Measuring Social Value

Value, among other concepts, has acquired different definitions over time and across different spheres. Economists define value as price while Sociologists hold values accountable for the maintenance of social order[1]. Social value, as such, is dealt with differently by different groups of society. The measurement of social value is considered important from all sectors. Foundations and donors want to know the amount of social value their investments would create, government officials have to defend their budgeting decisions, and non-profit organizations need to measure social value to showcase their effectiveness to beneficiaries. 

Although many metrics to measure social value have emerged over time, none of them has provided a full coverage solution to the problem of measuring social value. This is mainly due to the different and sometimes conflicting definitions of value in different sectors. In Measuring Social Value[2], Geoff Mulgan approaches the problem with an economical view, asserting that social value is the result of the dynamic between supply and demand. He also points out that his approach, like others, is only applicable to certain spheres and future metrics need to be formulated using an amalgamation of cross sectorial views. While he proceeds to give readers certain guidelines for future measurement of value such as Elusive Quarry and Constructing Value, I believe that he fails to help us on how to create metrics with an objective approach to value.

 

---

[1] Puja, M. (2013). The Meaning and Functions of Social Values | Sociology. [online] YourArticleLibrary.com: The Next Generation Library. Available at: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/the-meaning-and-functions-of-social-values-sociology/8522/ [Accessed 28 Sep. 2015].

[2] Mulgan, G. (2015). Measuring Social Value (SSIR). [online] Ssir.org. Available at: http://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_value [Accessed 28 Sep. 2015].

The terrified bootstrapper

Imagine a geeky dude, along with a bunch of friends, sitting in his dad’s garage, coding away to glory, struggling to make ends meet. And something radical happens one fine morning, an angel appears and they get rich. This bootstrapper is now a Silicon Valley funded company.

Wikipedia defines bootstrapping as, “Bootstrapping usually refers to the starting of a self-starting process that is supposed to proceed without external input.” In my opinion, bootstrapping refers to a relatively new organization, operating on a shoe string budget, firefighting with the marketplace and related stakeholders, to make an impact – economically, socially or otherwise.

Entrepreneurs, social, silicon valley or otherwise, have managed to bootstrap relatively easily by pooling in resources from friends, family, venture competitions, and sometimes unique crowdfunding campaigns. However, the funding gap magnifies multiple times over when the social enterprise wants to scale vis-à-vis when a profit making companies need to grow. Though Digital Divide Data from “the Funding Gap” [1] is one case in point, there are explanations why numerous other such enterprises are stuck in firefighting mode. Limited number of funders in the space, social enterprises not fitting the traditional profit or not for profit mode, reservations of commercial funders and trusts/foundations, fewer robust models to measure impact etc. are just a few to name. However, in the light of these factors, there seems to be an underlying pressure to create new efficiencies while meeting investor expectations. And this is a complex matter.

Social entrepreneurs, by virtue constantly trading off between social and financial returns, are wary of measuring social value. The strategy that helped them grow ground up doesn’t necessarily assist them in scaling. When you’re starting off, the idea seems exciting, the energy is high, and there are measurable results for a relatively small dataset. However, as the bootstrapper increases beneficiary tallies, it finds itself compromising on key objectives, and making trading offs that are not always effective. In the fear of keeping the conversation with potential investors going, the social entrepreneur finds herself handing the drivers wheel to the venture capital/investor/foundation in question.

Case in Point: The Covenant Centre for Development [3], a not for profit that started off in the drought prone areas of Tamil Nadu state, India. Their initial aim to provide sustainable livelihood options in these areas culminated in the then bootstrapper implementing multiple number of programs relating to medicinal plant growing, small farmer sustainable agriculture, Self-Help group lending and relief support for backward communities. Though their initial plan was to develop a successful medicinal plant unit, investor whims directs them towards a series of high funding yet low/no impact projects.  Currently, a training unit, an ailing medicinal plant and a part-functioning mango-pulp factory lie dormant amidst flowing funds and newer projects.

Though this is an extreme case of a naïve and a terrified entrepreneur, the urge to satiate the investor demands without foresight in to long term vision can severely dilute the value of a growing social enterprise.  Hence a reasonable question to ask is, is it always good idea to “skate to where the puck is going”?  

