Skip to content

Can business principles, such as impact measurement, help us create the change we need?

May 23, 2013

An unfortunate trend of applying business principles to giving, described as ‘philanthrocapitalism’, is starting to take a hold. Part of this is a focus on data and measuring the impact (outcomes) of projects. The Measuring and Evaluating Outcomes in Practice annual conference today, organised by New Philanthropy Capital, is focused entirely on how to measure impact to attract funding.

philanthrocapitalismThe problem with this is that the ‘outcome’ most worth fighting for, with the longest-term impact, is also the hardest to measure – and that’s social change. The independent, grassroots groups creating the change we need are also less likely to have the resources needed to measure outcomes in the way some funders expect. Another point worth remembering is that you can never fully measure the impact of social change and campaigning work. For example, the campaign to stop the Newbury bypass failed to stop the road being built, but after that other road schemes were fought and one after the other were cancelled. There’s no question that the Newbury bypass campaign’s high media profile, mobilisation of the public and development and testing of strategies played a big part in the success of the campaigns that followed.

Focusing on measurable outcomes can discourage groups from addressing wide-reaching systemic issues and encourages them to play safe rather than engaging in the innovating and risk-taking that’s needed to create long-term change. Cathy Pharoah writes:

Yes, there is an easier way to produce results-based performance. It means tackling problems that are solvable, focusing on outcomes that are achievable and outputs or indicators that can be measured.

But the sector’s role has always been to address precisely those issues that society has found difficult to resolve – issues that require inputs at individual, community, and political levels… where attitudinal or behavioural change involves improvisation, trial and error, and where the best outcome might be three steps forward, two steps back.

The focus on data can also mean concerning yourself with quantity over quality. Training 100 health workers in Pakistan might look great on paper, but if they don’t actually go on to do the work, because no one is willing to fund the salaries, it’s hardly an achievement.  If you’ve supplied food to 200 people, but neglected to spend the time and resources to reach people most isolated and marginalised by society, have you really achieved more than a group who did, but as a consequence only fed 150? Is providing intensive therapy to 10 deeply traumatised asylum seekers less worthy of support than helping more – but less traumatised – people?

Philanthrocapitalism also tends to involve huge sums of money, from corporations and wealthy individuals, which can reduce organisations’ independence and ability to challenge the corporate sector. For example, Save the Children have recently partnered with GlaxoSmithKline, which is surprising considering their earlier criticism of the company for pricing their drugs out of reach of people who need them most. It will be interesting to see how that relationship evolves as they work together to develop new products and expand across Africa. There will likely be more partnerships like this as traditional sources of funding continues to dry up.

We all want to know we are having an impact, and it’s important we reflect, learn and evolve, but let’s not become short-sighted and overlook important factors such as inclusivity, innovation, solid ethics and social change, by turning it all into a numbers game.

For more info on philanthrocapitalism, Michael Edwards provides a great critique in the article Philanthrocapitalism: After the Goldrush and in his book Just Another Emperor.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. May 26, 2016 11:14 am

    Does Edge Fund support to Pakistan?

  2. May 23, 2013 5:24 pm

    I totally agree Paul,
    I did the Social Return On Investment (SEOI) training and felt it lacked a human element as it focused so much on attaching a financial measure to everything and for me the fact that someone would be motivated to do something new which they might never have done before suh as being motivated to look for employment is priceless and should not be translated into economic terms as it looses something of its humanity in the process of doing so!
    jacx

  3. May 23, 2013 2:23 pm

    Thanks Jacqui. I agree that recording what’s been achieved is a good thing for an organisation’s own purposes, and for the people involved. I was referring more to how funders’ use this information and particularly their focus on tangible outcomes and numbers above all else, which can be problematic. Thanks for helping to clarify that! The body mapping you mentioned sounds fascinating.

  4. Paul Munim permalink
    May 23, 2013 2:20 pm

    These are called ‘soft’ outcomes because they are difficult to measure. I did research on social capital and found that people did not value it because they could not measure it! Yet talking to them they realised the value of social capital in their lives. I have been working on a way of measuring social capital because I found those with the greatest access to social capital had the least problems when they were starting up their social enterprises. I found similar stories from private sector businesses and yet among the business support organisations social capital is not valued as an asset for entrepreneurs.

    I think outcomes such as jobs created or people placed into work are very easy to measure but what about the person who is now motivated to look for work? how would you measure that? I think knowing business principles is fine but social entrepreneurs are not always seeking business outcomes.

  5. Jacqui Lovell permalink
    May 23, 2013 1:55 pm

    I think it is possible to document outcomes from the perspective of the people you are effecting social change with but it takes a bottom up and not top down approach to do so in such a way that you take account of the human rights and needs of the people you are working with. We have developed a body mapping tool and participatory video process that does not need people to read or write in order to fullly take part. We have used this effectively with people for whom english is not their first language to record outcomes from their perspective. So be careful not to discount the power of doing so because people recording their journeys and the power they have gained in solidarity with others are potent tools in and of themselves in relation to changing the hearts and minds of people in the community.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: