Social Return on Investment - a powerful tool for Project Managers

Social Return on Investment (SROI): A Powerful Tool for the Realisation of Benefits
1
APM Specific Interest Group white paper
October 2016
Social Return on
Investment (SROI):
A Powerful Tool
for the Realisation
of Benefits

@Association for Project Management 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the express permission in writing of the
Association for Project Management.

3
Executive summary 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1 What is social return on investment (SROI)? 6
1.2 SROI in benefits management 6
2. The six stages of SROI 8
2.1 Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders 9
2.2 Mapping outcomes 10
2.3 Evidencing outcomes and give them value 11
2.4 Establishing impact 12
2.5 Calculate the SROI 12
2.6 Reporting, using and embedding 13
3. Advantages of SROI 14
3.1 SROI in the business case 14
3.2 SROI to evaluate and make management decisions 14
3.3 SROI to seek funding and win contracts 14
3.4 SROI during project and programme delivery 15
3.5 SROI during transition from the project team to business-as-usual 15
3.6 SROI during project and programme implementation 15
4. Common misconceptions and mistakes 16
4.1 SROI is not a tick box exercise 16
4.2 SROI is not a soft option 16
5. Conclusions 17
Contents

4
This guide has involved contributions from many people. We would particularly like to thank the
Committee of the APM Benefits Management SIG, Directors of Social Value UK, and Phoenix Futures
Ltd. These organisations and individuals have given permissions, editorial advice, the thought and
thought leadership that lays the foundations and builds the concepts of both Benefits Management
and Social Return on Investment, and delivered the care and support to vulnerable people that forms
the case study in this guide.
Thank you.
Hugo Minney PhD, Registered Project Professional (RPP), Accredited SROI Pratitioner, Fellow APM

5
The social return on investment (SROI) process and framework is a robust structure for forecasting or
evaluating services and projects where it isn’t immediately obvious how to quantify the financial (and
perhaps other) return.
This makes it the measurement method of choice for non-profit projects and programmes such as
government and community and voluntary services (including charity, third sector and public sector).
But it isn’t only useful in the not-for-profit sectors. It is also valuable for companies who want to
measure the impact of their corporate social responsibility programmes and the wider impact of their
strategies, and should be used to put a ‘pounds equivalent’ (or Euros, Dollars) value on strategic fit,
economic impact, workforce impact, reputation impact, etc. in a conventional for-profit business case.
Perhaps more importantly, SROI sets out to gain stakeholder engagement and commitment from the
start, and to maintain it all the way through project/programme delivery, handover and the use of
the capability in business-as-usual. This focus means that SROI drives benefits realisation rather than
simply reporting it.
SROI is directly relevant in the project and programme management environment. SROI looks at
individual initiatives and determines the return on investment, and the key factors which influence it, in
much the same way that benefits management does.
This paper is produced by the APM Benefits Management Specific Interest Group (SIG). It is intended
to stimulate discussion on this subject; any feedback on the contents of the paper should be sent to
benefitssig@apm.org.uk
Executive summary

