Common Foundations
Limits of Impact Measurement: Consequentialism
by Kate Ruff
The focus on outcomes leads quickly to consequentialism. Consequentialism is a theory of ethics that holds that something is good (morally right) if it produces a good outcome.
Deontology, by contrast, is a theory of ethics that centers roles and moral duty. The focus is not on outcomes. Something is good if the behaviors are good.
These different theories of ethics play out in the different ways that people understand and define social enterprise and social economy enterprises.
For some, the key defining feature of a social enterprise are the outcomes the enterprise achieves or strives to achieve. An organization is “social” if it generates impact. This is a consequentialist view. Under this view, impact measurement is central to an organization’s social enterprise-ness.
For others, especially those in the cooperative movement, the key defining feature of a social enterprise is its democratic processes, and if the organization is for-profit, the equitable distribution of profits (e.g. consumer co-ops). It is less about what the enterprise does and more about how it operates. Under this view, it is more important to measure process than outcomes.
These two philosophies are sometimes combined. Many advocates of cooperatives believe that those organizations that operate in good ways (deontology), are more likely to create lasting impact (consequentialism).
Sometimes, but not with enough consistency to be definitive, the term social enterprise is used for the consequentialist view and the term social economy enterprise is used for the deontological view.
The relative merits of consequentialism and deontology have been debated at least since the Greek philosophers. We are not going to resolve the debate here and now in the context of impact measurement for social purpose organizations. The key point is that both views find support from a large number of philosophers. Both are reasonable (as in well-reasoned) views even if they are not your personal view.
The Common Foundations outlines five essential practices. Before embarking on those, we invite organizations to reflect on whether impact measurement is right for you. If your organization has a deontological view of social economy enterprise, focused on democratic processes and equitable distribution of profit more than outcomes achieved, impact measurement may not be the right measurement for your purposes. You may need other ways to measure and document the behaviors of your organization and how it operates. And if you are someone that has great resources for measuring things like democratic processes, please be in touch!
More about the limits of impact measurement:
Join the Common Approach community to stay up to date on our efforts to make impact measurement better, and help shape impact measurement standards!
📣 Follow us on LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram.
📬 Subscribe to our mailing list below.
📌 Check out the latest Common Approach bulletin!
Published on Nov 2, 2021
More like this
Common Foundations: Good enough for what?
Learnings from the Pathfinder Pilot: The Common Foundations articulate a minimum standard of impact measurement for social purpose organizations. It is about being good enough rather than great. The question is: good enough for what?
SI Canada Investment Readiness Webinar Case Study: Purppl
SI Canada hosted an informative webinar exploring how Purppl secured investment to accelerate the impact of social entrepreneurs and their journey to becoming the co-owners of Thrive Impact Fund. Both organizations use Common Approach’s Common Foundations to “do better impact measurement.”
Common Foundations and Sustainable Livelihoods
Common Approach is working towards more relevant impact measurement for social purpose organizations through developing flexible standards of impact measurement that are created for and governed by social purpose organizations. Common Approach is composed of four...