[1] http://www.worldofgoodinc.com/press/articles/SSIR-spring08.pdf

[2]www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_value

[3] http://www.ccdgroup.org/about.html#abt

[4] http://venturebeat.com/2015/09/19/4-lessons-on-switching-from-bootstrapped-to-vc-funded/

Social Impact Bonds: Fad or Future?

On paper, Social Impact Bond (SIB) appear to be a novel way for addressing issue of scaling operations of proven social enterprises. It certainly has attracted a fair share of attention in private, government and social enterprise circles. However, in my view, concept of SIB needs to evolve further to ensure it becomes relevant to future of social enterprises.

SIB is a neat framework that leverages supply-demand framework to bring together government on the demand side and social enterprises funded by private investors on the supply side to address pressing social issues. However SIB still fails to address the fundamental issue of attracting funds for social enterprises. Under the current SIB model, social enterprises are still dependent on private sector for upfront capital investment which continues to be a major bottleneck for growth of social enterprises. Until this core issue is resolved, uptake of SIB and other social enterprise initiatives will remain sluggish. If SIB has to become success, it has to be accompanied by supply side initiatives such as tax rebates for private investors to encourage greater inflow of investment from private sector for SIBs.  

Another issue with SIB in its current form is that it leaves the social enterprises and its financial backers exposed if enterprise is unable to deliver results since government pays nothing unless enterprise delivers results. This may actually discourage private sector to invest in SIBs especially those from the more conventional business background. It is no surprise that the first SIB launched in US in [1] New York City involved 83% ($ 6 million) loss guarantee by Bloomberg Philanthropies for financial investors Goldman Sachs in case the project failed. In July 2015, it was declared that New York City project had indeed failed to produce desired results and program was ended in August, 2015. The loss guarantee by Bloomberg Philanthropies considerably reduced Goldman Sachs exposure on the project. However, this also meant that underlying principle of SIB model was violated because cost of failure was not only borne by the investors but by society at large through re-allocation of $6 million towards Goldman Sachs as opposed to being used for other social ventures.

This was not the case with [2] Peterborough SIB, the first SIB launched in England. The project failed to meet its goal of reduction in re offending by 10%, achieving 8.4% reduction instead. As a result, no payment was made to investors. This is a classic example where SIB model left the investors and social enterprise in a tricky position once the project was unable to meet its goals. SIB model needs to offer an “exit strategy” to the social enterprise and investors involved so that social investors and investors can recoup some returns (including financial, knowledge base) from their investment but SIB needs to achieve this in a way that society at large does not bear the cost of this as was the case in New York City project.
    

Despite all the limelight SIBs have attracted, only around [3] 50 SIBs have been launched worldwide since 2012. There is clear need to further refine SIB framework in order to make it more relevant tool for adoption by social enterprises.  What are your thoughts in this?

 [1] http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/08/07/what-we-learned-from-the-failure-of-the-rikers-island-social-impact-bond/  

[2] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/peterborough-prison-social-impact-bond-pilot-fails-hit-target-trigger-repayments/finance/article/1307031

[3] http://emmatomkinson.com/2014/02/14/social-impact-bond-sib-uk-v-world-map/

An Opportunity Waiting to Unfold...

Each enterprise works with the underlying objective of maximising returns to investment. A Social Enterprise, however differs in the ‘definition’ of return’, which is usually measured by the impact it brings to the lives of people it is targeting through its operations.

  

However, Capital Management & more importantly, Capital Availability is a need which bothers both the commercial and the social enterprises. Things become trickier when a social enterprise identifies itself as a for-profit structure. With  such a structure, it becomes increasingly difficult for the investor to understand how to accurately measure the worth of his/her money, through the ‘monetary return’ or the ‘developmental return’; and if both, How? It certainly makes both the ‘philanthropists’ and ‘commercial enterprises’ wary of walking into this new precarious arena and this ends up stifling the availability of funding for this already thin capital market. 

So are we all lost? Not necessarily, since this gives the creative entrepreneurs, fund-managers & if I can use the term, ‘forward-lookers’, an opportunity to look at ways which can help sustain this very ‘unique model’ of positive ROI in terms of both money & social impact. It poses itself as a challenge, a challenge well taken by many of the already existing organizations which are coming forward to help this market grow. And, in the end, the more number of people come forward, the more we get to learn on how to survive & grow a platform which need not believe in ‘profit’ being a bad word. Because, if you ask me, it is not. It is the most pragmatic & fundamental approach to any concern or cause. 

