Content uploaded by Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu on May 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Working Paper 2019-4
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators
for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu
In collaboration with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
prepared for the UNRISD project
Sustainable Development Performance Indicators
October 2019
UNRISD Working Papers are posted online
to stimulate discussion and critical comment.
ii
The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous
research institute within the UN system that undertakes multidisciplinary research and policy
analysis on the social dimensions of contemporary development issues. Through our work we aim
to ensure that social equity, inclusion and justice are central to development thinking, policy and
practice.
UNRISD, Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)22 9173020
info.unrisd@un.org
www.unrisd.org
Copyright © United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed studies rests solely with their author(s), and availability
on the UNRISD website (www.unrisd.org) does not constitute an endorsement by UNRISD of the opinions
expressed in them. No publication or distribution of these papers is permitted without the prior authorization
of the author(s), except for personal use.
iii
Introduction to Working Papers on
Sustainable Development Performance Indicators
This paper is part of a series of outputs from the UNRISD research project on Sustainable
Development Performance Indicators.
The project seeks to contribute to assessing and improving methodologies and indicator
systems that measure and evaluate the performance of a broad range of economic entities
in relation to the vision and goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It
assesses the adequacy of existing methods and systems for gauging the contribution of
enterprises to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); seeks to expand the
scope of sustainability measurement, disclosure and reporting beyond for-profit
enterprises to encompass enterprises and organizations that make up the social and
solidarity economy (SSE); identifies data points and indicators related to SSE that may
inform conventional approaches to sustainability measurement associated with for-profit
enterprises; and proposes and tests a set of sustainable development impact indicators that
can address key sustainable development challenges of the early 21st century.
Financial support for this project is provided by the Center for Entrepreneurship Studies,
Republic of Korea, and UNRISD institutional funds.
Series Editor: Ilcheong Yi
Working Papers on Sustainable Development Performance
Indicators
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy:
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell, October
2019
iv
Abstract
The last decade has seen a growing interest in the measurement of the impact and
performance of social and solidarity economy (SSE) organizations. This has been fuelled,
among other things, by the rapid growth of the importance given to social enterprise,
social entrepreneurship and impact investing in recent years. This paper, commissioned
by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) as part of its
Sustainable Development Performance Indicators project, attempts to review the
methodologies, metrics and indicators implemented in the SSE today. Based on a review
of the existing literature, it presents a selection of assessment tools and indicators that
have been applied to SSE and so-called blended value enterprises since the 1990s. Some
of the key approaches considered in this work include: the theory of change; the social
accounting, reporting and auditing streams; various tools developed by the cooperative
sector; the concept of “utilité sociale” (social usefulness) elaborated in France; the
Sustainable Livelihoods framework; the Social return on investment (SROI) method; the
IRIS bank of indicators; the impact assessment system developed by B Lab; and the
principles advocated by the Impact Management Project. Specific attention is given to the
origins and diffusion of these approaches, the role indicators may play in assessing the
contribution of SSE to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other key issues
related to the field.
Keywords
Social and solidarity economy; Social enterprise; Social impact measurement;
Evaluation; Theory of change; Utilité sociale; Social return on investment; Indicators;
Sustainable Development Goals
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank TIESS whose project on social impact measurement was the main
source of information for writing this paper. Learn more on this project
at http://www.tiess.ca/evaluation-et-mesure-dimpact-en-economie-sociale/. We are also
grateful to the Center for Entrepreneurship Studies, Republic of Korea, for funding this
research.
The authors are grateful to Kansas University Center for Community Health and
Development, Economy for the Common Good, International Cooperative Alliance, and
Department for International Development for permission to reproduce figures from their
previously published work.
v
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2 Key Initiatives ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Evaluation Field, the Logic Model and Theory of Change ........................................... 4
2.2 Initiatives Linked to the SSE Sector.............................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing............................................................ 6
2.2.2 Cooperative Performance Indicators ....................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Evaluation of utilité sociale ................................................................................... 11
2.2.4 Balance Social ....................................................................................................... 12
2.2.5 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework ..................................................................... 12
2.2.6 Other Methods and Initiatives ............................................................................... 14
2.3 Initiatives Linked to Social Enterprise and Impact Investing ..................................... 15
2.3.1 Social Value International (SVI)’s Social Return on Investment (SROI) ............. 16
2.3.2 GIIN’s IRIS indicators .......................................................................................... 17
2.3.3 GIIRS Rating / B Lab / B Impact Assessment ...................................................... 18
2.3.4 Impact Management Project (IMP) ....................................................................... 19
2.3.5 Other Methods and Initiatives ............................................................................... 22
2.4 SSE’s Responses to the Sustainability Measurement Challenge and New Trends ..... 23
2.4.1 GECES Social Impact Measurement Sub-Group Recommendations ................... 24
2.4.2 Lean impact, participative evaluation, ecosystemic changes and
other new trends .................................................................................................................. 24
3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Key Issues ................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Measuring impact as a burden for SSE organizations ........................................... 26
3.1.2 Standardization, flexibility and transformative capacity ....................................... 26
3.1.3 Impact vs other types of activities, outputs and outcomes in reporting ................. 28
3.1.4 Financing SSE: Learning from past experiences ................................................... 29
3.2 Further Research ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Conceptualization. The Critical Need for Theory ....................................................... 30
3.4 A Final Word ............................................................................................................... 31
4 References ........................................................................................................................... 32
vi
Acronyms
AA1000
AccountAbility 1000
CDFI
Community development financial institutions
CJDES
Centre des jeunes dirigeants de l’économie sociale
DFID
Department for International Development (UK)
ESUS
Entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale
EVAS
Expanded value-added statement
GDP
Gross domestic product
GECES
Commission’s Expert Group on Social Enterprise
GIIN
Global Impact Investing Network
GIIRS
Global Impact Investing Reporting Standards
GLOPP
Globalisation and Livelihood Options of People living in
Poverty
GRI
Global Reporting Initiative
ICA
International Cooperative Alliance
IMP
Impact Management Project
IPA
Innovations for Poverty Action
IR
Integrated Reporting
IRIS
Impact Reporting and Investment Standards
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
RCT
Randomized control trial
RISQ
Réseau d’investissement social du Québec
SARA
Social accounting, reporting and auditing
SDG
Sustainable Development Goal
SDPI
Sustainable development performance indicator
SLF
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
SROI
Social return on investment
SSE
Social and solidarity economy
SVI
Social Value International
TBL
Triple bottom line
UK
United Kingdom
UN
United Nations
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNRISD
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: The logic model as a common basis for many evaluations .............................. 4
Figure 2: The Common Good Matrix ............................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Sample indicators for the co-operative principles........................................... 10
Figure 4: Sustainable livelihoods framework ................................................................. 13
Figure 5: IMP 5 Impact dimensions ............................................................................... 21
Figure 6: IMP 15 categories of data ............................................................................... 22
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
1
1 Introduction
The UN 2030 Agenda presents a “transformational vision” which not only aims to
minimize the social and environmental costs of growth but also address (i) the structural
underpinnings of unsustainable and exclusionary development related to inequality,
high carbon growth and imbalances in power relations and governance systems; (ii) the
impact of digitalization and artificial intelligence on employment and the world of
work; (iii) the importance of decent work; and iv) resilience in contexts of recurring
shocks associated with financial crises and climate change.
In September 2018, UNRISD commenced a four-year project to assess and improve
methodologies and indicator systems that measure and evaluate the performance of a
broad range of economic entities in relation to the transformative vision and goals of
the 2030 Agenda. These entities include the private sector and the enterprises and
organizations that make up the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). Policy makers
and international organizations are paying far greater attention to the role of SSE
enterprises and organizations in inclusive and sustainable development. This interest
derives largely from perceived attributes related to employment generation, the
provision of affordable social services, the SDG principle of “leaving no one behind”,
democratic governance, women’s economic empowerment and the growing number of
youths committed to the SSE as a model of socio-economic development and
transformation. Much of the evidence related to SSE performance, however, remains
anecdotal or assumes that the same yardsticks used to measure corporate sustainability
performance or conventional forms of investment can or should be applied to SSE.
Undifferentiated social impact measurement measures are increasingly applied to SSE
enterprises and organizations. Moreover, important characteristics of many types of
SSE organizations, for example, in the production of goods (and not only services), or
the role of collective action in economic and political empowerment, are often ignored.
The research will assess the extent to which existing methods and innovations
effectively address these dimensions. Can the measurement and evaluation of enterprise
performance move beyond a triple-bottom line approach aimed at reducing negative
impacts or enhancing the efficiency of existing systems to a “transformational”
approach? Are recent innovations playing a constructive role in this regard (UNRISD
2018)?
This paper reviews the methodologies, metrics and indicators implemented in the SSE
today at a micro level, that is, focusing on the impact of a specific organization. It also
presents a selection of assessment tools and indicators that have been applied to blended
value enterprises
1
since the 1990s to evaluate the compliance of their activity with their
stated objectives. Many of these enterprises are not considered part of the SSE but have
moved beyond the traditional boundaries of private enterprise and the priority of
profitability, to include broader social, environmental and governance objectives. As
we point out in this paper, measurement tools designated specifically for the SSE are
evolving and until recently, reporting complied, in most cases, with funding
imperatives, accounting practices and available tools drawn from private enterprise and
non-profit organizations, among others. Exceptions to this exist and have been very
1
We use “blended value enterprises” as an umbrella term referring to “enterprises purposefully
generating economic, social and environmental value”. For a longer background on this specific notion,
see (Emerson and Bonini 2003).
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
2
influential in expanding the measurement criteria applied to SSE enterprises and
organizations to better reflect their objectives, as this paper will reveal.
We also note the rapid growth of the importance given to social enterprise, social
entrepreneurship and impact investing in recent years. The landscape is complex. In
many cases, social enterprises are largely associated with work insertion; in other cases,
they primarily provide services. In still others, they produce goods and/or services but
are defined by their social and/or environmental goals. Questions regarding
disengagement by government, privatization and contracting out arise in certain
contexts, particularly for those social enterprises selling services previously provided
by the public sector. The confluence of these new business models and forms of
investment with the SSE is noteworthy, as it marks a departure from traditional ways
of doing business. Therefore, SSE today must be situated in this context. Most
important, however, is the growing pressure to develop social impact indicators often
requiring the quantification and/or monetization of social activities and goals, in many
cases. As social enterprise and impact investing and other hybrid forms of doing
business assume the role of service provider, this presents challenges, including the
increased risk of losing investors and/or funders, should targets not be met because they
are inherently complex and cannot be subject to homogenous criteria, timelines, and so
on.
Impact investing, a term that was first coined in 2007 by the Rockefeller Foundation to
describe direct investment in enterprises/initiatives/organizations pursuing blended
value objectives to solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges, has grown
exponentially since, generating a global market. Once again, we note that there is a long
history of social and ethical banking and a more recent history of social finance, that
predate the current surge in impact investing and apply hybrid lending and investing
criteria. Today’s trends include venture philanthropy as foundations increasingly
participate in the impact investing market. Among other initiatives, metrics have been
developed for impact investing by the GIIN (Global Impact Investing Network) to
assure investors that multiple impact objectives are being met in addition to generating
financial returns on their investment. Impact measures are selected from an array of
criteria by the parties concerned. These are not standardized, for the most part. Hybrid
enterprises and organizations and a growing capital market seeking multiple returns
have expanded the goals of traditional private sector and financial markets.
An additional confluence we note is what we may call the parallel development of
numerous macro indicators and indexes in response to the well-known limitations of
GDP. The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission, established in 2008, marked a critical
turning point in that regard (Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi 2009). However, the call to
evaluate and measure progress “beyond GDP” has generated debates and new
indicators over several decades
2
. Although this paper does not cover these initiatives,
we can name a few recent examples such as the “Genuine Progress Indicator”
3
, the
Social Progress Index
4
, the Better Life Index
5
.Recent publications by the OECD
demonstrate some of the progress that has been made in that regard .
