SROI in the Context of Policy and Governance Developments

  • Volker Then
  • Christian Schober
  • Olivia Rauscher
  • Konstantin Kehl
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance book series (SIF)


In this chapter, we briefly outline the policy and governance context in which impact measurement has evolved and which has a serious effect on the impact measurement discourse among social purpose and non-profit organisations.


  1. Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism. How the rich can save the world. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  2. Chow, W. S., & Priebe, S. (2013). Understanding psychiatric institutionalization. A conceptual review. BMC Psychiatry, 13(169).
  3. Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. Power, politics and ideology in the remaking of social welfare. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  4. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EaSI. (n.d.). EU Programme for employment and social innovation. Accessed September 07, 2017.
  6. Enders, J., Kehm, B. M., & Schimank, U. (2014). Turning universities into actors on quasi-markets. How new public management reforms affect academic research. In D. Jansen & I. Pruisken (Eds.), The changing governance of higher education and research. Multilevel perspectives (pp. 89–103). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Esping-Andersen, G. (1988). Politics against markets. The social democratic road to power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GECES. (2014). Proposed approaches to social impact measurement in European Commission legislation and in practice relating to EuSEFs and the EaSI. Report (GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement).Google Scholar
  11. Geels, F., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., & Southerton, D. (2015). A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research. The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change, 34(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right. The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hemerijck, A. (2013). Changing welfare states (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hemerijck, A. (2017). The uses of social investment (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hibbs, D. A. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. The American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinrichs, K. (2000). Elephants on the move. Patterns of public pension reform in OECD countries. European Review, 8(3), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Impact Management Project. (n.d.). Risk. Accessed September 07, 2017.
  19. Jenson, J. (2012). Redesigning citizenship regimes after neoliberalism: Moving towards social investment. In N. Morel, B. Palier, & J. Palme (Eds.), Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges (pp. 61–88). Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  20. Kehl, K., & Then, V. (2013). Community and civil society returns of multi-generation cohousing in Germany. Journal of Civil Society, 9(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  21. Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lay, B., Nordt, C., & Rössler, W. (2007). Trends in psychiatric hospitalisation of people with schizophrenia. A register-based investigation over the last three decades. Schizophrenia Research, 97, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lay, B., Nordt, C., & Rössler, W. (2010). Variation in use of coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals. European Psychiatry, 26, 244–251.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, C. J. (2015). Commensuration bias in peer review. Philosophy of Science, 82, 1272–1283.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novo Nordisk Fonden. (n.d.). New research progamme will provide more knowledge on the socioeconomic impact of research. Accessed September 07, 2017.
  27. OECD. (2015). Social impact investment. Building the evidence base. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Offe, C. (2000). Civil society and social order. Demarcating and combining market, state and community. European Journal of Sociology, 41(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., et al. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services. Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Policy networks. A British perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rose, R. (1986). Common goals but different roles. The state’s contribution to the welfare mix. In R. Rose & R. Shiratori (Eds.), The welfare state east and west (pp. 13–39). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service. Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schiff, H., Bass, R., & Cohen, A. (2016) The business value of impact measurement, Issue brief, Global impact investing network. Accessed September 07, 2017.
  34. Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in. Strategies of analysis in current research. In P. B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Social Impact Investment. (n.d.). Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group. Accessed September 07, 2017.
  36. Social Impact Investment Task Force. (2014). Measuring impact. Subject paper (Social Impact Investment Taskforce).Google Scholar
  37. Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. C. (1985). Community, market, state – and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. European Sociological Review, 1(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilensky, H. L. (1975). The welfare state and equality. Structural and ideological roots of public ex-penditures. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Then
    • 1
  • Christian Schober
    • 2
  • Olivia Rauscher
    • 2
  • Konstantin Kehl
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Social InvestmentHeidelberg UniversityBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Competence Centre for Nonprofit Organisations and Social EntrepreneurshipWU Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institute of Management and Social PolicyZHAW Zurich University of Applied SciencesZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations