Aree di valutazione del valore sociale ed economico

Transkrypt

LEARNING FOR CHANGE
NETWORK FOR A BETTER FUTURE OF SOCIAL ECONOMY
EVALUATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUE OF
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
EUROPEAN TOOL
The Network for better future of Social Economy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
1.
EVALUATING SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
EVALUATION: HOW, WHEN, WHY ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
MEANINGS OF EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 3
THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIELD AND THE REASONS FOR EVALUATION .............................................................. 4
REPORTING AND EVALUATION .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.
A PROPOSAL OF AREAS OF ANALYSIS AND INDICATORS FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND
PROJECTS IN THE SOCIAL SECTOR ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 SCORING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 BENEFICIARIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 WORK PHASES AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 9
2.4.1
Evaluation of social value produced by social enterprises ......................................................................... 9
2.4.2
Evaluation of social value produced in projects: calculation of the SROI ............................................... 12
2.4.3
MODULARITY OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM AND APPLICATION CRITERIA ...................................................... 16
PART II
3.
THE EVALUATION SYSTEM
EVALUATION OF SOCIAL VALUE PRODUCED BY SOCIAL ENTERPRISES ..................................... 17
3.1 FINANCIAL-ECONOMIC SOLIDITY......................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1
Asset Management .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.2
Economic management ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.3
Internal confidence ................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1
Social structure ......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.2
Governing bodies: composition and functioning ...................................................................................... 20
3.3 ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONING ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.4 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.4.1
Paid staff ................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.4.2
Volunteer staff ........................................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY .......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 SOCIO-OCCUPATIONAL INTEGRATION ................................................................................................................. 27
3.6.1
Effectiveness of job placement .................................................................................................................. 27
3.6.2
Quality of job placements ......................................................................................................................... 28
3.7 CLIENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 29
3.8 NETWORKS AND PARTNERSHIPS: RELATIONAL CAPITAL ...................................................................................... 30
3.9 PLANNING AND INNOVATION............................................................................................................................... 31
3.10
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................ 31
3.11
SERVICES DELIVERED ..................................................................................................................................... 33
3.11.1
Services dimension ............................................................................................................................... 33
3.11.2
Specific characteristics of services’ types ............................................................................................ 34
3.11.3
Users’ quality perception ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.
EVALUATION OF SOCIAL VALUE OF PROJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS: CALCULATION OF
THE SROI ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
WORK PHASE 1: IDENTIFICATION OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SROI AND OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ........................ 37
WORK PHASE 2: IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 38
WORK PHASE 3: IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS, ECONOMIC VALUES AND PROXIES.......................................... 40
WORK PHASE 4: DEFINITION OF THE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 42
WORK PHASE 3: CALCULATING THE SROI .......................................................................................................... 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
2
PART I
EVALUATING SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
1. Evaluation: how, when, why
1.1
Meanings of evaluation
The concept of evaluation assumes different nuances and meanings both in literature and in the way
it is practiced and used. Depending on the points of view, occasions and practices, in making or
speaking about an evaluation, the accent is placed on different issues and categories to distinguish,
for example, the objects (public policy, businesses, interventions, services), methods (qualitative or
quantitative), approaches (objective or subjective, analysis of goals/results or goal-free research),
modus operandi (assertive, participated or participative), evaluation times (ex ante, in itinere, or ex
post).
According to the well-known definition by Scriven, "evaluation refers to the process of determining
the merit, worth or value of something or the product of that process" (1991). In this definition, we
can say that value is the broader term corresponding to 'valore' (intended also in the economic
sense), while merit refers to the intrinsic value and worth refers to the general value in relation to
needs (effectiveness).
Nicoletta Stamen proposes another definition of evaluation that underscores the significance of
analysing all the results (including the unplanned and the "soft" or indirect results). This definition
encompasses the idea of how evaluation implies a comprehensive judgment of the positive and
negative effects of an action or intervention: “evaluate means to analyse whether an action that has
been taken for a purpose corresponding to a collective interest has achieved the desired or other
effects, and to make a judgment on the variance that normally occurs, in order to propose changes,
if needed, that take into account the potentialities revealed”.
In any case it can be said that evaluation has to do with learning for the purpose of improving the
conditions needed for making a decision. Often the factor that triggers the evaluation is the need to
make a decision (Bettin), but the evaluation is always a process aimed at creating a judgment,
starting with the production of new knowledge, and therefore meaning.
The idea of evaluation as production of meaning is particularly attracting. In our social context,
characterised by the crisis and breaking of cultural and ethical codes, focusing on the production of
meaning and making value judgments means dealing with a plurality of logics and viewpoints often
in conflict with each other, and because of this the "centre of the evaluation moves, multiplies and
decentralises" (De Sadre). There is no longer "the evaluation", but there are various evaluations,
experienced and articulated differently, and these are often unable to dialog with each other. The
challenge of evaluation therefore becomes that of building meaning based on the value judgments
expressed by various stakeholders, thus connecting to the issue of participatory evaluation practices.
3
1.2
The stakeholders in the field and the reasons for evaluation
The reasons that lead to evaluation activate different learning processes depending on the context
and dynamics that exist at the organisational, local and national levels.
Considering the social sphere, which is primarily the subject of our discussion, the transformations
occurring in the national and international welfare system have promoted a strong goad to
evaluation. In a context of recession and scarce resources, improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of decisions and, as a result, of actions taken by institutions and social enterprises
becomes an essential issue.
There are three main reasons for the introduction of evaluation practices in the public
administration (Fazzi):
 the desire and need of public bodies to play a greater role in directing and guiding the
implementation of policies and intervention programs;
 the need to contain the costs of social policies and services and to streamline spending, as
well as the need to justify choices and investments on the basis of the results achieved;
 the need to introduce elements for guaranteeing equal treatment in the social sector, in
which private entities deliver services in different ways and with controls over services of
public utility.
The forces that move the public administration therefore lead to a vision of evaluation that makes it
possible to measure performance, efficiency and cost of services in a way that ensures
comparability and objectivity.
Social enterprises also show the need to monitor performance and curb costs in order to improve
organisational processes and management. However, through the 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. The raison d’être of a social enterprise is to create in the
"market space" goods and services with a significant relational value (Donati). The meaning of
relationships and the modus operandi affect not only a single service, because of the relationship
established between provider and beneficiaries of the intervention; the production of social and
relational value affects all spheres of the organisational action, from the internal democratic process
to the well-being of workers, from the networks connecting with the territory to the focus on
environmental issues. Based on these assumptions, evaluation can be traced only partially to
standardised outlines; it is more a matter of building evaluation systems aimed at recognising
relevant issues and impacts on the environment, listening to the reasoning and points of view of
stakeholders – all of this builds new visions and perspectives.
The following table summarises what has been expressed so far, representing the different views
that the public administration and the social enterprise have in terms of systems for evaluating the
social enterprise.
4
Goals
Public Administration
Social enterprise
-
-
System governance
Management control
Objectivity and comparability of
choices
-
Management control
Quality
Social legitimacy and
affirmation of identity
Learning
Strengthening of relationships
Qualitative and economic
criteria defined ex ante and ex
post
Prevalent criteria
-
Economic quantitative criteria
defined ex ante
Open questions
-
Definition of output and
performance standards
Measurement of production
factors and results in economic
dimensions
Simplicity in the application to
ensure homogeneous
distribution
-
Definition of output and
performance standards
Finding quality criteria
Measurement of outcomes
Stakeholder engagement
-
Under the government control
-
Negotiated
-
Provider of services on behalf of
the public entity
-
Organisation that provides
distinctive services in an
effective and efficient way
-
-
Procedures for determining
evaluation models
Type of social enterprise
promoted
Adapted from Fazzi L., Le implicazioni della valutazione per lo sviluppo dell’impresa sociale [The
implications of the evaluation for the development of the social enterprise], in “Impresa Sociale” ,
July-September 2005
The differences in perspectives highlighted here can obstruct the dissemination and application of
the evaluation systems. If it is true that evaluation leads to sharing and learning, consequently
acquiring generative functions (APS), then we need to allow the comparison and sharing between
the two actors of the evaluation process being investigated in this work.
It is not a matter of allowing one need to prevail over another, but to find ways and means to allow
the public body and the social enterprise to apply evaluation systems that make it possible to build
meaning and express "value" assessments.
1.3 Reporting and evaluation
The evaluation systems presented in this paper are based significantly on the social reporting
experiences that have become so widespread in Italy and Europe in the last twenty years.
The first reason is the fact that, in the context of "measuring" social enterprises, social reporting
offers a vast pool of empirical experiences and theoretical models from which to derive hypotheses
and tools that are difficult to find elsewhere. Secondly, we believe that evaluation and reporting are
closely linked by a common thread which, however sometimes blurs the boundaries between these
two practices (and these boundaries are real).
Palumbo (2001) proposes a distinction between evaluation and evaluation research, and also
between reporting and reporting process. This difference has value on a conceptual and
