Social Impact Measurement Communiqué Surge Roundtable on Social Impact Measurement December 11, 2013 On December 11th, 2013, SURGE (formerly the Social Innovation Research Group, SIRG) hosted a roundtable on social impact metrics. Hosted by the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei, the event was attended by leaders from the private, non-profit, social enterprise, government, and social catalyst organizations. The event was opened with a keynote by Joseph Wong, Roz and Ralph Halbert Professor of Innovation Policy at the Munk School, University of Toronto. Professor Wong spoke about making visible the invisible and the imperative of measuring social impact. The following discussion focused on the need for social metrics to encourage organizational and programmatic improvement among social organizations. The group of approximately 40 attendees came up with the following first principles for a system of social impact measurement that would be viable in the Taiwanese context. 1. Meaningful First Metric All organizations seeking to measure social impact should isolate one meaningful first metric as a baseline for their achievements. For some organizations, this was the number of people that could be employed, while for others it was event attendees. By isolating one primary area to target measurement efforts,
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
1
organizations can start conceiving their social impact.
2. Versatile enough to be used for an end user facing or a catalyst organization Social metrics must be highly versatile - they need to be applicable to both end-user facing organizations as well as catalysts (organizations that help people and organizations that help others; some call these organizations “intermediaries”, including incubators and accelerators). 3. Metrics that are both iterative and replicable All efforts toward social impact measurement should allow organizations to both iterate their approach, as well as work towards its replication. Learning should underscore every metric. 4. Translatable into actions Similarly, the most value metrics are easily translatable to action - they give insight into a problem or impact area in a way that empowers an action by the organization. This action would ideally also be measurable. 5. Collaborate together Taiwan’s social organizations should view social metrics as a shared space, ideal for collaboration. By working together to create and implement social metrics, the ecosystem will benefit through measured and thoughtful social impacts. 6. Distinct between outputs and outcomes, outcomes and social impact. Social metrics must clearly distinguish between outputs and outcomes, and outcomes and real impact. Outputs are products and services provided by social organizations, and outcomes are the results of beneficiaries’ usage of those products
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
2
and services. Both can serve as proxies for impact, but do not explicitly describe the causal mechanism of impact making and have limits in assessing social changes. As social metrics become of increasing importance in the Taiwan context, the following two areas were discussed as potential areas for further exploration. 7. Attribution of contribution As social innovation is a highly collaborative and cooperative field, it is important to understand the real driver of social impact as an endeavor that involves multiple stakeholders. This also helps explains why an individual organization’s performance differs from the benchmark. 8. Auditing and reporting As the sector gains strength, streamlined reporting and auditing in the social sector could help organizations create more meaningful and comparable data for collaborative learning. Rigorous auditing and consistent reporting could also greatly enhance the transparency and accountability of the sector. These first principles will serve as a starting point for a task force comprised of sector thought leaders in Taiwan, aiming to generate meaningful, comparative, locally adjusted social metrics. Surge will continue to be the facilitator and consensus broker in the field of social innovation, advocating social impact measurement.
