and economic
credibility. The aim of the tool was to assess and measure the social value produced by the
organisations’ processes. To carry out this assessment, the University drafted a set of indicators
(specific to the Polish context) related to four main areas: social inclusion (including work
inclusion), social capital, local community and financial performance. In each of these areas the
indicators selected were also converted into one general and cumulative index in order to create a
single evaluation parameter.
Once the model was drafted, the university carried out a pilot action to test it by sending social
enterprises an on-line questionnaire which asked them to provide all relevant data for the indicators.
The results from each enterprise were compared to the average results of all the social enterprises
participating to the pilot. This experience was the very first attempt to measure social added value
in Poland.
A detailed report from the comparative analysis is contained in Attachment 2.
14
8. Conclusions and recommendations
Social enterprises are increasingly recognised as key economic actors in Europe. In the introduction
to the Communication on “Social Business Initiative” (COM(2011) 682 final), the Commission
underlines that “social enterprises contribute to smart growth by responding with social innovation
to needs that have not yet been met; they create sustainable growth by taking into account their
environmental impact and by their long-term vision; they are at the heart of inclusive growth due to
their emphasis on people and social cohesion.” To support the argument in favour of social
enterprises development, very often quantitative data are mentioned (e.g. the sector employs around
11 million people in EU countries; it represents one in four European businesses - COM(2011) 682
final).
As emphasised in the same Commission document already mentioned (COM(2011) 682 final), “a
social enterprise is an operator in the social economy whose main objective is to have a social
impact rather than make a profit for their owners or shareholders”: it is indeed important to not only
recognise the quantitative and purely economic impacts of social enterprises, but also to recognise
and underline that the core of social business is represented by the social value and social impacts
they produce.
Yet, social value and impact are largely perceived as something too difficult to account for: the
concept of “social value or impact” refers to the idea that a good or a service can have an additional
dimension or value (besides the economic one), which represents a benefit for society but which is
not normally captured by purely financial measurement.
The work carried out under the “Measuring social added value” strand of BFSE has attempted to
tackle this difficulty and provide a strong contribution towards the introduction of practices which
could account for social value. The case in favour of the introduction of such practices at different
levels (certainly regional and national but also European), relies on a number of different
arguments.
A first key aspect is access to credit and funding by social enterprises. In the Communication
already mentioned, the Commission acknowledges that “above all, social enterprises have
difficulties finding funding”. Among the causes of such difficulty, the Commission identifies the
perception that investors often have of social businesses as being too risky and the lack of a clear
enough idea of the real social impact of solidarity investment funds. Clearly, a system which could
measure the social value produced by social enterprises may well have a very positive influence in
terms of a change of attitude from investors (both private and public).
A second important aspect concerns the evaluation of social value in the context of the
transformations currently occurring in national and international welfare systems. In a context of
15
rising needs and, at the same time, of scarce resources, it becomes a priority to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of public authorities’ and social enterprises’ decisions.
From this perspective, there are three main reasons for the introduction of evaluation practices of
social value within public systems:
1. the need for a strong governance in the implementation of inclusion policies and intervention
programmes;
2. the need to contain the costs of inclusion policies and services, as well as the need to justify
choices and investments on the basis of the results achieved;
3. the need to guarantee quality levels in service delivery, by measuring and comparing
performances and the efficiency as well as costs of services.
At the same time, social enterprises also show the need to monitor performance and curb costs in
order to improve organisational processes and management. Through evaluation processes, social
enterprises also show a strong incentive to claim their identity in order to improve and (re-) affirm
the distinctive value of their action. With the aim of making the utilisation of social value
measurement tools accessible to social enterprises, a number of initiatives, interventions and
policies could be put in place at different levels.
The work carried out within the “Measuring social added value” strand of BFSE has intended to
provide potential public and private investors with a practical tool to measure social added value so
as to favour the introduction of elements of social value evaluation within investors’ practices.
At the same time, it is indeed possible to derive, from the work carried out, a number of key
conclusions and recommendations for most actors involved:
-
-
-
-
1- European Institutions
Social value measurement tools could be a practice to be emphasised within the Social Business
Initiative promoted by the European Commission.
The European Commission could promote social value as an EU horizontal issue in Structural
Funds implementation (similarly to equal opportunities, environment etc.).
2- ESF Managing Authorities and Public Authorities in general
In addition to evaluation systems already used in ESF Operational Programmes, Managing
authorities could introduce elements of social added value measurement. Such element
introduced in ESF Operational Programmes would be based on the specific regional and
national needs.
Managing Authorities and public authorities could invest resources from their ESF Operational
Programmes to fund training and capacity building so as to endow public authorities with
effective evaluation systems assessing social value.
The Commission proposal for the 2014-2020 ESF regulation states that “at least 20% of the ESF
allocation should be dedicated to promoting social inclusion and combating poverty”
16
(COM(2011) 607 fin/2). Managing Authorities could use tools for measuring social added value
to implement, verify and demonstrate the effective implementation of such new rule
-
3- Social Enterprises
Social enterprises can use social value measurement tools to improve the quality and
effectiveness of their services, to promote stakeholders’ engagement and to better communicate
their business to public and private investors.
17
Attachment 1 – Report from the SROI experience
1- The “Ciccilla” entrepreneurial project
In July 2010 the social enterprise “Anni Versati” was founded with the aim of creating work
opportunities for disadvantaged people through the implementation of a specific project i.e. the
“Polpetteria Ciccilla” (“Rissole-shop Ciccilla”).
Anni Versati’s associates, supported by Consorzio Sociale Light’s competences and human
resources, have worked for the implementation of the “Rissole-shop Project” which has brought to
the opening of “Ciccilla” on January 13, 2011.
Ciccilla is the first name of one of the founders’ aunt, whose ability in cooking excellent rissoles
was inspirational. The shop is located in Milan town centre and is opened from Monday to Saturday
from 10 a.m. to 22 p.m.
5 people work in the shop –all with permanent contracts and three of which are disabled. Three fulltime and two part-time guarantee the quality of cooking and of service throughout the day.
The main products sold by the shop are rissoles. The shop offers twenty different types of recipes
(made with meat, vegetables, fish, cheese and seaweed) which are available throughout the week
depending on the specific daily menu. The shop also offers vegetarian side-dishes which are made
with season vegetables and served in different ways (grilled, steamed etc.)
All recipes follow the seasonal availability of products which, in turn, are organic (as defined in the
EU Regulation 2092/91) or at least local.
The products are mainly take-away but it is also possible to eat in the shop as a few stools and
tables and chairs are available –however there is no table service. Bowls, glasses and cutlery are all
made of recycled material.
The project has been supported by the Province of Milan through the Disabled Employment Plan
(Emergo). The funding received through the Emergo Plan 2010 has been used to train the disabled
employees and to bear part of the cost of human resources during the start-up phase.
2- Aim and context of the analysis
The aim of the SROI analysis has been to evaluate the actual impacts the project had on relevant
stakeholders so as to be able to assess:
-
The outcomes produced as direct consequence of the investments made
-
The possibility of replicating the model in other Italian cities
The analysis is not focused on the economic viability of the enterprise but on the impacts perceived
by the different stakeholders.
18
As far as the time-space is concerned, it should be noted that the analysis takes into consideration
the period between January 2011 (i.e. the opening of the shop) and September 2011 included.
All Anni Versati associates have collaborated to the SROI implementation.
3- Stakeholders involvement
The internal stakeholders are represented by the employees of the shop (both disabled and normal).
As a consequence of the need for a continuous monitoring of the disabled employees, the social and
health care services directly dealing with them have also been considered as relevant stakeholders.
A further stakeholder is Consorzio Sociale Light since it supported the whole startup phase and
represents the main promoter of the initiative.
The project has received financial support from Fondazione Cariplo (a foundation based in Milan
and working primarily of the regional territory), which has partly covered for the startup costs
(mainly management costs) of the first two years of the project. Moreover, IKEA has provided
support to the project by donating shops’ furnishings and providing interior design consulting
service free of charge.
The “Polpetteria Ciccilla” has made arrangements with “Micro Life” i.e. a biotech company based
in Veneto specialised in the production of edible micro-seaweed which can be used to produce
seaweed-balls.
Among other shops’ suppliers of goods and services the following were selected as important
stakeholders: “Lariano Brewery” which provides the shop with home-made beer; “Pensieri e
Colori” social cooperative which has worked on the graphic layout and communication activities of
the “Polpetteria Ciccilla” brand.
Finally, other important stakeholders to be taken into account were the clients of the shop and the
local community as a whole since the latter benefits from both the social inclusion activities and
from the availability of organic and low environmental impact products.
The table below summarises the stakeholders that have been identified and the reasons for their
inclusion or exclusion from the analysis.
19
STAKEHOLDER
INCLUDED/EXLUDED
Disabled employees
Included
“Normal” employees
Consorzio Sociale Light
REASONS
-
Improving the life conditions of people affected by social disadvantages, also through work
opportunities, is the main objective of the “Polpetteria Ciccilla” shop.
Included
-
Guaranteeing quality hobs for all employees is an important aspect of the project.
Included
-
Is the main promoter of the project and the main beneficiary if the initiative is successful.
Included
-
They are the main beneficiaries in terms of availability of organic and low environmental impact
food.
Included
-
Where exiting, the sending services are important stakeholders of the project. They have been
involved in the analysis not as direct beneficiaries but as stakeholders able to evaluate the impact
of the project on the disabled employees.
Included
-
Where possible or necessary, families of disabled employees have been involved as stakeholders
able to evaluate and assess potential benefits enjoyed by them.
Included
-
Benefiting from a potential saving in the health care expenditure of the disabled people put into
work through the project.
Included
-
Benefiting from a potential resources saving in terms of social/disability assistance and
benefits/allowances.
Polpetteria Ciccilla
Included
-
The production of revenues is essential for the continuity of the project.
Fondazione Cariplo
Excluded
Investor – it may benefit from reading the SROI analysis’s results. The Ciccilla project has very
little influence or impact on the attainment of the social objectives and general aims of the
foundation.
Ikea
Excluded
-
Investor – it may benefit from reading the SROI analysis’s results. The Ciccilla project has very
Clients
Sending services (i.e. social/health care
services working with the disabled
employees)
Families of disabled employees
National Health Sistem
State
little influence or impact on the attainment of the social objectives and general aims of the
foundation.
Excluded
-
Excluded
-
Excluded
-
Microlife
Pensieri e Colori (Service provider)
Lariano Brewery (Goods supplier)
The impact of the project on the attainment of outcomes (i.e. visibility, promotion) has been
considered as marginal since such outcomes could be reached also in other ways not connected to
the project.
the project.
the project.
The following describes the ways in which the stakeholders were consulted:
-
Disabled employees: they were consulted by interview. The interviews were based on semi-structured questionnaires. 3 people were interviewed
(i.e. the total of disabled workers)
-
Other workers: they were consulted by interview. The interviews were based on semi-structured questionnaires. 2 people were interviewed (i.e.
the total of other workers)
-
Consorzio Sociale Light: interview with the President of the Consortium.
-
Clients: a sample survey was carried through a customer satisfaction questionnaire
-
Sending service: 3 contact persons from social-health care services were consulted through telephone interviews based on semi-structured
questionnaires. These 3 contact persons are in charge of two of the disabled workers.
21
-
Family members of the disabled employees: 1 family member of the disabled employee who had no contact person within the social-health
care system was consulted through telephone interview.
The following table describes the expectations and planned objectives of the “Polpetteria Ciccilla” project for each category of stakeholder
STAKEHOLDER
EXPECTATIONS
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT TOWARDS STAKEOLDERS
Disabled employees
-
Have a job
Improve life quality
-
Provide stable employment
Provide professional competences
Have a positive impact on life quality
“Normal” employees
-
Have a job
-
Provide stable employment
Provide support to disabled workers
Provide professional competences
-
Set up a new social enterprise
Provide support to the star-up
Provide a positive and replicable model
-
Increase the number of associated social enterprises
Provide a positive and replicable model
Implementing human resources competences