methodological level. While evaluation and reporting can be done without necessarily having a base
5
of scientific research, the evaluation and reporting processes are conducted according to specific
methodologies. It is not within the scope of this paper to argue that the two processes, evaluation
and reporting, overlap each other. They refer to different fields and subjects (basically policies,
programs and projects on the one hand and organisations on the other hand), although they share
certain characteristics of social research, such as repeatability, transparency, controllability (ibid.).
Based on this distinction, it can be affirmed that one of the goals of evaluation research is
accountability, and one of the functions of social reporting processes is the evaluative one: this
creates a process of circular relationship (Barbé, Gatti, Maino, 2005). Social reporting is a tool that
makes the stakeholders able to express an evaluation about their organisation; at the same time, the
identification of indicators is the result of a social evaluation that expresses value judgments
regarding the weights and measures considered meaningful.
The link between evaluation and reporting is clear even if we connect evaluation to the issue of
communication, referring to a representation of evaluation as a communication process, as pointed
out by Bertin and Porchia (2000):"the purpose of evaluation is to assign value to the action carried
out and successfully communicate this value to others". From this it arises the idea of evaluation as
a process of search for meaning, i.e. a pluralistic process of meaning construction that allows room
for discrepancies and different points of view. However, the value of this process ultimately lies in
the ability to translate itself into communication, to reach those who are outside the context and the
group involved in its process of construction. In this perspective, the social statement is for all
intents and purposes an evaluative tool, at least insofar as it is the result of participated processes
that give a voice to the complexity of the points of view involved, producing meaningful
communicative results.
2. A proposal of areas of analysis and indicators for social
enterprises and projects in the social sector
2.1 Scoring system
The goal of the evaluation model presented here is to measure the social value produced by a social
enterprise as a whole or a specific project undertaken by it.
The EU initiatives undertaken (EQUAL in particular) financed by the last award of European funds
promoted and developed many tools with the merit of having analysed social enterprises in different
countries and having identified indicators and evaluation methods. Nevertheless they are often
complex systems, difficult to implement on a large scale and strictly dependent on the voluntary
and informed application by the social enterprises.
The primary goal of the system presented in this paper is to give funding entities, particularly public
bodies, 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 awarding work contracts.
Therefore, a fundamental characteristic of the evaluation system is its schematic nature and its
applicability on a large scale thanks to public and private financial investments. The intent is to
create a light and lean instrument that does not further "complicate" administrative work but rather
becomes as integrated as possible with other organisational procedures.
6
2.2Beneficiaries
The project is aimed at social enterprises and their associations, at public institutions, financial
institutions and providers, both public and private, as well as banks.
The beneficiaries are more than just the target of application of the instrument – they are active
partners of the network and involved in the participated process created to set up and implement the
evaluation system.
Public bodies: public bodies play a key role in the process of evaluating services and monitoring
and evaluating allocated funds. Their job is to monitor and verify the results and socialenvironmental impacts produced by the allocated funds.
Associations of social enterprises: The associations of social enterprises are responsible for
ensuring the quality of their enterprises and making them even more competitive in order to develop
their entrepreneurial skills.
Banks and financial institutions: not only public bodies grant loans but also credit institutions
that, according to the new BASEL II rules, can also evaluate enterprises according to their social
performance. At present, however, they are still using purely economic systems with little attention
to social aspects. It is therefore vital for social enterprises to involve them so they can integrate the
banking rules with socio-economic analysis systems.
Private providers (e.g. foundations): foundations for territorial social policies have become
interesting providers of financing. Involving these players could be interesting in light of the
changes taking place in the sphere of welfare.
2.3Work phases and methodology
The research outline is based on two principles: the importance of the experience aspect and the
participatory approach.
On the one hand the work entails collecting as many experiences as possible on local, national and
international levels regarding the evaluation of social enterprises or other organisations working in
the social and third sector. On the other hand, care is taken to involve all stakeholders: project
partners, players who in the future will use the evaluation tool, but also social enterprises that will
be the object of evaluation.
The involvement in and attention to the experience should lead to the implementation of a tool that
is as close as possible to the actual needs of the players involved and actually applicable to/in the
everyday life of organisations.
To build the evaluation system, the following work phases have already been created:
1. Co-design with project partners: two main meetings of all partner have been organised in
Warsaw (29-30 march 2010 and 15-16 march 2011). During the first meeting (march 2010)
it was agreed that the strand should work to create a tool for evaluating the social value
produced by social enterprises by using two main instruments: social statement and the
SROI – Social Return on Investment. The second meeting was dedicated to the assessment
of the first draft tool to identify strengths and weaknesses and find solutions for further
improvement.
7
2. Survey of documents and site-bibliography: to identify sensitive areas and aspects to be
considered, approaches and models for quality and social responsibility were examined. The
survey focused mainly on materials produced in Italy and in the Anglo-Saxon world.
3. Examination of the guidelines used in social statements: in order to identify relevant
information and baskets of meaningful indicators, the key guidelines for social, national and
international reporting were examined. The objective was to identify the factors most
frequently used to account for the social value and utility produced.
4. In-depth questionnaire aimed at project partners: the project partners were asked to answer
a questionnaire to deepen the knowledge about the local situation in terms of the methods of
allocating public funds, social reporting and evaluation systems already in use, as well as the
potentialities and limits of implementing a tool to evaluate the social value of the social
enterprise.
5. Focus group with relevant stakeholders: a focus group was set up with certain stakeholders
deemed most relevant for defining an evaluation system. In particular, representatives of the
Lombardy Region, the Co-op Centres representatives, and Finlombarda representatives were
invited. During the focus group meetings, the following dimensions of analysis were
validated: financial and economic stability, the democratic process and governance,
organisational functioning, professional resources, equal opportunities, social-occupational
integration, clients, networks and partnerships, planning and innovation.
6. Interviews with relevant stakeholders: the following interviews were carried out:
 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
7. Meeting with SROI expert from UK: during the meeting with Mr. Jeremy Nicholls from the
SROI Network held on March 1st the application of SROI into the measurement model
elaborated by the project was discussed and improved.
The work phases described above made it possible to plan this first hypothesis for an evaluation
tool.
The continuation of the project will allow us to analyse, test and validate the instrument to make it
adhere as closely as possible to the realities of those subjects involved in the project. This will be
done through a further phase of the project (i.e. Pilot Projects). In this context, the first step will be
the better definition and application of the first part of the evaluation model. This will be done by
8
firstly identifying the key indicators (both compulsory and voluntary) and then identifying a system
of weights to establish the relative scoring of each area of analysis. Such scoring system will
necessarily be different in different countries. The creation of a specific scoring system, together
with the adaptation and experimentation/testing of the tool in each country, will be the subject of
pilot projects. Each partner involved in pilot projects will hence be responsible for the identification
of a specific weighting system and the implementation of the tool testing in their own country.
As far as the application of the tool in Italy (through a specific pilot project) is concerned, the
choices made in terms weighting systems will be analysed, assessed and validated with the
involvement of the organisations of social cooperatives (together with other relevant stakeholders).
Hence, within the Italian pilot project, the first part of the evaluation tool will be applied to an
adequate number of social enterprises within the Lombardy Region. This application will allow for
the identification of values which will be used to calculate a weighted average. Such weighted
average will be in turn used as main reference within the weighting system.
In the final phase of the work, the Italian tool (first and second part), will be applied and tested so as
to be able to verify the actual functioning of the tool. The results from this final testing phase will
be used to introduce final modifications to the model (if necessary) and this to guarantee the
applicability and usability of the tool by public and private investors in the evaluation of social
enterprises.
2.4 Structure of the evaluation system
The evaluation system consists of two parts, which can be used separately, depending on the needs
of the institutional user.
The first evaluation system is designed to "measure" the social value produced by the social
enterprise as a whole, while the second system is intended for evaluating single projects and
interventions.
Below we have presented an outline of the predominant characteristics of the two systems. We will
provide their analytical presentation in the second part of this paper.
2.4.1
Evaluation of social value produced by social enterprises
The evaluation system was designed and built primarily on the experience of social reporting
developed at the national and international levels.
We then sought to verify the more relevant information and the most common indicators in the field
of social reporting in order to re-interpret them and 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: on the one hand this resource supports and develops social
enterprises and on the other hand it improves the living conditions of an entire society or a part of it.
Furthermore, we analysed instruments used throughout the world for evaluating quality and social
value, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world. These instruments enabled us to focus better to
improve our way of evaluating all the aspects, tangible but more importantly intangible, that make
social enterprises a value added to society.
9
The questions which represented the initial basis of the evaluation tool were: are social enterprises
sensible entities? Are there specific duties for which they are normally responsible? How do they
implement their social dimension? How to they exchange resources and relations with the context
they operate in? How do they respond to their stakeholders? Which elements could provide
indications concerning sensible and sustainable behaviours?
Positive answers to the above questions could show whether and how social enterprises have
adopted virtuous and conscious behavior, essential for the creation of a real social added value
within their own territorial context.
The ultimate goal of the instrument presented is to evaluate the overall social and economic value
produced by organisations; the two dimensions being surveyed should be considered highly
interconnected because they are enterprises active on the market and also bearers of cooperativebased values.
In the identification of the different evaluation dimensions and of the specific indicators, specific
principles have been taken into consideration. Such principles relate to both evaluation and
financial reporting processes (e.g. guidelines for the social reporting elaborated by international
organisations such as the Environment Programme of the UN, NEF, the Council on Economic
Priorities, and the World Resources Institute). Such principles have been adapted to the specific