6
1. Introduction
1.1 What is social return on investment (SROI)?
Social return on investment (SROI) is a way to value difficult-to-quantify outcomes. It can be used to
identify opportunities for improvement of live services or for preparing the business case to invest,
continue an investment, make a change or stop an investment. It can be used for point-in-time reports
or for continuous measurement and decision-making.
In simple terms, SROI is a structured framework for comparing the investment cost of an initiative
or service (where the investment may include time, expertise, access to plant or facilities as well
as money) with the measured or expected outcomes (which may include quality of life, workforce
retention, intellectual property, reputation). The process and framework are robust, the calculations
and results repeatable, and an accredited SROI report is generally assumed to be a gold standard.
The process consists of extensive stakeholder engagement, usually in the form of semi-structured
interviews and group workshops. A report should include a commentary on the findings and
recommendations for taking action on the results. SROI is designed to drive change and deliver
benefits, not to sit on a shelf.
1.2 SROI in benefits management
SROI is a robust and specialist component for putting a value on benefits, within the discipline of
benefits management. A large project may deliver benefits, but most projects deliver capability. Usually
benefits are delivered during the course of the roll-out of a programme (a group of inter-dependent
projects). Throughout this paper, we’ve used the term ‘project and programme’ to emphasise this
breadth of application.
Benefits management is about the ‘why’ of a project (or more typically a programme)1
; what will be
achieved from completing it; how this achievement justifies the investment; how to make decisions
during delivery; and focusing the organisation on achieving the planned benefits or achievements
once the project or programme has been delivered. SROI and benefits management apply:
at project (or programme) inception and during the development of the business case (an
SROI forecast is essentially a business case using an SROI framework; an SROI evaluation is often
used to support a business case). By understanding the likely return on investment taking into
account all of the positive and negative impacts of a project or programme, a better decision can be
made about how much to invest;
during project delivery, understanding the benefits and how they are influenced by environmental
changes. This helps the project team to select the best response to an obstacle or change so that
the programme delivers organisational capability that meets the organisation’s strategic or tactical
need in the current or future context;
during capability hand-over, giving clarity to the business-as-usual team to ensure they are all
pulling together, as the business-as-usual involved in project inception will often be different
individuals who may not have bought into the original project;
during business-as-usual (an SROI evaluation ensures that the right decisions are made about the
right things at the right time for ongoing improvement).
1
We do things (projects, initiatives, services) to gain something of value for someone – a benefit. All improvements require
change, and change requires investment. The question that needs to be asked is “does the benefit justify the investment?” In
purely commercial terms, the equation can be simplified to ‘money in, money out’. But this very simplistic approach falls short
in far too many environments where some of the benefits are longer term (e.g. capability, intellectual property) or the financial
value is less tangible.

7
Case study : National Specialist Family
Service (NSFS) introduction
Phoenix Futures is a charity which puts great emphasis on successfully helping people to
manage their drug (and alcohol) cravings, so they can make a contribution to society and
regain control over their own lives.
Based in Sheffield, and serving the whole of England, their residential National Specialist
Family Service (NSFS) houses mums, dads and couples who wish to address their
substance misuse while living with their children. NSFS provides the opportunity for
parents to remain the primary providers of care for their children, while receiving
appropriate guidance and support. More than just a service this is also a home for families,
situated in a pleasant recreational area with excellent connections to local schools and
health services and an on-site OFSTED registered crèche for 0–8 year olds.
Keeping their children is a big motivation for most parents, and families are often referred
into NSFS by the families and children courts as the last attempt at reconciliation before
placing the children in care.
NSFS has an excellent record of graduation, taking adults through the programme to the
point where they are declared ‘drug free’ and socialised – capable of running a household
and providing adequate care for their children. For the children, the urge to remain with
their parents is also very strong.
The full report can be found at National Specialist Family Service (Phoenix Futures) SROI Forecast [11].
Case study continued...

8
2
All of the stage definitions are © the SROI manual[1]. Nicholls, J., et al. (2012), A Guide to Social Return on Investment
(SROI). The SROI Network. p.108pp. nef - New Economic Foundation. A useful acronym is SOVICR – scope, outcomes,
value, impact, calculate, reporting.
2. The six stages of SROI
An accredited SROI practitioner will work through a structured framework to determine the quantities
of benefit delivered (and sensitivity or range, if an estimate), calculate the actual (or projected) impact
and return on investment, and robustly estimate a financial equivalent for those beneficial outcomes
that don’t already have one.
The process consists of six stages2
– described below:
Define what service, what periods
Define stakeholder groups and engagement
Outcomes/benefits from stakeholder interviews
Cross-reference between stakeholders – which benefits contribute to
more than one group
Triangulate responses and add desk-based research
Sanity-check calculations with original respondents
Attribution to this or other initiatives
Deadweight – what would have happened anyway
Drop-off – how long do the costs last, how long do the benefits last?
Ensure you’ve captured all the costs, and attributed them correctly to the
correct stakeholders. Are some ‘in kind’ costs?
Capture all benefits. Avoid double-counting
Minimum and maximum for sensitivity analysis
Stakeholder review and comments
What is found to be most valuable by the recipient – can you do more of this?
What could be improved?
Establishing
scope
Map
outcomes
Evidence and
value
Establish
impact
Calculate
SROI
Report using
Embedding

