IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p386-d197417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Solórzano-García

    (Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, UNED, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Julio Navío-Marco

    (Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, UNED, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez

    (Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, UNED, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

In order to analyse, manage, and compare social projects we need, among other things, to be able to measure their impact. One of the methodologies currently used to measure and manage social impact is Social Return on Investment (SROI). However, not all the results calculated by the SROI method are directly attributable to the project, and, therefore, to determine the real impact it is necessary to filter out the changes that the project has not produced. Filter coefficients perform this function. However, the theoretical logic on which the chain is constructed that converts the outputs into impacts is ambiguous. In this study, we will analyse twenty-five real cases where SROI was used to measure social projects. We will identify the difficulties of isolating and measuring impacts by performing a comparative study of the procedures that entities develop to calculate the filters. This allows us to calculate the impacts from the outputs. We will then propose the improvements needed to overcome these shortcomings.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Solórzano-García & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2019. "Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:386-:d:197417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/386/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/386/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lall, Saurabh Ajay, 2017. "Measuring to Improve Versus Measuring to Prove: Understanding the Adoption of Social Performance Measurement Practices in Nascent Social Enterprises," SocArXiv 8wa5c, Center for Open Science.
    2. Laurence Vigneau & Michael Humphreys & Jeremy Moon, 2015. "How Do Firms Comply with International Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting Initiative," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 469-486, October.
    3. Molecke, Greg & Pinkse, Jonatan, 2017. "Accountability for social impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 550-568.
    4. Cara Jardine & Bill Whyte, 2013. "Valuing Desistence? A Social Return on Investment Case Study of a Throughcare Project for Short-Term Prisoners," Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 20-32, April.
    5. Markus J. Milne & Helen Tregidga & Sara Walton, 2009. "Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(8), pages 1211-1257, October.
    6. J. Emil Morhardt, 2010. "Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(7), pages 436-452, November.
    7. Cooper, Stuart M. & Owen, David L., 2007. "Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 649-667.
    8. Bebbington, Jan & Brown, Judy & Frame, Bob, 2007. "Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 224-236, March.
    9. Alex Nicholls, 2010. "The Functions of Performance Measurement in Social Entrepreneurship: Control, Planning and Accountability," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Kai Hockerts & Johanna Mair & Jeffrey Robinson (ed.), Values and Opportunities in Social Entrepreneurship, chapter 13, pages 241-272, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Nicholls, Alex, 2009. "'We do good things, don't we?': 'Blended Value Accounting' in social entrepreneurship," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 755-769, August.
    11. Power, Michael, 1999. "The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296034.
    12. Penny Sinclair & Julia Walton, 2003. "Environmental reporting within the forest and paper industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 326-337, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iluminada Fuertes-Fuertes & J. David Cabedo & Inmaculada Jimeno-García, 2019. "Capturing the Invisible Wealth in Nonprofits to Overcome Myopic Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    2. Wendy Stubbs & Colin Higgins & Markus Milne, 2013. "Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability Reports?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(7), pages 456-470, November.
    3. Jane Andrew & Max Baker, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: The Last 40 Years and a Path to Sharing Future Insights," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(1), pages 35-65, March.
    4. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    5. Andrew Crane & Sarah Glozer, 2016. "Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(7), pages 1223-1252, November.
    6. Othmar Manfred Lehner & Alex Nicholls & Sarah Beatrice Kapplmüller, 2022. "Arenas of Contestation: A Senian Social Justice Perspective on the Nature of Materiality in Impact Measurement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 971-989, September.
    7. André, Kévin & Cho, Charles H. & Laine, Matias, 2018. "Reference points for measuring social performance: Case study of a social business venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 660-678.
    8. Jessica Aschari-Lincoln & Claus D. Jacobs, 2018. "Enabling Effective Social Impact: Towards a Model for Impact Scaling Agreements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Grisard, Claudine & Annisette, Marcia & Graham, Cameron, 2020. "Performative agency and incremental change in a CSR context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Binh Bui & Charl de Villiers, 2021. "Recovery from Covid‐19 towards a low‐carbon economy: a role for accounting technologies in designing, implementing and assessing stimulus packages," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4789-4831, September.
    11. Davide Galli & Federica Bassanini, 2020. "Reporting Sustainability in China: Evidence from the Global Powers of Luxury Goods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Lall, Saurabh Ajay, 2019. "From Legitimacy to Learning – How Impact Measurement Perceptions and Practices Evolve in Social Enterprise – Social Finance Organization Relationships," SocArXiv 7z8nc, Center for Open Science.
    13. Colin Higgins & Wendy Stubbs & Markus Milne, 2018. "Is Sustainability Reporting Becoming Institutionalised? The Role of an Issues-Based Field," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(2), pages 309-326, January.
    14. Ostertag, Felix & Hahn, Rüdiger & Ince, Inan, 2021. "Blended value co-creation: A qualitative investigation of relationship designs of social enterprises," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 428-445.
    15. English, Linda M., 2013. "The impact of an independent inspectorate on penal governance, performance and accountability: Pressure points and conflict “in the pursuit of an ideal of perfection”," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 532-549.
    16. Amoako, Kwame Oduro & Lord, Beverley R. & Dixon, Keith, 2021. "Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: An old defence against a new threat?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    17. Lueg, Rainer & Radlach, Ronny, 2016. "Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 158-171.
    18. Jones, Michael John, 2010. "Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 123-138.
    19. Łukasz Sułkowski, 2016. "Accountability of University: Transition of Public Higher Education," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(1), pages 9-21.
    20. Journeault, Marc & Levant, Yves & Picard, Claire-France, 2021. "Sustainability performance reporting: A technocratic shadowing and silencing," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:386-:d:197417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.