This introduction provides the context for this paper on selected indicators and
measurement tools available to the SSE today that follows. The exact definition of SSE
2
See, for instance, this timeline: http://www.oecd.org/site/progresskorea/41288178.pdf
3
More information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_progress_indicator
4
More information on https://www.socialprogress.org/
5
More information on http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
3
can vary based on geographic and institutional contexts. For the purpose of this paper,
social and solidarity economy (SSE) refers to:
The production of goods and services by a broad range of organizations and
enterprises that have explicit social and often environmental objectives, and
are guided by principles and practices of cooperation, solidarity, ethics and
democratic self-management. The field of SSE includes cooperatives and
other forms of social enterprise, self-help groups, community-based
organizations, associations of informal economy workers, service-
provisioning NGOs, solidarity finance schemes, amongst others. (UN Inter-
Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy 2014, iv)
In recent years, the demand for systems of measurement and indicators that could more
rigorously assess and demonstrate SSE’s contribution to social and environmental
objectives such as the SDGs has grown, to some extent because of the forces noted
above but also because of the growth of SSE itself and its historically rooted objectives.
And so, enterprises and organizations in the SSE are increasingly obliged to apply
social impact measurement, drawing upon methodologies established over several
decades in various fields such as program evaluation, environmental and social impact
assessment, social audit, reporting and accounting, international aid, philanthropy and
impact investing, among others (Bouchard 2009; Salathé-Beaulieu 2018). The
incentive comes both from the SSE organizations themselves wishing to assess their
effectiveness in meeting their goals as well as from funders and investors requiring
these assessments.
This paper identifies numerous tools to measure the impact and performance of social
and solidarity economy organizations. It also addresses what role indicators may play
in determining the contribution of SSEs to the SDGs. While the focus of the paper is
largely on the North, many of the currently available measurement tools are also applied
by institutions, organizations, foundations and governments to SSE organizations and
enterprises in the Global South, which could be covered in future updates to this paper.
2 Key Initiatives
In recent years, influential authors have argued that there are two predominant trends
in the field of social impact assessment (Reisman et al. 2015; Vo and Christie 2018).
The first and oldest is rooted in the field of evaluation as developed and adopted by
government, philanthropic and non-profit organizations. The second and more recent
trend is linked to approaches of social impact measurement that are closer to the
market-oriented needs and practices of social enterprises and impact investing
organizations. Although we are aware that there are more than these two trends—some
will be introduced later in this overview—we believe this distinction is a useful starting
point.
Many literature reviews focusing on the second trend have been conducted over the last
decade (Dufour 2015; Grieco, Michelini, and Lasevoli 2015; Maas and Liket 2011;
Olsen and Galimidi 2008; Simsa et al. 2014). Together, they have identified close to
one hundred different frameworks, tools and methodologies currently in use
internationally. The diversity and fragmentation of these numerous initiatives are
identified as a problem both for SSE organizations as well as for funders. In order to
reduce this “noise” and impose some coherence on the approaches currently used, this
paper focuses only on a few initiatives judged more relevant because they either 1) are
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
4
widely used among a significant number of organizations around the world or 2) appear
especially promising and innovative with regard to UNRISD SDPI Project’s specific
objectives.
Key initiatives related to social impact measurement reviewed in this paper are divided
into two groups:
• initiatives developed mostly for the specific needs of SSE organizations
themselves;
• initiatives developed mostly for the needs of private social enterprises and
organizations financing them.
But first, a few words about the field of evaluation and its methods are required to
situate this discussion.
2.1 Evaluation Field, the Logic Model and Theory of Change
Evaluation was formalized as a field of practice in the 1960s (Duclos 2007, 102; Hogan
2007; Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman 2003, 9; Zappalà and Lyons 2009, 6). Its
professionalization was largely due to the expansion of government spending both
locally and abroad on projects and programs and the subsequent need for evidence on
the results and impact generated by these interventions. The development of this
practice called for the creation of a common vocabulary with key terms such as inputs,
activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. The formalized way of describing what is
done by an organization, that is, the sequence of components that make up its
intervention, was first called theory-based evaluation (Weiss 1995) and was eventually
referred to as the “program logic model” or sometimes simply the “logic model” (Figure
1).
The program logic model is defined as a picture of how an organization
does its work—the theory and assumptions underlying the program. A
program logic model links outcomes (both short- and long-term) with
program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions/principles of
the program (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2004).
Figure 1: The logic model as a common basis for many evaluations
Source: KU Center for Community Health and Development (2019). Reproduced with permission.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
5
Early versions of the logic model tended to be quite linear and sometimes simplistic.
This brought some criticisms. One is that interventions are always influenced by
external factors (political, demographic, environmental, etc.). Another is that linear
models are less compatible with innovation and may constrain social action only to
foreseeable results (Besançon and Chochoy 2019). Other versions, such as the template
illustrated here, are more complex and take into account needs, constraints and context.
In the 2000s, the logic model was widely used in the non-profit sector in part because
of funders’ efforts to popularize this way of thinking. The Kellogg Foundation’s guide,
published in 2004, is a good example of this trend (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2004).
More refined versions of the logic model were eventually called “theories of change”
and became a staple in the evaluation of interventions aiming at fostering social change
(Vogel 2012). A theory of change is “an explanation of how a group of stakeholders
expects to reach a commonly understood long-term goal” (Anderson 2005, 3). A theory
of change is more an “approach to evaluation” rather than a specific method. According
to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2012), it will generally include:
• a logic model/results chain;
• the assumptions, risks and, in some cases, the mechanisms associated with each
link in the logic model/results chain;
• the external factors that may influence the expected results;
• any empirical evidence supporting the assumptions, risks and external factors.
Consequently, common steps to this approach could include:
1. defining targeted long-term changes;
2. defining intermediate changes that are required for this long-term vision to be
achieved;
3. clarifying the underlying assumptions and values behind the interventions
reasoning;
4. defining the articulation between the reasoning and the actual intervention (de
Reviers 2012, 3).
The notion of theory of change is commonly used in the international development
field, where it is the subject of several guidance and literature reviews (de Reviers 2012
IPA 2016; Rogers 2018; Vogel 2012). Other closely related concepts include
“programme theory” (Rogers 2018), “change pathway”, “outcomes pathway” (de
Reviers 2012) and many more.
6
A theory of change should be co-designed from the
bottom up with stakeholders so as to reflect their intentions. It does not mobilize any
set of predefined indicators and does not provide any guidance as to how these
objectives might fit with the SDGs or not. Yet, it is a potentially promising approach
for UNRISD’s SDPI Project to the extent that it clearly invites stakeholders to make
explicit their transformative vision, that is, how they propose, through an intervention,
not only to achieve a specified result, but to address root causes, the underlying
structural conditions that gave rise to the need for the intervention. This approach
resonates with the inherent objectives of the SSE. The transformative power of such an
6
For more information about theory of change, see the Aspen Institute Guide (Anderson 2005) or
TIESS’ brief on the topic in French: http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/TIESS_fiche_ToC_2018_04_10.pdf
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
6
approach is however, as in many cases, dependant on the power dynamics in which the
adoption of such tool is made (Eyben 2013, 9–10).
2.2 Initiatives Linked to the SSE Sector
Social and solidarity economy organizations, by their nature, have always tried to
achieve social and environmental objectives. Various initiatives assessing their
progress towards these objectives, although likely to be considered on the fringe when
compared to assessment and reporting initiatives covered in the following sections,
have existed for decades. The entire field of social accounting, reporting and auditing
(3.2.1), is a good example of this long tradition. The cooperative world, in particular,
has relied on this framework to assess its performance and adherence to essential
principles (3.2.2). In France, the evaluation of utilité sociale (social usefulness) also has
a long tradition (3.2.3) while SSE networks in Spain are currently developing their own
tool, the Balance Social (3.2.4). Finally, the Sustainable livelihoods framework offers
interesting insights for assessing poverty reduction related strategies (3.2.5).
2.2.1 Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing
Social accounting, reporting and auditing (SARA) has generated a great deal of
literature and practices, rooted in the accounting profession, rather than a specific
method or initiative. The common goals are to understand the impact of the
organization on multiple stakeholders and to broaden the framework of conventional
accounting (Quarter, Mook, and Armstrong 2017, 287). Concerns about the inclusion
of social and environmental considerations in traditional accounting activities were
voiced as early as the 1970s (Gray 2001) and 1980s, with initiatives led by the
cooperative sector (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2015, 135).
Quarter et al (2017) cite expanded value added statement (EVAS) (Mook, Richmond,
and Quarter 2003), social return on investment (SROI) and the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) as examples of SARA. This suggests that SARA covers quite a wide
range of applications. In some cases, social value is monetized, while in others it is not.
Common steps in these methods are:
1. clarifying the mission, objectives and stakeholders of an organization;
2. identifying key indicators relating to these objectives and the collection of
relevant data;
3. reporting on the results in a verifiable way (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2015, 138–
39).
Current initiatives in the field of SARA include social reporting standards, a set of
outcomes-oriented reporting guidelines for non-profit organizations, based in Germany
(Social Reporting Standard 2014), and the Social Audit Network, a network of
practitioners of social accounting and audit in the social economy and voluntary sectors
in the UK (Social Audit Network 2011). The Centre des jeunes dirigeants de
l’économie sociale (CJDES) bilan sociétal (societal balance sheet) and the Common
Good Balance Sheet are also examples respectively detailed in boxes 1 and 2.
7
7
Recent work by the World Business Council for Social Development or UNCTAD (UNCTAD
Secretariat, 2017) are also clear examples of the social accounting trends that should be covered in
future reviews.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
7
Box 1: CJDES bilan sociétal (Societal Balance Sheet)
Since 1977, corporations in France with more than 300 employees are required by law
to report on some social aspects of their activities. The areas covered include the
following: number of employees, their sociodemographic characteristics, wages, health
and safety, training, work relations.
8
In the late 1990s, the Centre des jeunes dirigeants de l’économie sociale (CJDES)
9
, in
France, developed the bilan sociétal, which can be translated as the societal balance
sheet. They proposed that SSE organizations go beyond conventional social
assessment. (Auberger-Barré 2002).
Bilan sociétal’s complete process includes several steps such as identifying objectives
and stakeholders, filling out a questionnaire by management and other stakeholders,
analyzing any divergences in their answers and agreeing upon required changes. These
last steps are quite important in the process which is based on participation.
Topics covered by the process include relationships with members and customers,
innovation, work organization, human resources, citizenship, human and physical
environment, values and ethics (Persais 2006, 36).
10
8
Complete list in French law, Article R2323-17:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000022266069&cidTexte=
LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20110720&fastPos=1&fastReqId=1317401095&oldAction=re
chCodeArticle
9
This "Social economy young leaders centre” was founded in 1985 and seeks both to promote SSE and
make sure its practices are exemplary. https://www.cjdes.org/nous-connaitre/
10
For more information on CJDES’ bilan sociétal, see the short article in French by (Auberger-Barré
2002) at http://www.larevuecadres.fr/le-bilan-soci%C3%A9tal-du-cjdes
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
8
Box 2: The Common Good Balance Sheet
Economy for the Common Good is a movement founded by Austrian author Christian
Felber, mostly active in German speaking countries, that seeks to promote an economic
system that is built on values that promote the common good. For that purpose, they
invite corporations to publish a Common Good Balance Sheet, which is composed of
the following matrix (Figure 2).
11
Figure 2: The Common Good Matrix
Source: Economy for the Common Good (2018). Reproduced with permission.
2.2.2 Cooperative Performance Indicators
Cooperatives have been especially active in the field of SARA. Their concerns with
their social performance and non-financial impact is likely as old as the cooperative
movement itself. We are therefore speaking about decades, if not centuries, of various
initiatives around the world. Some examples can be found in an extensive report
summarizing the results of a 5-year project about the practices of cooperatives in
Canada, “Measuring the Cooperative Difference” (Brown et al. 2015) and further work
by Duguid (2017):
• “The Co-operative Sustainability Scorecard was developed as a universal tool
to create triple-bottom-line benchmarks for co-operatives of any size and in any
industry. The Scorecard’s sustainability measures include minimum
recommended practices and metrics in economic, social, and environmental
areas of practice” (Brown and Novkovic 2015, 9).