9
2.1 Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders
It is important to have clear boundaries about what your SROI analysis will cover, who will be involved
in the process, and how they will be involved (how many and which representatives, in workshops or
one-to-one interviews, written submissions).
There are many ‘typical’ stakeholders in any SROI analysis. Stakeholders may include
employees, volunteers, recipients of the service, and people making funding decisions, that will be
stakeholders in any SROI analysis. When identifying the stakeholders, you should aim to include at
least three in any one group of stakeholders (representing two or more organisations) and ensure
that anyone who has a legitimate stake in the result has an opportunity to be involved in providing
an estimate of its value.
The scope should cover the service that is intended to be analysed. This can range from
one specific thing, right through to the organisation. When developing a business case, the scope
will be determined by the intended scope of the service. When performing analysis in order to
make a business decision, the scope is typically determined by the size of the business decision.
When performing an evaluation, it is usual to restrict the scope so that you aren’t trying to evaluate
the SROI over the whole organisation, which may have funding from many sources independently
and would lead to an over complicated report, delivered too late to use for any meaningful
decision.
The timeframe for the SROI (i.e. how many years of investment should be included? Which
range of benefits should be included?) will be determined by the type of thing being
measured. Substantial civil engineering work with an expected lifetime of between 30 and 100
years should probably have an SROI based on a timeframe of around 15 years. A project looking
at adults with learning disabilities should expect to evaluate its impact over an 18-month to three
year period because of the potential impact other of changes that affect individuals and changes in
government policy.
The most time-consuming aspect of an SROI analysis, and the biggest impact on the quality of
the analysis, is the time spent talking with stakeholders. This is the foundation on which the
SROI is based, consequently this is an area which should receive the most effort and energy: to
select the right stakeholders, to ensure they make appropriate input, and to ensure that that input is
properly understood.
Phoenix Futures, which is the charity that delivers NSFS, delivers many services. Their priority at
the time of the SROI evaluation was to understand why NSFS was no longer receiving referrals,
so the scope was the full return on investment of the National Specialist Family Service.
Stakeholders included: users of the service (substance abuser parents, children); staff who
delivered the service; social care workers (both those working directly with the service, and those
who had clients referred into the service); local authorities who pay for the placement of a family
and are responsible for the costs of service placing a child in care and providing support for the
substance abuser; the local authority where the family is based who look after a proportion of
successful graduate families; family courts; NHS; Department of Health; Department of Justice.
Some of these benefits are in the form of the pleasure of family life and longer healthy and active
life years, or in the case of staff, in job satisfaction. Some have a direct financial cost and a direct
financial return (local authorities, family courts, NHS), and some have an interest in the general
economic and population well-being of the country (Department of Health, Department of Justice).

10
2.2 Mapping outcomes
Engaging with your stakeholders will develop an impact map, which is a theory of change (causality
chain) with branches that represent the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes.
The stakeholders will each see the initiative using a different lens. They will have different views
or perspectives on what the outputs are, and it may take two or three interviews with a particular
stakeholder group (for example, employees, or recipients of the service) before a pattern starts to
emerge. What looks like a mass of outcomes or benefits will resolve itself into a smaller number,
perhaps 20 or 30, subject to materiality decisions you make further down the line, and the way that
you measure or evaluate each of these will become much clearer as the interviews proceed.
In most situations, the semi structured interview format allows sufficient flexibility to pick up
unexpected risks or benefits, while answering the common questions like those shown below can
help:“What do you see as the benefits of this initiative?”, “How do you know that those benefits are
being delivered?”, “How would you put a value on the delivery of those benefits?” and “What value
do you assign?”
For the NSFS report:
• Six stakeholder groups were identified.
• Thirty eight individuals/ organisations were interviewed directly, a total of 52 interviews.
Primary evidence was added from nine people who spoke on a video prepared by staff.
• For each stakeholder group, a theory of change was agreed.
• The interviews and research identified around 50 outcomes, which were summarised to 15
outcomes grouped by stakeholder.
Stakeholder Intended/unintended
changes
Inputs (inc value) Outcomes
Local
authority
adult
services/DIP
Quality of report means
they will be more
effective in decision
making (spend less on
wrong decisions)
Purchasing residential
care for adults, after
deduction for food
(£718,201.72)
Results in better
decisions on adult
rehabilitation
placements (cost of care
decisions and savings
attributed)
Local
Authority
Children &
Families
Quality of report means
they will be more
effective in decision
making (spend less on
wrong decisions)
Purchasing Phoenix
House place for children
to be with parents
(£614,498.82)
Results in better
decisions on child
placements => savings
vs less good decisions
(see above)
Adults
attending
(clients)
Users complete the
rehabilitation means
improvements in
physical health
This is a residential
setting so adults don’t
invest (although the
state does – see above)
Improvement in physical
health, mental health,
quality of life compared
with the outcomes from
other rehabilitation
programmes (including
completion rates)

