Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The important thing here is to test for a comprehensive identification of stakeholders and a
convincing rationale for those that have been included and excluded from the engagement,
feedback and reporting processes. Stakeholders are those people or organisations that
experience change as a result of the activity and they will be best placed to describe the
change. This principle means that stakeholders need to be identified and then involved in
consultation throughout the analysis.
3|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
2. Understand what changes
The report should be tested for a clear explanation of the theory of change for included
stakeholders. First of all this will require a test that the scope of the analysis has a clear
purpose and timescale. After this the assessor should check that report demonstrates
understanding of the chain of events, the point in the chain that outcomes are to be valued as
well as reporting on consideration of changes that the stakeholders intend and do not intend,
and changes that are positive and negative. This principle requires description in the analysis
of the theory of how these changes are created and supported by evidence. Assessors should
come to a judgement about the quality/ reasonableness of any evidence data presented.
Assessor
comments
Ref.
Comments
1
Has
the
author
made
clear
that
the
analysis
is
either
a
forecast
or
evaluative
study?
2
Has
a
clear
scope
for
the
SROI
analysis
been
presented
AND
a
timescale
that
distinguishes
between
the
investment
period
and
the
period
over
which
outcomes
are
projected?
3
Is
the
rationale
clear
for
choices
made
around
activities
included
and
excluded
and
is
the
rationale
considered
reasonable?
4
For
stakeholders
experiencing
material
outcomes,
are
the
relationships
between
input,
output
and
outcome
clearly
described
in
the
report.
5
Is
the
theory
of
change
for
the
groups
of
stakeholders
explicit
in
the
report
and
are
decisions
on
the
connections
in
the
chain
of
change
and
the
point
at
which
the
outcomes
are
valued
clearly
described
and
are
the
decisions
reasonable?
6
Have
unintended
and
negative
outcomes
been
considered
and
included
in
the
analysis
and
if
not
is
there
a
convincing
rationale/evidence
presented
supporting
the
claim
that
they
do
not
take
place?
7
Are
the
indicators
described
in
the
report
in
such
a
manner
as
to
be
clearly
appropriate
to
demonstrating
the
existence
of
the
outcome,
measurement
of
the
quantities
of
outcomes
and
in
the
case
that
outcomes
are
not
absolute,
measuring
the
degree
of
outcome
experienced
by
stakeholders?
8
Where
appropriate
have
objective
as
well
as
subjective
indicators
been
used
without
double
counting
quantities
of
outcomes?
9
Does
the
data
gathered
clearly
support
the
theory
of
change
and
is
the
quantity
of
change
being
claimed
for
each
outcome
based
on
a
representative
sample
of
stakeholders
experiencing
it?
10
In
a
forecast
report
where
there
is
less
corroborating
data
available
to
support
changes
and
quantities
of
changes,
does
the
report
include
recommendations
for
the
organisation
to
implement
systems
to
gather
required
data
in
future?
11
In
a
forecast
report
is
the
quantity
of
change
corroborated
in
the
report
through
reference
to
other
supporting
data,
is
it
clearly
described
and
the
connection
made
to
support
the
outcome
reasonable?
12
Do
all
outcomes
relate
properly
to
the
stakeholder
for
whom
they
are
claimed?
13
Is
there
a
clear
chain
of
events
applied
and
reported
in
determining
different
outcomes
and
quantities
of
outcomes
that
covers
all
stakeholders
in
the
cohort?
(Please
ensure
that
the
report
addresses
what
happens
within
a
given
group
of
stakeholders
to
the
remaining
members
who
don’t
experience
the
particular
outcome
being
claimed)
4|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
14
Are
the
claimed
outcomes
clearly
explained
in
the
report,
including
unintended
and
negative
change
and
have
outcomes
alone
been
taken
forward
to
valuation?
15
Does
the
model
include
figures
for
the
duration
of
outcomes
with
explanations?
16
Is
the
Impact
map
clear
and
transparent
and
is
the
reporting
of
change
completely
consistent
with
Impact
map
contents?
This principle is concerned with how outcomes are valued in the SROI process. The important
thing here is that financial proxies are used in order that the value of the outcomes can be
recognised. Assessors will look to ensure that financial proxies are clear, appropriate to the
outcome and also that indicators are clear and appropriate. Any data for indicators and
financial proxies will require source of information. Assessors should come to a judgement
about the quality/ reasonableness of any data presented.
Assessor
comments
Ref.
Comments
1
Have
all
relevant
inputs
by
significant
stakeholders
been
included
and
valued
and
if
not
valued
is
a
rationale
provided
in
the
report
that
is
adjudged
to
be
reasonable?
2
Have
all
the
material
outcomes
or
in
the
case
of
forecast,
all
predicted
material
outcomes
been
given
a
value?
3
Are
the
financial
proxies
clearly
described
and
adjudged
to
be
reasonable
and
appropriate
to
the
outcome
and
are
the
choices
of
available
valuation
approaches
discussed
and
the
decisions
taken
clear
and
reasonable?
4
Are
Financial
Proxies
appropriate
to
the
stakeholder
for
whom
the
value
is
claimed?
5
Is
there
any
reason
to
think
that
outcomes
are
missing
from
the
analysis
because
they
were
too
difficult
to
value
or
for
other
reasons?
5|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
4. Only include what is material
This principle requires an assessment of whether a person would make a different decision
about the activity if a particular piece of information were excluded. This covers decisions
about which stakeholders experience significant change, as well as the information about the
outcomes. Deciding what is material requires reference to a number of aspects, for example
the organisations own policies, its peers, societal norms, and short-term financial impacts
1
Does
the
report
clearly
describe
materiality
decisions
used
in
the
early
stages
to
make
judgements
about
which
stakeholders
to
include
in
/
exclude
from
the
analysis
and
are
these
judgements
considered
reasonable?