• “The Sustainability and Planning Scorecard for retail food co-operatives
developed in partnership with Co-op Atlantic [Canada] intended to help co-
operatives assess their commitment to be principled, socially and
environmentally responsible, alternative businesses” (Brown and Novkovic
2015, 9).
11
More information on https://www.ecogood.org/en/
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
9
• “The Co-op Index [was] a tool used to diagnose worker co-operatives for their
participatory practices and adherence to co-operative identity” (Brown and
Novkovic 2015, 9).
• Some financial cooperatives, such as Vancity (see Box 3), are pioneers in the
field of sustainability reporting.
Box 3: Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (Vancity)
Vancity is a value-based credit union based in Vancouver, British Columbia, serving
525,000 members. It is recognized as a leader in the field of sustainability reporting.
Indeed, Vancity was the “first Canadian enterprise and the only co-operative to
contribute to the development” of the Integrated Reporting Framework, having
published such a report for the first time in 2010 (Rixon and Beaubien 2015). They also
have also sought to integrate impact measures and targets into the credit union’s
Organizational Scorecard.
According to the Integrated Reporting <IR> official website, “<IR> is a process
founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an
organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding
aspects of value creation. An integrated report is a concise communication about how
an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its
external environment, lead to the creation of value in the short, medium and long term.”
Vancity also employs 2 other well-known reporting frameworks: AccountAbility 1000
(AA1000) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
12
Vancity also established a community foundation to support and invest in local NGOs.
In order to help social enterprises to better understand, measure and demonstrate their
social impact, they led between 2006 and 2009 the Demonstrating Value project.
13
The
framework developed through this project has been applied and advanced further
through an independent non-profit, the Demonstrating Value Resource Society, that is
dedicated to making performance and impact measurement more accessible and useful
to community.
To learn more about Vancity’s reporting process, read (Rixon and Beaubien 2015) or
see some of the results by directly consulting Vancity’s annual report.
However, it is important to note that none of these initiatives have become a standard
reference for cooperatives around the world and it is even difficult to find information
about them online. Although there is no consensus, there seems to be some common
threads in the national and international guidance on the topic. One such thread is a
reference to the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) cooperatives principles. They
are the following:
1. Voluntary and Open Membership;
2. Democratic Member Control;
3. Member Economic Participation;
12
To learn more about GRI, see TIESS briefing note at http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/TIESS_fiche_GRI.pdf
13
To learn more about the Demonstrating Value project, see their official website
https://demonstratingvalue.org/ or TIESS briefing note at http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/TIESS_fiche_DV.pdf
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
10
4. Autonomy and Independence;
5. Education, Training, and Information;
6. Cooperation among Cooperatives;
7. Concern for Community
14
.
Coops are advised to assess the level of effective adherence to these principles through
questionnaires and audits and then report on the results to their members and the general
public.
Sample indicators are illustrated by the Sustainability Solutions Group (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Sample indicators for the co-operative principles
Source: Sustainability Solutions Group (2016, 20). Reproduced with permission.
Potential indicators are also explored in a report by Co-operatives UK (2013, p. 21‑26).
According to them, a shortlist of essential non-financial indicators should include: the
members profile (number of members), the satisfaction rate in a member survey, the
amount of trade with members as a percentage of sales or incomes and the satisfaction
rate in a consumer/user survey.
There is still much to explore on the topic of cooperatives and sustainability. On the
one hand, the international cooperative sector certainly believes their members are well
14
More information on https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
11
positioned to achieve the SDGs.
15
On the other hand, as Brown and Novkovic point
out, “for some co-operatives, often ones focused on competing for market share or on
survival in a market, a focus on the transformative potential of co-operatives as a
distinctive form of business seems more like ideology than like good business” (2015,
p. 13). Important work, both technical and political, will certainly be undertaken in the
coming years.
2.2.3 Evaluation of utilité sociale
The notion of utilité sociale (social usefulness) was developed in France to distinguish
activities that are primarily beneficial to society as whole from those that are beneficial
to individuals or specific groups. According to Rodet (2008), the concept of utilité
sociale was also developed to justify public subsidies in certain instances. The
evaluation of utilité sociale does not refer to a specific method but rather to an approach
to the assessment of “social value”.
An important feature of utilité sociale is its resolutely constructivist stance. Social value
is constructed and collectively defined by actors, rather than assessed from an external
and “objective” point of view. Stakeholders are not merely consulted or included in the
discussion; they determine what has social value. Utilité sociale evaluation is therefore
a political project (Gadrey 2005), designed to identify the added value SSE contributes
to its community compared to conventional private sector activities (Branger et al.
2014).
In practice, evaluation of utilité sociale, like many other initiatives, applies standard
qualitative methods to assess the goals of the organization and the value various
stakeholders attribute to the services it provides (Duclos 2007).
Although some criteria and indicators relating to economic, environmental, social,
political and societal dimensions can be provided as examples (Gadrey 2004), there are
no specific sets of indicators involved in the evaluation of utilité sociale. The evaluation
process requires these to be tailor-made, based on deliberation with relevant
stakeholders.
Since 2014, entities that claim to achieve utilité sociale, although not part of SSE on
the basis of their legal status (cooperative or non-profit), that is, typically for profit
social enterprises, can conform to a series of requirements in order to obtain the
certification “entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale” (ESUS) (solidarity enterprise
achieving social usefulness).
1617
15
See, on that topic, the case studies published by ILO
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/cooperatives/publications/transforming-our-world/lang--en/nextRow-
-0/index.htm and ICA’s website https://www.ica.coop/en/our-work/sustainable-development-goals
16
Link towards the relevant section of the French law:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029313296&categorieLien=id
#JORFSCTA000029313549
17
For more information about the evaluation of utilité sociale, see TIESS briefing note in French
(Sirieix 2018) at http://www.tiess.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TIESS_fiche_utilite-
sociale_2018_04_10.pdf
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
12
2.2.4 Balance Social
The “Balance Social” is an evaluation tool mostly applied to SSE organizations in
Spain. It was initially designed by the Xarxa d’Economia Solidària (XES) around 2007
(Alquézar Crusellas and Suriñach Padilla 2019). First designed in Catalonian, it is
becoming increasingly popular in Spain and was translated to Spanish, Basque and
Galician. In 2018, about 200 enterprises in Catalunya and 450 in all Spain were using
it (XES 2019).
The basic version of the questionnaire covers around 50 indicators divided in various
sections such as financial aspects, democracy, environmental sustainability, social
commitment and labor conditions. The complete version covers the same sections but
contains about 100 indicators (XES 2018, 8). The main questionnaire is completed each
year by the enterprises themselves and additional, shorter, questionnaires are separately
filled in by key stakeholders such as workers, customers and volunteers, thus
guaranteeing their voice and external perspective is included (REAS 2019).
The main incentives for SSE organizations to participate is that organizations who
respect a minimum threshold in each dimension gain access to the Mercado Social, an
online market place which references various products and services sold by SSE
organizations.
All questionnaires must be completed on a centralized online platform, allowing the
progressive constitution of a database about SSE organizations’ practices and impact.
For Catalunya, the aggregated data is presented annually in a report online. Although
this tool’s purpose is not to inform SSE’s contribution to the SDGs, the data could
potentially be used to make some connections in a near future.
2.2.5 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
The sustainable livelihoods framework is meant to be a “holistic, asset-based
framework for understanding poverty and the work of poverty reduction” developed in
the 1990s by Chambers & Conway (1992) and adapted by UK’s Department for
International Development (DFID).
This approach is mostly used in a development context, although there are instances of
its use in developed countries as well. It was not designed to assess an organization’s
specific extra-financial performance from a micro perspective, but it has been done on
some occasions.
It was specifically designed to assess the progress and results of an intervention aimed
at reducing poverty and developing “human capital”. It is people-centered and makes
connections between the specific resources an individual has (micro) and the larger
context in which he or she lives (macro) (GLOPP 2008).
The notion of livelihood is directly connected to the idea of sustainability:
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a
means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural
resource base (DFID 1999).
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
13
Key elements of the Sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) are depicted in Figure 4
and include:
• vulnerability context—characteristics and risks within the person’s
environment;
• livelihood assets—the person’s specific assets categorized under human, social,
natural, physical and financial capital;
• policies, institutions and processes influencing the person’s context and assets;
• livelihood strategies—activities undertaken by the person to achieve their
livelihood goals;
• livelihood outcomes—the results of these activities such as increase in income,
well-being, food security, etc.
Figure 4: Sustainable livelihoods framework
Source: DFID (1999, 13). Reproduced with permission.
There are interesting similarities between SLF and the sustainability reporting
framework based on the principle of “threshold and allocation” covered in (Utting and
O’Neill forthcoming). Indeed, it is a capital-based approach, considering available
resources as stocks and analyzing development initiatives as streams contributing to
their improvement. However, SLF is much more centered on the individual in a
development context, rather than on the corporation in a sustainability reporting
context. Therefore, the notion of allocating a reasonable quota of resources in
accordance with the carrying capacity of the environment does not apply.
Considering SLF’s ambition is to evaluate the transformative capacity of enterprises,
organizations and community-based initiatives to address structural challenges of
poverty, social exclusion, gender and/or racial discrimination, it is potentially relevant
to assess SSE’s contribution to SDGs, especially, though not only, SDG #1 “No
poverty”. It is a comprehensive way to take stock of physical, human, social and
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
14
personal changes through access to enabling programs offered by SSE organizations
that provide business training for marginalized people, for example. Much like Amartya
Sen’s “capabilities” approach, SLF understands that the root causes of poverty or social
exclusion must be addressed before or concurrent with business training (Jane Murray,
Ferguson, and Letemendia 2010).
2.2.6 Other Methods and Initiatives
We have identified a few noteworthy approaches that are relevant to the SSE.
• Outcome mapping is a method for tracking behavioural changes in development
programs. It was developed in Canada (Smutylo 2005) and now appears to be
reasonably influential in the field of international development. Outcome
mapping official website provides a wide range of useful resources and
identifies a thriving community of practice.
• Participatory evaluation is “an approach that involves the stakeholders of a
programme or policy in the evaluation process” (Sette 2018). Most methods in
the field of SSE now take for granted that stakeholders should be involved at
every step of the evaluation rather than only used as a primary source of
information.
• Developmental evaluation is another approach to evaluation oriented towards
learning and generating quick feedback in innovative and uncertain contexts
(Gamble 2008; Patton 2016). An increasing number of actors in the
philanthropic world promote the use of this method.
• The notion of collective impact is also a popular trend in the philanthropic
world. It involves shared measurement between multiple organizations
targeting a common goal. It was first developed by Kramer, Parkhurst &
Vaidyanathan (2009) and has been continuously updated since (Cabaj 2017;
Cabaj and Weaver 2016; Handley, Sabri, and Kazimirski 2016). It is considered
an important innovation as it invites foundations to collaborate in addressing
complex issues that can be better assessed collectively.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
15
Box 4: What about randomized control trials?
Many authors argue that the best way to assess impact is to use a randomized control
trial (RCT) (Banerjee and Duflo 2009).
“A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a way of doing impact evaluation in which the
population receiving the programme or policy intervention is chosen at random from
the eligible population, and a control group is also chosen at random from the same
eligible population. It tests the extent to which specific, planned impacts are being
achieved” (White et al. 2014).
In the last decade, Banerjee and Duflo greatly contributed to popularizing this method’s
application to the field of international development by founding The Abdul Latif
Jameel Poverty Action Lab and publishing a book catering to a large audience on the
issue (Banerjee and Duflo 2011). Some donors, such as the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation and the U.S. government’s Social Innovation Fund, have taken these
recommendations very seriously and allocated significant resources to conducting
RCTs.
From the perspective of contributing to the advancement of knowledge, RCT might
indeed be a method that can be adapted to prove that an impact can be attributed to a
specific intervention. However, this method also has some weaknesses: many contexts,
especially for social innovation initiatives, make its application very difficult due to
practical (it is costly to control for the multiple factors that influence a social outcome)
and ethical reasons (some interventions should not be denied to individuals who need
it on the basis that a control group must be constructed) (Cupitt 2015; Eyben and Roche
2013; Leeuw and Vaessen 2009, 21).