11
2.3 Evidencing outcomes and give them a value
This stage involves finding data to show where the outcomes happened and then valuing them.
The semi-structured interview should include questions about assigning a value to the benefits
identified. In many cases, the first interview sets the scene and a second interview, which should
follow triangulation of the feedback from all of the first interviews, may give more meaningful
information.
Most interviewees will struggle to identify information sources, but with the right coaching during
the interview process, they will be amazed at how much they know that they didn’t know they knew.
Triangulation3
of the results is essential, and then the interviewer or SROI practitioner must reflect their
conclusions back to everyone who was involved for sanity checking – they may come up with a far
better answer once they see what other people say.
This is also where the desk-based research comes to its own: a lot of work has been done on
finding values for difficult to estimate outcomes and creating libraries, and there are valuable
sources such as: the Social Value Bank [2, 3], unit costs of social care [4], and research papers
studying the health and financial cost of a number of different widespread behaviours [5-7]).
It is very rare for a requirement or solution to be ‘totally new’. One of the (many) skills of the SROI
practitioner is to identify similar solutions, and to understand to what extent lessons can be applied.
Often the project sponsor or steering group will know what they have based their requirement or
solution on.
3
Triangulation is the process of obtaining answers/calculations from three or more sources, to determine what the most likely
result is. A simple average may be unduly weighted by an outlying result. During a forecast (eg at project initiation and for
decisions during roll-out) many of the figures used may be estimates. The process of triangulation may either result in richer
information for determining the calculation of benefits, or cause a stakeholder to revise their estimate. Triangulation nearly
always results in a reduction of the overall estimate of benefits. This can give an evaluator and readers confidence that the
SROI calculation is conservative and actual results from a programme delivery are likely to be better.
For NSFS, values determined for each outcome were confirmed/claimed by each stakeholder
through a triangulation and revision process, and the impacts that could cause these values to
vary were determined to use later in preparing a sensitivity analysis (in the form of a curve).
NSFS report was a forecast of the full benefits and return on investment based on a sample, and
used valuations from the literature as well as those determined by the stakeholders themselves.
Where a value was determined from published and unpublished literature, it was confirmed with
stakeholders.