An example of such a successful company is Mirakle Couriers, which exclusively employs deaf & dumb people to deliver packages. Besides this ‘social aspect’, they function as any other courier company. Among other challenges, Mirakle Couriers found funding to be extremely limited for an otherwise ‘commercial & profitable’ venture and ended up relying on a host of fellowships & other rewards to keep them floating in their early days. What is however noteworthy is that Dhruv, the founder of the enterprise, did not give up and kept looking for new approaches & alternatives to make his ‘business’ more profitable, an exercise undertaken by any ‘sound entrepreneur’. At present, the company is successfully delivering 600 orders daily in Mumbai & is planning to incorporate people having other disabilities and expanding the current ‘impact-sphere’. 

Without the initial funding, we would not have a Mirakle Couriers. Without an appropriate one, we might not ever see the impact it can possibly generate. This is true for all social enterprises. The effects of getting decent funding for such organizations are manifold. As a start, more players in supporting this idea will give other 'risk-averse' investors a benchmark or an idea of how much ROI to expect by investing in social enterprises whose successes are not only measured by standard income statements. This will give a higher degree of clarity for incumbent investors and has the potential to attract more capital. 

This brings us to the question of how to make it a successful model. Eventually, this is a task which involves both the individual and the ‘government’s contribution’ to reap the intended success. The dual tools of deliberate policy decisions(by governments) and measured investments(private investors) with a certain risk appetite will be important factors to achieve the vast potential profit-makers have in achieving a ‘better & more equitable’ society, the objective of all social & philanthropic activity. If we look a few years down the road, this has a great potential to blur the lines between social & commercial enterprises in a way that leads to every enterprise contributing to a better-world and recognizing that this act of contribution is a fiduciary responsibility of theirs being a profitable organization/set-up. If we are able to achieve this mindset, it will be a huge step in developing the idea of a society which thrives upon fairness, equality & empathy- the three cornerstones which can re-define our social structure and inherent measurement of success. 

In the words of Tom Reis, a long-term investor with the Kellogg Foundation, “Everyone is willing to back the already proven horse, but very few are stepping up and taking the early-stage risks that not only would really help these social entrepreneurs, but also are part and parcel for investors who truly want high social and financial returns. High risk, high rewards –isn’t this the game we are supposed to be playing?” In this case, high rewards can certainly prove much more satisfying than a paper-denoted valuation of one’s investment. 

Market Index for Social Enterprises?

Having read some of the articles on the subject of capitalization of social ventures, I do feel that one of the long term solutions could be a market index for social enterprises and every country that has a regulated stock and commodity market should setup a platform for social enterprises.

One can debate on how the market would function in terms of buyers and sellers but I feel that part can be worked upon. In my view such a market will not only have financial returns as the key driver of demand supply but it can be a mixture of financial returns alongside social returns. It might be too early to ask for something like this but having a strong regulator who can incentivize social returns for let’s say tradeable tax credits, preferred green shoe options etc. While the set of enterprises can be treated uniformly on financial injections or support from the governments on loan guarantees, enforcement of regulations and government purchasing decisions. Being an alien to the U.S. market systems, I again refer to my home country of Pakistan where there are such players that can be involved in lending to social enterprises. One such example is a government owned mutual fund known as National Investment Trust (NIT)[1] which operates as a financial giant in the mutual funds industry of Pakistan.

Essentially any investment in the social enterprise or industry is going to create a welfare value for the people in the market and the cost of such value can be funded by the public exchequer. Similarly at a time when decentralization and devolution are becoming buzz words in the public arena, such a market will reduce the burden on public officials and a market based solution can be the best replacement. Optimistically advocating for such a market is synonymous to combining the goods of both the worlds, capital to inject and welfare to be created.

A big role here has to be played by the policy makers in the start to kick off this idea with support from other big players in any given market. There can also be a unified global index in the start to attract corporations into participating and pitching their social capital. A combination of regulators such as Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and a public fund management company can make a good start. I might not have the perfect tools to suggest on initiating or regulating such a market but I feel that the conceptual framework is an essential ingredient to agree at this point.