In summary, despite its limitations, RCT should be part of the discussions along with
other initiatives evaluating SSE.
18
We have identified several initiatives related to the SSE. We can now dig into the
biggest driver of interest in social impact measurement in the last decade, what Reisman
et al. (2015) call the social impact measurement stream, as understood by the impact
investing industry.
2.3 Initiatives Linked to Social Enterprise and Impact Investing
In the late 1990s, the notion of triple bottom line investing that is, investing in business
that demonstrated not only financial but also social and environmental outcomes, was
greatly influenced by the work of John Elkington (Elkington, 1997). Although the term
“venture philanthropy” (see definition in Appendix 1) was first used by John D.
Rockeffeler III in the late 1960s to propose that philanthropic activities be expanded
into investment and its associated risks, it only became more widely applied much later
in the 1990s to become “impact investment” (Letts, Ryan & Grossman, 1997 Harji &
Jackson, 2012). Soon after, Jed Emerson (2003) coined the term “blended value”. This
period marks a critical turning point in evaluation, impact assessment and the need to
capture value in terms that were novel in both the investment and philanthropy worlds.
18
For more information about randomized control trials, see TIESS briefing note in French at:
http://www.tiess.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TIESS_fiche_RCT_2018_04_10.pdf
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
16
The capital channelled into this activity grew very rapidly in this early phase, as did the
need for new risk assessment tools. In order to assess the “social return” of their
investment, impact investors expressed the need for a clear understanding of desirable
social impacts and how these could be measured. Four initiatives responding to these
expressed needs are introduced here, although there are many more. They are the SROI
method promoted by SVI (3.3.1); the IRIS indicators developed by the GIIN (3.3.2);
the GIIRS ratings developed by B Lab (3.3.3.); and finally the Impact Management
Project (3.3.4), which, unlike the previous three, is not a specific framework as such,
but rather a significant attempt by the industry’s major players to come up with a
common understanding of impact-related notions.
2.3.1 Social Value International (SVI)’s Social Return on Investment (SROI)
Social return on investment (SROI) is a framework designed to analyze social,
economic and environmental impacts. It consists of measuring the changes that can be
attributed to a specific intervention and then ascribe a monetary value. This process
allows a shared understanding of the benefits, that is, their comparison on the basis of
a common unit of value. However, guidance on the use and application of SROI usually
advises against the comparison of return on investments ratios derived from different
fields or projects.
19
The method was first developed in the late 1990s by the Roberts Enterprise
Development Fund, in California, with Harvard Professor Jed Emerson (Zappalà and
Lyons 2009, 14). The method was then popularized in the UK, first by the New
Economics Foundation and eventually by the UK Government. It progressively spread
throughout the world thanks to the successful efforts of a large international SROI
network. That network eventually merged with the Social Impact Analysts Association
(SIAA) and became Social Value International in the spring of 2015 (Social Value
International 2015).
Carrying out an SROI analysis involves six stages:
1. Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders.
2. Mapping outcomes.
3. Evidencing outcomes and giving them a value.
4. Establishing impact.
5. Calculating the SROI.
6. Reporting, using and embedding.
(Cabinet Office (Office of the Third Sector) 2009, 9–10).
There is no specific list of indicators for SROI. Similar to the theory of change or cost-
benefit analysis, both of which influenced the development of the SROI method, it
begins with the organization’s objectives and involves the selection of adapted
indicators. As a matter of fact, an important part of the “craft” of conducting SROI is
to find adequate indicators and proxies. Commonly used proxies can be found in
19
“It is unlikely that a comparison between SROI ratios will be relevant, while an analysis of diverse
opinions and decisions made during the production of the specific SROI report is way more useful”.
Freely translated from: “Il est peu probable que la comparaison des ratios de retour social soit
pertinente, alors qu’est bien plus utile une analyse des diverses opinions et décisions énoncées au cours
de l’élaboration d’un rapport SROI spécifique” (ESSEC IIES 2011, 54).
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
17
different sectors that apply SROI indicators and may be applied and/or adapted for
specific organizations. Others are more generally applicable across sectors.
SROI is a very influential method in terms of assessing social value. Social Value UK
collected over 800 reports and case studies using this method around the world (Social
Value UK 2018). SROI also has been the target of many criticisms, notably because the
chosen monetary values are often based on subjective estimates (Maier et al. 2014, 21–
22) and, at a more fundamental level, the method assumes social benefits that are not
traded on the market should indeed be given a monetary value (Mertens, Xhauflair, and
Marée 2015).
20
21
2.3.2 GIIN’s IRIS indicators
The Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) is a catalog of indicators
managed by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN). It was first developed in
2008 with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, which had already
sponsored pioneering work on the topic of social impact measurement such as the
Double Bottom Line project report (Clark et al. 2004).
Although these indicators are designed for “impact” investors, it is important to note
that they are mostly performance indicators. This means, in terms of the logic model,
that they do not only cover impact, strictly defined as the long-term effect of an
intervention, but also, and mostly, activities, outputs and some outcomes.
In 2018, the version 4.0 had 559 performance indicators that could be filtered among
sectors, type of beneficiaries and so forth.
In May 2019, the GIIN released IRIS+. While former IRIS metrics already appeared to
be compatible with the SDGs, this new version now makes the connection much more
explicit (GIIN 2019). In this new version, 70 of the 169 SDG targets now align with a
set of IRIS metrics (The Global Impact Investing Network, 2019, p. 3). The guideline
provides examples of how each SDG target is linked to specific impact categories and
themes. For instance, SDG Target 1.5 “By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and
those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-
related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and
disasters” would be aligned with 172 IRIS Metrics that are divided in two IRIS+ Impact
Category (Climate and financial services) and IRIS+ Impact Them (Climate Resilience
and Adaptation and Financial Inclusion) (GIIN 2019, 9).
However, IRIS indicators do not seem to give much importance to SSE’s specific
contributions. For example, there are only 38 indicators related to governance and
ownership. They cover, among others, the composition of boards of directors, the
20
The following excerpt gives us a glimpse of potential critiques: “Indirect monetary value” of a non-
market good is an estimation […] inspired by evaluations carried out in the environmental field: cost of
replacement, cost of opportunity, avoided expenditures, time-saving, value of human life [or]
“willingness to pay” (WTP). […] Although attractive in theory, the economic measurement of non-
market production is nevertheless met with strong reservations […] Under the guise of simplicity
(questioning people on their consent to pay for a service), this [later] method requires carrying out
surveys within a representative sample of the population, which is extremely costly in terms of time
and energy […] This method of evaluation should in fact be reserved to initiatives of a certain
magnitude, such as the evaluation of a public project or the estimation of environmental damages.”
(Mertens and Marée 2015)
21
For more information about SROI, see TIESS briefing note in French at: http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/TIESS_fiche_SROI.pdf
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
18
organization’s compliance with existing rules and issues related to labor. None of these,
however, are linked to the participation of stakeholders in the organization’s decision-
making or to the particular legal form of ownership, factors which are key
characteristics of SSE organizations.
IRIS indicators are freely accessible. They allow for comparison of social purpose
projects and enterprises on the basis of common indicators. However, choosing
indicators is only one step within the larger process of measuring impact. Through its
many publications, the GIIN offers guidance on how to use these indicators. Tips about
the key steps are presented in the following way:
1. Start with the end in mind
2. Create a “Data-Wanted-List”
3. Organize Your Portfolio
4. Choose Your Metrics (IRIS 2018)
59% of world major impact investors surveyed by the GIIN in 2018 reported using
metrics aligned with IRIS (Mudaliar, Bass, and Dithrich 2018, 37).
22
2.3.3 GIIRS Rating / B Lab / B Impact Assessment
The Global Impact Investing Reporting Standards (GIIRS) is a rating system based on
the B Impact Assessment methodology developed by B Lab. The B in this model stands
for benefit.
B Lab was founded in 2006 and is primarily known for its certification programme
called B Corp Certification. At its foundation, B Lab had 3 main purposes:
1. Building a community of like-minded certified B Corps that would respect
rigorous and standardized criteria of social and environmental responsibility as
well as taking legally binding action to ensure that stakeholders other than
shareholders are consulted.
2. Create and promote the legal status of benefit corporations, whose principles
are inspired form B corporations, in as many jurisdictions as possible.
3. Develop a rating system, the GIIRS.
Twelve years later, it can be said B Lab has performed quite well in achieving its
objectives and there are over 2,600 certified B corps around the world (mostly in the
U.S.).
Although this evaluation system uses a different branding focused on impact and “doing
business for good”, the methodology is very similar to corporate social responsibility
assessments. This means the questionnaire every B Corp has to complete covers
governance, workers, community and environment areas that rarely focus on the
ultimate impact of the organization’s activities, but rather on the way it operates.
Sample questions include:
• Does the company have a formal process to share financial information (except
salary information) with its full-time employees?
• What is the minimum number of vacation days / sick days / personal days /
holidays offered annually to full-time tenured workers?
22
For more information about IRIS Indicators, see the GIIN’s own website at https://thegiin.org/ as
well as TIESS briefing note in French at http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/TIESS_fiche_IRIS.pdf
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
19
• What % of management is from underrepresented populations?
• What % of energy used is from renewable on-site energy production for
corporate facilities?
B Lab’s communication strategy seems to be focused on promoting its own brand rather
than trying to align it with the SDGs. In other words, B corps are likely to contribute to
SDGs, but there is little attention dedicated to making this connection clear and explicit.
Some questions value policies, behaviours and results that are typically associated with
SSE include:
• Have you ensured that the social or environmental mission of your company
will be maintained over time, regardless of company ownership?
• What percentage of the company is owned by full-time workers (excluding
founders/executives)?
The B Impact Assessment (BIA) at the core of the GIIRS rating system is compatible
with IRIS as it uses some of its metrics in conjunction with additional criteria. GIIRS,
like any rating system, has the advantage of providing funders and external stakeholders
with a basis for comparison. However, in doing so, it has to make normative judgements
on what is good and how much each answer ought to be weighted. Another drawback
is that GIIRS is the intellectual property of B Lab and fees must be paid by fund
managers in order to use the content and associated branding.
23
2.3.4 Impact Management Project (IMP)
The Impact Management Project (IMP) is an initiative promoted by Bridges Funds
Management in partnership with several major impact investors around the world such
as: Omidyar Network, Ford Foundation, UKAid, MacArthur Foundation, Barclay’s,
Big Society Capital, BlackRock, UBS and many more. Bridges Fund Management is a
fund manager created in the UK in 2002 by Michele Giddens, Philip Newborough and
Sir Ronald Cohen. It paved the way for impact investing in the UK and internationally
with its links to the UK Treasury’s Social Investment Task Force.
The IMP is also facilitating collaboration between a “global network of standard setting
organizations to coordinate impact measurement and management principles,
frameworks, disclosure standards and benchmarking initiatives that, taken all together,
provide clarity for anyone looking to measure, manage and report their impact.” The
main partners of IMP for this task are the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), Social Value International (SVI), the Global
Impact Investing Network (GIIN), the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), the
World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), and the Global Steering Group for Impact
Investments (GSG).
24
23
For more information about IRIS Indicators, see the GIIRS’ own website at http://b-
analytics.net/giirs-funds as well as TIESS briefing note in French at http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/TIESS_fiche_B-Corp_2018_04_10.pdf
24
More information about IMP partners on https://impactmanagementproject.com/about/
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
20
Box 5: Impact Investing—From Green Washing to Social Washing?
When looking at the range of partners involved in the IMP, one asks whether impact
investing is now mainstream and the new investment model across sectors. For
example, the influential work of Michael E. Porter and the “Shared Value Initiative” at
Harvard University, presents shared value as the new business model for corporations
to remain competitive, distinguishing shared value from corporate social responsibility,
philanthropy and sustainability. What do these trends and ideas reveal? Over the years,
socially responsible investing has often been accused of green washing. Is impact
investing the new social washing?
