The Social Lexicon October 2016

The Social
Lexicon
Nicola Clegg, Bex Dawkes & Amy Mason
In association with Jonathon Porritt &
Forum for the Future
Sorting out the muddle
Social contractSocial capital
Social value
Social licence
to operate
Social impact
Social dividendSROINet Positive

The Social Lexicon 2
Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................2
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................3
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................6
1. Social Capital......................................................................................................................7
2. Social Impact......................................................................................................................9
3. Social Value......................................................................................................................12
4. Social Return on Investment ...........................................................................................15
5. Social Licence to Operate ...............................................................................................17
6. A New Social Contract?....................................................................................................19
7. The ‘Social Dividend’ ........................................................................................................25
8. Implications for Forum for the Future .............................................................................28
References...............................................................................................................................30
Acknowledgements
In recognition of their time and willingness to share knowledge, we would like to thank the
following people for their involvement, enthusiasm and cooperation in this project:
Bob Eccles, Harvard Business School
Zoe le Grand, Forum for the Future
John Morrison, Executive Director of the Institute for Human Rights & Business
Bob Willard, Sustainability Advantage and Future-Fit Business Benchmark

Executive Summary
In recent years, much of the literature dedicated to discussing topics within the ‘social
sustainability’ space has been more than a little confusing, predominantly due to a myriad
of loosely defined terms being used interchangeably. This paper seeks to tease out the
origins and the meaning of these words and phrases, and to clarify the relationships
between them.
Social Capital
Social capital is a longstanding concept relating to the ‘Five Capitals’ or, more recently, ‘Six
Capitals’ frameworks. These frameworks describe things in terms of ‘stocks of capital’,
with any change which take place altering the amount of these stocks expressed as ‘a
flow’.
Following the release of the Natural Capital Protocol in July 2016, there has been an
emerging demand for businesses to develop a similar protocol for social capital – a
challenge which has been taken up by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). Thus far, the Council has focused on comparing the measurement
techniques used within social impact frameworks, in an attempt to ‘streamline’ the
approaches into one commonly used method for measuring social capital. It is hoped that
this Social Capital Protocol will help establish best practice use of the term, although the
systemic nature of the capitals frameworks must be recognised. By separating out social
capital from all the other capitals, there is a risk of trade-offs, which would hinder progress
towards a more sustainable future.
Social Impact / Social Value
Social Impact and Social Value are terms which are very similar in nature; they are often
used as synonyms within corporate reporting.
Both terms can be measured relatively or absolutely, quantitatively or qualitatively,
depending on the framework and indicators used. None of the methods for measurement
are wrong, but nor are any of them perfect for every single scenario. It is also important
that organisations are honest about their negative social impacts as well as the positive
ones.
It must be recognised that societies and communities are complex structures, influenced
by an untold number of factors at any one time. Whilst companies can play a big part in
creating positive change for society, they must recognise that any change will not be solely
attributable to their actions, and if possible, companies should evaluate the counterfactual
argument to assess whether their involvement has made a truly significant contribution to
the impact created.
Social Return on Investment (SROI)
Social Return on Investment is a specific way to measure social impact or social value by
creating a common denominator for comparison: financial value. Many organisations have
successfully begun to use SROI techniques to demonstrate how they can create more
value for society than the money which is spent on their products or services. It is,
however, important to recognise that some things cannot be quantified or measured, and
that many relationships and interconnections are very complex. Therefore it is dangerous

to assume that all indicators and impacts can be reduced into a term as simple and linear
as SROI.
Social Licence to Operate (SLO)
Whilst the retention of a social licence to operate is integral to any company’s success, this
basic level of compliance denotes the minimum standard of behaviour expected of a
company by society. Following significant levels of public scepticism about the role and
integrity of companies during recent years, the Social Licence to Operate is no longer being
taken for granted by the corporate world, and it has prompted many organisations to take
an active interest in developing a ‘new Social Contract for sustainability’.
Social Contract
This idea has been given new impetus by the suggestion from the Business and
Sustainable Development Commission that a new Social Contract is needed between the
business community and civil society. Given that most Social Contract theory, on an
historical basis, revolves around relationships between government and the state on the
one hand, and citizens and voters on the other, this is a challenging proposal, implying the
need for significant innovation in the conventional ‘triangle of governance’ regarding
responsibilities and obligations on the part of government, business and civil society.
If the Social Contract is seen as an agreement to exceed the minimum standard expected
(as captured with the Social Licence to Operate), then there is a requirement for companies
to be measuring their impacts and committing to improving their performance. With this in
mind, the Future-Fit benchmarking standard has been established – a set of performance
criteria which could be viewed as the basis for a new Social Contract to be built upon.
But what would the legal status of any Social Contract be? Promulgating an actual legally-
binding contract seems improbable. But if a Social Contract is just another voluntary
commitment or agreement, why would it command any greater attention or respect from
individual citizens or society at large?
It can be argued that the legal status of the B Corp (with unambiguous commitments to
ensuring positive impacts on people, communities and the planet) already constitutes a de
facto Social Contract. They are required to meet rigorous performance standards in social,
environmental, accountability and transparency criteria. Registration as a B Corp could
therefore be considered a form of Social Contract, as these businesses are legally bound
and fully committed to exceeding the minimum expectations of society.
Social Dividend
In certain circles, the phrase social dividend has been introduced to the lexicon. In an
historical context, the idea of a social dividend was originally applied to what is now called
the Universal Basic Income.
In a more contemporary setting, the term ‘dividend’ is assigned a financial meaning, and
has been adopted by some organisations such as The Co-op to represent a regular
monetary donation to key stakeholders involved in the Co-op. Another scheme which could
be assumed to represent a ‘social dividend’ under these terms is the ‘1% for the Planet’
initiative.

Social dividend is therefore a potentially confusion addition to the social lexicon. If it
comprises a purely financial contribution, it is essentially ‘rebranding philanthropy’, and
cannot therefore be considered as revolutionary or leading in its application. But giving the
term another meaning to encompass more than just monetary values, would lead to further
confusion of the social lexicon, and potential misuse of the term.
All these terms are of immediate interest to Forum for the Future, both within the context of
its original Five Capitals Framework, and through the work it is doing now around the
concept of Net Positive.
Unfortunately, however, there are no ‘hard and fast’ demarcation lines between all the
different concepts, with the inevitable consequence that the whole area of social
sustainability comes across as a bit of a muddle.
This is not helpful, and organisations like the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (with its advocacy of a Social Capital Protocol), the Business and Sustainable
Development Commission (which is currently testing out the idea of a new Social Contract),
and Forum for the Future (with its wide range of partners already using a variety of
different terms and frameworks) have a real opportunity to help dispel some of this
confusion.
October 2016

Introduction
In the world of social sustainability, the terms ‘social capital’, ‘social impact’, ‘social value’,
‘social return on investment’ and ‘social licence to operate’ are all used regularly and,
sometimes, interchangeably. There is often no clarification as to what these terms mean,
what context they are being used in, or even how they relate to each other. To add to this
already confusing lexicon, there have recently been calls for leading businesses around the
world to create a ‘new Social Contract’ for sustainability, and other organisations are
seeking to add to the list, by adopting phrases such as ‘social dividend’.
Within this summary document, we briefly explore the history of these terms and find
examples of how they are being used. We then attempt to determine the definition of each
one and to clarify the relationships between them.
In conclusion, we outline some outstanding questions which surround the concept of a
‘new Social Contract’, voice our recommendations (and reservations) for use of the term
‘social dividend’, and finally, we explain how the findings of this research could be further
developed by Forum for the Future.
Relationships between Terms