context of the tool that the BFSE project wants to create both in terms of the subject of the tool (i.e.
social enterprises) and in terms of aims (i.e. ex-ante evaluation for the allocation of public funding):
Connection: analysis of elements which could be attributed directly to the social enterprise (and not
related to law obligations, imposition from an external authority or technological change).
Completeness: requests for information concerning the different areas of action and intervention of
the social enterprise presenting a complete picture (triple bottom line) are requested.
Significance and relevance: this is a principle characterizing financial reporting which needs to be
adequately translated into social reporting. In this case, the relevance of an issue of an event needs
to be evaluated on the basis of two main factors: 1-the importance given to the different areas of
analysis by the different stakeholders involved (i.e. Public Administrations and social enterprises);
2-the nature, scale and size of the elements involved (i.e. amount of funding involved, size of the
social enterprise, relevance of the project etc.)
Applicability: the evaluation tool and the results from its implementation need to be understandable
by a sizeable range of stakeholders
Comparability: the results obtained from the implementation of the tool need to be comparable
Credibility: the information is reliable and credible only when it is unbiased and error-free. It will
hence be the responsibility of the social enterprise and/or Public Administration to provide/request
documentation concerning the reliability of data.
Verification: Data and information (or at least the process of implementation and the compliance
with the basic principles of the evaluation system) will need to be verified by a third independent
party. Currently, the issue of verification concerning the tool is still open: there are difficulties
related to costs and timing as well as to a lack (in several countries) of professionals accredited to
this end.
Eleven organisational dimensions are analysed:
1. Financial and economic stability
2. Democratic process and governance
3. Organisational functioning
10
4. Professional resources
5. Equal opportunities
6. Social-workplace integration
7. Clients
8. Networks and partnerships
9. Planning and innovation
10. Environmental sustainability
11. Services delivered
The last dimension (i.e. services delivered), is characterised by specific synthetic indicators which
should be used for a first analysis of the activity of any given organisation. It should be underlined
that 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 doings. Further in-depth analysis
(also connected to the specific type of funding involved) could be requested to support and widen
the synthetic information provided by the tool.
These dimensions have sub-dimensions, and different indicators are identified for each subdimension. The purpose of dividing into dimensions and sub-dimensions is to ensure the modularity
of the evaluation system, so it can be used even only partially for specific evaluation needs that may
arise from time to time.
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: to simplify the collection and analysis of data; to facilitate
comparison and make it possible to build a concise index for each area of evaluation. However,
there are exceptions concerning specific indicators for services supplied where there is room for a
description of the services themselves. For each indicator there is a specification of whether it is a
Core (C) or Added (A) indicator.
The first part of the evaluation tool could be applied at different levels depending on the specific
context, the size of the financing involved and the size of the organization. This is done to guarantee
an adequate flexibility in the application of the tool in different situations.
The following table presents an illustrative outline of the filling-in possibilities based on the size of
the funding.
Low
Size of the public funding
Medium
High
Implementation and
compliance with principles
Yes
Yes
Yes
Response to indicators
Core indicators only
Core indicators and a few
voluntary indicators
All indicators (core and
voluntary)
No
Optional (where regarded
as significant)
Yes, on the basis of
parameters and indicators
provided by the public
authority
Submission of additional
material in attachment
11
Of course, the size of the public funding does not represent the only possible criteria to calibrate the
levels and modalities of the filling-in. there are other variables which could be considered such as
the assessment of the number of social enterprises submitting an application, the strategic value of
the funding, the characteristics of the funding itself (in consideration of the organization or of
specific projects), the evaluation methods of the results from the funding and other many different
aspects.
Regarding the scoring model and calculation methods, a relative weight will be given to the
various dimensions of the analysis in order to ensure the efficacy and compliance of the evaluation
system.
Scores will need to be determined for each index. The objective is to achieve an overall score for
each dimension and sub-dimension in order to build a dashboard for instant reading.
There are two possible criteria:
1. through the method of percentiles based on the weighted average number of responses
received from the various enterprises
2. through the indication of thresholds and default values to determine the awarding of points
(e.g. disadvantaged workers are 30-40% of the total number of employees = 0 points;
disadvantaged workers are more than 40% of employees = 1 point).
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 to elaborate a calculation
model adapted to the specific context and specific evaluation needs.
2.4.2 Evaluation of social value produced in projects: calculation of the SROI
In addition to evaluating an organisation as a whole, we also need to promote evaluation systems
for single projects or interventions. Often the funds granted by public agencies are subordinate to
the quality of the projects submitted.
When seeking funding, it is essential to evaluate the business plan in order to analyse the actual
economic and financial sustainability of the project.
The business plan, however, does not account for the social value and effects an intervention can
create. In fact, investment costs being equal, there can be different social impacts, each having a
different degree of importance, much like cases where a “riskier” investment may be preferred
because of the positive impacts expected.
We propose an evaluation of the social value of projects and interventions by calculating the SROI Social Return on Investment.
SROI is an analytic tool developed recently in the United States for measuring and accounting for
the social, economic and environmental impact created by organisations. This approach aims to
reveal the value of changes experienced by stakeholders whether those changes have been priced in
market transaction or not and helps identify which changes are significant. It uses financial proxies
to help reveal the value and as part of the process of deciding which changes are significant.
12
Economic factors play an important role, but there are other important factors in the calculation
system: a key factor is analysis of the social partners and the social area of reference. SROI is about
value, rather than money. Money is a common and useful unit, widely accepted to convey value.
Thanks to funding from the Cabinet Office, a consortium led by SROI Network prepared a new
Guide to SROI. The SROI Network is an international membership body supporting the consistent
use and development of SROI.
The SROI model used in the tool is the one presented in the following publication: “A Guide to
Social Return on Investment” – Cabinet Office, Office for the Third Sector.
The approach used is based on the application of a few basic principles within a specific framework
and a specific work process.
1- Involve stakeholders:
Stakeholders are those people or organisations that experience change as a result of the activity and
they will be best placed to describe the change. This principle means that stakeholders need to be
identified and then involved in consultation throughout the analysis, in order that the value, and the
way that it is measured, is informed by those affected by or who affect the activity.
2- Understand what changes:
Articulate how change is created and evaluate this through evidence gathered, recognising positive
and negative changes as well as those that are intended and unintended. Value is created for or by
different stakeholders as a result of different types of change; changes that the stakeholders intend
and do not intend, as well as changes that are positive and negative. This principle requires the
theory of how these changes are created to be stated and supported by evidence. These changes are
the outcomes of the activity, made possible by the contributions of stakeholders, and often thought
of as social, economic or environmental outcomes. It is these outcomes that should be measured in
order to provide evidence that the change has taken place.
3- Value the things that matter:
Many outcomes are not traded in markets and as a result their value is not recognised. Financial
proxies should be used in order to recognise the value of these outcomes and to give a voice to
those excluded from markets but who are affected by activities. This will influence the existing
balance of power between different stakeholders.
4- Only include what is relevant and appropriate:
This principle is taken from financial reporting and hence it needs to be adequately translated into
the social sphere. The relevance of an activity or of a change will depend from the organisation, its
nature, scale and size; from law provisions and policies; from short-term financial impacts.
Relevance will also depend from the enterprise and its stakeholders: they are the actors who identify
what is relevant (and hence should be the subjects of the evaluation) so as to provide a reasonable
picture of the impacts produced.
5- Do not over-claim:
Only claim the value that organisations are responsible for creating. This principle requires
reference to trends and benchmarks to help assess the change caused by the activity, as opposed to
other factors, and to take account of what would have happened anyway. It also requires
13
consideration of the contribution of other people or organisations to the reported outcomes in order
to match the contributions to the outcomes.
6- Be transparent:
This principle requires that each decision relating to stakeholders, outcomes, indicators and
benchmarks; the sources and methods of information collection; the difference scenarios considered
and the communication of the results to stakeholders, should be explained and documented. This
will include an account of how those responsible for the activity will change the activity as a result
of the analysis.
7- Verify the result:
Although an SROI analysis provides the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the
value being created by an activity, it inevitably involves subjectivity. Appropriate independent
assurance is required to help stakeholders assess whether or not the decisions made by those
responsible for the analysis were reasonable.
The SROI Network has elaborated a model which can be applied to any type of organization: small
or big; recently founded or well established, belonging to the public third or private and profit
sector. Moreover, there are two types of SROI which can be applied. The first has evaluation
characteristics and aims at the ex post monitoring of the changes produced. The second has
provisional characteristics and aims at estimating the social value which could be produces by an
activity or a service.
The main target of the BFSE Project (Better Future for the Social Economy) in terms of utilization
of the tool elaborated is the Public Administration in its function of investor and sponsor of
activities carried out by social enterprises (through a number of financial tool at national regional
and European level –e.g. the European Social Fund). Hence, the project intends to provide Public
Administrations with adequate system to carry out an evaluation (mostly ex-ante) in relation to the
social value which an activity or a social enterprise could generate if supported financially.
On the basis of this specific context and to allow for the application of SROI to the largest possible
number of organizations in the process of applying for public funding, the application of the abovementioned principles can be applied at different degrees and levels.
The following table presents an illustrative outline (based on the size of the funding earmarked), of
the possible ways in which such principles could be applied. A specific note needs to be made
concerning the last principle i.e. assurance from a third independent party. In fact, in several
European countries there is a lack of independent bodies (as for example the SROI Network in the
UK), expert on such specific themes. Moreover, there are significant costs connected to training (of
the experts, of public officials etc.) and also connected to social enterprises (particularly if such
costs are compared to the size of the funding accessible. Hence, assurance is a principle which