Clients
-
Food quality
Service quality
Healthy food
-
Food and service quality
Healthy food
Environmental and social awareness-raising
-
Find employment for disadvantaged people
Reduce social costs
Improve the clinical condition of users
-
Sending services
Have a positive impact on quality of life of disadvantaged
workers
Contribute to the effectiveness of therapies
-
22
-
Improve the clinical and social condition of the
disadvantaged worker
-
-
Improve the health conditions of citizens
Reduce health costs
-
INPS
-
Family members of the disabled employees
-
-
Have a positive impact on quality of life of disadvantaged
workers
-
Have a positive impact on quality of life (also in terms of health)
of disadvantaged workers
Reduce the cost of disability benefits/allowances
-
Reduce the cost of disability benefits/allowances
Guaranteeing a stable job for all citizens
Reduce social spending
Receive tax payments
-
Provide stable employment to all workers involved in the project
State
-
-
Ability to stay on the market
Adequate revenues
Entrepreneurial continuity
-
Ability to stay on the market
Adequate revenues
Entrepreneurial continuity
National Health System
23
4- The impact map
Starting from the stakeholders’ analysis, the “Impact Map” was elaborated with the aim of
describing the changes and the impacts that the project produces with its activities.
In building the map the following were taken into considerations:
-
Output: the direct and tangible products of the activities implemented
-
Outcome: the changes experienced by the different stakeholders as a consequence of the project
-
Attribution: not all outcomes produced may be directly attributed to the project
-
Deadweight: some outcomes might have produced themselves in any case (and in absence of
project activities)
-
Negative impacts: some activities may produce negative impacts for some stakeholders
In the impact map, all relevant outcomes have been identified regardless to the possibility of
determining an economic proxy afterwards.
The subsequent tables present the impact analysis divided by stakeholder.
4.1- Disabled employees
STAKEHOLDER
INPUT
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUT
-
Disabled
employees
ability
time
-
Prepare food
Cleaning the shop
Customer service
Professional
training
-
Disabled
employees
Type of contract
Drop-out
percentage
Workers’
professional
training
OUTCOME
IMPACT
Acquiring a job
100%
Acquiring
economic
independence
100%
Acquiring new
competences
100%
Having the
possibility of
programming daily
life and the future
100%
Strengthen
relational abilities
70%
Contribute to
therapy’s
effectiveness
80%
The “Polpetteria Ciccilla” has represented, particularly for the disabled employees, an essential
source of work, economic stability. It has also allowed them to acquire professional competences
(100% impact).
According to the social and health professionals who work with the disadvantaged people put into
work by the project, as a consequence of the new work activity, these people have witnessed a
strong improvement in their physical/health and social/relational wellbeing (respectively 80% and
70% impact). All disabled employees enjoy permanent contracts and have undertaken training
courses.
All disadvantaged workers claim that their life quality has improved (a little bit or significantly) in
terms of: work abilities, ability to take decisions and to relate with colleagues. These views have
been essentially confirmed by “normal” workers.
“Normal” employees claim that their technical support towards disadvantaged employees to help
them carry out practical work activities has been reduced by around 2 hours a week; time dedicated
to supervision and overall support has been reduced by around 1 hour.
Even though no clinical modification have occurred (in terms for example of a reduction in the
amount of medicines normally taken), all disadvantage workers report an improvement in the
perception they have of their own psychic and physical condition and generally of their overall life
quality. However, because of the short time-range of the analysis and because of the lack of a
regular survey from the beginning of the activity, it has not been possible to quantify these
improvements and it has not been possible to calculate a reliable economic proxy for this outcome.
For a complete picture of the analysis, the opinions of the health and social workers dealing with
the disabled employees and of the project of the family member of one of them, are presented
below:
-
<<Since he has started working at “Polpetteria Ciccilla” he has improved his mood and seems
to enjoy more self-confidence.>>
-
<<Working will have a positive effect in terms of greater life stability hence a reducing
anxieties and generally his the pathology.
-
<<One ho the main problems of […] was her lack of self confidence and anxiety connected
particularly to resistance to change. Thanks to the support received and the nice work
environment she has managed to significantly overcome her lack self-confidence and try to do
things she was previously afraid to do (e.g. serve customers at the counter).>>
-
<<there has been an improvement in the quality of life of the person: since he has begun
working at the Polpetteria (and even more since he got his permanent contract), there has been a
general improvement in his wellbeing connected to his greater serenity and self-esteem. He
seems to be more independent in taking decisions and more self-confident in relating to
others.>>
-
<< The permanent contact and the work shifts’ regularity have positively influenced his
physical and psychological condition. He is certainly more serene and calm.
4.2 “Normal” workers
25
STAKEHOLDER
INPUT
“NORMAL”
WORKERS
SKILLS
TIME
ACTIVITY
OUTPUT
-
PREPARE FOOD
CLEANING THE SHOP
-
NEW
EMPLOYED
SUPPLIERS’
MANAGEMENT
-
CONTRACT
TYPE
-
SUPPORTING DISABLED
WORKERS
-
-
PROFESSIONAL
TRAINING
WORKERS’
PROFESSION
AL
TRAINING
-
TEAM MEETINGS
CUSTOMER SERVICE
OUTCOME
IMPACT
ACQUIRE A STABLE JOB
100%
ACQUIRE NEW SKILLS
100%
CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PERSONAL/SOCIAL WELLBEING OF
DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE
100%
100%
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CREATION OF
NEW SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
Particularly in a time of economic crisis, Ciccilla has represented, for the normal workers also, an
important work opportunity both in economic and personal terms. The type of contract offered was
in fact permanent.
Because both workers were unemployed when they got a job at Ciccilla and because their CVs are
characterised by a significant work discontinuity, the outcome was calculated as having a 100%
impact.
Both workers highlight a number of aspects as source of personal satisfaction in working for
Ciccilla. Those include, besides the work stability and the acquisition of new skills, the fact that
their work has a direct social value and that it promotes a new “brand” and a new entrepreneurial
attitude. Unfortunately, this last aspect it is not quantifiable since the project is still in its “start-up”
phase.
During the interviews the workers stated that:
-
<< My quality of life has significantly improved: I have managed to integrate into a new work
context at the same time improving myself and others >>
-
<< My expectations from working at Ciccilla have been widely met: I found a very good team
who believes in a true non-profit project>>
-
<<On the whole, I am very satisfied. The project is good and I do believe in it; the work team is
made of people who work together very well. >>
4.3 Consorzio Sociale Light
STAKEHOLDER
INPUT
ACTIVITY
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
IMPACT
26
-
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT
-
COMMUNICATION
MANAGEMENT
CONTROL
-
SUPPORTING
DISADVANTAGED
PEOPLE
SKILLS
CONSORZIO
SOCIALE
LIGHT
NETWORK
MANAGEMENT CONTROL
RELATIONS WITH
SUPPLIERS
100%
-
INSTITUTIONAL
RELATIONS
-
HAVING A
ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE AND
ACTIVE ON THE
MARKET SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE
HAVING A
REPLICABLE
MODEL
JOB CREATION
Consorzio Sociale Light has promoted the entire start-up phase of the project.
This activity has involved not only the planning phase but has continued throughout the first year
by providing the Polpetteria with specific services (supporting administrative and organisational
management, management control, communication etc.) as well as specific support activities such
as supervision, transfer of management skills, network promotion.
The main outcome for Consorzio Sociale Light consists in the verification of the overall quality of
the project and, in case of a positive confirmation; the main outcome is the availability of social
enterprise model which is replicable (in Milan and in other Italian cities).
However, it will not be possible to assess this impact until before 2013 (i.e. at least after 2 year of
implementation).
4.4 Customers
STAKEHOLDER
INPUT
ACTIVITY
CUSTOMERS
PURCHASING
PRODUCTS
PURCHASING
AND
CONSUMING
PRODUCTS
OUTPUT
-
QUANTITY OF
PURCHASED
PRODUCTS
OUTCOME
IMPACT
QUALITY OF FOOD
30%
HEALTHY AND ORGANIC FOOD
70%
REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
90%
PARTICIPATE TO THE PROMOTION
OF A SOCIAL ECONOMY
90%
In a city like Milan, customers have numerous choices for their lunch break. However, taking into
consideration only the area were Ciccilla is located, such possibilities are reduced. Therefore, even
though it is possible to find quality food in other shops as well (30% impact), a specific choice is
made when deciding to buy food from a shop that sells organic products (70% impact), that is
environment-friendly (70% impact) and which promotes a social economy (90% impact).
27
The choice of an environmental-friendly strategy (utilisation of recyclable material, organic and
local products) has a positive impact on the wellbeing of individuals and of the local community in
terms of reduction of waste management and production of polluting products.
A customers questionnaire has been made available inside the shop asking customers on the
importance they attributed to three main aspects:
-
Eating quality food (level of satisfaction with the food)
-
Eating organic food (a healthier food from both the personal and environmental point of view)
-
Reducing pollution (health improvement and reduction in waste management costs)
-
Contributing to the promotion of a social economy (participation and improvement in the
community ownership feeling)
The level of importance attributed to each of the 4 aspects considered has been calculated on the
basis of the willingness of spending additional money compared to the average costs of a lunch in
the area (average costs of around 9€).
Around 50 questionnaires were collected which showed the following:
-
Quality food: +14,0% of average spending
-
Organic food: +14,5% of average spending
-
Reducing environmental pollution: +14,4% of average spending
-
Participation to a social economy project: +13,6% of average spending
4.5 Regional and State entities
STAKEHOLDER
SSN (National
Health System)
INPUT
Not
applicable
INPS
(National
Insurance
Body)
contributions
to
disadvantaged
people
State
Not
applicable
ACTIVITY
-
Not
applicable
-
Not
applicable
-
Not
applicable
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
IMPACT
-
Improve health
conditions of mental
disabled
100%
Reduction in health
costs
100%
Cutting
disability
pensions
Reduction in social
costs
100%
Taxes
collected
Increase
employment
100%
-
-
Reduction in
health costs
28
The hiring of new workers and of people in a socially disadvantaged condition has produced direct
effects (in economic terms), which would not have been produced otherwise, on different national
institutions:
-
The reduction in social contributions – unemployment benefits (INPS)
-
The increase in tax collection (State) as a consequence of the creation of a new permanent jobs
As far as health costs are concerned, on the basis of an analysis of the disadvantaged people’s
health condition it was noted that:
-
There was an increase in the number of appointments with the psychiatrist due to the greater
medical supervision required by the project itself (increase in health costs);
-
As the disadvantaged people involved in the project were all affected by a severe psychiatric
pathology, a reduction in the consumption of medicines was not possible;
-
One of the disadvantaged people involved has witnessed a significant reduction (around 30%) in
the number of acute episodes of its illness hence reducing the number of interventions from the
public health serve (Obligatory Health Treatments).
4.6 “Ciccilla” Polpetteria (the shop)
STAKEHOLDER
CICCILLA
POLPETTERIA
INPUT
ACTIVITY
HUMAN
RESOURCES
-
SKILLS
PRODUCTION
AND SELLING OF
RISSOLES
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
-
PROFIT
GENERATED
MEALS
SOLD
IMPACT
100%
The “Polpetteria” in itself can be considered a stakeholder of the project.
The profit generated represents a key and indispensable element to guarantee the continuity of the
project, the work stability of the employees and the possibility of replicating the experience.
The profit has been calculated on the basis of the sales made during the first 9 month of activity.
5- Output
As far as the output identified in the “impact map” are concerned, it is important to highlight the
following data:
-
Disabled workers involved in the project:
o Number of workers included: 3
o Type of contract: permanent
29
o Drop-out percentage: 0%
o Number of workers trained: 3
- “Normal” Workers
o Number of people employed: 2
o Type of contract: permanent and full-time
o Number of workers trained: 3
- Consorzio Sociale Light
o Having an economically viable and active on the market social enterprise. This data
was confirmed by the provisional balance sheet (30 September 2011)
o Number of new employees: 5
- Customers and local community
o Quantity of products purchased: around 8.200 meals
o Energy and economic saving linked to waste management: around 9.000
biodegradable compoundable plates were used. The average weight of a plastic plate
is of around 16 grams. Therefore around 160kg of plastic were saved. It is also
important to notice that around 100kg of materbi (non-plastic, recyclable material
which is used as plastic) disposed of through composting correspond to a reduction
of 25kg of carbon emissions if the same amount was disposed of through normal
plastic dumping system.
- Sending services (i.e. social and health entities/structures)
o Number of people included compared to the number of people indicated: 2 people
included for 2 indicated
Number of drop-outs: 0
30
6- Identification of indicators, economic values and proxies
To be able to quantify the social value produced, it is necessary to identify significant indicators which would allow to measure the outcomes
achieved. It was not possible to identify economic proxies for all the indicators already listed. Moreover, for some of those the project has not
produced relevant impacts. The following table summarises the indicators selected and (where possible), the calculation of the economic value.
STAKEHOLDERS
OUTCOME
Acquiring a job
Acquiring economic
independence
INDICATORS
VALUE CALCULATION / ECONOMIC
PROXY
Value of monthly salary in payslip:
Value of the monthly
salary
Monthly salary of the people included: 3432 €
Economic value of the monthly number of
hours saved (as a consequence of the training)
by the disadvantaged workers in carrying out
their tasks (2 hours per week per worker, for
32 working weeks):
Disabled workers
Acquiring new skills
Greater work efficiency
thanks to the training
undertaken
INCLUSION IN
SROI
CALCULATION