1. Social Capital
First developed in the academic discipline of sociology, ‘social capital’ is a commonly used
concept across business, government and civil society. Recent work1
by the International
Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has emphasised the importance of social capital. It
encourages use of the six capitals (natural, social & relationship, human, intellectual,
manufactured and financial capital) in integrated reporting, understanding how the
business preserves or enhances each of the capitals. This helps business understand the
relationship between social factors and financial performance, both in the short and long-
term.
Definitions
Definitions of ‘social capital’ vary widely, and in practice many businesses use other terms
(e.g. social impact or social value) to refer to the social aspect of sustainability.
1) Forum for the Future2
has one of the most specific definitions of social capital:
“Social Capital concerns the institutions and networks that help us maintain and develop
human capital in partnership with others; e.g. families, communities, businesses, trade
unions, schools, and voluntary organisations.”
2) The IIRC3
definition has been expanded slightly to include relationship capital, and is
distinguished from both human and intellectual capital:
“Aspects of social and relationship capital in a business context relevant to include: the
strength/ efficacy of supply chain relationships (e.g., establishing quality expectations,
just-in-time delivery systems, and recycling programmes), community acceptance,
government relations, relationships with competitors (e.g., coming together to develop
industry standards), and customer loyalty. It is only by building relationships that an
organization can retain its social licence to operate.”
3) WBCSD4
has adopted a broad definition of social capital:
“The WBCSD is using ‘social capital’, to refer to a company's positive and negative impact
and dependence on people and society. This encompasses human capital (people's skills,
experience and knowledge), social capital (societies' shared values, norms and
institutions), relationship capital (connections and networks) and wellbeing, as well as the
concept of socio-economic impact.”
Using Social Capital
Forum for the Future’s Five Capitals Model2
creates a useful framework for businesses to
assess their reliance on the stocks and flows of the different capitals (natural, human,
social, manufactured and financial). When considering the capitals in this holistic and
integrated way, it encourages the optimisation of capital value, whilst also highlighting any
potential ‘trade-offs’ that may occur.
1
IIRC (2016) Integrated Reporting Examples Database. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cmoekV (Accessed:
31/08/16)
2
Forum for the Future (2008) The Five Capitals Model. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpkose (Accessed: 07/07/16)
3
IIRC (2013) CAPITALS: Background Paper for IR. Available at: http://bit.ly/1rpXi8s (Accessed: 10/08/16)
4
WBCSD (2016) Social Capital. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cxCydc (Accessed: 09/08/16)

Social Capital Protocol
To help address the confusion created by the broad range of definitions, the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development is currently working towards creating a new
Social Capital Protocol. In June 2015, it published ‘Towards Social Capital Protocol: A Call
for Collaboration5
’, acknowledging the social impact measurement efforts being made by
multiple individual businesses. The report highlights the dangers of these organisations
working separately: replicated efforts and a fragmented landscape.
“Developing a credible and broadly accepted approach is essential, not only to
demonstrate our performance to stakeholders and shareholders, but also to ensure
the effort of measuring and reporting informs a continuous movement towards
more socially sustainable practices” (p.4)
In April 2016, a draft protocol6
was released on the subjects of employment, skills and
safety, and companies were invited to trial its application. Feedback will inform the
continued development of the protocol throughout the rest of 2016.
5
WBCSD (2015) Towards Social Capital: A Call for Collaboration. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cDLGd8 (Accessed:
09/08/16)
6
WBCSD (2015) Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cTQrlk (Accessed:
09/08/16)

2. Social Impact
Definition
‘The effect a company has on the social fabric of the community, the well-being of individuals
and families, and on the relationships with its stakeholders.’ An impact can be either positive
or negative, and includes factors such as:
- How fairly and reliably suppliers and workers are paid;
- How shareholders (including small ones) are treated;
- How the company’s activities, products and outputs affect the lives and health of local
communities;
- How much tax the company pays.
Social impact can be defined and communicated through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
These are specific, measurable factors which are capable of being used practically, either
absolutely or relatively, and can indicate to an organisation and its stakeholders whether they
are having a positive or negative impact. The usefulness of any collection of KPIs is dependent
on the ability of a company to collect reliable and informative data. For instance, tax is an
easily measurable indicator, but one which many companies fail to be transparent about, and
fail to relate to wider social impacts.
Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA)
Building on the use of Life Cycle Analyses (LCA), manufacturing companies are now trying to
better understand the social impacts of their products through PSIA. For instance, The
Roundtable for Product Social Metrics7
published a handbook in 2015 to advise on indicators.
At the same time, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is working with
chemical companies to develop consistent metrics.
8 9
7
Fontes, J. (2016) Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment Version 3.0. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2c9d5UW (Accessed: 10/08/16)
8
Roundtable for Product Social Impact Assessment (2015b) Hair care product. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cC6bZt
(Accessed: 21/08/16)
9
Roundtable for Product Social Impact Assessment (2015) 1kwh of windpower. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cu0sBr
Case Study 1: Philips and DSM
A study was carried out on a new hair care product, to measure the ‘experienced’ wellbeing of
customers (relative, as opposed to absolute). A ‘scales-based’ approach was used to assess
these products, and it demonstrated that ‘hotspots’ (negative scores) and ‘differentiators’
(positive scores) can quickly be identified with this method of data collection. By using the
right metrics and indicators by which to measure future products, Philips and DSM are both
able to increase the amount of positive social impact that they create for their customers.

Social Impact for Investment
The G8’s Social Impact Investment Taskforce 201410
report encouraged investors to consider 3
dimensions when investing in a company: Risk, Return and Impact. Subsequently, The Global
Social Impact Investment Steering Group (GSG) was established to increase pressure on
companies to provide information on their social and environmental impacts. One of the
primary ways to do this is by releasing a ‘social impact statement’, which can include factors
such as: job creation, employee benefits, energy usage/reduction, volunteering/community
outreach, and philanthropic activities.
Challenges with measuring impact
There are a number of challenges involved in measuring ’impact-based’ metrics:
Time: Impacts (both positive and negative) often take time to materialise. The longer that time
period is, the less easy it is to reconcile with reporting systems based on typical short-term
business cycles.
Scale: The communities and environments in which companies operate are not self-contained
entities. There are many other external variables which can cause impacts, most of which are
outside of the company’s control. These can include public policy, social and cultural trends,
environmental conditions, and the activities of other players. In the absence of the
counterfactual, it is difficult for any single organization to claim responsibility for ’impact-
based’ change. The best thing an organisation can do is to talk about its own, more
measurable contributions.
Lack of baseline data. ‘Impact-based’ metrics capture change over time. Many organisations
do not have the opportunity and foresight to begin capturing data before they intervene –
therefore there is no baseline data with which to compare subsequent impacts.
Examples of measuring Social Impact
Social Return on Investment is one of the most popular frameworks used for measuring social
impact.
10
Social Impact Investment Taskforce (2014) Impact Investment: The Invisible Heart of Markets. Available at:
http://bit.ly/1uzOo6q (Accessed: 20/08/16)
Case Study 2: Vattenfall wind farms
Vattenfall Nordic wind farms wanted to measure the social impact created from their clean
electricity wind turbines in Denmark and Sweden. They conducted a qualitative study,
focusing on the core processes of the value chain (development, construction and operation),
to measure any impacts created for local communities, society and workers, as a result of
this new electricity generation. The study encountered multiple difficulties in gathering useful
data. Vattenfall did however conclude that the results could be used to enhance future
collaboration with key suppliers on sustainability issues.