might not be always applicable. However, it is important to think about such principle and consider
all possible ways and degree of implementation. The following paragraphs will provide suggestions
on a number of possible ways of application.
14
Low
Involve stakeholders
Identify the key
stakeholders
Size of the public funding
Medium
Identify the key
stakeholders and promote
some consultation
processes
High
Identify and involve the
largest possible number of
stakeholders
Identify inputs, outputs and
outcomes
Identify inputs, outputs and
outcomes distinguishing
between forecasted and
non-forecasted changes
(map of impact)
Value the things that matter
Identify indicators and
financial proxies in
connection with the most
significant changes
financial proxies
financial proxies
Only include what is
relevant and appropriate
Make an informed guess on
the basis of the most
significant stakeholders.
Make an informed guess
and verify with selected
stakeholders specific issues
and/or the overall validity
of the hypothesis made
Identify all relevant
information starting from
the Map of Indicators and
through a cross-check with
the stakeholders.
Do not over-claim
Take into consideration
and make a first evaluation
of the following 3 factors:
- What would happen
(in terms of outcome)
if the activity would
not be implemented
(deadweight)?
- How far the outcome
analysed is caused by
other factors
(attribution)?
- How much does the
benefit decreases
throughout the years
(drop off)?
Attempting a financial and
percentage calculation of
the already-described 3
factors
Starting from the
involvement of relevant
and interested stakeholders,
make an attempt for a
financial and percentage
calculation of the alreadydescribed 3 factors
Understand what changes
Be transparent
Verify the result *
Identify the most important
changes connected to the
key stakeholders
Explain the procedures
used to identify
stakeholders, outcomes and
indicators and the
procedures used to gather
information
Carry out an internal
evaluation concerning the
appropriateness of the
process (concerning the
application of the
principles) and the
truthfulness of the data
Request an independent
assurance from a third
party concerning the
process.
Explain and prove
(providing specific
documentation) the
procedures used to:
-identify stakeholders,
outcomes and indicators
and benchmarks; -the
procedures used to gather
information. And describe
the scenarios taken into
consideration
Request an independent
assurance from a third
party concerning the
process
Carry out an internal
evaluation concerning the
Promote the introduction of
evaluation systems
concerning the process
with procedures taken from
Explain the procedures
used to: -identify
stakeholders, outcomes and
indicators and benchmarks;
-the procedures used to
gather information. And
describe the scenarios
taken into consideration
15
process and the
“peer reviews” systems. If
truthfulness of the data and possible, carry out ex-post
request an opinion from
questionnaires/interviews
one or several stakeholders with stakeholders*
considered particularly
significant*
* Proposals for assurance procedures when there are no independent third parties that could verify the process and/or
the data
Even though (as already mentioned) SROI could be applied to whole organizations, the evaluation
tool proposed here applies SROI mainly to projects, interventions or services for which funding are
requested. Of course, in case of small, single-activities social enterprises, such project, intervention
or service may coincide with the overall enterprise.
SROI can be applied with a forecasting function –in case of new services or start-up enterprises- or
with an evaluation function –in case of existing projects for which funding is requested. It is also
possible to have intermediate situations, for example for already-tested interventions for which a
strengthening and development is planned through the utilization of funding.
2.4.3 Modularity of the evaluation system and application criteria
The evaluation model presented here is characterized by a rather complex framework having the
main objective of taking into account the largest numbers of possible dimensions concerning social
enterprises, their quality and social responsibility, as well as the interventions implemented and the
impacts produced. On the one hand, by applying the whole model, investors (public or private)
would gain an overall picture of the social value and the impacts produced by any given social
enterprise. On the other hand, to allow for an smoother application, the measurement model
proposed is characterized by a high degree of flexibility, enabling the adaptation of the model itself
to specific national, regional or local contexts. This means that the overall model requires a careful
consideration and application of the principles described above, however, at the same time, it allows
for the identification and application of specific components at specific levels. Hence, the model
drafted by the project provides public administrations (or private investors) with a “toolkit” from
which, each authority or body can choose those technical tools that are most suited for specific
economic contexts as well as specific application fields or the specific social enterprises’ types.
The system modularity intends to promote the implementation and utilization of social added value
evaluation tools particularly by public authorities both in case of funding and tender allocation. It is
possible to envisage a gradual modularity where, by implementing progressive steps, within a
longer time frame, might bring, eventually, to the full application of the model.
Yet, the modularity of the evaluation system proposed and the discretion left to investors in its
application, need to be seen within the larger, overall system. This means that each specific
application will need to follow a number of criteria such as:
- Considering the evaluation system as a unitary system;
- Respecting the general application system;
- Motivating the choices made (in case of a partial application of the system);
- Working towards a gradual implementation of the full system;
- Promoting the dissemination of the system (also through training activities) both with social
enterprises and those bodies responsible for evaluation.
16
PART II
THE EVALUATION SYSTEM
3. Evaluation of social value produced by social enterprises
Below we present a proposal for areas of analysis and indicators for evaluating the socio-economic
value of enterprises and projects in the social sector.
The outline is divided into eleven areas: economic and financial stability, democratic process and
governance, organizational functioning, professional resources, equal opportunities, sociooccupational integration, clients, networks and partnerships, planning and innovation,
environmental sustainability, services delivered. Some areas have been divided into more specific
dimensions, e.g. "Economic and financial stability" has been divided into three dimensions: asset
management, economic management, internal confidence. "Democratic process and governance"
has been divided into two specific dimensions: social structure and governance bodies.
"Professional resources" has been divided into two dimensions: paid staff and volunteers. Finally,
with the 11th dimension (i.e. services delivered), each organization will need to identify the subdimensions that are relevant to the actual activity carried out.
3.1Financial-economic solidity
The purpose of this area is to measure and evaluate the economic and financial viability of projects
and social enterprises in terms of asset management, economic management, investment in the
organization and confidence in the business project.
3.1.1 Asset Management
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Securities or real estate
allocated to pursue the
mission
DEFINITION
€ securities + € real estate
allocated for the mission
total € Securities + real estate
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Using the assets to achieve the
mission
Long-term goals of
investment management
Existence of goals (Yes / No)
Acquisition of factors to
ascertain the type
Risk assessment
Existence of risk assessment
plans (Yes / No)
Acquisition of factors to
ascertain the risk
Indication of market value
of the real estate
Real estate turned into source of
income as of 31/12/n
Ascertaining profitability of
asset management
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
17
C/A
Real Estate turned into source of
income as of 31/12/N-1
Net return on securities
Value of securities as of 31/12/n
Value of securities as of 1/1/n
Evaluating the performance of
securities
Interests
Does the enterprise have interests
in other organizations? (Yes /
No)
Sizing of the enterprise
3.1.2
Economic management
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
Economic balance
Total costs
Total proceeds
Economic solidity
Financial solidity
Total interest expense
Total financial proceeds
Financial solidity
Index of administrative and
support management costs
Total administrative and support
management costs
Total costs
Origin and specific weight
of sources of revenue and
operative proceeds,
distinguishing at least
between charitable
donations, agreements and
contracts, projects
€ contracts
total revenues
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
Efficiency of administration and
overall management
Sustainability / independence
€ contracts
Total revenues
€ projects
Total revenues
€ charitable donations
Total revenues
3.1.3
Internal confidence
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Capital
DEFINITION
€ capital
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Solidity
total asset value
Members’ loan
€ Members’ loan
Investment in the cooperative
18
Supporting members
total loans (total debt)
€ capital of supporting members
Confidence / Independence
total capital
Supporting members
Existence of funding from
supporting members for specific
projects (Yes / No)
Confidence
19
3.2Democratic process and governance
The composition and evolution of the social structure and the functioning of the governance bodies
of a social enterprise are important factors for evaluating an organization.
The "social structure" dimension serves to analyze the composition of the social base and the
turnover of members (incoming members and outgoing members) in the last three years.
A high turnover indicates there are problems within the organization being examined.
The purpose of the "governance bodies" dimension is to measure the participation of members and
directors in the life of the social enterprise. Lack of participation and inadequate democratic process
requires further analysis to highlight the issues and their causes.
3.2.1
Social structure
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Social base composition
DEFINITION
No. of members for each
category
Total members
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
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
Knowing the composition
Evaluating the trend of the social
structure
Outgoing members in year n-2 +
outgoing members in year n-1 +
outgoing members year n
Total membership in year n
3.2.2
Governing bodies: composition and functioning
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
Participation in the
cooperative
No. of members
Total employees
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Participation
Member participation in
meetings
Average no. of members
attending the meetings
Total members
democratic process
Composition of the Board
of Directors by type of
No. of members by type
Total directors
composition
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
20
C/A
member
Operability of the Board of
Directors
(Indicate presence of nonmembers, if any)
No. of meetings of the Board of
Directors
No. of months per year
Average no. of directors who
participate in Board Meetings
per year
Total Board Meetings in a year
operability
Limitations on number of
terms of office
Existence of a limit on the
number/frequency of elections
for directors
Stasis of governing
bodies/turnover
Inspection bodies
Existence of inspection and
instructional organizations
Verification of audits
Working groups and inhouse commissions
Existence of committees /
working groups and description
(composition, meetings, results)
Participation of members and
workers in the governance of the
cooperative
Participation of the
Directors
Participation
21
3.3Organizational functioning
Indicators are proposed to evaluate the efficiency of an organization, particularly with regard to
internal systems for monitoring (economically and otherwise), evaluating and social reporting.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Existence of a multi-year
strategic plan
Do the directors draft a multiannual strategic plan? (Yes / No)
Predictive power
Drafting a budget
Do the directors draft a budget?
(Yes / No)
Predictive power
Drafting of budgets for cost
centers / services
Do the directors or department
heads draft budgets for the
cost/service centers? (Yes / No)
Predictive power
Performance evaluation
Do the directors or department
heads evaluate performance?
(Yes / No)
Evaluation of trend and services
Codes of conduct / ethics
charters
Have codes of conduct / ethics
charters been adopted? (Yes /
No)
Social Responsibility
Drafting and
communicating the social
budget
Are financial statements
prepared and communicated to
internal and external
