Evaluating the practicability and utility of the Social Return on Investment tool in public health nutrition: A food redistribution case study

Abstract

Background: Effectively evaluating the impact of social enterprises is a challenge many public health experts face. Traditional evaluation methods encourage measurement of health-related outcomes, failing to account for the extent of outcomes that may be generated. Evaluators within the social sector have been encouraged to use the Social Return on Investment tool to measure the social, economic, and environmental outcomes an organisation (or service) generates. This tool is not widely used in public health and may offer new insights for programme evaluation. Objective: To evaluate the practicability and utility of the Social Return on Investment tool in the fields of public health nutrition and dietetics, through the use of a case study. Case Study: The Social Return on Investment methodology was applied to a case study to assess its use within the field of public health nutrition and dietetics. The case study selected for this investigation was an urban social enterprise specialising in food redistribution, in New Zealand. This Social Return on Investment tool measures the economic, social and environmental value created by an organisation. There are six stages within this tool: establish scope and identify key stakeholders, map outcomes, evidence outcomes and assign value, establish impact, calculate social return on investment, and report, use and embed. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders: food donors, recipient agencies, the environmental stakeholder, the financial sponsor, and the volunteer coordinator. NVivo 10 was used to code data into economic, social and environmental outcomes. Outcomes were monetised where appropriate. Monetised outcomes included increased supply of donated food, reduced waste costs and reduced carbon emissions. The case study provided an additional 89, 920 servings of fruit and vegetables to their local community. Outcomes not monetised included increased reach and increased community involvement. No negative outcomes were identified. The Social Return on Investment ratio illustrated that for every $1 invested in the case study, $3.30 of value was generated. Conclusion: The tool was found to be practicable and useful within the field of public health nutrition and dietetics. The tool differed to traditional public health evaluation tools as it was able to combine evaluation with accounting by monetising inputs, outputs and outcomes. This was found to be both a strength and weakness of the study. Standardisation within databases may improve the use of the tool.