Social Accounting - The Co-operative Development Scotland introduced the concept of social
accounting11
to a number of co-operative and employee-owned businesses in 2008 as part of
an initiative with the Social Audit Network. This helps companies prepare social accounts and
have them independently audited.
Impact Trackers - There are a number of tools and programmes that are used by companies to
measure and report on their outputs, outcomes and impact, such as the Evide Impact Tracker.
12
11
Social Impact Scotland (2016) Case Studies. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpmDf7 (Accessed: 31/08/16)
12
BCorp (2016) Performance Requirement for Pending B Corps. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cyEcda (Accessed:
20/08/16)
Case Study 3: B Corps
B Corps are for-profit companies certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of
social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency, alongside their
financial performance.
In order to become a Certified B Corporation, a company must have a verified score in the B
Impact Assessment (BIA). The BIA not only assesses the impact of a company’s operational
practices - typically covered by standard sustainability and CSR tools - but also attempts to
capture intentional business models designed to create social and/or environmental impact
through a company’s products or services, target customers, value chain, ownership or
operations. These Impact Business Models are determined by a company's mission/intention,
particular stakeholder groups and populations targeted, measurable and measured outcomes,
and relevant third party certifications.

3. Social Value
Context
Since the UK Public Services (Social Value) Act was enacted in 2012, a growing number of
organisations have been seeking to communicate the benefits that they provide to society
in terms of both tangible and intangible value. There are now a large number of
frameworks13
and guidelines addressing social value, as well as tools and methods for
measuring and reporting. However, many of these approaches fail to report on negative
outcomes in addition to the positives, and the majority of frameworks are only able to
capture certain elements of social value, without providing a comprehensive picture.
Social value is closely linked to social impact, but there are subtle differences. The term
‘impact’ implies that a person or entity is being impacted upon, and that they have no
agency or control over the situation. By contrast, the term ‘value’ implies that all agents are
active, in one way or another, in shaping the social activity14
.
Many of the factors and impacts most regularly cited are unquantifiable, or, at least, not
measurable on the same scale. Therefore, the ‘value’ that an organisation creates in a
social dimension can be very subjective, as interpreted by the stakeholder. This has
consequently resulted in many different definitions of ‘social value’.
Definitions
“‘Social value’ refers to wider non-financial impacts of programmes and organisations,
including the wellbeing of individuals and communities, social capital and the environment.
These are typically described as ‘soft’ outcomes, mainly because they are difficult to
quantify and measure.” DEMOS, 201615
“For Business in the Community, Social Value means the long term difference that a
business creates for the communities in which it operates, through its existing commercial
activity, social programmes and through its supply/value chain.” Stephanie Hagan, BITC16
Social value can be assessed either from a stakeholder perspective, or a value perspective:
Stakeholder perspective: the value associated with an organisation by any person or entity
which has a ‘stake’ in it.
“Social value is the relative importance of changes that occur to stakeholders as a result of
an activity.” SROI, 201217
Value perspective: the relative value of an activity or organisation as determined by what
people value within society.
13
Maddocks, J. (2015) Measuring and reporting on social value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ck3edO (Accessed:
27/08/16)
14
Morrison, J. (2016) Conversation with Bex Dawkes. 31/08/16
15
Leighton, D (2010) Measuring Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c9gTpk (Accessed: 27/08/16)
16
Hagan, S. BITC (2014) ‘Reflections on the 2014 Building Stronger Communities Award’ 3rd
July. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cfuVsx (Accessed: 12/09/16)
17
Social Value UK (2012) A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2coF40f (Accessed:
09/08/16)

“Social value is about what is of value to people in society; the importance, worth or
usefulness of something.” Social Value Business, 201618
19 20
Creating Shared Value
In 2011, Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter launched a paper in
conjunction with Mark Kramer, promoting the concept of ‘creating shared value’21
. This was
an idea that they thought could move businesses on from measuring philanthropic
donations, as per the norm in Corporate Social Responsibility, and towards measuring the
value that they were actually responsible for creating within society. Porter believed that by
concentrating on creating value, and by sharing growth within the local community and
wider society, then for-profit companies would stand to benefit even further themselves as
overall prosperity and wellbeing would increase.
Measuring and Reporting
Happiness, wellbeing, health, inclusion and empowerment are some of the indicators used
to measure social value. All of these factors have a multitude of potential metrics, and
many of them cannot be judged on absolute scales. Measuring and reporting social value
is thus quite challenging. NEF’s 2005 report22
concluded that there are so many tools
available to measure social value that it is a challenge even to select the most appropriate
one. In the UK, two approaches have emerged as the favourites: social
auditing/accounting, and Social Return on Investment (SROI).
18
Social Value Business (2012) Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cSDPe6 (Accessed: 09/08/16)
19
Willmott Dixon (2015) Social Value: Taking full account of a company’s true impact. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2coO1qh (Accessed: 02/09/16)
20
Willmott Dixon (2016) Annual Review. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cxNgiE (Accessed: 01/09/16)
21
Porter & Kramer (2011) ‘How to Fix Capitalism and Unleash a new wave of Growth’ Harvard Business Review
11(2) pp.1-20
22
New Economics Foundation (2005) Measuring Real Value: Social Return on Investment. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cQ2YTK (Accessed: 03/08/16)
Case Study 4: Willmott Dixon
In its recent report on Social Value, Willmott Dixon recognises that a company’s effectiveness
in adding social value is not just through community investment activities but also through the
way it operates, treats people and the core activities it’s involved in. Willmott Dixon
recommends that companies must find the right mix of ways to articulate their social value.
For example, in the Willmott Dixon Foundation’s Annual Review, a large number of qualitative
and quantitative metrics are provided to demonstrate the full social value being created, such
as measuring the improvement in confidence and skills gained by people taking part in their
work programmes, as well as written feedback from people in the communities they are
working with.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Connected Reporting Framework23
are both
frameworks which have been developed in order to enable corporations to measure their
social value. Shell, ING, Marks & Spencer and BT have all begun using these structures in
recent years.
The Social Stock Exchange was launched in 2013 to recognize and differentiate the
businesses that are defining their impacts on society and working to ensure that they are
increasing the positive value that they provide.
24
23
Accounting for Sustainability (2009) Connected Reporting. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ci8Tl9 (Accessed:
02/09/16)
24
The Crown Estate (2012) Total Contribution Report. Available at: https://issuu.com/nef-
consulting/docs/crown_estate_-_total_contribution_r (Accessed: 13/09/16
Case Study 5: The Crown Estate
The Crown Estate began reporting on its ‘Total Contribution’ to UK society in 2011/12.
By measuring against specific ‘indicators’ across economic, environmental and social
areas, they have tried to demonstrate the total value that they deliver as an
organisation – value which isn’t necessarily defined in monetary terms. Unlike many
other organisations, The Crown Estate aims to capture both positive and negative
outcomes from their business activities in an attempt to calculate the net contribution
of value that the company is creating. They do however recognise that a lack of
baseline data to measure against has proven difficult in terms of demonstrating any
additional value created.