Cynicism is not helpful in a world where complex challenges emerge and accelerate
with each day. SSE has contributed to putting pressure on the private sector and on
governments with its historically rooted commitment to the objectives now identified
by the IMP, and the growing impact investing market. If indeed these trends reflect the
mission of GIIN, one of the partners involved in the IMP “to create a world in which
social and environmental factors are routinely integrated into investment decisions, as
the ‘normal’ way of doing things” (GIIN 2018), it does call for a new business model.
No one is protected from the societal challenges today. Therefore the key challenge for
the sector will be to assure that minimum standards are respected.
The Impact Management Project is extremely important because it builds upon multiple
previous initiatives and participates in the construction of a consensus on how impact
investors see their work. With the IMP, impact measurement becomes one component
of the wider mission of impact investors: managing impact.
Impact is defined as the answer to five questions: What? Who? How much? What
contribution? What risk? See Figure 5.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
21
Figure 5: IMP 5 Impact dimensions
Source: Impact Management Project (2019).
The purpose of IMP is to build consensus about shared fundamentals. However, it does
not advocate the use of specific indicators. What matters is that the privileged indicators
are compatible with the 5 impact dimensions. Indicators can then be classified within
one of the 15 categories of data about impact performance (see Figure 6).
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
22
Figure 6: IMP 15 categories of data
Source: Impact Management Project (2019).
The IMP promotes the classification of impact of investments based on SDGs targets.
However, there does not seem to be any specific guidance about indicators of interest
for the SSE, such as considerations about governance and ownership.
25
2.3.5 Other Methods and Initiatives
There are many other initiatives that are not described in this paper in detail but deserve
mention.
• In France, la Caisse des Dépôts, le Comptoir de l’Innovation, BNP Paribas and
KiMSO have developed a system called MESIS. MESIS has been designed to
guide the investments of a public-private social impact fund, NovESS. The
exact methodology is not publicly available, but official communications state
that the tool relies both on an ex ante and ex post analysis of a project, mobilizes
25
For more information, see the Impact Management Project website at:
https://impactmanagementproject.com/
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
23
sector specific and cross-sector indicators, as well as financial and extra-
financial parameters.
26
• Triodos Bank was founded in the Netherlands in 1980. Its purpose was to only
finance organizations that bring positive and lasting changes. For that purpose,
it had to develop its own lending criteria
27
based on respecting minimum
standards and actively seeking investments with a positive contribution.
28
• Calvert Impact Capital and other community development financial institutions
(CDFIs) in the U.S. have, over decades, developed strategies to assess their
investments’ impact and could therefore be considered as pioneers or even, in
some cases, leaders in the field
29
. According to Swack, Hangen & Northrup
(2014, p. 8‑9), CFDIs in the U.S. rely, in addition to the IRIS metrics, on the
following tools to assess and track the impact and performance of their
investments: the Social Performance Assessment tool developed by Moody’s
Analytics, the microTracker developed by the Aspen Institute and the Success
Measures Data System developed by Neighborworks America.
2.4 SSE’s Responses to the Sustainability Measurement
Challenge and New Trends
The selection of indicators in the previous section have emerged over the last two
decades, and were not designed specifically for the SSE, as we stated earlier. SSE
organizations, for the most part, complied with accounting and reporting requirements
without going beyond them until the early 2000s when they began to evaluate their
contributions to their stated social objectives more systematically. In Quebec, for
example, the Réseau d’investissement social du Québec (RISQ), an investment fund
created in 1997 for social economy enterprises, designed an a priori guide for financial
analysts assessing the multiple objectives of the enterprises seeking investment capital.
Much earlier, in 1990, newly established micro credit financial institutions also had to
demonstrate social objectives beyond providing access to small loans. It is beyond the
scope of this paper to go into greater detail, but we raise these examples here as
illustrative of what are prototypes of social impact indicators. CDFIs dedicated to
community revitalization in the U.S. emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, applying adapted
tools to evaluate their work. Thus, we need to place today’s interest in social impact
indicators on a continuum drawing upon the history of these earlier initiatives.
What marks the interest in social impact today is the rapid emergence of social
enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social business, impact investing and so on, and
their confluence with the SSE. It is in this context that, in this final section of the paper,
we introduce the work of the European Commission and its Social Business Initiative
and the recommendations of the Commission’s Expert Group on Social Enterprise
(GECES) on social impact indicators.
26
To learn more, see
https://www.caissedesdepots.fr/sites/default/files/medias/cp_et_dp/fiche_mesis.pdf
27
Lending criteria published in 2004 https://www.triodos.com/downloads/425586/lending-criteria.pdf
28
To learn more, see https://www.triodos.com/en/about-triodos-bank/news/press-
releases/sustainability-classification-at-triodos-bank/ or https://www.triodos-im.com/socially-
responsible-investing
29
To learn more, see, as an example, Calvert’s latest impact report:
https://www.calvertimpactcapital.org/2018-impact-report#message
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
24
2.4.1 GECES Social Impact Measurement Sub-Group Recommendations
In 2011, The European Commission adopted the Social Business Initiative in order to
promote the “Responsible Business Initiative” as well as enabling tools such as access
to finance and appropriate policy measures. Seeing the multiplication of initiatives and
growing interest in impact measurement in the field of SSE, the European
Commission’s Expert Group on Social Enterprise (GECES) mandated, in 2012, a sub-
group to develop a methodology for measuring the social impact of activities by social
enterprises (GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement 2014).
This sub-group published a report, adopted by the GECES in 2014. Given the credibility
of this project and the wide representation of its members, any work on SSE impact and
performance indicators should, we believe, build on the conclusions of this group. They
are as follows:
• “… one could not devise a rigid set of indicators in a top-down and ‘one-size-
fits-all’ fashion to measure social impact in all cases” (GECES Sub-group on
Impact Measurement 2014, ii).
• It is, however, possible to recommend a common process consisting of 5 broad
steps (see original source for details): 1. Setting objectives; 2. Analyzing
stakeholders; 3. Measuring results; 4. Verifying & valuing impact and 5
Monitoring and reporting. (GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement 2014,
22).
• “All reporting of measurement whether privately between a social enterprise
and its investors, or in wider public reporting, should include appropriate and
proportionate evidence supporting each material point” (GECES Sub-group on
Impact Measurement 2014, iii).
2.4.2 Lean impact, participative evaluation, ecosystemic changes and other
new trends
For the SSE, where there is a wide spectrum of enterprises producing goods and
services that correspondingly require different levels and types of funding, both public
and private, there are both opportunities and threats in the current finance and
evaluation environment. The opportunity of greater access to capital is welcome as is
the potential influence of longstanding social finance institutions in the SSE on new
impact investing actors and institutions. But the threats of reduced government funding
and the application of undifferentiated standards of social impact are very present. That
said, there are also parallel initiatives, some of which we have introduced, that
understand the need for evaluation and assessment tools, but resist external pressures
that may compromise the objectives and commitments of social purpose organizations
and enterprises. These forms of resistance or counter-movements in the evaluation and
indicator community, include, among others, a call for “lean data”, “lean impact”,
agility and flexibility to reflect the complex needs, uncertainties and goals of social
purpose organizations and enterprises (Dichter, Adams, and Ebrahim 2016).
Lean impact is advocated in response to the inadequacy of “upward accountability” that
responds to the expectations of external funders and the critical need for “downward
accountability” for social purpose organizations and SSE
30
to assure that the data they
are gathering is being used to improve lives. Moreover, this approach includes the direct
30
Many of these entities are non-profit organizations and cooperatives.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
25
participation of communities directly or indirectly affected by the funded organizations
or enterprises.
Building the data science capabilities of social and civic organizations increases the
ability to gather lean data by combining new technologies and more traditional data
gathering methodologies (surveys, for example), and increases stakeholders
participation, thereby empowering those directly and indirectly affected by the
organizations, a movement away from information extraction (McCreless 2015). Lean
impact offers a more “adaptive and learning approach” to respond better to complex
issues that are rarely captured by project-based evaluation methods and indicators and
is not bound by short term expectations (Chang 2018). It draws on collaborative human
centered design methodologies, engaging those whose needs are to be met in all phases
of this process. While lean impact focuses on micro initiatives or sectors similar to the
many indicators summarized in this paper, it articulates the need for systems change
that can only be achieved with collective action and enabling public policy by all levels
of government.
A countermovement that addresses systems change from a macro perspective is led by
UNEP, which calls for an “impact-focused ecosystem” involving all stakeholders. “It’s
time for the growing impact movement to accelerate more coordination and
collaboration between stakeholders”, underscoring the inability to achieve SDGs in
isolation. Impact analysis ought to focus on how to move the entire economy forward,
on systemic objectives, involving all levels of government and social and economic
actors, without which transformation is not possible (UNEP Finance Initiative 2018).
Emerging issues identified by UNEP include justice, integrity and security of persons
and strong institutions and stability beyond those generally included in social impact
measurement.
The enabling role of government has been at the heart of the SSE in many contexts as
well as the co-design of public policy by government and SSE organizations or
networks (Mendell and Alain 2015). This is missing in the social impact discourse that
can more easily be read as corresponding with disengagement by government. The call
for systems analysis brings back the critical role of government.
These are but two responses that challenge predominant thinking at the micro and
macro level and are directions for future research. An example bridging these two
perspectives resides in the collective impact of the SSE. This type of measurement, at
the scale of populations, needs to embrace a wide spectrum of outcomes emanating
from a large number of organizations, enterprises and institutions, to evaluate the
interactions between those outcomes, and factor in the contextual phenomena that affect
them.
Counter-movements are urging the co-design of evaluation tools and indicators
embedded in a systemic approach that can “move beyond a triple bottom line (TBL)
approach aimed at reducing negative impacts or enhancing the efficiency of existing
systems to a “transformational” approach (UNRISD 2018). In the words of John
Elkington, who coined the term “triple bottom line” 25 years ago, “TBL’s stated goal
was system change – pushing toward the transformation of capitalism. It was never
supposed to be just an accounting system” (Elkington 2018, 4). It was intended to
disrupt and generate change. Further research and discussions on these disruptive and
generative trends are needed.
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
26
3 Conclusion
3.1 Key Issues
3.1.1 Measuring impact as a burden for SSE organizations
As outlined in the introduction, the interest in the assessment of social performance and
impact is rooted in several trends.
• Governments, under financial constraints and inspired by new public
management, increasingly want to allocate funds efficiently and generate
measurable and tangible results. They therefore ask the organizations they
partner with for this type of information, potentially making it a condition of
funding.
• Foundations and impact investors, inspired by a similar trend, also want the best
“value for money” and seek impact and performance data to maximise the social
impact of their investments. Increasingly, small donors and the general public
are also sensitive to those issues.
• Corporations, social enterprises and eventually SSE increasingly see either a
necessity to conform to these expectations or a market advantage in becoming
a leader in the field.
When done for the purpose of understanding, improving, communicating and
eventually maximizing impact, social impact assessment can be desirable for SSE
organizations, their stakeholders and society.
When these practices are imposed upon SSE organizations, they can become
counterproductive. The imposition of such practices could be the result of a lack of
knowledge or comprehension of the realities of social and environmental challenges,
namely the importance of underlying local contexts. There is also a deep cultural divide
that informs the pressure by investors and funders of civil society enterprises and
organizations to professionalize their practices by importing certain management
techniques. It also ensues from the misunderstanding that money, management and
measurement, though necessary, are not sufficient to solve deeply rooted social and
environmental issues. The tendency to privatize the public good, often at the cost of not
exploring innovative partnerships between the private, public and growing number of
businesses with a social purpose, whatever form they take, also presents a risk.
As expectations increase, the burden becomes greater for every social purpose
organization and especially for the smaller ones that do not have the resources to carry
out the assessments required.
This brings up the questions of “who will pay?” In the philanthropic world, foundations
fund evaluation. In the public sector, governments also fund evaluation. But in social
finance and impact investing, SSE organizations are required to submit complex reports
to satisfy their investors, without access to dedicated funds.