stakeholders? (Yes / No)
Social Responsibility
Quality systems
Has the quality system been
adopted? (Yes / No)
Organizational quality
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
22
C/A
3.4 Professional resources
Professional resources represent an important area for any organization. The "paid staff" dimension
includes several indicators that aim at measuring: the capacity of the enterprise to retain and
motivate its staff, the attention of the organization to its workers through promotion, training and
analysis of the climate and well-being of the organization.
For the purpose of analyzing professional resources, it is important to have volunteer members as
people who voluntarily and without remuneration believe in the enterprise project and invest their
free time and energies in it.
3.4.1
Paid staff
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Turnover
DEFINITION
No. of workers recruited in year
Total workers
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
Enterprise's ability to retain
employees
No. of workers who left in year
Total workers
Project-contract staff
No. of employees with project
contract
Total no. of employees
Incidence of project-contract
staff on total no. of employees
Applying reward systems
Are reward systems applied?
(Yes / No)
Attention to staff and reward
system
Existence of labor disputes
Did any litigation occur during
the year? (Yes / No)
Degree of conflict between
workers and coop
Existence of a training plan
Is a training plan carried out
every year? (Yes / No)
Attention to training
Training of staff in
positions of responsibility
(directors, coordinators,
etc.)
No. of hours for training staff in
No. of hours worked by staff in
Incidence of training staff in
Training of personnel with
operational functions
No. of hours training personnel
with operational functions
No. of hours operational staff has
worked
Incidence of training staff in
Existence of organizational
well-being surveys
Are surveys conducted on
organizational well-being? (Yes /
No)
Attention to the well-being of
employees and conflict
resolution
Existence of activities /
Are activities or initiatives
Verify actions for
23
C/A
initiatives to foster
motivation or involvement
3.4.2
promoted to foster motivation
and a sense of belonging among
workers? (Yes / No)
Volunteer staff
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Active volunteers
getting employees involved
DEFINITION
No. of volunteer members + no.
of volunteers doing steady work
Total no. of employees
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
Presence of volunteers
24
C/A
3.5 Equal opportunity
The area of "equal opportunity" makes it possible to analyze how open the organization is to
appreciate differences as a resource for the enterprise project. The differences may include: gender,
age, geographical and cultural backgrounds and disabilities.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Existence of specific
policies to promote equal
opportunities (e.g. facilities
for women with young
children, respect for
religious beliefs, etc.).
Female staff with positions
of responsibility
Are there are specific policies to
promote equal opportunities?
(Yes / No)
Attention to equal opportunities
No. of women in positions of
responsibility
Total employees in positions of
responsibility
Equal opportunities for men and
women
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
No. of women in positions of
responsibility
Total women
Employees under 40 in
No. of persons under 40 in
Total employees in positions of
responsibility
Equal opportunities across the
generations
No. of persons under 40 in
Total no. of employees under 40
Foreign staff in positions of
responsibility
No. of foreign employees in
Total no. of employees in
Equal opportunities by country
of origin
No. of foreigners in positions of
responsibility
Total no. of foreign employees
Employees in job placement
program (certified and in
accordance with EEC
regulations) in positions of
responsibility
No. of people in job placement
program with positions of
responsibility
Total no. of employees in
Equal opportunities for job
integration
No. of people in job placement
program with positions of
responsibility
Total employees in job
25
C/A
placement program
policies to promote equal
opportunities (e.g. facilities
for women with young
children, respect for
religious beliefs, etc.).
Are there specific policies to
promote equal opportunities?
(Yes / No)
Attention to equal opportunities
26
3.6 Socio-occupational integration
This area defines, measures and evaluates the objectives and policies of the social enterprise
regarding the routes toward and processes of social inclusion and socio-occupational integration.
The quality of the job placement process is an essential factor for social enterprises to conduct
evaluations.
3.6.1
Effectiveness of job placement
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Job placement cases of
persons from disavantage
groups
Result of recruitment
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Total job placements
Total workers
Incidence of job placements on
total employees (also by type)
No. of cases with positive
outcomes throughout the year
Total no. of recruits during the
year
Index of positive outcomes of
recruitment
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
Divided by type (recruitment, job
grants, internships, etc.)
Abandonment of job
placement process
No. of abandonment cases (not
agreed) throughout the year
Total no. of cases in employed?
during the year
Index of positive outcomes of
recruitment
Divided by type (hiring, job
grants, internships, etc.)
Recruitment
Transfer of referrals
Cases handled in
collaboration with other
institutional services
No. of referrals in the year
No. of recruits
No. of referrals sent to other
services throughout the year
Total cases reported
Index of capacity to respond to
requests
Ability to network and provide a
multi-dimensional response to a
person's needs
No. of cases managed with other
institutional services
Total cases
27
C/A
3.6.2
Quality of job placements
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Specialized professional
figure who mediates and
facilitates job placement
Placement tutor
Is there a professional figure who
mediates and facilitates job
placement? (Yes / No)
Is a tutor identified for each job
placement? (Yes / No)
Job placement quality
Existence of formalized
procedures for placement
and assistance for people in
job placement process
Skills evaluation
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)
Job placement quality
Training people in the job
placement process
Is specific training given to
people in the job placement
process? (Yes / 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)
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
28
C/A
3.7 Clients
The client area serves to analyze the ability of the social enterprise to retain and satisfy clients and
the resulting capacity of the organization to comprehend market changes by developing strategies
and targeted response plans.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Specify at least three
stakeholders (in aggregate)
who contribute most to making
up total proceeds and income,
indicating the
aggregate value of each
Client confidence
Three of the main sources of
total revenues in euro (aggregate)
Total revenues
No. of clients who have
repeatedly requested services to
the cooperative over the last
three years
total clients in the last three years
Client retention and satisfaction
capacity
Market research and forecasts
of the reference sector
Are market research or revision
analyses carried out on trends in
the reference sector? (Yes / No)
Ability to make forecasts and
devise strategies
Client Satisfaction Survey
Are there structured means for
measuring client satisfaction?
Focus on clients and on quality
RELATIVE
SCORE
AND / OR
WEIGHT
Sustainability / independence
Specific to each user
29
C/A
3.8 Networks and partnerships: relational capital
This area serves to highlight the organization's ability to represent itself as a player in a network of
stakeholders. Specifically, we want to measure the existence of formalized collaborative
relationships and the organization's ability to work in a network with others and come out of a
position of isolation.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Analysis of key stakeholders
Are the key stakeholders of the
organization identified and
analyzed? (Yes/No)
Attention to reference
stakeholders
Consultation and
communication
Are meetings and consultations
held with the stakeholders? (Yes
/ No)
Attention to reference
stakeholders
Projects or activities in
partnership
Does the cooperative carry out
projects or activities in
partnership with other players?
(Yes / No)
Ability to work in a network
Membership in employers'
associations or trade
associations
Does the cooperative belong to
employers associations or trade
associations? (Yes / No)
Existence of relations with
employers' associations or trade
associations
Participation in employers'
associations trade associations
Does the cooperative actively
participate in employers'
associations or trade
associations? (Yes / No)
Degree of relationship with
employers’ associations or trade
associations
Non-economic collaborative
relationships with local
institutions
Does the cooperative come to the
negotiating tables, conferences or
the like locally? (Yes / No)
Participation in social,
economic, environmental and
development policies
Sponsorship of local initiatives
Has the cooperative sponsored
local initiatives promoted by
other organizations? (Yes / No)
Relations with the local
community
Donations
Has the cooperative made
donations for projects to promote
social, environmental or other
types of projects? (Yes / No)
Solidarity and social
responsibility
RELATIVE
SCORE AND
/ OR
WEIGHT
30
C/A
3.9 Planning and innovation
Planning capacity and investment in innovation are two key factors in the evaluation of an
enterprise in terms of ability to remain on the market, and the quality of the product or services and
their conformity to the demand.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Human resources for
innovation and planning
Is there a department or are there
specific resources dedicated to
innovation and projects? (Yes /
No)
Investment
Economic resources for
innovation and planning
Over the past three years were
specific economic resources
dedicated to innovation? (Yes /
No)
Investment
Innovation of product or
service
Over the past three years were
innovations made to the product
or service? (Yes / No)
Technological innovation
Over the past three years have
investments been made in
innovation and technological
upgrades? (Yes/No)
Capacity to adapt to
technological innovations
Collaborations with research
institutions / universities
Over the past three years has
there been any collaboration with
research institutions, universities
or other entities for innovation?
(Yes / No)
Network capacity
Projects carried out
No. of innovative projects
carried out over the past 3 years
No. of innovative projects
developed / submitted in the past
3 years
Planning capacity
Size of projects carried out
Resources dedicated to projects
in the last 3 years
Total production worth in the last
three years
Scale of project activity
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
3.10 Environmental sustainability
The level of attention to the environment represents a key element in the overall sustainability of an
organisation. This section intends to monitors the overall ability of social enterprises in elaborating
31
C/A
policies concerning environmental quality as well as the attention they give to specific factors such
as resources consumption, energy and consumption and waste production.
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Existence of environmental
sustainability strategies
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE
OBJECTIVE
Has the organisation elaborated
policies or strategies in relation
to environmental sustainability?
(yes/no)
Has the organisation joined
environmental sustainability
initiatives (e.g. Global
Compact) or environmental
standards (e.g. ISO14000)?
(yes/no)
% of the expenses borne to
reduce the environmental
impact of the organisation
Objectives and policies for
environmental sustainability
Utilisation of recycled
material
% in terms of costs, of the
products used by the
organisation that are derived
from recycled material
Attention to the utilisation of
raw material
Investment in the Energy
sector
Are there investments made in
the last three years to increase
energy savings and improve
equipment and systems
efficiency? (yes/no)
Were specific initiatives
undertaken to be able to
provide clients with products or
services that are Energy
efficient? (yes/no)
Attention towards Energy
efficiency within its own
productive processes
the last three years to reduce
water consumption? (yes/no)
the last three years to reduce
waste production and impact?
(yes/no)
Number and financial value of
the fines and sanctions received
because of non-compliance
with laws or regulations
concerning environmental
policies
Attention to water
consumption
Joining of International
initiatives or standards
Economic investment in the
field of environmental
sustainability
Innovation within the Energy
sector
Interventions to reduce water
consumption
Intervention to reduce waste
Value of the sanctions
received in the environmental
field