4. Social Return on Investment
Definition
SROI is an analytical tool for measuring and accounting for ‘value’, taking into account
social, economic and environmental factors. SROI methodologies are able to capture in
monetised form the value of a wide range of outcomes, whether or not they have a priori
financial value.
Background
The concept of SROI was initially developed by the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund
(REDF), a San Francisco-based philanthropic fund in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the UK,
NEF first adopted the concept in a 2004 report about Measuring Social Impact25
, and they
now champion the tool as a way to measure value in its broadest sense.
In 2007, the UK and Scottish Governments commissioned a project intended to help third
sector organisations measure their impact. This resulted in the founding of the SROI
Network (now the 300-strong Social Value UK Network) and the production of a “Guide to
SROI” in 2009, which was subsequently updated in 201216
.
In 2012, the UK Government passed the Public Services (Social Value) Act26
, which requires
public bodies to consider social value at the pre-procurement phase of projects. This has
resulted in SROI practices being adopted by businesses working with the public sector
such as Veolia (see Case Study 6).
27
SROI can either be measured as an evaluation of actual outcomes already created, or can
be predicted as a forecast of how much social value could be created if the proposed
activities meet the intended outcomes.
Although initially developed for the third sector, SROI can also be used by business. PWC28
and KPMG29
have both developed methodologies for this purpose.
25
New Economics Foundation (2004) Measuring Social Impact. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c3oBxQ (Accessed:
03/08/16
26
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, c. 3. Available at: http://bit.ly/1EfZyni (Accessed: 09/08/16)
27
Veolia (2013) Creating Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2coPLjl (Accessed: 14/08/16)
28
PWC (2013) Measuring & Managing Total Impact. Available at: http://pwc.to/1NRaLe8 (Accessed: 18/08/16)
29
KPMG (2015) Introducing KPMG True Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/1JihniH (Accessed: 18/08/16)
Case Study 6: Veolia
Veolia has used SROI analysis since 2012 to demonstrate to local governments that their
services provide social value, as well as a vital service to the community. The initial study
conducted with Southwark Borough Council, showed £2.09 of social value was provided for
every £1 spent. These results have helped to differentiate Veolia from other service
providers and to improve its chances in bidding for contracts.

Methodology and principles
Sinzer30
argues that the application of SROI is based on seven principles.
1. Involve stakeholders – involve stakeholders by informing them about what it is that gets
measured, and how.
2. Understand what changes – articulate how change is created and evaluate this.
3. Value the things that matter – use financial proxies in order that the value of the
outcomes can be recognized.
4. Only include what is material – determine what information and evidence must be
included.
5. Do not over-claim – only claim the value that you are responsible for creating.
6. Be transparent – demonstrate the basis on which the analysis is considered.
7. Verify the result – ensure appropriate independent assurance to show decisions made
are reasonable.
31
30
Sinzer (2012) The Beginners Guide to Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c3pLcD
31
BT (2014) Digital Inclusion. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cQCd5P (Accessed: 14/08/16)
Case Study 7: BT
In 2014, BT & Just Economics used the SROI methodology to measure the value of
‘digital inclusion’, concluding that every £1 spent through the BT Get IT Together
programme generated £3.70 in social value.

5. Social Licence to Operate
Definition
The idea of companies earning their Social Licence to Operate is more rhetorical than
practical. It alludes to the ‘virtual permission’ granted by the public, society or specific
stakeholders to allow a company or organisation to conduct its business activities
unimpeded.
A SLO can only be gained and maintained through good reputation, trust and transparency
- all of which are somewhat subjective. However, if an organisation fails to measure up to
society’s norms or perceived minimum standards, there is a potential for public outcry,
boycotts or legal action, all of which can seriously affect the commercial viability of the
business. In this regard, companies cannot operate sustainably without the implicit
support of society.
Examples
1. Tesco took a 1% fall32
in sales during the ‘horsemeat scandal’, with customers avoiding
frozen and chilled convenience food. Burger King also received negative press33
through
social media channels, and both companies resorted to apologising in national
newspapers. By contrast, M&S was unscathed, having taken additional precautions to
ensure that this kind of contamination could not occur in its supply chain.
2. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in huge collapse of the banking sector in Iceland34
, with
senior executives and Government Ministers criticised in the harshest terms for betraying
the interests of both individuals and societies.
3. After the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal35
and the resulting public outcry, the
company was ordered to pay compensation to customers affected by the widespread fraud
involved in ‘cheating’ in emissions tests. However, no heads have as yet rolled, and many
commentators believe that the worst is yet to come for VW.
4. A Greenpeace campaign video36
in 2014 went viral on YouTube (attracting nearly six
million views), leading to Lego ending its multi-million-dollar partnership deal with Shell
which dated back to the 1960s. Lego had assumed its licence to operate was solid, on the
basis of its own good social and environmental performance. But that was not sufficient to
protect it from the taint of association with Shell.
32
BBC News (2013) ‘Horsemeat in Tesco burgers prompts apology in UK papers’ BBC News 17th
January.
Available at: http://bbc.in/19MQEtG (Accessed: 31/08/16)
33
Meikle, J. (2013) ‘Burger King reveals its burgers were contaminated in horsemeat scandal’ The Guardian 31st
January. Available at: http://bit.ly/2czpIec (Accessed: 31/08/16)
34
Erlingsson et al. (2015) ‘Distrust in Utopia? Public perceptions of corruption and political support in Iceland
before and after the financial crisis of 2008’ Government and Opposition. March 2015. pp. 1-27
35
Financial Times (2016) VW Emissions Scandal. Available at: http://on.ft.com/2caeOJL (Accessed: 12/09/16)
36
Greenpeace (2014) LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome. Available at: http://bit.ly/VDzRsW (Accessed:
12/08/16)

Background and History
‘Social Licence to Operate’, as a term, was first coined in the late 1980s37
within the mining
industry, after communities and activists began pressuring extracting companies to begin
operating more sustainably. These businesses realised that to implement new projects,
they not only required a formal permit from the local authority, but also needed to gain the
permission38
and acceptance of local people, primarily by negotiating and discussing the
potential benefits and impacts that such projects would have on the local area. The term
has since been adopted into the ‘CSR lexicon’, and is now used more broadly by companies
in other industries to mean the minimum socially acceptable standard39
.
Companies will sometimes go to great lengths to sustain their Social Licence to Operate:
PR, CSR, stakeholder engagement, community engagement and capacity building are all
different ways of companies protecting their SLO.
SLO is about legitimacy, and can be described in rational terms. Reputation is about
perceived favourability and is often more connected to emotional responses. 40 41 42
37
Prno (2013) ‘An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining
industry’ Resources Policy , 38 (4), pp. 577-590
38
Dare et al. (2014) ‘Community engagement and social licence to operate’ Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 32(3), pp. 188-197. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.927108
39
Black & Bice, ACCSR (2016) Defining the Elusive and Essential Social Licence to Operate. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2aN70us (Accessed: 17/08/16)
40
BP (2016) Ultimate Stem Challenge. Available at: http://on.bp.com/1gjFmH5 (Accessed: 09/08/16)
41
Business in the Community (2014) arc: Building Better Business. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cQeFtz
42
Sanyal,D. BP (2012) Obtaining a social licence to operate – a challenge for the industry [Speech] 22nd
November (Accessed: 09/08/16)
Case Study 8: BP
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, BP concentrated on creating an
environment in which the company and its extraction activities might be viewed as
valuable within wider society. It has increased funding for school and community
engagement projects, with the ‘BP Ultimate STEM Challenge’ launched in 2013, and the
‘BITC arc programme’ launched in 2011. The company has also upped sports and culture
sponsorship.
“I believe the social licence to operate broadly equates to trust. A company such as BP
needs to be trusted in several ways – trusted to deliver the energy to drive economic
growth and lift billions out of poverty; trusted to be safe; trusted on the environment; and
trusted with regard to its impact on society. We have come through a major crisis of trust
and we are regaining our social licence to operate. But we will never take it for granted.”
Dev Sanyal, BP Global Executive Vice President. 22nd
November 2012
This kind of add-on strategy leaves the majority of NGOs and activists even more
sceptical than they were before – however many benefits may be generated through such
engagement activities. Indeed, it is seen by some as the equivalent of corporate hand-
outs, or even bribery which just happens to be on the right side of the law.