2.204 €
Economic value of the monthly number of
hours saved by “normal” workers for
supervision of disadvantaged workers (1,5
hours per week per worker, for 32 working
weeks)
2.148 €
DATA
COOLECTION
Training spending
Having the possibility of
planning daily and future
life
Costs undertaken for new
projects
Strengthening relational
capacities
Costs for new social
activities
Contributing to therapy’s
effectiveness
“Normal” workers
National Health Service’s
spending modification
Acquiring a stable job
salary
Acquiring new skills
Increasing additional job
opportunities
Contributing to the
personal/social wellbeing
of disadvantaged people
Participating to a
community project
Costs undertaken for professional training::






Cost of psychiatric checks multiplied by the
number of additional or reduced checks
compared to the period before the work
inclusion activity (2 additional monthly
checks at 140€ each) 2520 €


Cost of additional or reduced Obligatory
Health Treatments (OHT) compared to the
period just before the inclusion activity (30%
reduction in OHTs for a total of 20 days per
year with a daily cost of 300€) 6.000 €








6.000 €
Not planned (as declared by stakeholders in
the interviews)
Not existent (as emerged
stakeholders interviews)
during
the
Value of the monthly salary in payslip
Value of the monthly salary of 2 workers:
5.876 €
Economic proxy not found
32
Contributing to the creation
of new social enterprises
Creating a replicable model
Value of the new
initiatives implemented in
terms of employment
creation
Generating employment
salary
Quality food
Economic value customers
are willing to pay as extra
(compared to the average
cost of a working lunch),
for this outcome
Not yet applicable – the project is still in its
start-up phase
Additional cost percentage (compared to an
average lunch cost of 9€), calculated on the
basis of the answers provided by customers in
the satisfaction questionnaires:
+ 14% of expenditure calculated on 8.200
lunches












€ 10.332
Customers
Healthy and organic food
for this outcome
+ 14,5% of expenditure calculated on 8.200
lunches
€ 10.701
Reducing environmental
impacts
33
for this outcome
+ 14,4% of expenditure calculated on 8.200
lunches
€10.627
Participating to the
development of a social
economy
for this outcome
+ 13,6 % of expenditure calculated on 8.200
lunches










€10.037
Improve the social and
health conditions of
mentally disabled people
Costs for new projects
Costs for new social
activities
National Health Services
Reduction of health costs
Modification of health
expenditure
Non-existent, as emerged from the interview
with the stakeholder
Cost of psychiatric checks multiplied by the
number of additional or reduced checks
compared to the period before the work
inclusion activity 2.520 €
Cost of additional or reduced Obligatory
Health Treatments (OHT) compared to the
period just before the inclusion activity
6.000 €
INPS (National Insurance
Body)
Reduction of social costs
Costs of disability
pensions/benefits
Costs of disability pensions/benefits saved in
9 months
34
6.600 €
New jobs created
Tax revenues
State
Value of the income tax paid according to
payslips
14.500 €
Profits generated
Profits
Profits from sales
89.308 €
35