12
2.4 Establishing impact
Having collected evidence of outcomes and monetised them (assigned financial equivalence), those
aspects of change that would have happened anyway or as a result of other factors are eliminated from
consideration.
include some questions about other initiatives or factors that may have an influence on this
outcome during the first round of stakeholder interviews. More information about attribution
comes out in the second round. In many cases, a lot of the numerical data such as how many and
how much, has to be sought from other sources such as the company accountant, performance
or finance department.
2.5 Calculate the SROI
This stage involves adding up all the benefits, subtracting any negatives and comparing the results with
the investment. This is also where the sensitivity of the results can be tested [1].
For someone who is familiar with writing an Excel spreadsheet, this is the simplest stage; yet a
casual observer will be amazed to find numerous templates for the calculation of SROI, which
simply consist of “value of each time”*”number of times”. A good solution is to use the Impact Map
template available from Social Value UK. In some cases it is appropriate to write a custom built
spreadsheet, specifically for the outcomes under investigation, and the factors that contribute.
As described above, most interviewees won’t be able to explain numbers and certainly won’t be
able to discuss sensitivity during the first round of interviews, but will usually be able to give some
measure of what is the likely highest and lowest value during the second round. The simplest way
to do sensitivity analysis is to use all of the lowest benefits and highest costs to get a minimum ratio
and conversely, all of the highest benefits and lowest costs to get the maximum ratio. It would be
better to have a probability curve.
For the NSFS report, stakeholders were able to suggest other initiatives or factors which might
affect their own stakeholder group and other stakeholder groups, and the potential impact of
these factors was determined by interview and triangulation.
The SROI ratio for NSFS was 3.95 – for every £1,000 that the combined stakeholders invested
whether directly or in time or other input, the sum total of return on this investment (some of which
may also be in soft benefits) is £3,950.
This was determined from a total investment of around £2.1m and a total return over a five year
period using NPV at 3.5 per cent (commonly accepted public sector NPV) of (total return) £9.4m.
In particular, local authorities who used the service invested £765,000 from their adult services
budget and £641,500 from their children and families’ budget, and had a return on investment on
each of these investments of £2.3m and £3m respectively.
The SROI ratio had a likely maximum of 5.71 and a likely minimum of 3.95.

13
2.6 Reporting, using and embedding
Easily forgotten, this vital step involves sharing findings with stakeholders and responding to them,
embedding good outcomes processes and verification of the report.
Stakeholders are usually amazed that the impact can be quantified in such a clear and simple
manner, and often surprised at which activities create which impacts. It frequently causes a revision
to the business model, including changes in the emphasis in the business case, or a decision to
change the nature of the business to do more of what creates the most useful outcomes, and do
less of those things that don’t contribute.
NSFS learned from this report that the detailed reporting they provided to adult social care
departments and children and families services were highly valued – they were considering not
producing these reports as their competitors didn’t.
They also determined that a follow-up service in the community post graduation was very
successful in Sheffield, and a similar follow-up service should be offered (and the price
determined by the return on investment calculated in this report) in other cities where it could be
economically justified.
Many local authority adult social care and children and families departments recognised the value
being added as a result of the interview and triangulation process, and renewed their referrals
into NSFS.
Perhaps the most important change was to the Law of the Land [9]. The Children and Families
Act 2014[10] was progressing through parliament at the time of writing. Key changes were made
to this Bill as a result of the semi-structured interview process, which enabled more parents to
benefit from structured rehabilitation, more children to be placed safely with their own parents
as primary care givers, and a reduction in court cases for the removal of children (in the case of
substance misusing parents, this could be as much as an 80 per cent reduction).

14
3. The advantages of SROI
The best way to explain the benefits of SROI is to give some examples of where it might be used.
3.1 SROI in the business case
The business case for a new initiative needs to include an assessment of what you will get for the effort
and investment that you are making.
In many business cases, the return in terms of benefit is poorly expressed. The business case will
usually describe what the initiative will deliver (outputs), whether it is a health kiosk in each library
around the city, advocacy support to help people receiving personalised budgets, a new building, or a
bridge from one side of the river to another. Will this do any good?
Even if it is a commercial business case for a CRM (customer relationship management) system, the
business case is seldom comprehensive and rarely robust. What impact will it have on customer
retention or staff recruitment? If a company plans to spend £20,000 to get a return of £1m, should they
plan a larger investment? If a £20,000 investment for £22,000 return, should they find a lower cost
alternative or wider application?
SROI is a structured framework to ask the right questions, and consequently where to look for the
right answers. SROI examines the outcomes of the project or programme, and follows a causal chain to
make an estimate of the impact (including a value assigned to resulting risks).
The SROI framework can be used to calculate a ‘financial equivalence’ outcome where there may be no
direct financial return to the organisation making investment: quality-of-life for an individual with the
target population can be estimated using a variety of techniques including Willingness to Pay (“what
would I pay for…”), and reduced sickness/absence amongst staff can have a value assigned.
3.2 SROI to evaluate and make management decisions
SROI requires detailed conversations with the beneficiaries of the service and wider stakeholders in
order to determine what they perceive each beneficiary is receiving by way of benefits. This gives the
organisation and management a realistic view of what they are actually achieving – not just the figures
but what is actually being achieved.
By knowing what customers perceive to be of value and what they do not put a high value on,
organisations are able to tailor their service to put more effort into what benefits their target client
group and their range of beneficiaries and other stakeholders value, and less into what is not valued. If
customers value comprehensive reporting, then by understanding how much they value it, a decision
can be made whether to continue with comprehensive reporting (and how much to charge for it), for
example where competitors don’t offer it.
The quantification of the results of such conversations/surveys/ interviews is the process of SROI as
explained in this document and in more detail by Jeremy Nicholls’ document[1].
3.3 SROI to seek funding and win contracts
Many funding organisations, rightly, ask if they’re going to get value for money from their investment.
An SROI report is a reliable and accepted way to demonstrate the value for money, or not, of the
service, or the likely value for money of the proposed scheme. Presented in the SROI format or as a
fully accredited SROI report, many funders will find it far more convincing and will be willing to fund in
a higher proportion of cases.