6. A New Social Contract?
Background and Context
Following the establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015, a
new business collaboration was formed: The Business and Sustainable Development
Commission. This coalition of leading companies is calling43
for a new ‘Social Contract’ to
be formed between business and civil society.
There has been increased interest in the term ‘Social Contract’ in recent years, specifically
in relation to business. This may well be because trust in business is at an all-time low44
.
The general public has little belief that business exists for any other reason than making
money for shareholders. Many businesses are now seeking to change this opinion and
demonstrate the good they are doing.
At the same time, the expectations that society has for business appear to be growing. In
recent years there have been a number of scandals which have caused boycotts, protests
and legal action, such as the horsemeat scandal, Volkswagen emissions investigation and
the 2008 financial crisis (see page 17). Furthermore, social media platforms are allowing
consumers and citizens to use their voices and engage with big business and irresponsible
companies via the likes of Facebook and Twitter45
.
Recent research46,47,48,49
outlines the importance of good narratives to guide corporate
activities in society. Narratives help to reduce complexity, create collective perspectives,
build an agreed basis for current and future-oriented action plans, and help to form co-
operation between actors50
.What is needed now is a new narrative, or story, to bring us to a
sustainable future – and some believe that a new Social Contract needs to be part of that
narrative.
Social Contract Theory
The concept of a Social Contract originates in various schools of philosophy, and provides
the basis for our political governance system. A Social Contract is an agreement between
the state and all members of society, aiming to create order and peaceful co-habitation for
citizens29
. Within this contract, individuals agree to uphold common rules and accept
43
Business Commission (2016) Making the Business Case for Sustainable Development. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cRjTJB (Accessed: 14/08/16)
44
Confino, J. (2015) ‘Public trust in business hits five-year low’ The Guardian. 21st
January. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cRjsuM (Accessed: 23/08/16)
45
Mainwairing, S. (2011) ‘The Corporate Social Contract’ Corporate Responsibility Magazine. 1st
July. Available
at: http://bit.ly/2ca6mdA (Accessed: 12/08/16)
46
Akerlof & Shiller (2009) Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why it Matters for
Global Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press
47
Tomasello, M. (2014) A Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard: Harvard University Press
48
Dunbar, R. (2010) How Many Friends does One Person Need? London: Faber
49
Ostrom & Walker (2003) Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation
50
Messner, D. (2015) ‘A social contract for low carbon and sustainable development’ Technical Forecasting &
Social Change. 98(2015). pp. 260-270

duties in order to create mutual benefit. The classical view of a Social Contract views
individuals as autonomous, with an active interest in shaping society51
.
Famous advocates of classical Social Contract theory are Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679),
John Locke (1632–1704), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804). These authors, however, have differing beliefs as to the construction and
basis of a Social Contract. Locke and Kant believed that people were reasonable, and
therefore capable of peacefully coexisting with each other if they created a mutual order for
themselves (the Social Contract)29
. Hobbes, however, believed that people are inherently
selfish, and would always act self-destructively unless ruled over by an authority (as set
out in a law-based Social Contract).
All Social Contract theory advocates agree on one thing: individuals have absolute rights,
but are bounded only by the need to recognise the rights of others. In order to live amongst
other individuals, and to create a functioning society, citizens must relinquish some of
these rights, and agree to do so. They must obey the laws, act responsibly, and abandon
certain self-interested values which conflict with the mutual benefit to society. In exchange
for giving up these rights, these citizens will benefit from mutual peace and prosperity as
individuals within society.
There is a lively debate as to the degree to which companies should be treated as citizens.
The term ‘corporate citizenship’ has been increasingly used in recent years by various
groups of stakeholders, keen to persuade companies to accept the responsibilities and
obligations of other citizens. However, many argue that the assumptions of citizenship
cannot be applied to corporations, in that they cannot possibly lay claim to the same rights
and entitlements as individual citizens. Others suggest that although corporations are not
technically citizens, in status, they could claim to act ‘as if’ they were metaphorically
citizens if their engagement in society resembles that of citizens52
.
Can we form a new Social Contract involving business?
There are three main theories of business ethics53
:
1. Stockholder theory: a company has no ethical obligations to society other than to earn
the largest possible profit for its stockholders or owners.
2. Stakeholder theory: a company is morally obligated to all parties with a stake in the
outcomes of its activities.
3. Social Contract theory: a company only operates when under a contract with society, in
which society allows the company to do business under the condition that its actions
benefit society.
Business decisions are often underpinned by these different theories of ethics, even if
those assumptions remain largely invisible. Beyond this, there are a number of other
51
WBGU (2011) A Social Contract for Sustainability. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cmk38J (Accessed: 12/08/16)
52
Moon, Crane & Matten. (2005) ‘Can corporations be citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a metaphor for
business participation in society’ Business Ethics Quarterly. 15(3)
53
Hasnas (1998) ‘The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed’ Business Ethics
Quarterly. 19(2)

important questions which must be answered when considering what a Social Contract
with business would look like.
1. What role does government play?
It seems important when considering any Social Contract between civil society and
business that the government must still act as the ultimate authority to uphold rules and
frame markets for the mutual benefit of all.
2. What does it mean to act in the best interests of society?
Assuming a Social Contract means that businesses have to act in the best interests of
society, how should they uphold their side of the Social Contract? How can companies
establish what the most beneficial actions are? And how should they record and report
this?
3. How much are businesses responsible for?
Defining a company’s field of responsibility (narrowly or broadly) will obviously result in
very different versions of a Social Contract. Concentrating on its direct activities, impacts
and operations, must provide the foundation for any Social Contract, but a company’s
much wider sphere of influence must also be taken into account.
4. Who do you define as society?
Society can be considered on both global and local levels. It is important to distinguish
where boundaries are drawn, and how attention is split between the different ‘levels’.
5. What is the timescale?
Decisions have different impacts across different timescales. A decision made with
positive impacts for the current business cycle in mind could still produce negative
impacts on future generations. The frame of reference must therefore be clearly considered
within any contract made with society, and it should be clearly stated as to how far into the
future any measurements or projections will go.
The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) proposes that any new Social
Contract for sustainability must be one where individuals and civil society groups,
governments, the international community, business and science all pledge to take on a
shared responsibility for protecting natural life-support systems. This would primarily be
achieved through binding agreements involving conservation of the global commons (i.e.
publicly-owned assets and earth systems such as the oceans and atmosphere).
A key element of this new Social Contract is that the state is proactive, and citizens have
opportunities for much more proactive participation. The concept therefore aligns with
Locke & Kant’s views that people are rational and capable of making personal decisions in
the best interest of wider society.50
Businesses can show that they are concerned with society and recognise their dependence
on it (Figure 1) by aligning their activities to protect and enhance social and natural capital,
maintaining the relationships and systems necessary for their long-term success as a
business. This activity illustrates that a business is serious about its Social Contract, and
that it recognises the value of healthy social, human and natural capital stocks and flows.