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
Actions for the reduction and
verification of environmental
impacts
Financial resources dedicated
to the environment
Attention towards Energy
efficiency of products and
services supplied
Attention towards waste
production and management
Compliance with laws and
regulations
32
3.11 Services delivered
The overall analysis concerning any given social cooperative can be completed through the
collection of information regarding the services it delivers. The primary objective will be to provide
a general and comprehensive outlook of the services and projects managed by the organisation. It is
important to highlight that an accurate evaluation of the outcomes and impacts produced by single
projects will require the utilization of the SROI analysis, as described in previous sections.
Therefore, this section only suggests selected indicators which could support investors in an overall
evaluation of a social enterprise.
The following key areas could be analysed:
1. Services dimension
2. Specific characteristics of each service’s type
3. Users’ quality perception
3.11.1
Services dimension
This area of analysis intends to provide information concerning the overall dimension of the
services of a given social cooperative in both economic and human capital terms (i.e. beneficiaries,
social workers etc.). Topics of interest could be: the number and size of the services or interventions
delivered, the number of employees, the number of beneficiaries involved. In this context it is
important to underlined that, in order to obtain comparable information, data should be collected
and organised according to the type of service or intervention.
The following paragraphs present two examples. The first with a possible grid to be applied to
services for the elderly; the second concerning interventions on vocational training.
INTERVENTIONS FOR THE ELDERLY
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
Size of the service provided
n. and categories of services
provided
Services dimension
Users reached
Users category
n. of users within the year
n. of users according to degrees
of self-sufficiency
Services dimension
Users characteristics
Users category
Caretakers involved
n. of users according to age
n. of caretakers involved
according to qualifications
total n. of caretakers
Users characteristics
Human resources
Presences in care institutions
n. of presences per year
n. of beds
n. of users according to degrees
of self-sufficiency
Bed capacity
Users category
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
Users categories and
complexity
33
total n. of users
Users reached with home
assistance services
n. of elderly per year
Dimension of the home
assistance services
Services’ hours
n. of services per year
Dimension of the home
assistance services
Day elderly services
n. and categories of day elderly
services
Services dimension
VOCATIONAL TRAINING INTERVENTIONS
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Number and type of
vocational training courses
Direct beneficiaries
Teachers
N. of training hours
3.11.2
DEFINITION
Number and type of vocational
training courses per year
n. of students enrolled
n. of teachers
n. of training hours per course
type
KNOWLEDGE
OBJECTIVE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
C/A
Activity dimension
Activity dimension
Activity dimension
Activity dimension
Specific characteristics of services’ types
Together with the services’ dimension aspect, other specific data might prove to be significant in
the evaluation process by adding indication concerning quality. However, the identification of such
data cannot be standardized since the data itself will necessarily be dependent upon national
provisions, social and economic contexts, operational practices etc. for each individual context, it
will be necessary to identify specific quantitative indicators which will be able to provide
information concerning the quality and characteristics of each service. The following are possible
criteria on the basis of which indicators could be identified:
1. To make use of existing sets of indicators already used at national or regional level to asses
services’ performance (e.g. data requested by national or regional public authorities within
the health or welfare actors);
2. Identify indicators on the basis of national or regional researches carried out within relevant
sectors;
3. Organise meeting with relevant stakeholders (e.g. relevant public authorities, organizations
or institutions managing relevant services, associations, direct beneficiaries etc.), so as to
indentify indicators that will be relevant for all stakeholders involved.
The first two criteria suggest to use indicators already employed at national or local level at the
same time making good use of already existing benchmarking data. The third point, undeniably
more complex than the first two, on the one hand reduces the benchmarking possibilities, on the
other hand, it favours a greater sharing of data and information and hence promotes a greater
coherence and relevance to the actual characteristic of the specific context.
34
The three criteria suggested may of course be applied simultaneously for a more effective definition
of the sets of indicators.
As an example, the following grid lists a number of specific indicators concerning the services
dedicated to the elderly and those dedicated to vocational training.
INTERVENTIONS FOR THE ELDERLY
INDEX OR INDICATOR
Elderly Care Institutions
Beds occupation
Existence of agreements
Fees level
Beds reserved to the local
territory
divisions/departments
Home assistance
Care workers per users
N. of interventions per type
Requests accepted
Day services
Existence of agreements
Fees level
Nursing intervention
Recreational events
organised
INDEX OR INDICATOR
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVE
n. of days with vacant beds
Are there agreements with
public authorities? (yes/no)
Value in € of the daily fee
Beds saturation level
Accessibility procedures
% of the beds reserve
Attention towards the local
territory
Complexity/innovation
Existance of division for
specific problems (e.g.
Alzheimer)? (yes/no)
C/A
RELATIVE
C/A
Fees level
N. of care workers
n. of users
N. of elderly with home
assistance services only
assistance services + meals
assistance integrated services
Total number of elderly cared
after
n. of requests accepted
total number of requests
received
Service personalisation
Are there agreements with
public authorities? (yes/no)
Value in € of the daily fee
Accessibility procedures
n. of nursing interventions
total n. of attending elderly
N. of recreational events
organised within the year
Additional services
Type of services offered
Requests satisfaction capacity
Fees level
Socialisation and recreational
promotion capacity
VOCATIONAL TRAINING INTERVENTIONS
DEFINITION
KNOWLEDGE
RELATIVE
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
35
OBJECTIVE
Attendance certificates/
qualifications assigned
School drop-outs
People who found a job
related to their studies within
6 months after the end of the
training course
3.11.3
n. of certificates/qualifications/
total number of students
n. of drop-outs
n. of people who found a job
SCORE AND /
OR WEIGHT
Teaching effectiveness
School effectiveness
Training course effectiveness
Users’ quality perception
An important factor in the evaluation of the quality of delivered services and interventions is the
satisfaction of the direct beneficiaries. Therefore, relevant information can be gathered though
customer satisfaction assessment.
Satisfaction assessment also shows how organizations tend to approach their beneficiaries and how
far they tend to involve them.
Hence, for each type of service or intervention it is possible to assess the following:
-
How often customer satisfaction is evaluated;
The methodologies applied for such evaluation;
The additional tools offered to services beneficiaries to allow them to provide feedback
(positive or negative)
Furthermore, investors may ask to receive the results of customer satisfaction’ surveys. However, it
should be underlined that, as no unified survey systems exist, such results are not directly
comparable. Nevertheless, it is indeed possible to identify synthetic indexes which could allow for
the weighting and comparison of results even though calculated with different scales.
36
4. Evaluation of social value of projects and interventions:
calculation of the SROI
There are 5 workphases which are described below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identification of the objective of the SROI and of the stakeholders
Identification of the impacts of the project
Identification of the indicators, the economic values and the proxies
Definition of the impacts
Calculating SROI
As already mentioned, the model proposed follows the framework described in the “A Guide to
Social Return on Investment” (SROI Network and others). It is necessary to specify that this Guide
includes a sixth phase dedicated to utilization and dissemination. Given the specific aims of the
evaluation tool developed by the project, this aspect it is not analysed.
4.1 Work phase 1: Identification of the objective of the SROI and of the
stakeholders
Before starting with the SROI analysis it is important to firstly identify the subject of the
measurement exercise.
In consideration of the evaluation proposed with the tool developed by the project, selected aspects
are already determined:
-
-
The aim is to provide information concerning the social value and the impacts produced by a
project/intervention/service (which could indeed coincide with the overall activities of a social
enterprise in case of small entities), and hence obtain funding.
The main target is the Public Administration (to which the grant/funding application is
submitted)
The field of investigation is the project/intervention/service for which the funding is requested
(for small organisations, this could coincide with the overall activity of the social enterprise)
It is important that the single social enterprise will think through and define also the following
issues:
- The specific objectives foreseen in relation to the activity for which funding is requested;
- Identify the resources (human and economic) necessary for the SROI analysis
- Clarify if the analysis will be ex-ante or ex-post
Once the evaluation field has been established, it is necessary to identify the key stakeholders.
The stakeholders are those affected (positively or negatively; on purpose or unintentionally) by the
changes and the impacts produced by the activities analysed. In fact, SROI aims at measuring how
much value has been created r destroyed and who is affected by that.
37
Once a list of all stakeholders is ready, it will be necessary to identify those that are most relevant
for the SROI analysis i.e. those who perceived and are mostly affected by the changes.
The following table provides the example of a project promoted by a social enterprise working in
the field of work inclusion for disatdvatanged people. The enterprise has set up an organic
cultivation on a field provided on a free-of-charge tenant basis by the territorial local authority.
Stakeholder
New job holders
Disadvantaged people
Psychic-social centers (psychic services) CPS
National health service
Municipality
Local community
Reasons for inclusion
Employment is a significant change in their lives
They are the main beneficiaries of the intervention
It’s the body who is in charge of the beneficiaries and hence it is an
indirect beneficiary of the intervention (client)
The possibility of an improvement in the psychic condition of the
direct beneficiaries should bring a saving in terms of medical
assistance, drugs, economic resources etc.
It’s the owner of the field provided for the new cultivation and
hence is involved in the income produced by the land
Benefits from the possibility of purchasing organic and local
products
Stakeholder
Disadvantaged people family members
Social enterprise board of directors
National government
Reasons for exclusion
They are not always present or reachable
No significant changes have been identified
No significant changes have been identified
Once the relevant stakeholders are identified, it is necessary to think about the ways in which they
will be involved: Who should be involved? How many people and when? Which methodology
should be used? Depending on the initial objectives, the number of stakeholders and the available
resources different methodologies could be used such as one-to-one interviews, workshops, focus
groups, questionnaire with open or closed questions, telephone interview etc.
4.2 Work Phase 2: identification of project impacts
The second workphase involves the building of an “impact map” starting from the knowledge of
social enterprises and the information received thanks to the involvement of the stakeholders.
After identifying the key stakeholders, it is necessary to indicate the project goals in terms of
legitimate expectations.
In the case of a new project or intervention, it will not be possible to consult stakeholders (for
example the beneficiaries). In this case it will be necessary to turn to the direct experience of the
organization within the sector of intervention or other sources of information such as existing
research, analysis carried out on stakeholders who have benefited from similar activities.
Stakeholders
New employees (4)
Description
People looking for new jobs
Expectations