2
In
accordance
with
the
supplement
to
The
Guide
on
Materiality,
Is
there
explanation
in
the
report
to
justify
what
materiality
test
has
been
brought
to
bear
on
decisions
taken
at
later
stages
to
include
and
exclude
outcomes
(or
stakeholders
who
do
not
experience
material
outcomes)
and
are
the
decisions
adjudged
to
be
reasonable?
3
Where
an
organisational
theory
of
change
or
mission
is
described
in
the
report
there
is
a
risk
that
the
decision
on
what
outcomes
to
include
is
overly
influenced
by
this.
Do
decisions
on
materiality
of
outcomes
recognise
other
factors
to
ensure
a
reasonable
decision
on
positive
and
negative
outcomes
experienced
by
all
stakeholders
in
each
stakeholder
group.
4
Is
there
evidence
that
materiality
tests
have
been
applied
to
outcomes
and
stakeholders
during
the
whole
process
as
part
of
decisions
around
significance
for
deadweight,
value,
and
quantity
of
change
and
around
relevance
relating
to
the
final
decision
to
include
outcomes
rather
than
just
at
the
beginning?
5
Is
there
anything
that
would
lead
the
assessor
to
conclude
that
there
have
been
exclusions
that
would
lead
to
different
stakeholder
decisions
and
conclusions
about
the
activity?
6
In
a
forecast
report
where
materiality
tests
cannot
yet
be
applied
to
stakeholders
or
outcomes,
has
this
been
explored
in
sensitivity
analysis
and
are
there
recommendations
to
the
organisation
for
enacting
materiality
processes
for
the
future?
6|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
This principle requires reference to trends and benchmarks to help assess the change caused
by the activity, as opposed to other factors, and to take account of what would have happened
anyway. It also requires consideration of the contribution of other people or organisations to
the reported outcomes in order to match the contributions to the outcomes.
1
Have
all
inputs
that
would
lead
to
the
included
outcomes
been
given
a
value
for
calculation
of
the
SROI
ratio?
2
Has
double
counting
been
avoided,
for
example
when
choosing
more
than
one
indicator
per
outcome?
3
Has
double
counting
been
avoided
through
clarity
of
reporting
on
the
chain
of
events
that
might
lead
to
different
outcomes
for
the
stakeholder
group?
4
Are
the
numbers
of
outcomes
claimed
per
stakeholder
group
out
of
the
total
membership
of
that
group
credible
and
reasonable?
5
For
an
evaluative
analysis
are
the
figures
used
for
deadweight
and
attribution
based
on
trends
and
benchmarks
or
a
systematic
and
clearly
explained
estimation
process
using
information
from
stakeholders
or
other
external
information?
6
For
a
forecast
analysis
are
the
figures
estimated
for
deadweight
and
attribution
subject
to
sensitivity
analysis
and
plans
for
better
data
capture
over
the
ensuing
period?
7
Does
the
analysis
discuss
decisions
on
displacement
and
include
a
figure
if
appropriate
with
reasonable
and
convincing
explanation?
8
Does
the
analysis
consider
how
outcomes
drop-‐off
over
time?
9
For
an
evaluative
analysis,
are
durations
used
based
on
research
evidence?
10
For
a
forecast
study
where
durations
used
have
not
been
based
on
research
evidence
–
is
there
a
reasonable
explanation
and
is
it
clear
that
any
assumptions
made
have
been
subjected
to
sensitivity
analysis
and
are
to
be
monitored
in
the
future?
7|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
6. Be transparent
Assessors will look for evidence that reports demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may
be considered accurate and honest, and show that it will be reported to and discussed with
stakeholders. This principle requires that each decision relating to stakeholders, outcomes,
indicators and benchmarks; the sources and methods of information collection; the difference
scenarios considered and the communication of the results to stakeholders should be explained
and documented.
1
Is
there
an
audit
trail
both
of
what
is
and
what
is
not
included
relating
to
stakeholders
and
outcomes?
2
Is
the
Impact
map
clear
and
transparent
and
is
the
report
completely
consistent
with
Impact
map
contents?
3
Is
the
sensitivity
analysis
adjudged
to
include
appropriate
elements
relevant
to
the
study
with
clear
information
on
which
aspects
and
which
assumptions
have
been
assessed
for
sensitivity?
4
Are
all
data
sources
in
both
the
impact
map
and
the
report
referenced
in
a
way
that
would
enable
the
reader
to
refer
and
verify–
including
information
on
the
source
of
valuations
of
outcomes?
5
Is
there
enough
information
on
the
data
set
and
are
all
calculations
set
out
in
a
way
that
makes
it
possible
for
the
calculation
to
be
replicated
and
to
arrive
at
the
same
result
of
social
return?
6
Where
a
report
is
not
presented
as
evaluative,
does
it
clearly
declare
the
limitations
of
the
analysis
specifically
for
public
use
and
cite
requirements
and
recommendations
to
reach
higher
levels
of
rigour
and
a
better
position
of
validity
for
claims
made?
7. Verify the result
Although an SROI analysis provides the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the
value being created by an activity, it inevitably involves subjectivity. Appropriate independent
assurance is required to help stakeholders assess whether or not the decisions made by those
responsible for the analysis were reasonable.
1
Is
there
evidence
in
the
report
citing
how
stakeholders
have
been
involved
in
reviewing
and
verifying
the
claims
in
the
analysis?
8|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014