Social Contract theory can be a controversial
concept because it is tied into broader
political issues. Fierce advocates of free-
market capitalism argue that companies
benefit society by creating wealth, providing
services and employing people. In this view,
corporations achieve the most good by
concentrating on profits, as opposed to
discussing complex and subjective ethical
concerns.
Those who believe that there has to be a lot
more to capitalism in the 21st
century than
the tired old refrain of ‘the business of
business is business’ argue that companies receive substantial benefits from society, and
should therefore reciprocate by acting in the common interest as well as in the narrow
interest of their shareholders54
.
These opposing ethical positions highlight the discrepancies between perceptions of
fiduciary duty – and of a company’s ultimately accountability.55
What would it mean to
make a Social Contract part of a company's fiduciary duty?
How does this relate to Social License to Operate (SLO)?
Historically, the SLO alludes to ‘virtual permission’ granted by the public, society or specific
stakeholders to allow a company or organisation to conduct its business activities
unimpeded. An SLO is theoretically gained through good reputation, trust and transparency
- all of which are somewhat subjective. For the vast majority of firms, this social licence is
implicit and inactive.
It is argued that business leaders today must recognise that being compliant is not
enough. Until leaders of a firm can say they are engaged in a process of continuous
sustainability improvement — akin to continuous improvement and investments in other
parts of their business – they are out of step with our changing world56
.
A new Social Contract would be a way of demonstrating this continuous improvement. It
can be viewed as a progressive step forward in sustainability, beyond having a Social
Licence to Operate which should be considered as the minimum standard acceptable by
society, and comprise the basic idea of ‘doing no harm’.
54
Thompson, S. (2016) Social Contract Theories in Business. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cRmQpE (Accessed:
12/08/16)
55
Eccles, R. (2016) Conversation with Bex Dawkes. 30/08/16
56
Lurie (2009) ‘The New Social Contract with Green Business’ Harvard Business Review. 11th
May. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cj2Uen (Accessed: 14/08/16)
Figure 1: The Natural Limits Paradigm

The Future-Fit Business Benchmark
One framework that has been developed to help businesses take on this challenge is the
Future-Fit Business Benchmark57
. This provides companies with 21 Future-Fit goals to
achieve, which were developed using leading environmental, social and systems science.
The goals were derived by identifying how a ‘typical’ company must interact with other
actors to ensure that it in no way hinders progress toward a prosperous future for all. Once
all 21 goals are achieved, a company can work toward creating positive value in society.
One company which has successfully applied the Benchmark is the Body Shop, which
subsequently developed its Enrich not ExploitTM
commitment58
. Through this commitment,
the Body Shop has pledged to protect and nurture its people, its products and the planet
through 14 specific targets by 2020.
In order for a new Social Contract to work, it is likely that it will have to take the shape of an
agreement or commitment by involved organisations. This ‘contract’ will ensure that
businesses are not only not causing any depletion of social capital, but are continuously
improving their positive social impacts and value creation.
B Corporations as a form of Social Contract
Without having an extremely pro-active and involved society, it seems almost impossible to
truly create a social ‘contract’ between business and society. With the majority of society
remaining passive in the debate over business ethics, if a new Social Contract were just a
voluntary statement or commitment from a company, it becomes no different from an SLO
or classic CSR activities. Therefore, in order for a Social Contract to mean something more,
a much more concrete agreement or commitment is needed. One way this could be
achieved may be through the legal entity of B Corporations.
A B Corp is a company that views success as having a positive impact on people and on
the planet, as well as by making profit. A B Corp is a for-profit business that has social
and/or environmental outcomes as part of its mission. They are certified to meet rigorous
standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. In
order to certify as a B Corp, a business needs to undertake a B Impact Assessment and
pass a legal test. Companies wishing to become a B Corp will need to adopt governing
documents and practices that involve a commitment to a ‘triple bottom line’ approach to
business. Governing documents will also need to state that the Board Members of the
company need to consider a range of ‘stakeholder interests’ when making decisions –
including shareholders, employees, suppliers, society and the environment - and that
shareholder value is only one factor amongst the many stakeholder interests which Board
Members need to take into account; it is not the principal consideration.
Conclusions
The idea of a Social Contract is an interesting addition to the debate about the
responsibilities of business towards society. In the wake of increasing demand from the
public about accountability and good practice in business, some companies are seeking a
new way to demonstrate leadership in ‘social sustainability’.
57
Future-Fit Business Benchmark (2016) Introduction to the Benchmark. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cqpULd
58
The Body Shop (2016) Enrich Not Exploit. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c9Z3Ct (Accessed: 22/08/16)

However, the term ‘Social Contract’ traditionally refers to a relationship between
government and society, so a number of factors need to be clarified before it can be
successfully applied in the business context. These include establishing the role of
government, the extent of responsibility of business through their value chains, whether
‘society’ refers to a local or global community, how to determine and measure what actions
will benefit society, and the timescale of measurement.

7. The ‘Social Dividend’
Introduction & Context
Historically, the word ‘dividend’ has always been associated with finance. A dividend in its
typical context is a share of the profit, or portion of the profit, generated by a company, and
distributed to a set of shareholders in the company.
The idea of a social dividend first arose in 1795 as the original concept of social security
within Thomas Paine’s book, Agrarian Justice59
. Paine believed that any income generated
from publicly-owned land, or ‘the commons’, should be equally distributed between the
people. Over the last 220 years, the ‘social dividend’ as an idea has been altered and
redeveloped for various different economic systems, and championed by a number of
people across the political spectrum. The Green Party adopted the idea of a Universal Basic
Income in the mid-1970s, and in 1986, the social libertarian Philippe Van Parijs60
championed the idea of a ‘basic income’ as the way to ‘Real Freedom’ within a capitalist
society. In 1987, the right-wing economist Milton Friedman61
suggested an alternative on
the social dividend, in the form of a ‘negative income tax’.
The state of Alaska62
has been issuing a ‘social dividend’ to its citizens since 1976 in the
form of the Alaska Permanent Fund. The dividend is received annually, rather than weekly,
and is determined by the financial return generated by Alaska’s oil and gas assets.
Therefore the amount received each year can vary widely.
A large number of small-scale ‘pilot projects’ and ‘social experiments’ have been conducted
on the idea of a basic income63
, in many different countries, nearly all of which have had
positive results in reducing health inequalities, improving education and literacy levels, and
increasing employment rates.
Corporate use of the ‘Social Dividend’
The term social dividend can be an attractive concept to corporations, due to the weight
and power of the word ‘dividend’ in the financial markets. The annual dividend, on a very
basic level, stands as a proxy for the company’s overall performance, and is often used as
the basis for determining executive remuneration. Adopting the word ‘dividend’, but within
a very different context, captures the attention of those who are financially-minded, and
has the potential to resonate with an audience outside of the traditional CSR sphere.
An example of corporate social dividend in use can be seen with The Co-operative
supermarket. The Co-op has long been issuing a traditional financial dividend to its
members, in various forms (Case Study 9), but has also used the phrase ‘Community
Dividend’ to provide financial support to local charities and projects.
59
Paine, T. (1795) Agrarian Justice. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC
60
Van Parijs, P. (1997) Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford
University Press
61
Investopedia (2016) Negative Income Tax. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpVgyk (Accessed: 13/09/16)
62
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (2014) What is the Alaska Permanent Fund? Available at:
http://bit.ly/1YRQltQ (Accessed: 01/09/16)
63
Universal Basic Income Conference (2016) Pilots and Policies. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cDG7vC (Accessed:
04/09/16)