7- Social Value produced
The value of the outcomes is calculated on the basis of the indicators and of the values and/or
economic proxies identified.
The calculations below are referred to the first 9 months of activity of the “Polpetteria Ciccilla”
only (13 January -30 September 2011).
7.1- Investments (input)
The SROI calculation is based on the necessary investments for the start-up of the activity in the
first year.
In order to assess the investment, it is necessary to take into consideration all funding received by
the project i.e. all inputs which allowed for the generation of all the outcomes already described. In
general terms, in calculating investments, it is necessary to include also all assets as well as
immaterial goods (amortised on the basis of the financing years). However, in the case examined,
investments were all made in short-term goods and assets entirely bought with the financing
received. Those were:
-
Purchasing of raw material
-
Purchasing of various services
-
Passive rental and leases
-
Amortisation
The investments taken into consideration include:
-
Funding received from Cariplo Foundation promoting social enterprises’ innovative projects.
-
Donation from IKEA of the shop’s furniture for a total value of around 5.000 euro
Indicator
Cariplo Foundation funding
IKEA furniture donation
Total costs
Value
€ 50.500
€ 5.000
€ 55.500
7.2 Analysis of the social value created
The analysis of the social value created takes into consideration the value attributed to all economic
proxies indicated in paragraph 6. Moreover, the values are calculated according t the different
degrees of attribution as indicated in the impact Map (paragraph 4).
INDICATOR
VALUE
Workers
Salary of new employees
Tax
Attribution
Total value for workers
Disabled workers
Salary of disabled workers
Reduced income from various benefits
Reduced income from tax payment
New professional training
Time reduction for professional improvement (2
hours per person per week , 32 weeks)
Reduction in the number of supervision hours from
normal workers to improve performance of disabled
workers (1,5 hours per worker per week, 32 weeks )
Attribution
Total value for disabled workers
Customers
Economic value attributed to quality food (extra 14%
compared to an average lunch cost of 9 euro x 8200
lunches)
€ 52.883
-€ 10.500
100%
€ 42.383
€ 30.887
-€ 6.600
-€ 4.000
€ 6.000
€ 2.204
€ 2.148
100%
€ 30.639
€ 10.332
Attribution
Economic value attributed to the welfare gained from
organic food (extra 14,5% compared to an average
lunch cost of 9 euro x 8200 lunches)
30%
€ 10.701
Attribution
Economic value attributed to the reduction of
environmental impacts (14,4% compared to an
average lunch cost of 9 euro x 8200 lunches)
70%
€ 10.627
Attribution
Economic value attributed to the promotion of a
social economy (14,4% compared to an average lunch
cost of 9 euro x 8200 lunches)
90%
€ 10.037
Attribution
Total value for customers
90%
€ 29.188
National Health System (SSN)
Reduction in health costs (-30% OHT 20 days –
300euro per day)
Increase in psychiatric checks (+ 2 monthly checks at
140 euro each)
€ 6.000
-€ 2.520
37
Attribution
Total value for SSN
80%
€ 2.784
INPS (National Insurance Body)
Costs of unemployment benefits
Attribution
Total value for INPS
€ 6.600
100%
€ 6.600
State
Tax
Attribution
Total value for the State
€ 14.500
100%
€ 14.500
Sales
€ 89.308
Total value for Polpetteria Ciccilla
€ 89.308
Overall value for all stakeholders
€ 215.402
8- Social value produced
SROI measures the value created in relation to the costs sustained so as to account for the social
return of the investment made.
SROI =
Value
Input
The “Polpetteria Ciccilla” SROI is:
SROI =
€ 215.402
€ 55.500
=3,88
The calculation demonstrates the overall quality of the “Polpetteria Ciccilla” project: for each euro
of investment, the project manages to almost quadruplicate its value in terms of social outcomes.
In the future the SROI vaue of he project may indeed further improve as a consequence of the
strenghtheining of the activities and the general improvemnet in workers’ conditions.
38
Attachment 2 – Comparative Analysis: Lombardy, Polish and Czech
tools
Comparative analysis
between
Draft sets of indicators for social enterprises and work integration social enterprises (WISE)
Thematic Network for the Development of Social Economy” (TESSEA) – Czech Republic
and
Evaluation of social-economic value of social enterprises
Learning for change Network for a Better Future for Social Economy (BFSE) – Lombardy Region
and
Measuring the social added value produced by social enterprises
Krakow University of Economics – Poland
1- Social and economic context of application
In Italy “social enterprises” are defined by law (L. 118/2005). The act permits various legal forms
of social enterprises: social cooperatives, associations, international cooperation NGOs etc. Social
enterprises must carry on economic activity that would be socially beneficial and of general
interest; it cannot distribute the profit and must have forms of democratic management. Besides
these features, social enterprises have to work in one or more of the following areas: social services,
socio-medical services, health care, education and training, children education, environmental
protection, cultural promotion, university and post-university education, and social tourism. All the
enterprises which have the main purpose of working integration of disadvantage peoples are social
enterprise.
But from the legal definition, the main legal form of social enterprise is “social cooperative”. There
are two possible types of social cooperative:
- Type A: regularly produces and sells social, medical and education services;
- Type B: integrates people with a health or social disability into production, which must be
adapted to the employees’ requirements (at least 30% of the workforce is disadvantaged).
In the Lombardy Region the social economy is well developed, even though there is currently a
strong economic crisis, which concerns all sectors. Social enterprises are quite well structured and
the collaboration between public administrations and social enterprises is well spread and
consolidated.
As regard social evaluation, social enterprises have to carry out social accounting on a yearly basis.
39
Thematic Network for the Development of Social Economy” (TESSEA) - Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, the TESSEA project provided a definition of social enterprise:
A social enterprise is understood to mean a “social-entrepreneurship entity”, i.e. a legal person
established under private law or a part of such legal person or a natural person respecting the
principles of a social enterprise. Social enterprises pursue a publicly beneficial objective that is
formulated in their founding documents. They are formed and developed on the basis of the triple
bottom line concept – economic, social and environmental1.
The situation in the Czech Republic can be summed up as follows2:
- the Czech concept of the social enterprise is broad, with great emphasis placed on
equilibrium between the economic and social goal (business and social mission); good
intentions are not enough: social entrepreneurship is still business as such and this is
perceived as a precondition for a successful enterprise;
- most of the existing social enterprises in the Czech Republic focus on employing
disadvantaged people (these are work integration social enterprises – WISE);
- a number of them have the status of a sheltered workshop, i.e. employ disabled people;
- in addition to the work integration social enterprises mentioned above, there are also social
enterprises in the Czech Republic that provide publicly beneficial services related to social
integration and local development, including ecologically oriented activities and selling fair
trade products;
- non-governmental non-profit organisations (NGOs) carry on social entrepreneurship (or
would like to start) as a secondary activity with a view to using the profits to finance their
principal publicly beneficial activity/their mission.
In the Czech Republic, social economy sector is in development; the social enterprises have to be
supported: the introduction of evaluation systems could be useful to empower the social enterprises’
management as well as the general level of awareness of social economy.
The social economy sector in Poland includes a variety of organisation, some emerging from the
traditional non-governmental sector and others more closely associated with the private sector:
 Over 17% (19,000 organizations out of a total of 60,000) of non-governmental organizations
(NGO’s) take advantage of the possibility of running an income-generating business
activity.
 An estimated 16,000 cooperatives currently function in Poland in a variety of domains
ranging from housing and medical services to consumer cooperatives.
 Over 140 social cooperatives have been founded since the 2006 Polish Act on Social
Cooperatives was adopted.
 Over 50 Social Integration Centres (CIS) have been established based on the 2003 Act on
Social Employment by Polish NGO’s, welfare centres and local governments to provide
1
Daniela Bednáriková & Petra Francová, Study of the Infrastructure of the Social Economy in the Czech Republic,
Nová ekonomika, o.p.s., Prague 2011
2
See above
40
employment for people from socially marginalized groups (especially long-term
unemployed, the homeless, formerly incarcerated individuals).
 50 Employment Activation Units (ZAZ) offer transitional employment specifically to the
physically and mentally disabled with the goal of helping them re-enter the open labour
market.
The social economy in Poland is considered today as an innovative and practical solution to the
problem of unemployment. In fact, social economy institutions offer creative approaches to
maintaining financial self-sufficiency while fulfilling a clearly defined social mission. However
Poland’s social economy sector has yet to develop its potential: in 2005, it accounted for 3.9% of
the labour market in Poland, compared to 8.3% in France, 9% in Ireland, and 7.5% in Finland.3
The economic, social and legislative contexts of the three areas examined are extremely different.
These differences have inevitably influenced the structures of the evaluation tools and will
influence the ways in which they are used and applied.
2- Objectives of the evaluation systems
The primary goal of the system is to provide funding entities, particularly public bodies, with a tool
for evaluating the social value created by social enterprises using parameters that are as objective as
possible. The evaluation process should allow institutions to make informed decisions and better
monitor the use of resources, whether it is funding or work contracts awarding.
The indicator sets can be used first of all for the identification and recognition of “if”, and “to what
extent”, a business can be qualified as a social enterprise. Secondarily, the indicators can help to
describe, measure and communicate the impacts of social enterprises, and thirdly, such an impact
assessment can be potentially used as a decision making tool both for the customers and the
supporters of social enterprises, e.g. within grant application assessments.
In Poland, the social economy is not yet fully recognised as a key economic and social actor.
Therefore, the tool elaborated by the Krakow University of Economics aims at promoting a greater
recognition of the important role played by the social economy in local development. In particular,
the work done by the University provides public authorities with a tool to monitor the results from
