The search for a positive social impact is at the heart of the social utility structures project. The interest in social impact and its evaluation seems relatively recent, so it is essential to look at the genesis of the term “social impact” to understand its multiple dimensions.
The emergence of the term “social impact.”
The term “social impact” was first used in the 1970s in academic work published by Yale University on the ethical responsibility of investors.
Democratized in the 90s, the concept of social impact emanates from the intersection of different cultures and professional practices: the rise of the evaluation of public action, the implementation of international development programs, the development of corporate social responsibility strategies, the influence of philanthropy on the measurement of social returns, etc.
The value chain depends on its ecosystem.
The value chain, the resources, activities, production, results, and impacts of the structure, is part of an ecosystem and temporality within which many actors are involved and vectors of transformations.
The analysis of the process of change, necessary for the evaluation of the social impact, thus takes into account all the interactions of an organization with its stakeholders but also all the external factors that contribute to this change, which makes it difficult to isolate the social impact specific to the structure.
The multiple dimensions of social impact
The economic approach to the value created by an organization is not the only dimension of the social impact, it is a question of being interested in the multiple dimensions of the impact: human, political, societal, environmental, and territorial.
The dimensions presented below and the criteria specifying them are not exhaustive.
Defining Social Impact Assessment
Social impact assessment is a process aimed at understanding, measuring, or valuing the negative or positive effects an organization generates on its stakeholders.
We thus seek to go beyond the actions and activities of the structures to ask the following question: “What are their consequences and for whom?”, not limiting ourselves to the economic dimension alone.
- The assessment reveals a partial pattern of reality
We always define a partial object of evaluation, which is only part of the real object in which we are interested. Admittedly, not everything can be measured. However, everything that cannot be measured is no less attractive.
The measurement, being only partial, gives a tendency of reality. Establishing the real demonstration of a cause-and-effect relationship between an action carried out and a change produced is often very complex, if not impossible because it is difficult to apprehend all the many factors “external” to the action that also contribute to this change. - Evaluation is, first and foremost, a process. It is an iterative process rather than an instantaneous one.
- The evaluation is a participatory and transparent process
It is a question of sharing the process and the results with all the stakeholders of the social utility structure: beneficiaries, volunteers, administrators, funders, etc. - The ambition of the evaluation must be adjusted given the constraints
The approach is built according to human resources, time, and finances. - The usefulness of the evaluative approach must be thought out from the framing.
The evaluative approach must be used for future decision-making by funders, partners, managers, or operational teams.