---

[1] http://www.nit.com.pk/

Identifying Problems and Quantifying Impact

            Templates for measuring the effectiveness of policies, products, and services are useful heuristics for evaluating whether or not they contribute to the creation of “social value.” However, there are a number of difficulties associated with the very process of measuring social value, let alone with the establishment of a metric capable of doing so. First, social value means different things to different people. In many fields of social action, people don’t agree on desired outcomes. Second, measures of social return on investment (SROI) often arbitrarily estimate costs and paybacks [1].

            A measure of social value is only meaningful relative to the scope of the problem it seeks to address. “Problems” and “solutions” have an inverse and mutually reinforcing relationship. We are constantly measuring the social costs associated with problems such as poverty, hunger, and disease. Emotional and statistics-based appeals regarding the severity of these costs are sometimes what spur wealthy philanthropists to back projects aimed at addressing them. During undergrad, I used this approach while co-organizing town hall events to discuss the disproportionate number of negative police interactions with minority students as compared to their white peers. Our attempt at creating a meaningful measure of the psychological trauma, academic distraction, and emotional haranguing associated with these interactions were successful in garnering funds from the administration for an outside investigation of campus police. Carefully measuring the “problem” before even implementing procedural changes allowed we as student organizers and the members of the administration to hold one another accountable over time, and also assess the “social value” created by the various policy changes.

If we can create metrics for the scope of various problems to prompt action, why can’t we as easily measure the social value generated by solutions to those problems? Perhaps it’s less about the metrics and more about the prevailing attitudes that condition people to be convinced of the nature of a problem by quantitative measures, but hesitant about the legitimacy of positive social impact by similar measures. This could be due to the negativity bias, or the notion that things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one’s psychological processes than do neutral or positive things [2]. If the negativity bias has an effect on the formation of impressions, general evaluations, decision-making, and risk considerations, then an added element to the creation of SROIs or similar metrics of social value would be the importance of highlighting the potential for positive social impact given current levels of social cost. By anchoring descriptions of supply/demand dynamics that create social value over long periods of time in the constraints and severity levels of the related problem, social entrepreneurs might be able to make more convincing appeals to financial supporters. More importantly, metrics pertaining to the problem in conjunction with supply/demand evaluations might produce more meaningful measures of social value in the long term.  

On the other hand, might thorough evaluations of social value in relation the problems they seek to address deter financial supporters in their risk considerations and efficiency evaluations if the problems too large and the social value generated seems, by a comparison, a “drop in the bucket”?

[1] Mulgan, Geoff. (2010). Measuring Social Value. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_value

[2] Baumeister, Roy F.; Finkenauer, Catrin; Vohs, Kathleen D. (2001). "Bad is stronger than good" Review of General Psychology (4): 323–370.

Value. Impact. Effectiveness

Who would ever think that “doing good” would need to be measured? As social ventures and nonprofits are the new arenas for entrepreneurship and innovative thinking, Geoff Mulgan raises the perfect question of how do we measure social value that is historically housed in these entities? What about measuring impact? Measuring effectiveness?

The idea of measuring social value is a concept that intrigues me. I work for part of a non-profit who measures everything. Allegheny Partners for Out-of-School Time (APOST), an initiative United Way of Southwestern Pennsylvania, measures the number of people we train through our professional development opportunities, to the GPAs of the students’ of the partners we work with, to the  amount of “grit” that a child possesses. We also push the providers we work with to measure as much as possible. We are collecting all this information trying to build the case for why quality out-of-school time (OST) matters.  We are doing this not only to assure every child has accessible and quality OST programming, but also because influence funders and policymakers thoughts about effective and quality OST programs.

In Measuring Social Value, Geoff Mulgan shares two reasons social measures fail to influence decisions are:

• Most metrics assume that values being measured are objective. Because values are objective, through analysis answers can be discovered
• Current measures of social value fail to influence decision makers which include policy makers because the metrics combine three very different roles: “accounting to external stakeholders, managing internal operations, and assessing societal impact.”

Mulgan also shares a better way to think about social value, discusses how the new thought of social value can determine what to measure and what to not, and finally he suggests organizations should work to assess their work in line with policy and academia.

