The results of this study have shown that several lessons can be learnt regarding construction of future taankas in order to optimize the social value created.
1. Each taanka should be used by as many households as possible and owned by all of those who use it. The majority of the benefits experienced through the construction of the taanka were felt by the neighboring households to the taanka and not by the owners of the taanka who were intended to be the beneficiaries of the project. If they would have not been given access to the taanka by the owners of the taanka 75 % of the total social value created would have been lost. The inputs to the taanka have also been disproportionally carried by the household who owns the taanka. By having a shared ownership it is more likely that the inputs will be shared to a higher degree.
2. Suzlon should systematically follow up the positive and negative values created by taankas built in order to learn how to use resources in the most efficient way. This study has identified several inputs and outcomes that were not mentioned in the GRAVIS documents reviewed.
GRAVIS allocated a total of 438 INR to plan the construction of the taanka, but no resources were used for following up the social value created. By not understanding what changes for the stakeholders as a result of the construction of a taanka information important for
organizational learning and development is missed.
3. Persons responsible for inputs in a project should be given fair compensation for the work that they are conducting if they are not experiencing any outcomes which are of more value then their inputs. The mason and the laborers were responsible for the 16 % of the inputs to the taanka without experiencing outcomes that compensated their inputs.
39
7 Conclusions
In the context of this particular case study it has been proven that SROI can be a viable tool to evaluate the performance of CSR initiatives, but some challenges with using the methodology have been identified.
The main challenge with the methodology is that it is resource intensive in terms of time it takes to collect information and analyze it. It is resource intensive because it looks at actual changes taking place for the stakeholders that are experiencing them and then in some cases uses non market proxies to represent the value of the change experienced by the stakeholders.
Measuring this is difficult to standardize beyond a certain point because value experienced will differ from case to case even for similar CSR initiatives. Because it is a resource
intensive tool it is important to be aware of the trade-offs faced in terms of resources devoted following up social value created and creating social value.
The results of this study do however show that SROI can be a viable tool to use when measuring the performance of CSR initiatives. Using SROI the evaluate the social value created by constructing the studied taanka has not only lead to an increased understanding of social values created by this particular project, but the results of the study can also be used when planning any future taankas. The main strength of SROI as a methodology in this study has been that it measures the actual changes for the stakeholders which experience the change and that the changes are monetized. Because SROI measures what actually changes for the stakeholders affected by the CSR initiative and not organizational objectives for a certain project it provides several opportunities for organizational learning about social value creation. The monetization process in SROI enables comparisons to be made in between outcomes and inputs or in between outcomes experienced by different stakeholders which would not be possible if the outcomes would not be monetized. By understanding the relation in between inputs and outcomes the efficiency of the resources used can be understood, and by understanding the value of outcomes in between each other it becomes easier to understand which type of change is more important to create.
Finally the methodology provides information about shared corporate and societal values created. It can be used to understand the corporate inputs into a CSR initiative compared to the outcomes created for the corporation and the other stakeholders affected. SROI therefore helps to visualize the interdependence of business and society. The methodology also helps to create an understanding of how the benefits from the studied CSR initiative can be tied to
40 economic interests at a business level which in turn can be useful when deciding on the
allocation of corporate resources.
41
References
Angier Griffin. 2009. Measuring social value: an overview. Angier Griffin.
Arvidson, Malin, Fergus Lyon, Stephen Mckay and Domenico Moro. 2010. The ambitions and challenges of SROI. Third Sector Research Centre.
Booth, Wayne C, Gregory G. Colomb and Josepth M. Williams. 2008. The craft of research.
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Boardman, Anthony E., David H. Greenberg, Aidan R. Vining, David L. Weimer. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Census of India. 2001. Basic data sheet: District Jodhpur (15), Rajasthan (08). Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner.
Flick, Uwe. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publication.
Gibbon, Jane and Colin Dey. 2011. Developments in social impact in the third sector: scaling up or dumbing down? Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 31, no. 1: 63-72.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2008. Reporting on community impacts. Global Reporting Initiative.
Government of India Planning Commission. 2011. Report of the task force on grasslands and deserts. New Delhi: Government of India Planning Commission.
Government school teacher. 2012. Interview by author. Govindpura, Rajasthan, India.
February 16.
GRAVIS. 2003a. Harvesting the rains in the Thar. Jodhpur: GRAVIS.
GRAVIS. 2003b. Traditional agricultural and water technologies of the Thar. Jodhpur:
GRAVIS.