64
If taken literally, there are obvious difficulties about a company seeking to use the idea of
the social dividend to capture its commitment to creating social value. This is due to a
number of factors:
1. Since the 1970s, ‘social dividend’ has traditionally been associated with the idea of a
Universal Basic Income – a concept which a private company is obviously not able to
deliver.
2. The idea traditionally relates to publicly-owned assets, rather than those which are
privately owned.
3. It would be impossible for a company to distribute this dividend to every member of
society equally.
Historically, the idea of giving a share of a company’s profits to ‘deserving causes’ has a
long and honourable lineage. Corporate philanthropy is often seen as the forerunner to
today’s much broader corporate sustainability agenda, and some companies are content to
stick with that now very old-fashioned model. Others have turned it into something much
more ambitious.
For instance, the ‘1% for the Planet’ scheme was established by Yvon Chouinard of
Patagonia in 2006, and asks organisations to commit to give 1% of their annual turnover to
environmental causes and non-profits. Arguably, this example could be referred to as
64
The Co-operative (2016) Our History. Available at: http://bit.ly/1xakTrV (Accessed: 10/09/16)
Case Study 9: The Co-operative Dividend
1844: The Rochdale Pioneers Society was established as a co-operative. One of their ‘8
Rochdale rules’ was an annual distribution of the profits of the society, based on
purchases. This soon became known as ‘the divi’.
1965: The traditional ‘divi’ was replaced with dividend stamps, to reflect shopping
practices of the time.
1996: Dividend stamps were replaced with a loyalty card scheme which was available to
all cooperative customers, and not just limited to the coop membership.
2006: The ‘true dividend’ was relaunched under the name of The Co-operative Membership
to differentiate from the loyalty card scheme. Members were granted with an annual share
of the profits, based on the points they collected from buying coop products or using coop
services.
2012: Following a period of significant economic instability for the company, the amount
of money which members received in dividend was halved.
2014: No dividend was paid to any members following economic issues and reputation
scandals. A reformed dividend structure was proposed via a membership consultation,
whereby the profit share would be given to community projects, rather than to members, in
the form of a ‘community dividend’.
2016: Following a further consultation, a ‘new membership’ plan was launched, whereby
any money spent on coop products or services will earn members a 5% reward payback,
and 1% will go towards the co-operative community fund. Chosen charities and
community projects will receive this 1% as a bi-annual ‘community dividend’. In addition,
members will also still be eligible for the typical dividend of annual profits, based on their
expenditure.

results-based philanthropy rather than being a social dividend as such. This ‘1%’ is not to
be distributed to society as a whole, but rather to a specific set of ‘worthwhile’ causes, as
determined by the company.
Further limitations of the term ‘Social Dividend’
1. As the term is associated with the world of finance, it is only directly relevant to a
company’s economic contribution to society (either directly or in kind), which potentially
excludes any other involvement a company may wish to have in building other forms of
capital.
2. When social benefits are framed as a ‘social dividend’, they are viewed through an
economic lens - meaning that all impacts and metrics should be measured in terms of their
monetary value. Social impacts and benefits which are more qualitative (eg community
resilience, wellbeing and happiness) may therefore be downgraded in importance or even
excluded.
3. If applied in its most basic form (examples given above), companies could be accused
by external parties of ‘remarketing philanthropy’ in an attempt to generate increased PR
benefits.
Potential uses of Social Dividend for business
Notwithstanding those difficulties, identifying a specific percentage dividend given over to
projects (as in 1% for the Planet) demonstrates a strong commitment to building value in
areas outside a company’s direct control.
Social dividend could also be re-invented as a term so as to include more than just financial
commitments. A dividend could be seen to represent a proportional commitment of many
different things, including time, effort, resources, infrastructure, education, and training, as
well as cash. However, if the meaning of the phrase is ‘reinvented’ in such a way, the
confusion and ambiguity of the social lexicon will be further exacerbated! Using the term
‘social value’ would perhaps be a better option, as it is much more established and already
has specific guidelines and frameworks for indicators.
If the term is used in a way close to its original meaning, and forms the basis of a social
sustainability plan, the impacts of this plan would be limited by that which can be
measured economically, or restricted by assigning financial proxies to apparently
immeasurable things such as well-being. The term ‘Social Return on Investment’ already
captures this approach quite well by monetising a variety of factors.
The best way in which the term social dividend could be used to simultaneously retain its
terminological integrity, whilst also displaying leadership within sustainability, would be to
ensure that all ‘social dividends’ committed were used to build social capital within local
communities.
This idea denotes that a steady flow of financial capital from private corporations, towards
carefully selected partners in the form of charities, social enterprises, local projects and
other stakeholders, could help to build stocks of social capital for the betterment of
society. The idea hinges on the Five Capitals model, and recognises that financial capital is
just one part of a capitalist system, which can be used to facilitate the creation of capital in
other areas.

8. Implications for Forum for the Future
Having considered a range of terminology used by business when describing ‘social
sustainability’, this section will briefly consider how Forum for the Future can use these
insights. The section will focus on the Five Capitals Framework and Net Positive.
Five Capitals Framework
As discussed above, the concept of ‘social capital’ has a range of definitions. The World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, which is currently working to create a
Social Capital Protocol, includes human capital, social capital, relationship capital and
wellbeing, as well as the concept of socio-economic impact. In addition, the IIRC has
recently emphasised the importance of capitals in integrated reporting.
These initiatives reinforce the leadership shown by Forum for the Future in developing its
Five Capitals Framework back in the mid-1990s, but also suggest that its Framework may
now need to be updated.
Whilst the concept of social capital is useful for business, it is not often used in reporting.
Business prefers more easily measurable concepts, such as social impact. Measuring
social capital, which involves stocks and flows, is relatively difficult to grasp. By contrast, a
‘social impact statement’ includes easily quantifiable factors such as job creation,
employee benefits and philanthropic activities.
A major strength of the Five Capitals Framework is its holistic approach, allowing
businesses to understand the relationship of social capital to all the other capitals. Some
of the other frameworks around social sustainability do not have this integrated approach,
and therefore risk trade-offs with other capitals. Recent interest in the idea of a Social
Contract could present an opportunity for the Five Capitals Framework to be used in
helping establish the links to natural and human capital, thus allowing business to
demonstrate that it is serious about its overall contribution to sustainability.
Net Positive65
Forum for the Future is now actively involved, through the Net Positive Group (NPG), in
coordinating the initiatives of 16 different companies plus other organisations intent on
developing some kind of Net Positive framing.
The social aspect of Net Positive has not yet been fully defined, meaning current interest in
and attempts towards a consensus on some aspects of ‘social sustainability’ could help
the NPG in its work. There is a significant opportunity for Forum and the NPG to engage
with these discussions, and in so doing, ensure wider recognition of the concept of Net
Positive in the corporate world.
Forum and the NPG should keenly follow the Social Contract debate to understand the
relationship between the emerging concept and Net Positive in order to maximise their
impact.
65
Forum for the Future (2016) Measuring your way to Net Positive. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cyEIrF (Accessed:
07/07/16)

This paper has suggested that companies should be encouraged to assess all of their
impacts to ascertain that they are doing no harm before signing up to a Social Contract.
Should this interpretation of a Social Contract be taken forward, the Net Positive approach
in encouraging companies to consider their most material impacts first could be a step
towards establishing some kind of Social Contract. The Future-Fit Benchmarking
Framework can also be used as a tool to demonstrate to companies what is meant by Net
Positive. Providing easy to understand goals could help companies to reach a level where
they are ‘causing no harm’, which can then be used as the baseline from which they begin
their ‘Net Positive journey’.
However, regardless of the final formulation of any Social Contract, there remain a number
of outstanding issues regarding its basic idea. One of the main questions relates to the role
of government. Do companies need support from policymakers to become Net Positive? Or
when they succeed in becoming Net Positive, how resilient are they to policy changes?
Could there be an opportunity for government to support the concept from an early stage?
In summary, recent interest in the whole area of social sustainability presents a substantial
opportunity for raising the profile of Net Positive. Forum and NPG should simultaneously
remain active in these discussions, and seek to clarify their own understanding of what
best practice means as the concepts around social sustainability are developed and
clarified.

