Search results

The paper aims to assess the strengths and weaknesses of sustainable return on investment (SuROI) to determine it suitability as a means through which social value can be predicted in line with public procurement directives and the Social Value Act, whilst at the same time as fitting the developer’s business model and CSR commitments.

Using a multi-case design, findings from a comprehensive evaluation of three major housing-led mixed-use regeneration developments are presented. The three case study locations were selected on the basis of the developer’s strong commitment to place-making and social sustainability. Together with a strong strategic desire to reposition their organisation away from the traditional business as usual profit-led model.

Whilst the social return on investment methodology is applicable to the charity sector, its use in the built environment is highly questionable. When applying the model to the mixed-use housing projects, the authors identified a number of technical limitations to the model, inter alia a lack of suitable proxies and especially proxies relating to the built environment for the valuation of identified outcomes; the use of monetisation as a evaluating measure which did not support some of the more abstract or softer benefits identified; problems collecting, identifying and evaluating data to inform the model given the complexity and scale of the project; and significant time and expense associated with the valuation and finally the inability to benchmark the report on completion. These findings have implications for the social housing providers and local authorities looking to use SuROI to evaluate potential built environment projects.

The paper offers unique insights into the viability of using existing social value measurement methodologies. The paper identifies the significant limitations associated with the SuROI methodology.

To apply the social return on investment (SROI) concept to a case study based on the Furniture Resource Centre Group (FRC Group), a social enterprise based in Liverpool, UK, to satisfy a need for quality affordable furniture for low‐income households.

The nature of FRC Group’s business is discussed from the viewpoint of how it exemplifies Westall’s (2001) values‐led operation concept with four core values (bravery, creativity, professionalism, passion). Discusses the value of social enterprises and the importance of identifying their social returns as measured by the SROI approach, which was adapted by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) to take account of stakeholder engagement, materiality, impact map, and appreciation of deadweight. Reports on the action research based case study which explored the relationship between the social enterprise business model and the concept of sustainable development.

The results indicated that the SROI technique demonstrated many qualities of sustainability and, with stakeholder inclusiveness pivotal to the innovative process, it allows for truly connected thinking that reveals advancements in sustainable development.

Provides a stimulus for ongoing research and thought on the dynamic concept of sustainability.

As social, environmental and economic challenges grow across the world, the imperative for managing, measuring and maximising impact has never been greater. With growing evidence of increasing inequality and climate change there is a critical need to adjust economic growth models to embrace inclusiveness and sustainability. Companies and institutional investors are recognising that social and environmental factors can influence a company's bottom line in both positive and negative ways, and therefore are important elements in business, markets and competition. However, to address the growing environmental and societal challenges as well as make progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), more focus is needed on actions and investments that seek measurable positive impact that result in increased well-being of stakeholders. A plethora of new frameworks and tools has been developed to measure societal and environmental factors. To date, these efforts have served as complements to existing economic models. For public and private actors to be able to make more effective resource allocation decisions, these broader sets of measures need to be integrated into existing accounting and economic models. Over the past several years, there has been growing momentum for action. There has also been a recognition that no organisation or sector can tackle these challenges alone. Business, government and civil society need to collaborate to take action that can have the urgently needed impact at scale.

Collecting data on social impact and using it in decision-making process in organisation in order to maximise the social value created for people unfortunately is not yet the common practice among social impact actors in Turkey. While the importance of allocating the resources in the most impactful way grows due to the pressing need to tackle increasing social inequalities, the social impact management practices of organisations aiming to contribute to the solution and create positive social impact lag behind. The chapter presents the current approaches and practices on social impact measurement and management of social impact actors in Turkey based on experience of Koç University Social Impact Forum.

Through its effect on the cost of capital, impact investing has the potential to improve the pricing of externalities, reducing the current overproduction and consumption of goods with negative social and environmental impacts and stimulating production and consumption of goods with positive social and environmental impacts. For this potential to be realised, the design of impact investing needs to be better aligned with portfolio management in two respects: (1) it needs to be possible to assess the impact of both asset classes and individual assets and (2) the analysis of the characteristics of assets needs to be separated from the use of mandate-related screens.

Since the introduction of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, there has been a common misconception that Social Value is inherently about Procurement. We think that the process of Procurement is a means through which questions can be asked around Social Value commitments; however, Social Value should come into dialogue way before a tender exercise. It must be at the forefront of political visioning, strategy development, officer behaviour and the design of goods and services. In this chapter, we explore how Public Authorities and other Anchor Institutions can embed Social Value into everything they do, utilising Commissioning and Procurement as the basis.

This chapter describes the journey of the Furniture Resource Centre Group, a social enterprise based in Liverpool in the UK, to continually seek to create increased social value. By putting what our stakeholders' value at the forefront of the mission, the Group has adapted, and succeeded (and at times failed) to increase the value of activities to those that matter most. This has seen the Group recognised as a leader in managing the impacts of its activities – winning countless awards – but maintaining a relentless drive to create more value, the Group will never stop working to improve what they do. The lessons here will help enterprises of all forms to see how social value can be at the very centre of what they do.