Steady job
Improving skills
Good working
conditions
Project Goals



Steady work
Increase in skills
Increase social
structure of the
cooperative
38
Disadvantaged
persons (3)
Disadvantaged persons with
mental disabilities


CPS
Referral services



National health
system
Municipal
Administration
Owner of fields made
available for new crops
Local Community




Improving physical
and mental conditions
Having a job and
therefore earnings
Finding jobs for
disadvantaged persons
Reducing social
costs
Reducing healthcare
costs


Providing new skills
Providing
employment

Improving the
management of
uncultivated land
Reducing costs
Seeing
environmental conditions
improve
Having quality food
at km 0

Providing short and
long term employment
Reducing social
costs
Reducing the need
for taking care of
employed persons
Creating conditions
of peri-urban agriculture
and improving the
context
Provide buying
groups with local
produce grown
Creatinng an
educational farm
Producing with
organic farming





From the analysis of the stakeholders, we can develop the “map of impacts”, i.e. describe what
changes and impacts the project activities might cause through its activities, starting with the
incoming resources.
To do this, the following factors must be taken into account:
 Input: resources needed to carry out the project (economic, human, etc.);
 Activities: activities carried out by the organization
 Output: the direct tangible products of the activity carried out (e.g. the number of people
employed or the quantity of products cultivated);
 Outcome: the changes that can occur because of the various stakeholders thanks to the
realization of the project (e.g. an increase in skill sets, improvement of environmental
conditions, etc). Impacts can be both positive and negative;
 Attribution: not all outcomes are necessarily directly attributable to the project;
 Non-influencing actions: some outcomes might occur irrespective of the project. For
example, people can buy organic produce anyway because there are other crops of this kind
in the area;
 Negative effects: Some activities may have negative effects on some stakeholders (e.g. part
of the population wanted a park with facilities on the vacant lot and not new crops). The
negative effects are sometimes difficult to measure, but must be taken into account.
The impact from a project is therefore calculated by considering not only the outcome, but also the
different attributions, the influence of certain activities or the negative effects they produce:
impact = outcome - [attribution, non-influencing actions, adverse effects).
During the consultation with stakeholders and the building of the map, it is possible to recognize the
necessity to introduce modifications such as for example the introduction of a new category of
stakeholders, or the modification of some initially planned outcomes.
39
This could therefore be a map of the impacts:
Stakeholde
rs
New
employees
Input
Activities
Output
Outcome
Impact
Capacity
Time
Cultivation
Support for
disadvantaged
persons
No. of new
employees and
type of contract
Job security
With ongoing
remuneration
Disadvantag
ed persons
Capacity
Time
Cultivation
No. of persons
placed