Reflecting on this article and my work, I fully agree with Mulgan’s points. Working in non-profit and in the out-of-school time field, OST networks need to:

• Have specific reasons for every metric that is being tracked
• Cater those measures to funders and policy makers
• Keep a defined line of what information is captured for “accounting to external stakeholders, managing internal operations, and assessing societal impact.”
• Speak with policy makers and academic to ask what information they want to see have them

The information organizations collect and analyze could be wasted time if the funders and policymakers do not understand the information being presented to them. When measuring effectiveness, impact, and value, we need to make sure that the metrics are in the language that policymakers and funders want to see.  This will assure we are measuring exactly what needs to be measured to create value. 

Crowdfunding for Good

This week’s articles focused on the difficulties of finding investors or funding for social enterprises.  While a slew of options were presented, including social impact bonds and corporate loans, crowdfunding represents one of the most compelling and potentially transformative method for social ventures to gain traction and capital. I tend to believe that a lot of the people interacting with the world through online media fall into a category called “slacktivists”.  Typically slacktavists are people who perform actions on the Internet in support of a cause but require very little time or effort. Slacktivists are the people changing their Facebook profile photo in support of a cause they align with (i.e. the recently popularized rainbow filter which supports gay marriage). Slacktivists spread hashtags on Twitter to promote a cause (i.e. #YesAllWomen #BringBackOurGirls #Kony2012). Slacktivists are also the people who participated in the Ice Bucket Challenge to raise awareness for ALS. Perhaps the latter example best demonstrates the power of such social media campaigns, which eventually raised over $115 million for the ALS Association [1].

Slacktivism, though typically referred to with a negative connotation, could have a powerful influence in the world of crowdfunding social causes. The potential to harness the spending power of people that contribute passively to a cause via social media could provide both viral success and widespread awareness regarding the social innovation or change.  The same motivation behind the online crowds’ decision to support a hashtag or share a video can perpetuate towards the motivation to give small, yet meaningful contributions towards a social innovation. There are a number of crowdsourcing sites dedicated to funding projects for social good, and they have already successfully facilitated the funding of cases like fighting malaria in Africa through small anti-mosquito patches [2][3]. 

One problem with the idea of seriously involving slacktivists with the funding of social innovations lies in the nature of the audience. Online supports are inherently fluid and easily disengaged. Often the causes that generate traction on social media are meteoric in rise and suddenly burn out, quite forgotten. This can be seen through a simple Google Trends search of one of the aforementioned hashtags [4]. One way Kickstarter supports audience engagement is by offering perks to investors. The perks could be tangible gifts, or simply update videos, thank you notes, or first-access to the product. Another solution for the issue of disengagement is to have a narrative-driven plea for support. People need to believe in not only the cause but the people involved in the cause [5]. Generating attention and notice from the social web is another vital consideration for social ventures seeking crowdfunding. The stories of ultra successful crowdfunded campaigns often involve an online viral presence. How might social innovators stir the collective consciousness of the web to pool their powers and do good?

[1] http://time.com/money/4000583/ice-bucket-challenge-money-donations/

[2] http://innovationforsocialchange.org/my-8-favorite-crowdsourcing-and-crowdfunding-platforms-for-social-good/?lang=en

[3] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch#/story

[4] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=yesallwomen

[5] http://ssir.org/articles/entry/crowdfunding_for_nonprofits

Quantifying Social Value

The dilemma of how to measure social impact is one I am familiar with. I used to intern for a non-profit organization that specialized in research and social impact studies. Clients came to them with problems and questions that were hard to define; they wanted to know the potential social impact, benefit, or cost of certain changes or policies. I scoured through studies, called business professionals, spoke with legislators, and created spreadsheets, all in the hope that something would shine through as a beacon for measuring success. Ultimately, the most valuable pieces of information were the client’s goals and values. What were they trying to achieve with this policy or project? What did they value as a company or individual? Our models and metrics were useless if they did not work within the client’s values and goals. Our definitions of success and social impact were often different. Social impact is, in large part, subjective.

We like to make decisions—or investments, if you are an investor—in concrete facts and evidence. As Mulgan describes, there are several issues in social innovation that make this difficult to do, including a lack of fundamental laws, a lack of agreement on values, unreliable or arbitrary metrics, and time.[1] People have different stakes and interests that are difficult to measure by one thing. However, formulating a framework for defining value is essential for social ventures to gain support and grow.

