Aree di valutazione del valore sociale ed economico
Transkrypt
Aree di valutazione del valore sociale ed economico
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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 Identify indicators and financial proxies Identify indicators and 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy Request an independent assurance from a third party concerning the appropriateness of 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 appropriateness of the process Carry out an internal evaluation concerning the appropriateness of 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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) The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 positions of responsibility No. of hours worked by staff in positions of responsibility Incidence of training staff in positions of responsibility 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 positions of responsibility 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 positions of responsibility No. of persons under 40 in positions of responsibility Total employees in positions of responsibility Equal opportunities across the generations No. of persons under 40 in positions of responsibility Total no. of employees under 40 Foreign staff in positions of responsibility No. of foreign employees in positions of responsibility Total no. of employees in positions of responsibility 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 positions of responsibility Equal opportunities for job integration No. of people in job placement program with positions of responsibility Total employees in job The Network for better future of Social Economy 25 C/A placement program Existence of specific 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) The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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) The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 Are there investments made in the last three years to reduce water consumption? (yes/no) Are there investments made in 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 Existence of specific 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 N. of elderly with home assistance services + meals N. of elderly with home 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 total number of students n. of people who found a job total number of students 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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). The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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%) The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 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 The Network for better future of Social Economy 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) The Network for better future of Social Economy 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. The Network for better future of Social Economy 48