the investments in the sector and at the same time, supports social enterprises in demonstrating the
social value they produce.
3
BFSE Baseline Study Annex 1
41
The main goals of the three different tools are slightly different. The Czech system has first of all
the target of increasing the knowledge about social behaviours of social enterprises, of accounting
them and communicating the results. The question is: are you a (good) social enterprise?
The Lombard tool aims to measure the degree of value and good practices realised, among a panel
of social enterprise (e.g. within grant application assessments). The question is: “how much” social
value do you create, compared with other social enterprises?
The Polish tool aims at revealing the social value created by social enterprises by assessing the
internal processes within each organisation. It is important to notice that the tool provides the
possibility of verifying and comparing the aggregated scoring of specific social economy sectors in
different regions. Therefore, similarly to the Czech tool, the Polish tool aims at responding to the
question of: do you (as social enterprise) produce social value?
Perhaps, it is possible to say that the Czech and Polish system mainly aim at “knowing”, while the
Lombardy system mainly aims at “assessing”.
3- Actors involved
The tool is primarily directed to public authorities since it aims at supporting them in decisionmaking processes concerning funding allocation. However, the tool is also directed to social
enterprises themselves since they are the subjects of the evaluation but at the same time could also
benefit from the implementation of a measurement tool as they need to become more aware of the
social value they produce and should be able to develop monitoring, evaluation and accounting
tools to support their own development. Finally, the tool can be directed also to other types of
potential investors (banks, credit institutions but also private financial institutions, foundations etc.)
even though it was not specifically elaborated for them.
The Czech system is mainly designed for social enterprises. Moreover the system identifies a
specific set of indicators for social enterprise which promote working integration (i.e. WISE). In
theory, the Czech tool could also be used as a decision-making tool by customers and supporters or
sponsors of social enterprises. However, at the actual stage of development, this is only a potential
application.
The Polish system is mainly designed for social enterprises. The tool aims in fact at supporting
social enterprises in their development process by favouring self-evaluation. However, the tool also
targets public authorities in two ways: -enhancing their recognition of the role played by social
enterprises –gaining information on how public investments are spent by social enterprises. In fact,
the Polish system can be used by three types of actors: 1-social enterprises can directly use the tool
and see how they score in different dimensions compared to other organisations. Moreover, the
system allows for selecting specific levels (i.e. regional level, sector of activity, size of the
42
organisations etc.) which makes the results more coherent. 2-administrators can access the full set
of data and are able to work out different indicators with the data provided. 3-external users (e.g.
public authorities) are able to access aggregated information (e.g. how a given type of company
scores in a given region). This latter level can be particularly important for public authorities in, for
example, programming funding allocation on a medium and long-term.
Even though the actors are very similar, the different aims of the tools and the different contexts
from which they derive have a specific impact on each actor. In fact, the three tools have to be used
directly by social enterprises (who have to provide all necessary data and information), but the main
users/beneficiaries are different: in Poland and Czech Republic the main users are social enterprises
themselves (they can show the results to their internal and external stakeholders); in the Lombardy
region the main users are Public Authorities and private or public investors (they can direct
financing decisions and choices).
4- Dimensions of analysis
The evaluation system elaborated by the project is made up of two parts. The first part deals with
the evaluation of the social value produced by social enterprises overall while the second part deals
with the assessment of the social value produced by single projects. Moreover, it is important to
notice here that the project has firstly elaborated a “European model” for measuring social added
value. From this wider model, additional work was carried out to create a specific regional tool for
the Lombardy Region (adapted to the regional context and needs). The present comparative analysis
only considers Part I of the regional tool since it is the part mostly comparable with the work
carried out in the other two countries involved in the analysis. Part 1 of the Lombard tool was
designed and built primarily on the experience of social reporting developed at the national and
international levels. The more relevant information and the most common indicators in the field of
social reporting have been selected, in order to present them from an evaluative perspective. In
particular the indicators examined involve the generation and distribution of value, understood as a
resource that is more than just economic. Furthermore, instruments used throughout the world for
evaluating quality and social value, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world, were taken into account
in the analysis.
The system takes into considerations the following dimensions:
- Financial and economic soundness
- Democracy and governance
- Organizational functioning
- Professional resources
- Equal opportunities
- Socio-occupational integration
- Clients
43
-
Networks and partners
Project design and innovation abilities
Environmental sustainability
Services delivered4
Each dimension is made up of a specific number of sub-dimensions which are in turn made up of a
specific set of indicators. The system provides results at the level of indicators, sub-dimensions,
dimensions and overall (i.e. a single score which is comparable to other scores). The subdimensions are not listed here for clarity reasons.
This report provides drafts of two sets of indicators:
1. a set of indicators for social enterprises in general
2. a specific set of indicators for work integration social enterprises
The first set for a general social enterprise (SE) is based on the agreed definition, and above all on
the set of social enterprise principles, as developed and agreed by the TESSEA network. There are
14 principles divided into three areas: social benefits (3 principles), economic benefits (6
principles), and environmental and local benefits (5 principles). In each of these groups, there are
some compulsory principles (written in underlined text), and additional principles (written in
normal).
PRINCIPLES OF
SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE
CHARACTERISTICS
(these are consistent
with the European
concept
of
social
enterprise. The social
enterprise should fulfil
them or aim towards
them.)
1. Social benefit
2. Economic benefit
3.
Environmental
and local benefit
a) Performance of
activities that benefit
society or a specific
group of individuals.
b)
Democratic
decision-making.
c) Established on the
initiative of citizens.
a) Contingent profit is
preferentially used for
the development of the
social
enterprise
and/or for fulfilment
of its public benefit
aims.
b)
Pursuance
of
systematic economic
activity.
c) Bears economic
risks.
a)
Satisfies
preferentially
local
needs and utilises
preferentially
local
resources.
b) Involvement of
important participants
in
the
social
enterprise's activity.
c) Supports a sense of
social accountability
on the local level.
Underlined = required.
4
The indicators proposed in this dimension do not intend to carry out a specific evaluation of the activities developed
or of the outcomes achieved. In fact, such indicators simply intend to provide public investors with an overall outlook
of any organisation’s activity.
44
d) Independent of
public
or
private
institutions.
e) At least a minimal
proportion of paid
work.
f) Can have multiple
sources of financing
d)
Innovative
approach
and
solutions.
e)
Takes
the
environmental aspects
into account.
Similarly to the set of the SE principles, a set of principles for WISEs (i.e. Work Integration Social
Enterprises) was developed, consisting of: social benefits (4 principles), economic benefits (5
principles) and environmental and local benefits (5 principles).
PRINCIPLES
WORK
INTEGRATION
SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE
(WISE)
OF
CHARACTERISTICS
(these are consistent
with the European
concept of social
enterprise. The social
enterprise should fulfil
them or aim towards
them.)
Underlined = required.
1. Social benefit
2. Economic benefit
a) Employment and
social integration of
the disadvantaged on
the labour market
b) Participation of
employees
and
members in strategic
direction
of
the
enterprise
c)
Emphasis
on
development of work
competences
of
disadvantaged
employees
d)
Innovative
approaches
and
solutions
a) Contingent profit is
preferentially used for
the
development of the
social
enterprise
and/or for
fulfilment of its public
benefit aims.
b) Employees are
supported to increase
their
labour
productivity according
to their abilities
c) Independent of
public
or
private
institutions.
d) At least minimum
share of revenues from
sale of products and
services
in
total
revenues
3.
Environmental
and local benefit
a)
Satisfies
preferentially local
needs
b) Priority use of
local resources.
c) Priority satisfaction
of local demand
d)
Takes
the
environmental aspects
into account.
e) Cooperation of the
social enterprise with
significant local actors
45
e) Ability to manage
economic risks
The Polish tool takes into account three main areas of analysis in turn divided into specific
dimensions and sub-dimensions. Each sub/dimension is then made up of a number of indictors. The
three main areas include:
1- Social value added
a. Social inclusion
- Employment
- Investment in Human capital
- Work reintegration
- Social reintegration
b. Social capital
- “Networking”
- Social Activation
c. Local Community
- Local product
- Other services for the local community
2- Social credibility
3- Economic credibility
The system provides a scoring for each sub-dimension but does not provide a global score. This was
done to facilitate and simplify comparison (i.e. enterprises’ scoring can be compared by area of
intervention).
It is quite difficult to compare the dimensions, due to the different starting points and criteria they
are based on.
The Lombard system chose the dimensions after a comparative analysis among the most common
experiences of social reporting and quality analysis in Europe. The Czech and Polish systems start
from a definition of the main characteristics of social enterprises.
The Lombard tool does not have different sets of indicators for SE and WISE: the dimensions and
indicators of analysis are mainly the same. The system takes mainly into account the social
cooperatives (which are the biggest group of social enterprises), and there are not relevant
differences in management between the two types of social cooperatives.
However, there are two different dimensions, regarding the two different types of social enterprises:
- social enterprises which promote job integration (type B social cooperative) have to answer
the questions of the dimension “Socio-occupational integration”
46
-
social enterprises which produce social/cultural/environmental services (type A social
cooperative + others forms of social enterprises) have to answer the questions of the
dimension “Services delivered”.
The Czech dimensions are often more specific and detailed than the Lombard ones.
The Polish tool does not have explicit differentiations between the indicators. Yet, as social
enterprise will only provide answers for indicators that are relevant to their specific activity, only
the relevant dimensions will acquire significance and will have a final scoring.
The following table tries to show the correspondences.
Czech Republic tool
Lombardy Region tool
Performance of activities that Services delivered
benefit society or a specific group
of individuals.
Democratic decision-making.
Democracy and governance
Polish tool
Local Community (local
products)
Established on the initiative of Organizational functioning
citizens.
Not included
Employment
and
social
integration of the disadvantaged
on the labour market
Emphasis on development of
work
competences
of
disadvantaged employees
Innovative
approaches
and
solutions
Socio-occupational integration
Social and work inclusion
(work reintegration)
Socio-occupational integration
Social and work inclusion
(investment in human
capital)
Not included
Contingent profit is preferentially
used for the development of the
social enterprise and/or for
fulfilment of its public benefit
aims.
Pursuance
of
systematic
economic activity.
Not applicable (in Italy it is
obligatory by law)
Bears economic risks.
Organizational functioning
Project design and innovation
abilities
Financial
soundness
and
Not included
Economic credibility
economic Economic credibility
Not included
47
Independent of public or private Financial
and
economic Not included
institutions.
soundness (e.g. indicators on
shares
in
companies)
/
Democracy and governance
(e.g. members of boards of
directors)
At least a minimal proportion of Not
applicable
(social Not included
paid work.
enterprises have almost only
paid work + a small number of
volunteers)
Multiple sources of financing
Financial
and
economic Not included
soundness /clients
Employees are supported to Not included
increase their labour productivity5
Not included
At least minimum share of
revenues from sale of products
and services in total revenues
Satisfies
preferentially local
needs
Financial
and
economic Economic credibility
soundness / Organizational
functioning
Not
included
with
this Local community
characteristic.
Priority use of local resources.
Not included
Involvement
of
important
participants in the social
enterprise's activity.
Supports a sense of social
accountability on the local level.
Organizational functioning / Social capital (networking)
Innovative
solutions.
approach
Not included
Organizational functioning / Not included
and Project design and innovation Not included
abilities
Takes the environmental aspects Environmental sustainability
into account
Not included
5
It is important to highlight that, the Czech dimension on labour productivity has a specific perspective on monitoring
and improving productivity by applying internal procedures to reduce fluctuations. The Lombard and Polish tools do
not take this perspective however they look at the issue of productivity from the point of view of Training (which also
the Czech system does).
48
The Lombard system includes two dimensions which the other two systems do not touch:
professional resources and equal opportunities.
Also the Polish tool includes two dimensions which are not present in the Czech or Lombard (tool)
at least not in the same rationale. The two dimensions are: “working re-integration” and “social reintegration”. The indicators of those two dimensions intend to assess the results obtained by social
enterprises in the implementation of services and activities for their beneficiaries. For example,
indicators in the work-reintegration dimension aim at measuring whether disadvantaged people
involved in social enterprises’ activities have managed to find a job in the open market. This type of
dimension (with this specific rationale) is not contained in the Czech tool. The Lombard tool looks
at work-integration from a different perspective. It tends in fact to assess the work carried out in this
specific field by B-type of cooperatives. These cooperatives do not implement work integration
activities outside their organisational structures (i.e. they tend to employ disadvantaged workers
themselves rather than trying to help them find a job in the open market).
Moreover, even though cooperatives in Lombardy (both type A and B) do implement activities for
the social re-integration of the disadvantaged people they work with, the terms and modalities of
application are so different that the indicators used are not comparable to the Polish ones.
5- Scoring system
The system works out a synthetic score (for each dimension and sub-dimension but also overall)
which allows for a straightforward reading of the results.
The score is calculated through the method of percentiles based on the weighted average number of
responses received from social enterprises through a specific survey. The survey was done, with the
aim of gathering sufficient data to build the calculation and scoring system (i.e. weighted averages).
As far as the calculation system is concerned, it is important to highlight that:
- The scoring system is organised as follows: -1, 0 and +1 scores indicate respectively a
performance that is lower, in line and above regional standards;
- A synthetic score is calculated for each dimension;
- The system also calculates a final synthetic score. To calculate such final score it has been
necessary to identify specific weights for the different dimensions. Currently, the system
provides a relatively higher weight for the economic dimension (i.e. 30%). Moreover, for
type B social enterprises (i.e. those engaging in work inclusion for disadvantaged people),
the dimension concerning work inclusion has been given a 15% weight. All other
dimensions have equal weight towards the determination of the final scoring. This internal
definition may of course be changed depending on specific needs (i.e. context, tender
specifications etc.).
It is important to notice that the dimensions concerning services were not given a score. The
indicators have mainly a descriptive character and aim at providing a general picture of the services
delivered by the social enterprise (i.e. their dimension, the beneficiaries etc.).
49
In the latest version, for each indicator the assessment is 1/0 points. However, the system can be
accommodated to specific preferences/aims of the assessing body, basically in two ways:
1. the range of possible points for some of the indicators can be broadened, e.g. for the WISE
indicator 1a1 (i.e. the share of persons from disadvantaged groups) categories of 30 – 50%
(1point), 50 – 75% (2points), and 75 – 100% (3points) could be established;
2. a weighting system can be introduced, so that some indicators have more weight than
others; e.g. the WISE indicator 1a1, if seen as one of the crucial ones, can be weighted more
(i.e. multiplied by 2, for example) than indicator 1b1, which is also a compulsory one, but
can be seen as less constitutive for the WISE.
The system is based on absolute and relative indicators. As far as the relative indicators are
concerned, the system is built in a way that it can standardise the results by applying the following
formula:
X – minimum value
____________________
maximum value – minimum value
The formula uses the maximum and minimum values obtained for each indicator by the enterprises
involved in the testing and uses them to calculate the scoring of each other enterprise (X in the
formula). This means that the results obtained do not have a regional (or more general) significance
but are related to the specific sample of enterprises that have been involved.
This formula provides a scoring in a 0 to 1 range where 1 is the best score and 0 is the worst. Each
enterprise will have a specific scoring between those two values for each dimension.
The Lombard system aims to have a final score (for each dimension and an overall one) to allow for
a ranking of regional social enterprises.
The Czech system aims to see the compliance to some criteria:
o Social enterprises. Compulsory indicators: maximum score achievable: 14, minimum
required: 14. Additional indicators: maximum achievable: 24, minimum required: 8
o Work integration social enterprises: Compulsory indicators: maximum score
achievable: 26, minimum required: 26. Additional indicators: maximum achievable:
15, minimum required: 0
The Polish system aims at providing a final score for each dimension. Such score is produced by
assessing each enterprise performance to the performance of other enterprises using the tool.
50
Therefore the differences in the scoring systems are justified.
An important aspect in this context is also represented by the scoring assessment. The European
tool elaborated by the BSFE project proposes two different options. The scoring of each social
enterprise can be assessed by comparing it either to some standardised average values (calculated
depending on the specific context (e.g. regional, national etc.) or to some fixed benchmarked values
(thresholds). Both options have their positive and negative aspects. Standardised averages can
reduce the significance of the results and may not represent a stimulating challenge for social
enterprises to improve themselves. Fixed benchmarks are very risky (in the sense that they may be
too difficult to be established and therefore too arbitrary) but they may indeed (if calculated
correctly) represent a push for improvement for social enterprises.
The Lombardy and Polish tool have implemented the first option (i.e. standardised averages) even
though with different characteristics: the Lombard tool has established regional averages (which
may and should indeed be revised from time to time) while the Polish tool uses the data derived
directly from the survey (and therefore tends to change its reference value more often than the
Lombard one).
The Czech tool has not been tested yet. However, in the study produced, experts seem to be inclined
to apply the second option (i.e. thresholds).
In the model of the Lombardy region it was decided to use the first options for a two main reasons:
- it was not possible, because of time constraints, to involve all relevant stakeholders to define
thresholds (who?, how many?);
- there was a lack of sufficient theoretical assumptions or reliable databases.
Yet, the system elaborated allows (where necessary) to continuously update the calculation system
so that it will always reflect the actual developments of the sector. Moreover, the social enterprises
themselves can assess their own performances against those of other enterprises. Therefore, once
the system will be well tested and used, it will hopefully be possible to identify reliable and
significant thresholds so that also the second option will be applicable.
In conclusion, it is important to notice that the calculation of weights and the rating model cannot
be established as universally valid. The reference values are in fact very strongly influenced by the
specific social and economic context.
Hence, it will be the responsibility of each Public Authority involved in the elaboration of a model
calculation to adapt such model to the specific context and specific evaluation needs. The use of