3.1.2 Standardization, flexibility and transformative capacity
Another persistent issue relates to the trade-off between standardization and flexibility.
A previous UNRISD publication (Saïd, Ladd, and Yi 2018) already highlighted that:
[social accounting and auditing, logical frameworks, and social return on
investment all] face a common challenge: the trade-off or tension between
standardization and comparability, on the one hand, and representation of
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
27
the uniqueness/diversity of SSE organizations, on the other. The issues
involved here are similar to those for other types of impact measurement
for meso- and micro-level analysis: the more indicators reflect the diversity
of SSE, the less they are comparable. Resolving this tension demands a new
and innovative methodological solution.
This so-called tension between flexibility and standardization must be unpacked in at
least two areas. The first one relates to the diversity in sectors of activity. Since SSE is
active in almost every sector of activity, the issue of comparability between
organizations from different sectors is posed in the same terms as it would for any
organization, be it SSE or not. SSE organizations, however, do have some common
features such as having a participative democratic governance and a strict limitation on
the profit distributed to investors. What is needed here is the capacity to factor in the
variety of forms and sectors with the commonality of transformative features of the
SSE.
The other issue relates to the danger of confusing an SSE organization with what it is
not, that is a standard private profit-maximizing commercial enterprise, or a standard
non-profit non-commercial organization. Hence the need to build the case for better
understanding and documenting how SSE organizations work, produce, take decisions,
include stakeholders, mobilize resources, distribute wealth and so forth. It is from this
conceptualization that we hope to build relevant tools for the SSE.
This means that beyond the perceived trade-off between flexibility and standardization,
there is a growing recognition that both standardized and flexible or customized
measures are necessary to reflect cross-cutting objectives and the specificities of SSE.
Combining these is a challenge that must be met so as not to burden SSE enterprises
with the need to fit into criteria that do not apply to their mandate, mission, functions,
etc. Of course, this raises the issue of comparability. It may be more relevant to focus
on transformative capacity, and not only on direct outputs/outcomes. Attention needs
to be paid to temporality (different time horizons) and context (both geographical and
institutional), for such comparisons to be made. The growing pressure on SSE
enterprises and social purpose organizations more generally to demonstrate social
impact, is not applied to the private sector and its voluntary compliance. The sense of
urgency to produce evidence of impact falls heavily on non-profit organizations, social
purpose business, the SSE. This is not a level playing field.
Do existing impact indicators evaluate the transformative capacity of enterprises and
organizations? Are they adequate? Are they able to measure “authentic change”
(Reisman et al. 2015, 8)? Does standardization risk embedding externally imposed
criteria into organizations and their practices, at the expense of their agility and
promptness in responding to emerging needs and aspirations? The initiatives covered
in this brief overview, including perspectives from the accounting, evaluation,
cooperative and finance worlds, have evolved to address diversity and, until recently,
have not been subject to pressure for conformity. But the rapid growth of SSE, social
enterprise and impact investing is implicitly imposing conformity, raising the tension
between the transformative objectives of social purpose organizations and the inherent
conservatism of funders and investors.
That said, the difficulty to design standardized indicators as well as their limitations, is
increasingly recognized. A much more likely scenario, in the field of standardization of
impact measurement, is therefore at the level of process. The IMP has begun to address
these issues by advising all its users to answer basic questions about the what, who and
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
28
how much in a systematic way. The GECES sub-group also made basic
recommendations about the key steps and reporting formats, while admitting there is
no “one size fits all” and that the principle of proportionality as encapsulated in the
expression “comply or explain” must be respected.
3.1.3 Impact vs other types of activities, outputs and outcomes in reporting
We also note that despite the insistence on the key term “impact” (social impact, impact
investing, impact economy and so forth), most experiences, as much in the SSE as in
the impact investing sector, aim to generate desirable social and environmental
outcomes or impacts but more often assess and report on how the organizations operate:
activities, outputs, responsible behaviour, etc. That is not necessarily a flaw. It is indeed
very difficult to prove direct causality between one’s actions and a specific impact.
31
However, this certainly introduces some confusion. Box 6 illustrates how solidarity
finance in Quebec shares goals with the rest of impact investing, but differs in the way
it selects projects and, more importantly, how it addresses impact.
Box 6: What role does impact actually play in social finance?
All social finance activities have in common the goal of advancing objectives that go
beyond financial returns, whether they are social, environmental or both. Unlike
responsible finance, which has been accused of merely filtering businesses that do not
respect basic principles relating to responsible behaviors in terms of governance,
employment and environment, it is argued that social finance and impact investing
actively seek and support social impact-oriented organizations.
Many discourses lead their public to believe impact investing organizations can actually
determine which organizations generate positive impact, with the use of their impact
measurement tools, and then decide where to invest based on this information.
However, these are often subjective and difficult to measure. The issue of temporality
is of great concern as impact, strictly defined, usually occurs long after an intervention
was funded and completed. Therefore, what impact investors fund is basically a
convincing promise of impact rather than an actual positive impact.
The notion of impact management, increasingly popular in recent years, contributes to
readjusting expectations in the field by reframing the discussion from pure
measurement of impact to the wider preoccupation of impact maximization, which
entails supporting social purpose organizations at every step of their operations.
Unlike the impact investment field, the Guide for Analysis of Social Economy
Enterprises, developed by experts from solidarity finance in Quebec, never claimed that
precisely measuring impact was the only way to go. Instead, it advises its users to
analyse how the social economy organizations operate and whether or not they are
likely to produce positive impact through their mission, governance and business plan.
It is then assumed that if all the good ingredients are present, impact will likely follow.
Meanwhile, this approach also assesses payment default risk, therefore establishing an
indirect positive link between financial performance and social performance (Bouchard
et al. 2017) (our emphasis).
31
See a discussion in French on this topic here: http://www.tiess.ca/prouver-limpact%e2%80%89-
causalite-attribution-et-contribution/
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
29
Contrary to the rising wave of concern with impact and the concomitant increase in
available measurement tools and a focus on consequences – both positive and negative,
there is also a growing interest, mostly in the SSE field, for performance evaluation
approaches that are process or value oriented.
32
These initiatives, although not yet
articulated into fully operational indicator systems, provide important ideas for an
alternative and we would add, essential, approach to fully capture the role of SSEs in
reaching SDG societal goals.
3.1.4 Financing SSE: Learning from past experiences
The recognition of the contribution of SSE to the 2030 SDGs is growing. The
pioneering work of institutions engaged in social finance committed to the
transformation of the lives of people and communities and their endogenous assessment
tools provide invaluable examples for today’s concern with social impact indicators.
There is, however, a tendency to overlook what has existed, what has worked, how
these can be adapted today, and so on.
As impact investing, for example, and the wide-ranging hybrid enterprises captured by
the term “social enterprise” grow and assume a greater presence and role in the
economy and in society, in both the north and the south, pressure to evaluate their
activities should yield to pressure to better understand their diversity and complexity.
Even those initially championing impact investing by foundations now argue for a
combination of donations and investing. The need for credit enhancements without
which organizations and enterprises cannot leverage capital and decrease their
vulnerability remains, thus nuancing the trend by foundations to increase the use of
their mission related investing portfolios, for example, to replace donations. Situations
often require a combination of both.
The call for “private capital for social good” is fuelling the impact investment market
and the demand for social impact measurement, onboarding private investors,
foundations, pension funds, etc. This is occurring in both the north and the south. In
some cases, pay for performance or evidence-based funding is driving government
decisions to co-finance initiatives and programs with private partners that demonstrate
or promise impact. While this conforms with government retrenchment more generally,
in fact, it does not necessarily result in a reduction in public spending in the short run,
as it entails high transaction costs (Pandey et al. 2018), nor in the long run, as increase
in performance is not maintained once financial incentives disappear (Campbell et al.
2009). Instead of investing in the public good, governments repay the initial investment,
reward private investors with attractive rates of return and assume the many overhead
and management costs associated with the pay for performance initiative. This raises
many issues beyond the scope of this paper and will be developed in subsequent
research. What is important to note, however, is the transfer of public commitment to
private interests and the concomitant need for evaluation tools and indicators that
comply with investor expectations,
33
which can lead to negative side-effects on service
providers, operations and outcomes (Edmiston & Nicholls 2018).
32
See, for instance the Projet VISES in Europe http://www.projetvisesproject.eu/?lang=fr and the
Montreal Declaration on Evaluation and Social Impact Measurement http://www.tiess.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/Tiess_DeclarationOnePager_Ang-01.pdf
33
This is well documented in a recent film “The Invisible Heart” produced and directed by Nadine
Pequeneza
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
30
3.2 Further Research
This brief paper presents a “state of the art” of sustainable development impact
indicators for the SSE. We present a selection of indicators that have been used in non-
profit organizations and community-based enterprises committed to transforming the
lives of men and women and communities and are or may be applied to the SSE. To
date, none of the indicators systems developed by the SSE sector have managed to
impose themselves as standards worldwide. Most of them remain culturally or
geographically limited in their use.
While the surge of impact indicators in recent years corresponds with the emergence
and growth of social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and impact investing, it also
corresponds with the rapidly growing recognition of the transformative capacity of
SSE, in both the north and the south. SSE is a variegated landscape ranging from the
informal, popular or solidarity economy to collectively owned enterprises producing
goods and services in all sectors. We cannot draw a line that would suggest a clear
demarcation of market and non-market activity in the SSE. Too often, SSE is narrowly
associated with social service provision or work insertion, missing its vision and
mission to democratize the economy.
Mapping the SSE internationally reveals the numerous initiatives, organizations,
enterprises committed to social, environmental and economic transformation, to
capacity building of people and communities to achieve these goals. It is committed to
democratic governance and participatory decision making. We noted early in this paper
that existing metrics do not address issues of ownership or governance. Even what we
referred to as resistance or counter-movements to existing social impact measurement
methodologies that offer promise in the drive to design better tools with and not for
communities, do not explicitly examine these issues. The literature refers to both
collectively and privately owned entities, without exploring the impact of ownership.
As pressure mounts to comply with the need to demonstrate social impact, the SSE will
actively join in the conversation to assure that ownership and democratic governance
are at the forefront of its capacity to more effectively meet SDG goals and contribute
to building transformative capacity.
3.3 Conceptualization. The Critical Need for Theory
The companion “state of the art” paper by Peter Utting and Kelly O’Neill raises
important theoretical questions that apply to this paper as well (Utting and O’Neill
forthcoming). We will develop a conceptual framework in further research. We briefly
note some key thinkers and ideas that are critical to our thinking and that should be
analyzed in future research
Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom’s extensive research of common pool resources across
regions in the north and in the south and over time, concludes that these resources are
best governed collectively by communities. Her eight institutional design principles and
polycentricity, or multiple, nested centers of decision making with some degree of
autonomy, is powerful testimony to the effectiveness and efficiency of the collective
management of common pool resources (SSE) and also to the need for adaptability and
flexible institutional arrangements between levels of government, social actors and
communities. The work of Karl Polanyi is a key theoretical reference for SSE, in
particular, his concept of fictitious commodities, processes of re-embedding the
economy in society and earlier writings on economic democracy. Collective ownership
of resources, social and solidarity finance and cooperatives are forms of
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
31
“decommodification”, transferring private ownership of land, labour and money to
communities and cooperatives. Today this would include the collective enterprises that
make up the SSE and hybrid social purpose organizations re-embedding the economy
in society. As the digital economy becomes increasingly privatized and “commodified”,
platform cooperativism is an important illustration of decommodification, in the
Polanyian sense.
Many authors and organizations proposing new methodologies to better capture social
phenomena in the impact and evaluation literature are drawing on complexity theory
and design thinking (human centered design) and post-disciplinary approaches more
generally. In a recent article, Alex Nicolls brings Habermas and Foucault together to
develop a “general theory of social impact accounting”. Combining Habermas’ belief
in the transformative capacity of dialogue to bring about consensus in society and
Foucault’s analysis of power through new discourse, provides a strong case for creating
spaces for dialogue, listening, learning, adaptation to better understand social impact
(Nicholls 2018). Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, to which we referred earlier, is
essential to social impact analysis and the need to address capabilities and functioning
before assuming that interventions or projects will work. These are a few very brief
comments on the theoretical work that lies ahead.