Some
might have
been able
to find
another job
(partial
attribution)
Total
CPS
Skills
Economic Support
Referrals
monitoring
No. of placed
workers of total
referred
National
health
system
Not applicable
Not applicable
Support to placed
workers
Municipal
Administrati
on
Land granted on
free loan for 3 years
Not applicable
Creation of
agricultural
activity
Local
Community
Purchase of
products
Visits to the farm
Purchase of products
Visits to the farm
Number of
products
purchased
No. of school
classes that visit
the educational
farm
Improving the
social and
economic
conditions of
community
members
Improving the
health conditions of
placed workers
Cost reduction
Improving the
environmental
context
Cost reduction
Quality of food
purchased
Lower
environmental
impacts
Broadening
children's
knowledge
Find a job
Total
Total
Total
Some
organic
products
may be
purchased
from other
farms
(partial
assignment
)
It is desirable that the analysis of impacts is achieved through consultation with stakeholders
deemed most important.
4.3 Work phase 3: Identification of indicators, economic values and proxies
In order to give an account of the social value created, meaningful indicators must be identified in
order to measure the outcomes achieved. Often organizations have a greater number of indicators
on the product outputs and fewer on the outcomes. The goal is also to measure the magnitude of
the impacts, where necessary also taking into account the information provided by other
organizations (e.g. government agencies).
40
To identify the indicators a further consultation with stakeholders would be useful. In fact, by
providing their views concerning the ways, phases and processes through which they have
perceived the changes, the stakeholders can be very useful in the identification of punctual
indicators.
It is important to underline that it is necessary to measure and value the aspects and products that
actually matter. Hence, it is indispensable to find an outcome indicator that is measurable and
provides useful information rather than finding an indicator that is easy to measure
A common mistake here is to misinterpret what we mean by measurable. A basic principle of
SROI is to measure and value the things that matter. Measurability means expressing the outcome
indicator in terms that are measurable.
The data concerning indicators can be identified by using the existing sources (internal and
external to the social enterprise), or through the search for new data. The latter are normally
collected from the subjects involved in the project (beneficiaries or operators, for example). The
main techniques for the collection of data are: interviews, focus groups, workshops or
questionnaires. The number of stakeholders to be involved depends on the specific situation. If the
work involves or touches small numbers of people (e.g. 15-30 beneficiaries), it is very important to
reach them all, if the work If the work involves hundreds of people the it should be possible to
identify a representative group.
Once the outcomes, the significant indicators and the data have been identified, it is necessary to
express them in economic terms. It is important to underline that it is necessary to give a value to
the outcome and not to the indicator.
It is not always possible to have accurate economic data in the social sphere: it is therefore
necessary to develop proxies, i.e. the values realistically assumed to be applicable to the indicator
chosen, which in itself cannot be directly measured or calculated. The proxies are useful because
they make it possible to also include in the calculation the outcomes that have no direct economic
value.
This can be considered an example of indicators and data, thought the economic data here is only
estimated and we make no claim of accuracy:
Input
Output
Outcome
Indicator
Value of land granted on free loan
No. of new jobs
No. of disadvantaged people placed in a
job
Quintals of agricultural products
cultivated
No. of educational visits to schools
Average annual wages of new recruits
Average wage of placed persons
Payment of taxes on the basis of wages
Cost of an unemployed person to the
State and social services
Data item
€ 20,000
Description
Estimated rental value of
farm land
2
1
2000
40
€ 20,000
€ 14,000
€ 2,500
€ 8,000
Average wages
Average wages
Average
Source: INPS (National
Social Welfare Institution)
41
Curbing mental health costs
Impacts
35%
Average annual cost of mental health
care per person to the National Health
Service
Land management cost borne by Local
Authority
Citizens' savings in the direct purchase
of organic food compared to traditional
channels
No. of families who regularly buy
Average annual expenditure for the
purchase of organic farm products
Money saved on pesticides
Employment: partial assignment
€ 5,000
Job placement for disadvantaged
persons
Purchase of organic products at km 0:
irrelevant effect
Adverse effects
0
€ 2,000
20%
It is assumed that a person
reduces his/her need for
care by 25% and a person
of 10%
Source: National Service
Budget of the public
agency
Estimate
100
€ 1,650
Estimate
Estimate
€ 5,000
75%
Estimate
They could have found
another job
New positions that would
otherwise not be available
Other similar
opportunities exist locally
Undetected
33%
0
4.4 Work phase 4: Definition of the impacts
In this workphase it will be necessary to verify whether the outcomes produced are indeed directly
linked to the activities carried out by the social enterprise. This way, it is possible to avoid an overestimation of the project value and hence increase the credibility and the reliability of the
calculations carried out.
In fact, it is fundamental to verify if an impact could have been realized even without the
intervention, with an activity, by the social enterprise (so called deadweight).
In our example, the inhabitants of a local community could have bought the organic products from
other farms. To calculate the deadweight value, it is possible to use benchmark data derived from
similar situations or other official sources. It is also possible to verify such factors through data
collection during stakeholder involvement.
In our example, this would be done by asking directly to selected inhabitants if they purchase
organic products already (and how much budget they dedicate to that) and by verifying if there are
other organic farms on the territory and if they sell directly to the local community.
Deadweight is calculated as a percentage which then will be deducted from the calculation of the
relevant outcome.
A further aspect is the verification of the “attribution” of the outcome. This means that it is
necessary to verify that the outcome is not (or how far it is) dependent on the work of other bodies
or organisations. This way it is possible to calculate the part, share or percentage that can actually
be attributed to a specific social enterprise.
42
Organizations or people to whom part of the outcome can be attributed need to be included among
the key stakeholders. For example, a person that has undertaken a training course might find a new
job because of the training or for other reasons (e.g. a work agency which has helped the person rewrite the CV).
In the example of the organic farm given above, the increase in organic products might be the
consequence also of an information campaign promoted by a local authority.
It is indeed very difficult to calculate the attribution percentage of an outcome in a precise way. Yet,
there are three different methods that can be used: own experience basis; gather information from
stakeholders; gather information from those organisations or bodies which might influence directly
the changes analysed.
Some activities may have negative effects on some stakeholders (e.g. part of the population wanted
a park with facilities on the vacant lot and not new crops). The negative effects are sometimes
difficult to measure, but must be taken into account.
Finally, it is important to take into account the “drop-off” i.e. the decrease in the value of the
changes introduced. This is a calculation which is necessary when the outcome has long-term
effects. For example, by building a house with energy efficient systems, there will be significant
reductions in energy consumption during the first few years. However, after some time, the
increasing obsolescent of the systems and the technological innovation (bringing to even more
energy-efficient systems) will decrease the value of the initial change building of an energyefficient house).
Generally, the drop-off is calculated on the basis of fixed percentages during the years taken into
considerations. For example, an outcome which is valued 100 and which lasts three years, will have
a drop-off of 10%. Hence the value of the outcome will be 100 on the first year, 90 on the second
year (i.e. 100 minus 10%) and 81 the third years (i.e. 90 minus 10%).
The following table shows an example of how impacts could be calculated:
Outcome
Impacts
New job
Inclusion of disadvantaged people
Deadweight
75 %
0
Purchase of organic products
33%
Purchase of organic products
5%
Description
Could have found other job
opportunities
Creating of new jobs which
would have not been
created otherwise
There are other similar
bodies on the territory
Partial attribution to an
information campaign
promoted by a local
authority
4.5 Work phase 3: Calculating the SROI
43
The calculation of SROI involves:
1.
analysis of inputs
2.
analysis of value created
3.
calculation of SROI
1. Analysis of the inputs: is necessary to calculate the costs of the resources needed to launch the
project. The source of the data is the budget of the project carried out.
The calculation must also take into account the allocations made for investments in the year or
period being calculated, and the attributions given by the cost centers to the project itself (e.g.
share of the wages of a manager who carries out several functions or portion of the office
overheads).
Indicator
Social enterprise
Allocation for purchase of equipment
Purchase of seeds and animal feed
Allocation for purchase of animals
Miscellaneous expenses
Workers
Job placements
Total costs of social enterprise
Local Authority
Annual rental of land
Total costs of social enterprise
Value
7.000 €
7.000 €
4.000 €
12.000 €
60.000 €
10.000 €
100.000 €
20.000 €
20.000 €
120.000 €
Total costs
2. Analysis of value created: Basic analysis of the monetization of the indicators previously
obtained. The benefits calculated should be attributed on the basis of the various stakeholders
identified.
Indicator
Workers
Wages of new recruits
Number of new employees
Partial attribution
Total value for workers (= [2 x € 20,000] - 75%)
People in job placement program
Average wages workers in placement program
Less income for various subsidies
Less revenue for payment of taxes
No. of persons in job placement program
Total value for workers in job placement program
State
Cost of unemployment benefits
Taxes
No. of persons in job placement program
Partial benefit to workers in job placement program (= 3 x €10,500)
Reduced expenditure on mental health care per year (5,000 * 35%)
Value
€ 20,000
2
-75%
€ 10,000
€ 14,000
- €8,000
- € 2,500
1
€ 3,500
€8,000
2,500
1
€ 10,500
1,750
44
€ 13,250
Total value for the State
Local Authority
Savings on land management
Total value for the Local Authority
Citizens buyers
Savings on annual average spending on organic produce per family (= € 1,650 x 20%)
Number of purchasing families
Action irrelevant due to other availability of organic produce locally
Attribution of the effects of an information campaign concerning organic foods on buyers
Total value for purchasers (= [100 x €330] - 38%)
Environment:
Savings in the use of pesticides
Total value for the environment
Social enterprise
Sale of agricultural products (citizens + other distribution)
Educational farm visits
Total value for the cooperative
€ 100,000
€ 20,000
€ 80,000
Total value for all stakeholders
€134,210
€ 2,000
€ 2,000
€330
100
33%
5%
€ 20,460
€ 5,000
€ 5,000
3. Calculating the SROI The SROI measures the value created in relation to the costs sustained,
thereby acknowledging the social return on investment.
SROI=
Value
Investments
In our example
134.210 €
SROI =
120.000 €
= 1.12
In calculating the SROI we must consider the net value, i.e. the net value of partial attributions,
non-influencing actions or negative effects (if any).
This way we obtain an economic index which assists us in evaluating the social value created by
projects.
The data can be complemented by additional qualitative indicators which contribute to express the
social value of the product.
45
Bibliography
Publications
Various Authors; The blended value Map, 2003, London, www.blendedvalue.org
Agenzia per le organizzazioni non lucrative di utilità sociale e ALTIS (Edited by), 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. (Edited by), 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. (Edited by), 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 (Edited by), Il bilancio sociale per le organizzazioni non profit, Guerini e
Associati, Milano 2005
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
46
Maino G, Papetti L., Finanza In. Migliorare l’accesso al credito e microcredito, Milano, 2007
NEF (Edited by), 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 it
developed the standard AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000)
European Business Network for Social Cohesion (ESNSC),
www.csreurope.org
Network of organisations to improve and 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)
47
www.neweconomics.org
Organisation of training consultancy and research. Nef has produced documents and research on
SROI, as well as a guide (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.
48

Aree di valutazione del valore sociale ed economico

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Office of the Third Sector (OTS)

Dorota Dziedzic, Magdalena Jaśkowiec Istota controllingu

Streszczenie

5. A model for measuring social added value

Use of Indicator Methods for the Purposes of Monitoring Sustainable

Anna Jasińska−Biliczak1 INTERACTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE AND

Financial strategie

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

Current reports published by ASBISc Enterprises Plc in 2015 Date