weighting system could be useful for this purpose.
51
6- Sets of indicators
Numeric indicators are always indexes. On the other hand, qualitative indicators are presented as
logical indicators, with closed questions requiring the answer 'yes' or 'no'.
There are many reasons for this choice: simplifying the collection and analysis of data; facilitating
comparison and making it possible to build a concise index for each area of evaluation.
However, there are exceptions concerning the specific indicators for services supplied where there
is room for a description of the services themselves.
As regard economic indicators, the annual consolidated financial statement is required and it is then
reclassified to provide standard economic and financial indicators (i.e. ROI, ROS etc.).
In the Lombard system there are no core or additional indicators, even if this possibility is present
in the European model.
The first 10 dimensions count 80 indicators, while the dimension “Services delivered” counts 223
indicators (each social enterprise has to answer only to indicators referred to the delivered services).
Both sets of indicators follow the same logical structuring based on two types of indicators:
1. compulsory indicators: all of them have to be fulfilled for any business to be qualified as a
social enterprise;
2. additional indicators all of them are recommended but not required, they outline the
direction in which the SE/WISE can develop its operation in accordance with the principles.
Social enterprises’ set of indicators counts 48 indicators, while Working integration social
enterprises’ set counts 41 indicators.
Usually, for each principle there is a combination of a declaratory-type indicators (e.g. declaration
of a specific social aim in the founding deed of the organisation), and a practical/output/outcomeoriented indicator (e.g. documents evidencing the required stakeholders’ involvement in specified
decision-making processes). In the current version, all the indicators are formulated so that the
simple answer YES/NO for each indicator is possible.
The Polish system is currently made up of around 34 indictors divided into the different dimensions
and sub-dimension (plus one extra indicator not included in any of the dimensions and which aims
at assessing the potential social credibility of each participating organisation). The indicators are
absolute or relative. In the latter case, they are represented by indexes (calculated with the formula
already mentioned). It is important to highlight here that the Polish system is rather flexible and that
the indicators that are currently identified by the system are not fixed. The set of indicators is in fact
elaborated by the Polish system on the basis of a large questionnaire asking numerous quantitative
and qualitative questions to social enterprises. Indicators are then elaborated by the system
administrators by combining the answers and data provided through the questionnaire. This makes
the Polish tool highly flexible particularly from the perspective of public authorities who, by acting
52
though the system administrator can extract specific information concerning social enterprises in
Poland.
The definition of the indicators is quite different in the three systems: in the Czech tool most of the
indicators are rather general and have wide meanings (“declaratory-type” indicators) –even though
there are also some outcome-oriented indicators as well; in the Lombard tool indicators are very
specific; in the Polish tool, the indicators are very specific as well but they are less fixed than in the
Lombard case (i.e. the Lombardy tool allows for specific selections of indicators but does not allow
for the elaboration of new and additional indicators like the Polish tool). These differences derive
essentially from the fact that the Lombard tool aims to calculate a score for ranking the social
enterprises in relation to the regional average: the system has to be as clear and objective as
possible. For the same reason the Lombard system includes a high number of indexes: indexes
permit to have numeric and detailed data which are comparable among different social enterprises.
The Polish system is also based on indexes (but on absolute data as well) but it does not aim at
ranking social enterprises in relation to regional averages.
Czech indicators are linked to the request of existence of documents (generally mandatory annex).
This is not the case for the Lombard and Polish tools: the evidence of documents is not requested, at
least at the first stage.
The following tables show the differences in the definition of indicators. The comparison is made
between the Lombardy and the other two tools on specific and most representative dimensions.
6.1- THE LOMBARDY AND CZECH TOOLS
Dimension: Democracy
CZECH SYSTEM INDICATORS
Definition
Indicator
Documents
regular and systematic
informing
staff
and
members
on
SE's
operations,
economic
results and implementation
of socially beneficial aims
beyond scope of the final
report
systematic collection of
feedback regarding SE
operations from employees
and/or members
LOMBARD SYSTEM INDICATORS
/
Indicator
Definition
binding internal rules +
minutes of meetings/public
discussions, newsletter for
employees etc., mandatory
annex
Social base composition
Salary costs for members
______________________
Salary costs for workers
binding internal rules with
a specified part defining
feedback
collection
method + example of
collected
feedback,
mandatory annex
Member turnover in the
last 3 years
Incoming members in year
n-2 + incoming members
n-1 + incoming members
in year n
Total membership year n
53
Outgoing members in year
n-2 + outgoing members in
year n-1 + outgoing
members year n
Total membership in year
n
participation
rate
for
employees'/members'
participation in decisionmaking (according to
subjective statements)
involvement in elaboration
of business plan basic data
and business operations
direction
qualitative
research
results of methodologically
tenable interviews with
employees, upon request
Member participation in
meetings
Average no. of members
attending
the
official
meetings
Total members
minutes of meetings, upon
request
Composition of the Board
of Directors by type of
member
No. of members by type
Total directors
(Indicate presence of nonmembers, if any)
Operability of the Board of
Directors
No. of meetings of the
Board of Directors in last
year
Average no. of directors
who participate in Board
Meetings per year
Total Board Meetings in a
year
Participation
Directors
Dimension: Working integration
CZECH SYSTEM INDICATORS
Definition
Indicator
Documents
share of persons from
disadvantaged
groups
(PDG) higher than 30% of
the
Limitations on number of
terms of office
Existence of a limit on the
number/frequency
of
elections for directors
Inspection bodies
Existence of inspection and
instructional organizations
Working groups and inhouse commissions
Existence of committees /
working
groups
and
description (composition,
meetings, results)
/
0 - 100% (share - number
of
employees
from
disadvantaged groups /
of
Indicator
Definition
Job placement cases of
persons from disadvantage
groups
Total job placements
Total workers
54
employees
specification of target
groups
of
relevant
activities
diversity
management
(explicitly
stipulated
management
procedures
taking in account specific
needs of target groups)
total
number
of
employees),
allowed
persons - employees with
equivalent of a standard
employment contract of
least 0.3
YES - NO for the groups:
* disabled persons *
children
and
youth,
particularly
from
communities endangered
by
social
pathology
phenomena * ethnic and
nationality minorities *
foreigners
* homeless
persons * persons leaving
special
treatment
institutions or prisons *
victims of crime * persons
taking care for a relative *
persons
with
drug
addiction
experience
(groups
according
to
HREOP) * other groups
(their urgent needs must be
evidenced)
binding internal rules with
a specified part defining
diversity
management,
mandatory annex
Result of recruitment
No. of cases with positive
outcomes throughout the
year
Total no. of recruits during
the year
Divided
by
type
(recruitment, job grants,
internships, etc.)
Abandonment
of
placement process
job
No. of abandonment cases
(not agreed) throughout the
year
Total no. of cases in
employed during the year
Divided by type (hiring,
job grants, internships,
etc.)
specific
documents
proving that at least 1/2 of
disadvantaged employees
undergo
educational
courses, trainings etc.
(including
provable
internal
trainings)
supporting their working
competences
accounting
documents
and/or acknowledgements,
certifications received etc.
to prove completion of
courses, internal training
course with an attendance
list, mandatory annex
Recruitment
No. of referrals in the year
No. of recruits
Cases
handled
in
collaboration with other
institutional services
No. of cases managed with
other institutional services
Total cases
Specialized
professional
figure who mediates and
Is there a professional
55
facilitates job placement
Placement tutor
Existence of formalized
procedures for placement
and assistance for people
in job placement process
Skills evaluation
facilitates job placement?
(Yes / No)
Is a tutor identified for
each job placement? (Yes /
No)
Are
there
formal
procedures for placing and
assisting people in the job
placement process? (Yes /
No)
Has a skills evaluation plan
been drafted? (Yes / No)
Training people in the job
placement process
Is specific training given to
people
in
the
job
No)
Active job search
Is the person assisted in
his/her search for and
evaluation
of
job
proposals? (Yes / No)
Procedures for monitoring
placement
Are there procedures for
monitoring job placement
and the achievement of
objectives? (Yes / No)
6.2- THE LOMBARDY AND POLISH TOOLS
Dimensions: Working integration (Lombard Tool) – Employment and Investment in human
capital (Polish tool)
POLISH SYSTEM INDICATORS6
Indicator
Definition
Indicator
Definition
number
of
people
belonging to the risk group
employed
in
the
organization at the end of
n-year on the basis of
employment and civil
contracts
6
Job placement cases of
persons from disadvantage
groups
Total job placements
Total workers
The Polish system does not have a distinction between the indicator and its operational definition.
56
number of workers
belonging to risk groups
employed in the
organization who have
found employment in the
open job market
Result of recruitment
No. of cases with positive
outcomes throughout the
year
Total no. of recruits during
the year
Divided
by
type
(recruitment, job grants,
internships, etc.)
number of workers
who have found
employment in the open
job market
___________________
number of workers
who left the organization
voluntarily or because job
cuts in n-year
Abandonment
of
placement process
number of workers
employed in the
organization at the end of
n-year on the basis of
employment contract
(excluding subsidized
employment)
Number of employees
belonging to the risky
group involved in training
courses organized by the
organization
number of employees
Recruitment
No. of referrals in the year
No. of recruits
Cases
handled
in
collaboration with other
institutional services
No. of cases managed with
other institutional services
Total cases
Number of employees
belonging to the risky
group learning in
secondary schools or
colleges
number of employees
Specialized
professional
facilitates job placement
Is there a professional
facilitates job placement?
(Yes / No)
Placement tutor
Is a tutor identified for
each job placement? (Yes /
No)