3.4 A Final Word
In 2015 Jed Emerson, recalled that it was not until the establishment of the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 that business and non-profit organizations
developed metrics to track environmental impact and that it will likely take 20 years to
develop new frameworks of evaluation in response to the relatively new need for social
metrics. In his recent reflective book The Purpose of Capital, published three years
later, Emerson writes:
Maybe we should shut up and listen to the world, to its various and
diverse human and non-human communities and history of experience.
Maybe we need to create greater space to hear from those whose lives
we seek to impact? (Emerson 2018, 4)
Learning from the past and improving existing social impact metrics is a process that
must be undertaken collaboratively between stakeholders. This is still an evolving field,
but it will unlikely lead to homogenous, standardized measurement tools. Should this
be the goal? Indeed, how innovations in social impact measurement will be played out
varies in different contexts, but the understanding that the co-design of tools to improve
the capacity of the SSE to achieve social impact is a sine qua non in assuring the
usefulness of these tools for the SSE itself and for potential investors and governments.
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
32
4 References
Alquézar Crusellas, Raquel, and Ruben Suriñach Padilla. 2019. “El Balance Social de
la XES: 10 años midiendo el impacto de la ESS en Cataluña.” UNTFSSE
Knowledge Hub for the SDGs Draft Paper Series. Geneva: UN Inter-Agency
Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy (UNTFSSE). Accessed 30
August 2019. https://unsse.org/knowledge-hub/el-balance-social-de-la-xes-10-
anos-midiendo-el-impacto-de-la-ess-en-cataluna/.
Anderson, Andrea A. 2005. The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of
Change: A Practical Guide to Theory Development. Washington, D. C.: The
Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.
Auberger-Barré, Marie-Noëlle. 2002. “Bilan Sociétal Du CJDES.” Cadres CFDT,
July 2002.
Banerjee, Abhijit V., and Esther Duflo. 2009. “L’approche expérimentale en
économie du développement.” Revue d’économie politique 119 (5): 691.
https://doi.org/10.3917/redp.195.0691.
———. 2011. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global
Poverty. New York: Public Affairs.
Besançon, Emmanuelle, and Nicolas Chochoy. 2019. “Mesurer l’impact de
l’innovation sociale: Quelles Perspectives En Dehors de La Théorie Du
Changement?” RECMA, no. 2: 42–57.
Bouchard, Marie J., ed. 2009. The Worth of the Social Economy, An International
Perspective. Brussels: CIRIEC/Peter Lang.
Bouchard, Marie J., Léa Leduc Berryman, Maude Léonard, Jean Matuszewski,
Damien Rousselière, and Sonia Tello Rozas. 2017. “Analyse du rôle du
Réseau d’investissement social du Québec (RISQ) dans l’écosystème
d’économie sociale et estimation des retombées économiques et fiscales de ses
Investissements 1998-2014.” Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal/
E&B Data.
Branger, Véronique, Laurent Gardin, Florence Jany-Catrice, and Samuel Pinaud.
2014. Évaluer l’utilité sociale de l’économie sociale et solidaire. Projet Corus-
ESS. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://passerelles.quebec/system/files/upload/documents/posts/alterguide-
2014.pdf.
Brown, Leslie, Chiara Carini, Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Lou Hammond Ketilson,
Elizabeth Hicks, John McNamara, Sonja Novkovic, Daphne Rixon, and
Richard Simmons, eds. 2015. Cooperatives for Sustainable Communities -
Tools to Measure Co-Operative Impact and Performance. Ottawa: Co-
operatives and Mutuals Canada - Centre for the Study of Co-operatives.
Brown, Leslie, and Sonja Novkovic. 2015. “Introduction.” In Cooperatives for
Sustainable Communities - Tools to Measure Co-Operative Impact and
Performance, by Leslie Brown, Chiara Carini, Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Lou
Hammond Ketilson, Elizabeth Hicks, John McNamara, Sonja Novkovic,
Daphne Rixon, and Richard Simmons. Ottawa: Co-operatives and Mutuals
Canada - Centre for the Study of Co-operatives.
Cabaj, Mark. 2017. Shared Measurement: The Why Is Clear, the How Continues to
Develop. Tamarack Institute. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/hubfs/Resources/Publications/Shared%20
Measurement%20Paper.pdf.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
33
Cabaj, Mark, and Liz Weaver. 2016. Collective Impact 3.0 An Evolving Framework
for Community Change. Tamarack Institute. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/sites/default/files/Collective%20Impa
ct%203.0.pdf.
Cabinet Office (Office of the Third Sector). 2009. A Guide to Social Return on
Investment. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/The%20Guide%20to%20
Social%20Return%20on%20Investment%202015.pdf.
Centre of Excellence for Evaluation at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
2012. "Theory-Based Approaches to Evaluation: Concepts and Practices."
Accessed 30 August 2019. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-
secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/centre-excellence-evaluation/theory-
based-approaches-evaluation-concepts-practices.html.
Chambers, Robert, and Gordon Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods:
Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies (UK).
Chang, Ann Mei. 2018. Lean Impact: How to Innovate for Radically Greater Social
Good. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, Catherine, William Rosenzweig, David Long, and Sara Olsen. 2004. Double
Bottom Line Project Report: Assessing Social Impact in Double Bottom Line
Ventures. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/80n4f1mf.pdf.
Cupitt, Sally. 2015. Randomised Controlled Trials – Gold Standard or Fool’s Gold?
The Role of Experimental Methods in Voluntary Sector Impact Assessment.
The National Council for Volountary Organisations (NCVO). Accessed at 30
August 2019. http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sally-
cupitt/randomised-controlled-trials-gold-standard-or-fools-gold.pdf.
Department for International Development (DFID). 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods
Guidance Sheets. London: DFID. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.ennonline.net/attachments/871/dfid-sustainable-livelihoods-
guidance-sheet-section1.pdf.
Dichter, Sasha, Tom Adams, and Alnoor Ebrahim. 2016. “The Power of Lean Data.”
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2016.
Duclos, Hélène. 2007. Évaluer l’utilité sociale de son activité: Conduire une
démarche d’auto-évaluation. Paris: Agence de valorisation des initiatives
socio-économiques (AVISE).
Dufour, Bryan. 2015. “State of the Art in Social Impact Measurement: Methods for
Work Integration Social Enterprises Measuring Their Impact in a Public
Context.” Paper presented at the 5th EMES International Research Conference
on Social Enterprise: Building a Scientific Field to Foster the Social Enterprise
Eco-System, Helsinki, 30 June-3 July 2015.
Duguid, Fiona. 2017. “Non-Financial Tools and Indicators for Measuring the Impact
of Co-Operatives.” Journal of Co-Operative Accounting and Reporting 5 (1):
40–54.
Economy for the Common Good. 2018. “Common Good Matrix.” Accessed 30
August 2019. https://www.ecogood.org/en/our-work/common-good-balance-
sheet/common-good-matrix/.
Elkington, John. 2018. “25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line”.
Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It.” Harvard Business Review. Accessed 30
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
34
August 2019. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-
bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it.
Emerson, Jed. 2003. “The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and
Financial Returns.” California Management Review 45 (4): 35–51.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187.
———. 2018. The Purpose of Capital: Elements of Impact, Financial Flows, and
Natural Being. San Francisco: Blended Value Press.
Emerson, Jed, and Sheila Bonini. 2003. The Blended Value Map. Accessed 30 August
2019. http://www.blendedvalue.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/02/pdf-bv-
map.pdf.
ESSEC IIES. 2011. Guide du retour social sur investissement (SROI). ESSEC
Business School. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.avise.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20140204/201105_Essec_
GuideSROI.pdf.
Eyben, Rosalind. 2013. Unconvering the Politics of ‘Evidence’ and ‘Results’. A
Framing Paper for Development Practicioners. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://bigpushforward.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Uncovering-the-
Politics-of-Evidence-and-Results-by-Rosalind-Eyben.pdf.
Eyben, Rosalind, and Chris Roche. 2013. “Evidence and Results Wonkwar Final
Salvo (for Now): Eyben and Roche Respond to Whitty and Dercon.” From
Poverty to Power - Oxfam Blogs, January 24. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/evidence-and-results-wonkwar-final-salvo-for-
now-eyben-and-roche-respond-to-whitty-and-dercon-your-chance-to-vote/.
Gadrey, Jean. 2004. L’utilité sociale des organisations de l’économie sociale et
solidaire. Une mise en perspective sur la base de travaux récents. Rapport de
synthèse pour la DIES et la MIRE. CLERSE-IFRESI, Université de Lille 1.
———. 2005. “L’invention de l’utilité sociale des associations en France: À la
recherche de conventions, de régulations, de critères et de méthodes
d’évaluation.” Économie et Solidarités 36 (1): 7–26.
Gamble, Jamie AA. 2008. A Developmental Evaluation Primer. JW McConnell
Family Foundation Montreal.
GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement. 2014. Proposed Approaches to Social
Impact Measurement in European Commission Legislation and in Practice
Relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/12966/attachments/5/translations/en
/renditions/pdf.
GIIN (Global Impact Investing Network). 2019. IRIS+ and the SDGs. Accessed 30
August 2019. https://s3.amazonaws.com/giin-web-
assets/iris/assets/files/guidance/IRIS-SDGs_20190515.pdf.pdf.
GIIN (Global Impact Investment Network). 2018. Roadmap for the Future of Impact
Investing: Reshaping Financial Markets. Global Impact Investing Network
(GIIN). Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://thegiin.org/assets/GIIN_Roadmap%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20
Impact%20Investing.pdf.
GLOPP (Globalisation and Livelihood Options of People living in Poverty). 2008.
DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Its Framework. Accessed 30
August 2019. http://glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf.
Gray, Rob. 2001. “Thirty Years of Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing: What
(If Anything) Have We Learnt?” Business Ethics: A European Review 10 (1):
9–15.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
35
Grieco, Cecilia, Laura Michelini, and Gennaro Lasevoli. 2015. “Measuring Value
Creation in Social Enterprise: A Cluster Analysis of Social Impact Assessment
Models.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44 (6): 1173–93.
Handley, Sarah, Farooq Sabri, and Anne Kazimirski. 2016. Shared Measurement:
Greater than the Sum of Its Parts. Inspiring Impact. Accessed 30 August
2019. https://www.thinknpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Shared-
measurement_Greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts_Feb-16.pdf.
Harji, Karim, and Edward Jackson. 2012. Accelerating Impact: Achievements,
Challenges and What’s Next in Building the Impact Investing Industry. New
York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Hogan, R. Lance. 2007. “The Historical Development of Program Evaluation:
Exploring Past and Present.” Online Journal for Workforce Education and
Development 2 (4): 1–14.
Impact Management Project. 2019. “Impact Management Project.” Accessed 30
August 2019. http://www.impactmanagementproject.com/.
Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). 2016. Theory of Change and Program Design.
Accessed 30 August 2019. https://www.poverty-
action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Resources-for-Theory-of-Change-
and-Program-Design.pdf.
IRIS. 2018. “Getting Started with IRIS.” IRIS. 30 August 2019.
https://iris.thegiin.org/guide/getting-started-guide.
Kramer, Mark, Marcie Parkhurst, and Lalitha Vaidyanathan. 2009. Breakthroughs in
Shared Measurement and Social Impact. FSG Social Impact Advisors.
Accessed 30 August 2019. https://www.fsg.org/publications/breakthroughs-
shared-measurement.
KU Center for Community Health and Development. 2019. “Community Tool Box
Chapter 2, Section 1: Developing a Logic Model or Theory of Change.”
Accessed 30 August 2019. http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-
contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/logic-
model-development/main.
Leeuw, Frans L., and Jos Vaessen. 2009. Impact Evaluations and Development:
NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation. Washington D.C.: Network of
networks on impact evaluation.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/411821468313779505/pdf/574900
WP0Box351BLIC10nonie1guidance.pdf.