15
3.4 SROI during project and programme implementation
The business case should contain clear ultimate outcomes, and expected benefits, for the project or
programme, which supports the project team to make the right decisions when obstacles arise.
The SROI framework ensures that the business case does clearly define the ultimate outcomes
intended and is used as a living, operational tool reflecting any changes in investment, in outputs, and
allowing their impact on outcomes to be reappraised.
3.5 SROI during transition from the project team to business-as-usual
One of the key challenges to the success of any investment is to make sure that those with operational
responsibility for business-as-usual understand what the project output (usually a capability) is
designed to achieve, and accept responsibility for delivering the specified benefits.
The SROI framework delivers clearly defined outcomes and a clearly defined causality chain (in SROI
terms, the impact map or theory of change, which shows the relationship between inputs, outputs and
outcomes). This clear single-page map (with descriptions) helps them to deliver the benefits that are
expected. A partial example is given on page 8 and a full example can be found in the published NSFS
SROI report[11].
3.6 SROI during project and programme implementation
Once the SROI framework has been established, it is relatively straightforward to follow through the
causality chain, and measure at key points. This means that the business-as-usual team can measure
how well they are doing against a particular desired result, either using the ultimate outcome (for
example, people not using hospital for smoking-related conditions), or a proxy measure (sometimes
termed intermediate outcome) that is more appropriate at the time of measurement (the number of
people smoking, and the amount they smoke).

16
4.1 SROI is not a tick box exercise
For people working hard, the process of delivering the service can take precedence over the results
obtained. When asked to present a report on what they have achieved, the easy fall-back position
is to describe what actions they have taken, quantify this very specifically, and then link it rather
loosely to some vague benefit. In order to save time, and to maintain control, the beneficiaries of a
service and other stakeholders are not asked to voice an opinion that might go contrary to the main
content of the report. As a result, the report tells management what they already believe, and no
changes are requested or delivered.
SROI is a more rigorous process, and more fundamental to the running of the service. It is based
on a philosophy that the benefits delivered by a service are those that the beneficiaries claim to
receive. This approach is not tied down by history or legacy, does not constrain a service to carry on
repeating the inefficiencies of the past, but lets the stakeholders present a vision of a new service,
probably with many elements of the old, and perhaps with some of the unvoiced frustrations
identified and challenged.
4.2 SROI is not a soft option
In services for the public good (public sector statutory services, and community and voluntary
services, also many corporate social responsibility projects), the outcome is delivered, but the
beneficiaries are often poorly defined. “Many good things were delivered to many people” may
look good on a PowerPoint presentation, but the press, the public and anyone with an alternative
intention for the resources will demand more explanation.
SROI involves solid numbers, and robust calculations. How many people did come through the
door? What difference did it make to them? What proportion did it make a difference to? How
can we quantify that difference in financial terms? What is the financial value? Multiply all of these
factors together to determine the overall value delivered to this particular stakeholder group. Many
of the percentages and numbers will have to come directly from the management reporting of the
organisation itself. Others will need to come from the stakeholder interviews. Answers to, “How can
we quantify the difference in financial terms?” may need to come from published literature.
The numbers in an SROI report need to be obtained from reliable sources and backed up with
evidence, the calculations need to be clear and transparent, and the final presentation should expect
to be challenged.
4. Common misconceptions and mistakes