Back in 2011, the EPA declared that a human life was worth $9.1 million and the FDA declared it was worth $7.9 million.[2] You may ask how an organization can possibly place a monetary sum on a person’s life. While seemingly arbitrary, there is a methodology behind these conclusions. Organizations and economists attempt to quantify value of a life based on a number of factors, such as what someone could contribute to society in his or her lifetime. Whether you agree with this valuation method or not, this is a prime example of an organization trying to quantify social value.

Creating a valuation system for social ventures may seem cold and arbitrary, but it forces us to remember that we live in a world of supply and demand. If someone thinks he or she has a fantastic idea but no one is willing to invest in it, then that idea will never come to fruition. To have a social impact, there needs to be dynamic cooperation between innovators, investors, and legislators.[3] Creating a valuation framework and defining metrics for success can help connect these actors and generate support. But is it really possible to measure and capture all elements of value in a single framework or metric? Can we really define something so multi-faceted?

---

[1] Mulgan, Geoff. (2010). Measuring Social Value. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_value

[2] Appelbaum, Binyamin. (February 16, 2011). As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret. The New York Times.   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/economy/17regulation.html

[3] Chertok, Michael, Hamaoui, Jeff, & Jamison, Eliot. (2008). The Funding Gap. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://www.worldofgoodinc.com/press/articles/SSIR-spring08.pdf

The Bigger Picture

           Attempts to quantify the impact of social ventures and international development projects may be beneficial in the context of planning, managing risks and allocation of resources. However, the decision-makers of any project with social value must look at the wider implications based on experiential history before using vague metrics like social return on investment (SROI)[1]. Incremental improvements in technology enablers that enhance the human existence through health, education, housing or energy should be linked to how the rollout of innovations has tangibly affected societies. Thus, the eradication of an infectious disease or the reduction in illiteracy rate or the acceleration of rural electrification as a result of adaptive technologies is an indication of leveraging the past to reshape a future outcome. The intangible gain of well-being, for example, is just a by-product of the technology enabler. Any assigned numerical value represents an oversimplification of the complex.

            In the same vein, if crowdfunding is looked at as an enabler[2] of a social venture, made possible by the Internet of Things, the desired outcome of reaching a fundraising goal is a bridge that once again connects past to the future. The radical uptake of web platforms for electronic transactions in the past fifteen years contrasts with the old-fashioned fundraising that took several months or years and was limited by geography. For instance, we might be unable to objectively measure the inherent “social value” of crowdfunding but the innovation-driven outcome of quickly raising money for disaster relief infrastructure or water purification systems for a rural village may be a key intervention that could prevent the spread of a potentially fatal pandemic.

            Analyzing this perspective further, when the Wright brothers made their first prototype of the aircraft, they could not have envisioned an SROI for their technology.        Today, after more than a century of air travel, the numerous incremental social benefits for humanity of the aeroplane, from intercontinental flights to space exploration, are universally known. At the same time, it is actually still difficult to assign a ‘social impact value’ because of the intangible factor. The invention, design and subsequent innovation of the airplane is a classic case of how centuries of long journeys by sea and land coupled with the everyday observation of flying birds informed the future of transportation.

            Ultimately, the extensive efforts by social ventures and non-profit organizations to assign value and certifications through undefined numerical indicators pinpoint to misplaced priorities. The evolution of impact investing and the application of financial bonds to mitigate risks [3] push to the fore seemingly rigorous quantitative methods that could gauge a project’s impact, in the socioeconomic sense. Notwithstanding, historical lessons from the global financial crises highlight the futility of the ‘numbers obsession’ in social endeavours. Effectively, human populations are irrational and unpredictable. In this regard, technology-enabled paradigms that advance societal needs are crucibles for constant experimentation based on the progression of changing times and not necessarily a questionable or unreliable metric.

Is the historical big idea a more insightful measure of social impact?

---

[1] http://www.fastcoexist.com/welcome.html?destination=http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681808/the-51-billion-future-of-crowdfunding-is-more-than-kickstarter

[2] http://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_value

[3] http://www.economist.com/node/14493098