Letts, Christine W., William Ryan, and Allen Grossman. 1997. “Virtuous Capital:
What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists.” Harvard Business
Review 75: 36–50.
Maas, Karen, and Kellie Liket. 2011. “Social Impact Measurement: Classification of
Methods.” In Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain
Management, edited by Roger Burritt, Stefan Schaltegger, Martin Bennett,
Tuula Pohjola, and Maria Csutora, 27:171–202. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1390-1.
Maier, Florentine, Christian Schober, Ruth Simsa, and Reinhard Millner. 2015. SROI
as a Method for Evaluation Research: Understanding Merits and Limitations.
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. Accessed 30 August
2019. http://epub.wu.ac.at/4289/.
McCreless, Michael. 2015. A Client-Centric Approach: Impact Evaluation That
Creates Value for Participants. Root Capital. Accessed 30 August 2019.
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
36
https://rootcapital.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015-
june_client_centric_approach_final.pdf.
Mendell, Marguerite, and Béatrice Alain. 2015. “Enabling the Social and Solidarity
Economy through the Co-Construction of Public Policy.” In Social and
Solidarity Economy: Beyond the Fringe, edited by Peter Utting, 166-82.
London: Zed Books.
Mertens, Sybille, and Michel Marée. 2015. “So, What Does a Social Economy
Enterprise Produce?” In The Weight of the Social Economy, An International
Perspective, edited by Marie J. Bouchard and Damien Rousselière, 141–60.
Brussels: CIRIEC/Peter Lang.
Mertens, Sybille, Virginie Xhauflair, and Michel Marée. 2015. Questioning the Social
Return on Investment (SROI). SOCENT. Accessed 30 January 2019.
https://www.iap-socent.be/agenda/questioning-social-return-investment-and-
how-measure-production-social-enterprise-available.
Monaghan, Philip, and Eve Sadler. 2013. Simply Performance: A Guide to Creating
Member Value by Aligning Co-Operative Strategy, Performance Measurement
and Reporting. Co-operatives UK. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/simply_performan
ce_0.pdf.
Mook, Laurie, Betty Jane Richmond, and Jack Quarter. 2003. “Integrated Social
Accounting for Nonprofits: A Case from Canada.” Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14 (3): 283–297.
Mudaliar, Abhilash, Rachel Bass, and Hannah Dithrich. 2018. 2018 Annual Impact
Investor Survey. Global Impact Investing Netowrk (GIIN). Accessed 30
August 2019. https://thegiin.org/research/publication/annualsurvey2018.
Murray, Jane, Mary Ferguson, and Claire Letemendia. 2010. Beyond Survival.
Helping Women Transition out of Poverty. An Analysis of the Results of the
Women’s Economic Development Collaborative Fund. Canadian Women’s
Foundation & Eko Nomos. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.canadianwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PDF-Beyond-
Survival-Report-FINAL-EN.pdf.
Murray, Janet, and Mary Ferguson. 2002. Women in Transition out of Poverty: A
Guide to Effective Practice in Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods. Women and
Economic Development Consortium. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/sites/ccednet-
rcdec.ca/files/women_in_transition_out_of_poverty_2002.pdf.
Nicholls, Alex. 2018. “A General Theory of Social Impact Accounting: Materiality,
Uncertainty and Empowerment.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 9 (2):
132–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1452785.
Olsen, Sara, and Brett Galimidi. 2008. Catalog of Approaches to Impact
Measurement: Assessing Social Impact in Private Ventures. Social Venture
Technology Group. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.midot.org.il/Sites/midot/content/File/CATALOG%20OF%20APP
ROACHES%20TO%20IMPACT%20MEASUREMENT(1).pdf.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2016. “State of the Art and Practice of Developmental
Evaluation: Answers to Common and Recurring Questions.” In
Developmental Evaluation Exemplars, edited by Michael Quinn Patton, Kate
McKegg, and Nan Wehipeihana, 1–24. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
https://www.cehd.umn.edu/OLPD/MESI/spring/2016/Patton-Chapter1.pdf.
Accessed 30 August 2019.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
37
Persais, Eric. 2006. “Bilan Sociétal: La mise en oeuvre du processus RSE au sein du
secteur de l’économie sociale.” Revue Internationale de l’économie Sociale:
Recma, 302:14–39.
Quarter, Jack, Laurie Mook, and Ann Armstrong. 2017. Understanding the Social
Economy: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
REAS. 2019. Guía de preguntas del Balance/Auditoría Social- Batería Acotada
estatal. Red de redes de economia alternativa y solidaria (REAS). Accessed 30
August 2019.
https://www.reasred.org/sites/default/files/pages_attachments/Guia_preguntas
_Bateria_Acotada_2019.pdf.
Reisman, Jane, Carlyn Orians, Nancy MacPherson, Veronica Olazabal, Robert
Picciotto, Edward Jackson, and Karim Harji. 2015. Streams of social impact
work: building bridges in a new evaluation era with market-oriented players
at the table. The Rockefeller Foundation. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://etjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/StreamsRev6pages.pdf.
Reviers, Bruno de. 2012. Repères Sur Les Théories Du Changement. F3E. Accessed
30 August 2019. https://docplayer.fr/20262655-Reperes-sur-les-theories-du-
changement.html.
Ridley-Duff, Rory, and Mike Bull. 2015. Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory
and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rixon, Daphne, and Louis Beaubien. 2015. “Integrated Reporting for Co-Operatives:
A Case Study of Vancity Credit Union.” In Cooperatives for Sustainable
Communities - Tools to Measure Co-Operative Impact and Performance,
edited by Leslie Brown, Chiara Carini, Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Lou
Hammond Ketilson, Elizabeth Hicks, John McNamara, Sonja Novkovic,
Daphne Rixon, and Richard Simmons, 337–52. Ottawa: Co-operatives and
Mutuals Canada - Centre for the Study of Co-operatives.
Rodet, Diane. 2008. “Les définitions de la notion d’utilité sociale.” Économie et
Solidarités 39 (1): 164–173.
Rogers, Patricia. 2018. “Develop programme theory / theory of change.” Better
Evaluation. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/rainbow_framework/define/develop_prog
ramme_theory.
Rossi, Peter H., Mark W. Lipsey, and Howard E. Freeman. 2003. Evaluation: A
Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Saïd, Ibrahim, Paul Ladd, and Ilcheong Yi. 2018. Measuring the Scale and Impact of
Social and Solidarity Economy. UNRISD. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/B35B595F32BF
48C6C12582F900363EC4/$file/IB9%20-%20Measurement-SSE.pdf.
Salathé-Beaulieu, Gabriel. 2018. “Évaluation et mesure d’impact en économie
sociale : ligne du temps.” Montréal: Territoires innovants en économie sociale
et solidaire (TIESS). Accessed 30 August 2019. http://www.tiess.ca/mesure-
dimpact-social-ligne-du-temps/.
Sette, Cristina. 2018. “Participatory Evaluation.” Better Evaluation. 2018. Accessed
30 August 2019.
https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/participatory_evaluation.
Simsa, Ruth, Olivia Rauscher, Christian Schober, and Clara Moder. 2014.
Methodological Guideline for Impact Assessment. Working Paper No.
01/2014. Third Sector Impact. Accessed 30 August 2019.
UNRISD Working Paper 2019–4
38
https://thirdsectorimpact.eu/site/assets/uploads/post/methodological-guideline-
impact-assessment/TSI_WorkingPaper_012014_Impact.pdf.
Sirieix, Marion. 2018. L’utilité Sociale. Fiches synthèse sur l’évaluation et la mesure
d’impact en économie sociale. Montréal: Territoires innovants en économie
sociale et solidaire (TIESS). Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.tiess.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TIESS_fiche_utilite-
sociale_2018_04_10.pdf.
Smutylo, Terry. 2005. Outcome Mapping: A Method for Tracking Behavioural
Changes in Development Programs. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.outcomemapping.ca/download/csette_en_ILAC_Brief07_mappin
g.pdf.
Social Audit Network. 2011. Prove! Improve! Account! The New Guide to Social
Accounting and Audit. Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/getting-started/new-guide-to-social-
accounting-and-audit/.
Social Reporting Standard. 2014. Social Reporting Standard Guide to Results-Based
Reporting. Accessed 30 August 2019. https://www.social-reporting-
standard.de/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/SRS_guidelines_2014_EN.pdf.
Social Value International. 2015. “The SROI Network and the Social Impact Analysts
Association Relaunch as Social Value UK and Social Value International.”
Social Value International. Social Value International, 20 May. Accessed 30
August 2019. https://socialvalueint.org/the-sroi-network-and-the-social-
impact-analysts-association-relaunch-as-social-value-uk-and-social-value-
international/2015/.
Social Value UK. 2018. “Report Database.” Social Value UK (blog). 2018.
http://www.socialvalueuk.org/report-database/.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. 2009. Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Accessed 30
August 2019.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission
+report.
Sustainability Solutions Group. 2016. Sustainability Reporting for Co-Operatives: A
Guidebook. International Co-operative Alliance. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.ica.coop/sites/default/files/publication-files/ica-sustainability-
reporting-guidebook-1575997496.pdf.
Swack, Michael, Eric Hangen, and Jack Northrup. 2014. CDFIs Stepping into the
Breach: An Impact Evaluation—Summary Report. Office of Financial
Strategies and Research Community Development Financial Institutions Fund,
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.cdfifund.gov/Documents/CDFIs%20Stepping%20into%20the%2
0Breach%20Impact%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf.
UNTFSSE (UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy). 2014.
Social and Solidarity Economy and the Challenge of Sustainable
Development. Accessed 30 August 2019. http://unsse.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/Position-Paper_TFSSE_Eng1.pdf.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) Finance Initiative. 2018.
Rethinking Impact to Finance the SDGs: A Position Paper and Call to Action
Prepared by the Positive Impact Initiative. Accessed 30 August 2019.
Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for Social and Solidarity Economy
State of the Art
Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu with Marie J. Bouchard and Marguerite Mendell
39
https://www.unepfi.org/publications/rethinking-impact-to-finance-the-sdgs-a-
position-paper-and-call-to-action/.
UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development). 2018.
“Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for For-Profit Enterprise and
Social and Solidarity Economy.” Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/projects.nsf/(httpProjects)/B2A0A8A40
BE9308CC12583350053ACDF?OpenDocument.
Utting, Peter, and Kelly O’Neill. Forthcoming. Sustainability Measurement,
Disclosure and Reporting: The Corporate Dimension.
Vo, Anne T., and Christina A. Christie. 2018. “Where Impact Measurement Meets
Evaluation: Tensions, Challenges, and Opportunities.” American Journal of
Evaluation 39 (3): 383–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018778813.
Vogel, Isabel. 2012. Review of the Use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International
Development. Review Report for UK Department for International
Development (DFID). Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf.
Weiss, Carol H. 1995. “Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-
Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and
Families.” In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts,
Methods, and Contexts, edited by James P. Connell, Anne C. Kubisch, Lisbeth
B. Schorr, Carol H. Weiss, 65–92. New York, NY: Aspen Institute.
White, Howard, Shagun Sabarwal, and Thomas de Hoop. 2014. Essais Contrôlés
Randomisés (ECR). Note méthodologique évaluation d'impact no. 7. Florence:
Centre de recherche Innocenti de l'UNICEF. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/MB7FR.pdf.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek:
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Accessed 30 August 2019.
https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicM
odel.pdf.
XES (Xarxa d’Economia Solidària). 2018. Informe del mercat social 2018. Accessed
30 August 2019. http://xes.cat/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/informe-
mercatsocial-2017_5.pdf.
———. 2019. “El Balanç Social i els Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible.”
Accessed 30 August 2019. http://mercatsocial.xes.cat/noticies/el-balanc-
social-i-els-objectius-de-desenvolupament-sostenible/.
Zappalà, Gianni, and Mark Lyons. 2009. Recent Approaches to Measuring Social
Impact in the Third Sector: An Overview. Centre for Social Impact Sydney.
Accessed 30 August 2019.
http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/files/8913/2938/6375/CSI_Background
_Paper_No_5_-_Approaches_to_measuring_social_impact_-_150210.pdf.