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
3
社會影響力評鑑公報
盛智創研圓桌論壇 2013 年 12 月 11 日
盛智創研(Surge)社會影響力評鑑圓桌論壇，於 2013 年 12 月 11 日在臺北舉行。 近 40 名來自社會部門（第三部門）的意見領袖，共聚加拿大駐台北經濟貿易辦事處 列席了論壇。來自加拿大多倫多大學的社會創新政策教授 Joseph Wong 發表了主旨 演講「Invisibility and Innovation」 （「隱性與創新」），強調了社會創新對解決全 球性社會挑戰的重要性，而合作參與型的社會影響力評鑑機制將幫助社會性組織重新 定義價值、分享管理經驗、並更有效地整合資源。 此次論壇肯定了社會影響力評鑑對社會性組織及社會部門所有利益相關者（包 括：投資人、捐贈者、受惠者、政府、學者等）的重要性。特別是在台灣社會性機構 快速萌芽發展階段，學習、合作與分享的組織文化將有助第三部門的永續成長，責任 制與透明度將促進經濟資源與社會資源做出更及時的市場反應。 論壇上，與會者指出：現有的評鑑機制仍過於複雜，衡量標準抑或太過具象， 失去了產業可比性；抑或過於籠統，無法體現社會問題的複雜性。特別是對於中小型 組織，目前仍缺少開發或使用社會影響力評鑑機制的動力與所需資源（包括時間投入、 財政投入、專業人士投入等）。
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
4
在認識挑戰與差異下，與會者也達成了高度的共識，為進⼀一步推動社會影響力 評鑑的合作奠定了基礎。 以下是論壇上達成的社會影響力評鑑原則聲明：
1.建立有價值的第⼀一個（第⼀一套）社會影響力衡量標準 所有社會型組織應該開始選擇⼀一個或⼀一套有用的標準來作為自己的成果評鑑基 準。有些組織可以使用僱傭人數，對其它組織而言，可以是活動參加人數等。在主要 的社會影響力領域使用第⼀一個衡量標準可以幫助組織快速了解其社會影響力。
2. 建立通用與實用的社會衡量標準 社會影響力標準必須高度通用與實用，不僅可以被面向終端客戶的社會型組織 使用，還應該適用於催化者（催化者泛指所有中介性個人或者機構，他們為終端客戶 面向性組織提供資源與幫助，包括社會創新孵化器和加速器。）
3. 建立可迭代開發並可複製的社會衡量標準 社會影響力評鑑機制應該允許組織進行迭代開發，並容易被複製、重復使用。 每⼀一個社會標準的建立應以組織的學習進步為終極目的。
4. 將衡量與評鑑的成果轉化成實踐與社會影響力 相同的，有效的社會影響力標準應幫助組織發現問題、分析問題、並解決問題， 從而達到將評鑑成果轉化成行動、擴大社會影響力的目的。而理想的社會影響力行動 也應該是可被評鑑的。
5. 社會部門各利益相關者的共同協調與合作
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
5
台灣的社會性組織應將社會影響力標準視作分享性、合作型的空間。若能共同 開發與使用影響力標準，整個社會部門的生態系統將大大受惠于可衡量、全面的社會 影響力。
6. 區分產出與成果，成果與社會影響力 社會影響力標準應該明確區分產出與結果、結果與真正的社會影響力。產出為 社會型組織提供的產品或服務，而成果是受惠者因使用該產品或服務而得到結果。兩 者都可以作為社會影響力的代用衡量標準，但無法正確表現社會影響力產生的因果機 制，在評估社會變化方面也有很大的局限性。
展望未來：若社會影響力評鑑能在台灣得到長足發展，我們希望在以下兩個領域進⼀一 步探索。
7. 產業基準的標準化與社會影響力歸因分析 由於社會創新是個需要高度協作與合作的領域，⼀一種社會影響力的產生往往需 要很多合作者的共同努力。而基準的建立與個別組織表現的歸因分析將有助發現社會 影響力的真正驅動原因。
8. 更透明有效的社會審計與社會報告 隨著第三部門的發展，精簡的審計與報告流程將為社會型組織提供更有效、有 可比性的數據，以幫助協作型學習。嚴格的審計、⼀一致的報告更能大幅提高第三部門 的透明度與信任度。
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
6
以上七條將作為由台灣第三部門意見領袖組成的社會影響力評鑑核心小組的基 準原則，並將服務於建立有效、有可比性、與在地化的社會影響力評鑑標準。該公報 倡議台灣的意見領袖們繼續以關注社會性組織的熱誠緊密合作，並以上述七條原則聲 明為精神共同開發行動方案。 我們（盛智創研）作為社會創新領域的共識促進者，希望通過社會影響力評鑑 為台灣社會性組織提供永續發展的重要工具，為社會投資者、公共政策制定者提供長 遠意義上經濟有效的社會創新參與模式，更好地激勵、輔助、引導社會性組織解決問 題、幫助受益人。
Surge 盛智創研| http://surgetaiwan.wordpress.com | social.innovation.tw@gmail.com | @SurgeTW
7