Existence
Are
job
No. of abandonment cases
(not agreed) throughout the
year
Total no. of cases in
employed during the year
Divided by type (hiring,
job grants, internships,
etc.)
of formalized
there
formal
57
procedures for placement
and assistance for people
in job placement process
Skills evaluation
Dimension: Networks and partnerships
POLISH SYSTEM INDICATORS7
Indicator
Definition
7
procedures for placing and
assisting people in the job
No)
Has a skills evaluation plan
been drafted? (Yes / No)
Training people in the job
placement process
Is specific training given to
people
in
the
job
No)
Active job search
Is the person assisted in
his/her search for and
evaluation
of
job
proposals? (Yes / No)
Procedures for monitoring
placement
Are there procedures for
monitoring job placement
and the achievement of
objectives? (Yes / No)
Indicator
Definition
The number of partnership
initiatives in which the
organization was involved
in 2010
Number of entities with
whom the organization
cooperated in 2010
Analysis of key
stakeholders
Are the key stakeholders of
the organization identified
and analyzed? (Yes/No)
Consultation and
communication
Are meetings and
consultations held with the
stakeholders? (Yes / No)
organizations' networking
(1 point for each partner)
Projects or activities in
partnership
Does the cooperative carry
out projects or activities in
partnership with other
players? (Yes / No)
Membership in employers'
associations or trade
associations
Does the cooperative
belong to employers
associations or trade
associations? (Yes / No)
Participation in employers'
associations trade
Does the cooperative
actively participate in
The Polish system does not have a distinction between the indicator and its operational definition.
58
associations
employers' associations or
trade associations? (Yes /
No)
Non-economic
collaborative relationships
with local institutions
Does the cooperative come
to the negotiating tables,
conferences or the like
locally? (Yes / No)
Sponsorship of local
initiatives
Has the cooperative
sponsored local initiatives
promoted by other
organizations? (Yes / No)
Donations
Has the cooperative made
donations for projects to
promote social,
environmental or other
types of projects? (Yes /
No)
7- Conclusions
The three systems all want to evaluate the social value produced by social enterprises. The
dimensions of analysis included are quite similar: it means that there is quite a good correspondence
in the meaning of “social enterprise” and “social value”. However, as the economic, social and
legislative contexts of the three countries examined are very different, the structure and
characteristics of the three tools are inevitably also very different.
The first important difference concerns the context of application and the main goals of the tools.
The main goals are slightly different. The Czech and Polish systems have first of all the aim of
increasing knowledge (and therefore the recognition) in relation to the performances of social
enterprises. An important aim of the two tools is also the communication of the results. The
Lombard tool aims to measure the degree of social value produces by social enterprises. As a
consequence of these differences in terms of goals, there are also differences in relation to the main
users: in the Czech and Polish tools the main users are the social enterprises themselves, while in
the Lombardy one they are the Public authorities and/or the investors.
While the dimensions of analysis are rather similar for the three tools (they do tend to coincide in
numerous areas), this does not seem to be the case for the indicators used within each dimension.
Both the formulation and calculation of indicators are extremely different. The Czech system uses
rather general indicators (eve though not in all cases) whose definition is implemented mainly
through the acquisition of documents. Also, the Czech indicators mainly require a YES/NO answer.
The Polish system is based on rather defined indicators characterised by different features (i.e.
numeric indicators, indexes, logical YES/NO indicators). The Lombard system (similarly to the
59
Polish one), is based on well defined indicators even though it excludes numeric indicators which
do not allow for comparisons -it only includes indexes and logical YES/NO indicators).
The identification and definition of indicators mainly depends on the socio-economic context of
application, the general objectives that need to be attained and on the calculation systems used in
the different tools. Also in this area the differences are striking even though some similarities can be
found between the Polish and Lombard systems since they both include calculations systems based
on average values applied to the different dimensions. On the contrary, the Czech system includes
minimum benchmark values which assess and verify the application of specific and identified
principles by the enterprise and therefore the attainment of adequate social results.
It is not possible to provide a general and overall evaluation concerning the adequacy or efficacy of
the three tools. The basic elements of the tools (context, objectives, actors etc.) are so different that
it is impossible to say whether one tool is better than the other. A further specific analysis could
(once the three tools are well tested and experimented), only specify whether the structure of the
dimensions, the indicators and calculation systems are indeed adequate to the different contexts and
knowledge objectives in the three countries. However, the usefulness of this type of comparative
activity is very strong in terms of providing new idea, perspectives and tools which can improve the
work done in each country.
60
Attachment 3 – Bibliography
Publications
AAVV; The blended value Map, 2003, London, www.blendedvalue.org
AAVV, Linee guida per la costruzione di bilanci sociali, in «Fuori Orario 27e28», 2001
Agenzia per le organizzazioni non lucrative di utilità sociale e ALTIS (a cura di), Linee guida per la
redazione del bilancio sociale delle organizzazioni non profit, Milano, 2009
Alberani A., Camanzi P,, Masi M., Cooperative sociali e indici di bilancio. Breve analisi
economica e patrimoniale di un campione di cooperative sociali aderenti a Legacoop Bologna,
CCIAA e Legacoop Bologna, 2001
S. Barbè, D. Gatti, G. Maino, Rappresentazioni e metafore. Criticità e opportunità nei processi
d’uso, in “Prospettive Sociali e Sanitarie”, n. 10-11, giugno 2005
Bernardoni A. (a cura di), Imprese cooperative sociali, Maggioli, Rimini, 2008
Bertin G., Azione, decisione, Valutazione, in “Impresa Sociale”, luglio-settembre 2005
Bezzi C., Il disegno della ricerca valutativa, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2003
Bicciato F. (a cura di), Finanza etica e impresa sociale. I valori come fattori competitivi, Il Mulino,
Bologna, 2000.
CCIAA e Formaper, Responsabilità sociale nelle piccole imprese, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano, 2003
De Sadre I., Valutare e comunicare: sfide per ogni soggetto pubblico, in “Animazione sociale”, n.1,
1996
Donati P., Il mercato di qualità sociale come ambiente e come prodotto dell’economia civile, in
“Impresa Sociale” n. 71-72, 2003.
Fazzi L., Le implicazioni della valutazione per lo sviluppo dell’impresa sociale, in “Impresa
Sociale”, luglio-settembre 2005
Fazzi L. e Giorgetti G (A cura di), Il bilancio sociale per le organizzazioni non profit, Guerini e
Associati, Milano 2005
GBS , Principi di redazione del Bilancio Sociale, 2001, www.gruppobilanciosociale.org
61
Gray R., Owen D., Adams C., Accounting and accountability. Changes and challenges in corporate
social and environmental reporting, Prentice Hall, 1996
Hinna L., Come gestire la responsabilità sociale dell'impresa. Manuale pratico-operativo.
Processi, strumenti e modelli. La redazione del bilancio sociale, Il Sole 24 Ore Pirola, 2005
Legacoop, Confcooperative, AGCI, Manuale pratico per il bilancio sociale delle cooperative,
opuscolo realizzato a cura di CEREF, IRECOOP, ASSOFORR, 1995
Maino G, Papetti L., Finanza In. Migliorare l’accesso al credito e microcredito, Milano, 2007
NEF (a cura di), Measuring value: a guide to Social Return On Investment (SROI), 2008,
www.neweconomics.org
Palumbo M., Il processo di valutazione. Decidere, programmare, valutare, FrancoAngeli, Milano,
2001
Quaglia S., Verso il bilancio sociale, Equal ISONEW, Gorizia, 2008
Rusconi G., Il bilancio sociale. Economia, etica e responsabilità dell'impresa, Ediesse, 2006
Scriven, M. Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1991.
Stame N., Tre approcci principali alla valutazione: distinguere e combinare, in Palumbo M. Il
processo di valutazione, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2001
Websites
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative)
www.globalreporting.org
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a network-based organization that has pioneered the
development of the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting framework and is committed
to its continuous improvement and application worldwide.
ISEA (Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability)
www.accountability.org.uk
London Institute, made by 400 members of different countries and organisations. In 1999 has
developed the standard AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000)
International Organization of Standardization
www.iso.org
International Organization, made up of 163 members. It develops International standards for
business, Government e society
62
SA8000
www.sa8000.info
SA8000 is a global social accountability standard for decent working conditions, developed and
overseen by Social Accountability International (SAI)
European Business Network for Social Cohesion (ESNSC),
www.csreurope.org
Network of organisations to improbe end spread social accounting; you can find researches,
guidelines and a database of social reports.
Euro coop
www.eurocoop.org/publications/fr/memos/bilansocial.asp
European Community of Consumers Cooperatives (based in Brussels). It has been involved in a
research on social audit for social enterprises (cooperatives)
Social Audit Network
www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk
Social Audit Network Limited promotes the use of Social Accounting and Audit as an accessible
tool to prove the value of activities carried out by organisations in the social economy. The process
is a valuable planning tool enabling an organisation to improve its future performance.
NEF (the New Economics Foundation)
www.neweconomics.org
Organisation of training consultancy and research. Nef has produced documents and research on
SROI, as well as a giude (free downloads on website).
UK SROI Network
www.sroi-uk.org
Membership-based organisation for SROI practitioners and those interested in measuring value.
European SROI Network
www.sroi-europe.org
The European counterpart to the UK network
London Business School Online SROI Primer
http://sroi.london.edu
Developed in collaboration with nef, the online primer includes interviews with practitioners and
trainers.
Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF)
www.redf.org
REDF developed the original SROI model.
63

5. A model for measuring social added value

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Office of the Third Sector (OTS)

Aree di valutazione del valore sociale ed economico

OLGA SLIPA, M.A. Economists, politicians and business repre

Social Enterprise Legislation in Finland

Paper 3301- Functional Polish

List - ang - Wykluczeni Opiekunowie

advantages of collaborative approach in customer service