GRAVIS 2012. Interview by author. Govindpura, Rajasthan, India. February 16.
GRAVIS website a. About us.
http://www.gravis.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=27 (accessed April 18, 2012).
GRAVIS website b. Strategic focus.
http://www.gravis.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=64 (accessed April 18, 2012).
42 Henriques, Adrian. 2010. Corporate impact: measuring and managing your social footprint.
London: Earthscan.
Household who owns the taanka. 2012. Interview by author. Govindpura, Rajasthan, India.
February 3, February 8 and February 16.
Intercontinental Exchange website. Emissions.
https://www.theice.com/productguide/ProductGroupHierarchy.shtml?groupDetail=&group.gr oupId=19 (accessed February 12, 2012).
ISO 26000:2010. 2010. Guidance on social responsibility. Swedish Standards Institute.
Karoly, Lynn A. 2008. Valuing benefits in cost-benefit studies of social programs. RAND Corporation.
Kvale, Steinar and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. United States of America: SAGE Publications.
Lindgren, Magnus, Ola Petterson, Per-Anders Hansson, Olle Norén. 2002. Engine load pattern and engine exhaust gas emissions from off-road vehicles and methods to reduce fuel-consumption and engine exhaust gas emissions. Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering.
Margolis, Joshua D. and James P. Walsh. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268-305.
May, Steve, George Cheney and Juliet Roper. 2007. The debate over corporate social responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neighboring households to the taanka. 2012. Interview by author. Govindpura, Rajasthan, India. February 3, February 8 and February 16.
Nicholls, Jeremy, Eilis Lawlor, Eva Neizert and Tim Goodspeed. 2009. A guide to social return on investment. Ed. Sally Cupitt. Cabinet Office: Office of the Third Sector.
Nicholls, Jeremy, Eilis Lawlor, Eva Neizert and Tim Goodspeed. 2012. A guide to social return on investment. Ed. Sally Cupitt. Cabinet Office: Office of the Third Sector.
Nilsson, Erik. 2012. The outcomes and value of SOUL’s advanced SROI training course.
SERUS.
Paycheck.in website. Minimum wages in Rajasthan. Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad and Wageindicator.org.
43 http://www.paycheck.in/main/salary/officialminimumwages/rajasthan (accessed April 18, 2012).
Peloza, John and Jingzhi Shang. 2010. How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Academy of Marketing and Science 39:
117-135.
Porter, Michael E and Mark R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review December.
Porter, Michael E and Mark R. Kramer. 2011. Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a new wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review January-February.
Psacharopoulus, George and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2004. Returns to investment in education: A further update. Education Economics 12, no. 2 [August].
Scholten, Peter, Jeremy Nicholls, Sara Olsen and Brett Galimidi. 2006. Social Return on Investment: A guide to SROI analysis. Amsterdam: Lenthe Publishers
Scottish Centre for Regeneration. 2010. Briefing paper 13: Embracing Social Return on Investment. The Scottish Government.
SERUS. 2010. SROI: Social return on investment. SERUS.
Social Audit Network. What is social accounting and audit.
http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/getting-started/what-is-social-accounting-and-audit/
(accessed April 18, 2012).
Suzlon. Company profile. http://www.suzlon.com/about_suzlon/l2.aspx?l1=1&l2=1 (accessed April 18, 2012).
Suzlon Foundation. 2010. CSR annual report 2009-2010. Suzlon Foundation.
Suzlon Foundation. 2011. CSR story Rajasthan, 2007-2010. Suzlon Foundation.
Suzlon Foundation website a. About us.
http://www.suzlonfoundation.org/suzlon_foundation.html (accessed April 18, 2012).
Suzlon Foundation website b. Mission. http://www.suzlonfoundation.org/mission.html (accessed April 18, 2012).
44 Söderbaum, Peter. 2008. Understanding sustainability economics: Towards pluralism in economics. Cornwall: Earthscan.
Tuan, Melinda T. 2008. Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: Insights into eight integrated cost approaches. Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.
Valuta.se. Omvandlare. Euroinvestor. http://www.valuta.se/ (accessed February 12, 2012).
Wood, Claudia and Daniel Leighton. 2010. Measuring social value: the gap between policy and practice. London: Demos.
Zappalà, Gianni and Mark Lyons. 2009. Recent approaches to measuring value in the third sector: An overview. The Centre for Social Impact.
Zhuang, Juzhong, Zhihong Liang, Tun Lin, and Franklin de Guzman. 2007. Theory and practice in choice of social discount rate for cost-benefit analysis: a survey. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
45