17
Social return on investment (SROI) is a credible and proven (repeatable) framework for estimating the
value of a planned initiative and for determining the current value being delivered by a service.
The SROI framework and processes can be used in many environments. Where costs and benefits are
measured in purely financial terms, simple cost benefit analysis may be sufficient; where the benefits,
and even the costs, may be a little more complex, then the structured approach afforded by SROI is a
good foundation for making a return on investment decision.
Because SROI is rooted in stakeholder value, it gains engagement from many parties. It often puts
fresh impetus behind delivering benefits as each stakeholder group demands what they signed up to,
and projects and programmes can deliver better results, with more enthusiasm, and take more pride in
the results, than might be expected from a project or programme which doesn’t use this approach.
The use of SROI is not restricted to not-for-profit ventures such as community and voluntary services
and public sector, but can apply equally well for corporate social responsibility initiatives as well as
directly by for-profit organisations.
Overall, SROI is a powerful tool for the management and realisation of benefits, and to support
management decisions to maximise the success of any organisation.
5. Conclusion

18
References
[1] Nicholls, J., et al. (2012), A Guide to Social Return on Investment (SROI), The SROI Network. p.
108pp.
[2] Trotter, L., et al. (2014), Measuring the Social Impact of Community Investment: A Guide to
using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach, HACT.
[3 HACT and D. Fujiwara (2014), Social Value Calculator v2.0. [Excel spreadsheet][cited 2015 20
Sept 2015]; Since we first published the Social Value Bank and Value Calculator we have been
gathering feedback from users. This feedback has been reflected in a new version of the Value
Calculator and the publication of Practice Notes.]. Available from: http://www.hact.org.uk/
value-calculator.
[4] Curtis, L., (2010) Unit Costs of Health and Social Care, PSSRU (University of Kent). p. 254.
[5] Honeycutt, A., et al. (2003), Economic Costs Associated with Mental Retardation, Cerebral
Palsy, Hearing Loss, and Vision Impairment --- United States,. MMWR, 2004. 53(03): p. 57-59.
[6] Walby, S., The Cost of Domestic Violence: Up-date 2009. 2009, UNESCO, Lancaster University.
p. 10.
[7] Social Value UK. (2016), Global Value Exchange - database of Social Value Indicators and
valuations. [Database] 14 March 2016; Available from: www.globalvalueexchange.org.
[8] Luce, C.B. (2011), Difficult Conversations: the cost of life in an aging world. Six global trends
shaping the business world Feb 2011 [cited 2011 27 Oct 2011]; As the world’s population ages,
the cost of treating disease is becoming unsustainable]. Available from: http://www.ey.com/
GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/Six-global-trends-shaping-the-business-world---Difficult-
conversations--the-cost-of-life-in-an-aging-world.
[9] Parliament, U. (2013), Children and Families BILL.: UK. p. 201.
[10] Parliament, U. (2014), Children and Families Act, in 2014 Chapter 6, U. Parliament, Editor., UK
Parliament. p. 251.
[11] Minney, H. (2013), National Specialist Family Service (Phoenix Futures) SROI Forecast., The
SROI Network. p. 107.

19

Telephone +44 (0) 845 458 1944
Facsimile +44 (0) 845 458 8807
Email info@apm.org.uk
Web apm.org.uk
Association for Project Management
Ibis House, Regent Park
Summerleys Road
Princes Risborough
Buckinghamshire HP27 9LE
BR09240916

Social Return on Investment - a powerful tool for Project Managers

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Social Return on Investment - a powerful tool for Project Managers (20)

More from Minney org Ltd (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Return on Investment - a powerful tool for Project Managers