References
Accounting for Sustainability (2009) Connected Reporting. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ci8Tl9 (Accessed:
02/09/16)
Akerlof & Shiller (2009) Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why it Matters for
Global Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (2014) What is the Alaska Permanent Fund? Available at:
http://bit.ly/1YRQltQ (Accessed: 01/09/16)
BBC News (2013) ‘Horsemeat in Tesco burgers prompts apology in UK papers’ BBC News 17th
January.
Available at: http://bbc.in/19MQEtG (Accessed: 31/08/16)
BCorp (2016) Performance Requirement for Pending B Corps. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cyEcda (Accessed:
20/08/16)
Black & Bice, ACCSR (2016) Defining the Elusive and Essential Social Licence to Operate. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2aN70us (Accessed: 17/08/16)
BP (2016) Ultimate Stem Challenge. Available at: http://on.bp.com/1gjFmH5 (Accessed: 09/08/16)
BT (2014) Digital Inclusion. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cQCd5P (Accessed: 14/08/16)
Business Commission (2016) Making the Business Case for Sustainable Development. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cRjTJB (Accessed: 14/08/16)
Business in the Community (2014) arc: Building Better Business. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cQeFtz (Accessed:
27/08/16)
CIPFA (2015) Measuring and reporting on social value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ck3edO (Accessed: 12/09/16)
Confino, J. (2015) ‘Public trust in business hits five-year low’ The Guardian. 21st
January. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cRjsuM (Accessed: 23/08/16)
Dare et al. (2014) ‘Community engagement and social licence to operate’ Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 32(3), pp. 188-197. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.927108
DEMOS (2016) Measuring social value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c9gTpk (Accessed: 18/08/16)
Dunbar, R. (2010) How Many Friends does One Person Need? London: Faber
Eccles, R. (2016) Conversation with Bex Dawkes. 30/08/16
Erlingsson et al. (2015) ‘Distrust in Utopia? Public perceptions of corruption and political support in Iceland
before and after the financial crisis of 2008’ Government and Opposition. March 2015. pp. 1-27
Financial Times (2016) VW Emissions Scandal. Available at: http://on.ft.com/2caeOJL (Accessed: 12/09/16)
Fontes, J. (2016) Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment Version 3.0. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2c9d5UW (Accessed: 10/08/16)
Forum for the Future (2008) The Five Capitals Model. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpkose (Accessed: 07/07/16)
Forum for the Future (2016) Measuring your way to Net Positive. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cyEIrF (Accessed:
07/07/16)
Future-Fit Business Benchmark (2016) Introduction to the Benchmark. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cqpULd
Greenpeace (2014) LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome. Available at: http://bit.ly/VDzRsW (Accessed: 12/08/16)

Hagan, S. BITC (2014) ‘Reflections on the 2014 Building Stronger Communities Award’ 3rd
July. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cfuVsx (Accessed: 12/09/16)
Hasnas (1998) ‘The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed’ Business Ethics
Quarterly. 19(2)
IIRC (2013) CAPITALS: Background Paper for IR. Available at: http://bit.ly/1rpXi8s (Accessed: 10/08/16)
IIRC (2016) Integrated Reporting Examples Database. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cmoekV (Accessed: 31/08/16)
Investopedia (2016) Negative Income Tax. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpVgyk (Accessed: 13/09/16)
KPMG (2015) Introducing KPMG True Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/1JihniH (Accessed: 18/08/16)
Leighton, D (2010) Measuring Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c9gTpk (Accessed: 27/08/16)
Lurie (2009) ‘The New Social Contract with Green Business’ Harvard Business Review. 11th
May. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cj2Uen (Accessed: 14/08/16)
Maddocks, J. (2015) Measuring and reporting on social value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ck3edO (Accessed:
27/08/16)
Mainwairing, S. (2011) ‘The Corporate Social Contract’ Corporate Responsibility Magazine. 1st
July. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2ca6mdA (Accessed: 12/08/16)
Meikle, J. (2013) ‘Burger King reveals its burgers were contaminated in horsemeat scandal’ The Guardian 31st
January. Available at: http://bit.ly/2czpIec (Accessed: 31/08/16)
Messner, D. (2015) ‘A social contract for low carbon and sustainable development’ Technical Forecasting &
Social Change. 98(2015). pp. 260-270
Moon, Crane & Matten. (2005) ‘Can corporations be citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a metaphor for business
participation in society’ Business Ethics Quarterly. 15(3)
Morrison, J. (2016) Conversation with Bex Dawkes. 31/08/16
NEF (2004) Measuring Social Impact. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c3oBxQ (Accessed: 03/08/16)
NEF (2005) Measuring Real Value: Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cQ2YTK (Accessed:
03/08/16)
Ostrom & Walker (2003) Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation
Paine, T. (1795) Agrarian Justice. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC
Porritt, J. (2005) Capitalism as if the World Matters. Oxford: Earthscan
Porter & Kramer (2011) ‘How to Fix Capitalism and Unleash a new wave of Growth’ Harvard Business Review
11(2) pp.1-20
Prno (2013) ‘An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining
industry’ Resources Policy , 38 (4), pp. 577-590
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, c. 3. Available at: http://bit.ly/1EfZyni (Accessed: 09/08/16)
PWC (2013) Measuring & Managing Total Impact. Available at: http://pwc.to/1NRaLe8 (Accessed: 18/08/16)
Roundtable for Product Social Impact Assessment (2015a) 1kwh of windpower. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cu0sBr (Accessed: 21/08/16)
Roundtable for Product Social Impact Assessment (2015b) Hair care product. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cC6bZt

Sanyal,D. BP (2012) Obtaining a social licence to operate – a challenge for the industry [Speech] 22nd
November
Sinzer (2012) The Beginners Guide to Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c3pLcD
Social Impact Scotland (2016) Case Studies. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cpmDf7 (Accessed: 31/08/16)
Social Impact Investment Taskforce (2014) Impact Investment: The Invisible Heart of Markets. Available at:
http://bit.ly/1uzOo6q (Accessed: 20/08/16)
SROI (2012) A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2coF40f (Accessed: 01/09/16)
Social Stock Exchange (2016) Your business can make a positive impact. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cp72LE
Social Value Business (2012) Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cSDPe6 (Accessed: 09/08/16)
Social Value UK (2012) A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Available at: http://bit.ly/2coF40f (Accessed:
09/08/16)
The Body Shop (2016) Enrich Not Exploit. Available at: http://bit.ly/2c9Z3Ct (Accessed: 22/08/16)
The Co-operative (2016) Our History. Available at: http://bit.ly/1xakTrV (Accessed: 10/09/16)
The Crown Estate (2012) Total Contribution Report. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ccEQfm (Accessed: 13/09/16)
The Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project (2014) CONNECTED REPORTING: A practical guide with
worked examples. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ci8Tl9 (Accessed: 21/08/16)
Thompson, S. (2016) Social Contract Theories in Business. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cRmQpE (Accessed:
12/08/16)
Universal Basic Income Conference (2016) Pilots and Policies. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cDG7vC (Accessed:
04/09/16)
UnLtd (2016) Defining Social Impact Indicators: Setting Targets and Refining your Social Model. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2cpFYey (Accessed: 22/08/16)
Tomasello, M. (2014) A Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Van Parijs, P. (1997) Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford University Press
Veolia (2013) Creating Social Value. Available at: http://bit.ly/2coPLjl (Accessed: 14/08/16)
WBCSD (2015a) Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cTQrlk (Accessed:
09/08/16)
WBCSD (2015b) Towards Social Capital: A Call for Collaboration. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cDLGd8 (Accessed:
09/08/16)
WBCSD (2016) Social Capital. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cxCydc (Accessed: 09/08/16)
WBGU (2011) A Social Contract for Sustainability. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cmk38J (Accessed: 12/08/16)
Willard, B. (2016) Conversation with Amy Mason. 24/08/16
Willmott Dixon (2015) Social Value: Taking full account of a company’s true impact. Available at:
http://bit.ly/2coO1qh (Accessed: 02/09/16)
Willmott Dixon (2016) Annual Review. Available at: http://bit.ly/2cxNgiE (Accessed: 01/09/16)

The Social Lexicon October 2016

More Related Content

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to The Social Lexicon October 2016 (20)

The Social Lexicon October 2016