Search results

The emergence of social entrepreneurship, since its nascent stage, brought to light the imminent need to make the social value creating models workable by measuring the value created by them. This study reviews the existing literature from the past two decades to establish the role of accounting techniques in the measurement of social value. Nine databases were searched with the word combination “SROI” and “social enterprise” to determine the number of publications related to the field and the trend in its publishing. A classification of themes from selected studies was conducted to establish the direction of research in this context. Social return on investment (SROI) has been tested as a compatible measure and its implementation in various scenarios produced results; however, the inadequacy of its outcomes gives rise to the question whether any measurement tool can be appropriate for social value measurement because there is a need to justify the measurement of social value. The current trends call for further research in the field of customized measurement tools for the measurement of social value.

The aim of this chapter is to propose a critical analysis of socially responsible investing (SRI) through debate and reconstruction. Our goal is therefore to try to understand how the definition of ethics in finance has steered SRI towards a financial approach where ethics is guided by finance.

This chapter proposes a two-point approach consisting of a meta-debate and development perspectives. Each approach is divided into three debates (ideological and philosophical, scientific and practical), which are interconnected.

The chapter concludes that the debate on mainstream SRI is necessary but should be re-discussed, as it is preventing in its current form the concept from developing and being grounded in real ethical values, sacrificing the individual ethics that should be driving investing decisions.

The chapter proposes to rethink the paradigm around SRI through a conceptual framework that re-inserts finance within ethics, where non-financial performance and impact investment should be at the centre of the scientific debates, leading to an SRI based on exclusion, the consideration of controversies and social impact measurement.

This chapter interrogates the idea that Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is ‘making the world a better place’. It explores the issue of the societal impacts of SRI by addressing five main questions: (1) Is SRI a viable solution to society’s problems? (2) What are the impediments and limits to SRI’s ability to make a difference in society? (3) Where is ‘ethics’ in SRI? (4) How do we measure societal impacts of SRI? and (5) What is the future of SRI?

This chapter is a reflective piece debating the societal impacts of SRI. For the purpose of this chapter, a focus group was organised and interviews were conducted involving both academics and practitioners.

The chapter highlights and discusses several items that can either enhance or on the contrary hinder the societal impacts of SRI. Some of them are related to understanding of SRI, some concern the practice of SRI, while others are more of an epistemological nature. Based on the discussion, we propose three points of leverage that can enhance the capacity and ability of SRI to create change.

The chapter is a call for more research on the societal impacts of SRI. Research in SRI has dominantly focused on the technicalities of the activity and the financial implications, but has hardly touched upon the question of the societal impact.

There are three primary managerial implications highlighted in this chapter: rethink the notion of fiduciary duties, strengthen the interaction between asset owners and asset managers, and encourage changes in public policy.

This chapter outlines some theoretical, historical and analytical themes covering national, trans-national and international trends in open education. It starts by looking at the social, economic and political drivers for education systems in general, and how openness has been used to widen access through attacking the iron triangle of education: access, quality and cost (open as a door). It then looks at the more recent technological and ideological developments that have aided openness (open as a book); including the central role that open licensing of digital materials (open as a right) has played in changing the social and economic drivers of education and in particular open educational resources. Next, it looks at the importance of open innovation, social innovation and communities of practice for open education (open as a relationship) and includes a comparison between the development of open source software and the development of open educational resources. It goes on to consider the impacts of all these on national and international policy (open as a border) before reviewing the social and economic role of open education from the perspectives of lifelong learners, students, educational institutions and educational publishers (open for business in the future). The chapter concludes by forecasting possible trends in open education for the next 15 years.

This chapter aims to understand whether and how impact investment, a novel approach to financing social and sustainable entrepreneurship, is aligned with, and contributing to, the sustainable development goals (SDGs). We theorise the SDGs as a ‘field-level frame’, a cultural template guiding social and environmental change. We analyse performance data of impact investors both in Australia and globally and map this impact data to the 17 SDGs. We find that impact investors are engaging with language consistent with the SDGs a possible field-level frame to guide impact strategy and measurement. To date, impact investors measure social outcomes more frequently than environmental outcomes; this may be explained, in part, by our analysis that reveals some SDGs create greater points of leverage to generate layers of impact across SDGs. This chapter explains how impact investors are engaging with the pursuit of the SDG agenda.

The world of ‘responsible’ ethical and social investment is more substantial than it might seem. At the end of 2007, holdings in ‘responsible’ funds amounted to 20 billion, against the 5 billion three years earlier. Although these ‘responsible’ holdings tend to be ‘best-in-class’ funds (Fig. 9.1), the significant rise in ‘sustainable funding’ in this area is clear.

The aim of this chapter is to challenge the assumption that top-down approaches to economic development and growth are the best way forward for rural areas. Looking at the work of the current LEADER programme and LEADER project examples, the chapter measures the impacts of small-scale, bottom-up approaches to foster rural development. It considers the importance of the LEADER approach as a key component of the current rural policy framework.

The chapter provides a discussion of top-down versus neo-endogenous approaches to rural growth, drawing on policy and practitioner literature. Four case studies from the current LEADER programme are used to demonstrate how the LEADER approach brings about growth at a local level, and how this can be measured using a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach.

LEADER, as a programme, can deliver sustainable and effective economic growth through a series of small-scale interventions by stimulating entrepreneurial activity in the context of neo-endogenous growth. This forms a useful complementary strand to the top-down policy of major sectoral interventions profiled in this chapter in the context of current England-wide policy approaches to economic development. The SROI approach provides an effective tool for capturing the longer term effects of LEADER.

Considering the broader SROI and sustainable credentials of LEADER-stimulated business development provides a new and more robust means of both communicating the achievements of the programme and a rationale for giving it greater prominence.

The chapter establishes a new place-based approach to considering the wider impact of LEADER projects through an SROI approach. The insights help provide new insights into the contribution of this programme to economic development in rural communities.

This chapter provides an overview of the social policy development and assessment in East Asia. Our study shows that social policy assessment in this region is still relying on objective indicators and interviews, even though most of the regional governments have implemented the Regulatory Impact Assessment for improving regulation quality. General approaches to measuring social value such as Cost–Benefit Analysis, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Social Return on Investment are not commonly used in the formulation of social policies. We compare the features of these approaches and provide suggestions about how to embed social value assessment tools into social policy and strategy development process.