BigCat Research
Commissioning a social impact assessment or SROI study: what to check and what the brief should include
Short answer: Before choosing a provider, write down the study's purpose, its audience, the stakeholders affected, the expected change (theory of change), indicators, baseline, evidence standard, timeline and independence needs. Providers can only design and quote honestly once these are on paper.
Start with the decision, not the method
"We need an SROI" is often shorthand for something else: a funder asked for proof, a board wants to know whether to renew a programme, or a communications team wants a number. These lead to different studies. Write one sentence that begins "After this report, we will decide whether to..." and put it at the top of the brief. If you cannot finish that sentence, a scoping conversation is more useful than a tender.
Then name the audience. A report for a grant-giver who will audit assumptions needs a visible assumption table. A report for a general public audience needs a short narrative plus a methods annex. They are different documents.
Know which study you are buying
The three terms are used loosely, so confirm what the provider means by each.
| Social impact assessment | Impact evaluation | SROI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question answered | What changed for people, and why? | Did the programme reach its objectives, and what worked better? | What is the value of the change relative to the investment? |
| Typical output | Findings by stakeholder, evidence level, narrative | Evaluation report with objectives-vs-results, lessons, actions | A ratio, plus the assumption set, value map and sensitivity analysis |
| Use when | You need to understand change, including unintended effects | A programme has defined targets, often at baseline, midline or end | You need a monetised comparison and can defend the proxies |
| Main risk | Staying descriptive | Counting activities instead of outcomes | A single ratio read without its assumptions |
SROI is not a replacement for evaluation. It sits on top of outcome evidence; if the underlying change is weakly evidenced, the ratio inherits that weakness.
What the brief should include
- Objectives and decision: what will change depending on the results.
- Audience of the report: funder, board, beneficiaries, public.
- Programme description: activities, period, geography, target group, budget actually spent (a range is fine at brief stage).
- Stakeholders you already know, and groups you suspect are missing.
- Existing data: monitoring data, baseline surveys, earlier reports, administrative data.
- Evidence expectations: whether you need a comparison group, before/after data, or qualitative evidence is acceptable.
- Deadlines: when fieldwork can happen, when the report must be final, any funder dates.
- Constraints: language, accessibility, vulnerable groups, consent, data protection.
- Budget range: asking vendors to quote against a stated range makes proposals comparable. If you cannot share it, say so.
- Evaluation criteria: how you will score proposals (see the template below).
Suggested proposal scoring, adjust the weights to your case: method fit to the question (30), stakeholder involvement plan (20), evidence and data plan (20), team experience on comparable work (15), independence and limitations handling (10), timeline realism (5).
The checklist
| Area | What to check | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Scoping | Written scope, stakeholders and boundaries agreed before fieldwork | Scope is "the programme" with no boundaries |
| Stakeholder involvement | Beneficiaries and non-beneficiary stakeholders are consulted, not only programme staff | Only staff or the commissioner are interviewed |
| Theory of change | Inputs, outputs, outcomes mapped and tested against data | Outputs (people trained) presented as outcomes |
| Attribution | How much of the change is due to the programme versus other causes | No discussion of other contributors |
| Deadweight and displacement | What would have happened anyway; who else lost out | Not mentioned |
| Drop-off | How long benefits last and how this is handled | Benefits assumed permanent |
| Financial proxies | Each proxy has a named source and a reason it fits | Proxies without sources |
| Sensitivity analysis | Ratio re-run under alternative assumptions | One ratio, no range |
| Reporting | Assumptions, sample, method and limitations in the report | Only a headline number |
| Consent and data protection | Informed consent, secure storage, anonymisation, applicable data law | No consent procedure described |
| Independence and assurance | Who designed the programme versus who evaluates; independent review where stakes are high | Programme designer evaluates its own work with no independent review |
What to expect from an SROI practitioner
SROI follows a published framework maintained by Social Value International. Ask the provider which version they follow and how they apply the seven principles: involve stakeholders, understand what changes, value the things that matter, only include what is material, do not over-claim, be transparent, verify the result.
The standard guide describes six stages: establishing scope and identifying stakeholders; mapping outcomes; evidencing outcomes and giving them a value; establishing impact; calculating the SROI; and reporting, using and embedding.
Ask who will do the work, not only who will sign the proposal. Ask whether the provider holds any formal accreditation or has had a report independently assured, and what that covered. It is a reasonable question, but not the only one. Experience on comparable programmes and a willingness to show a prior report's assumption table tell you more.
What drives cost and time
We do not publish prices here because a fair figure depends on your project. These factors move cost and duration most:
- number of stakeholder groups and how hard they are to reach;
- primary fieldwork needed (survey size, interviews, travel, languages) versus use of existing data;
- length of the programme and whether baseline data exists;
- need for a comparison group;
- depth of proxy research and sensitivity analysis;
- number of reporting formats (full report, summary, dashboard, infographic);
- independent review or assurance.
To quote, a provider needs: the brief above, programme documents, budget spent, list of stakeholders and contact routes, existing datasets, deadline, and your required evidence standard.
FAQ
1. Is an SROI always the right choice for a social impact study? No. If you cannot defend financial proxies or have weak outcome data, a well-evidenced impact evaluation is more useful than a fragile ratio.
2. What does a good SROI ratio look like? There is no universal "good" number. Ratios depend on the programme, proxies and assumptions, and are not comparable across studies without checking those.
3. Do I need a comparison group? Not always. It strengthens attribution, but is costly. Alternatives include before/after data with stated attribution assumptions. Ask the provider to state which they use and why.
4. Who owns the data and report? Agree this in the brief: data ownership, rights to publish, anonymisation, and what happens to raw data after delivery.
5. Can the programme team do it in-house? Yes for monitoring. For claims aimed at funders or the public, independence or at least an independent review adds credibility.
How BigCat approaches this
BigCat Research is an Istanbul-based independent research company. Its social impact work covers social impact analysis, impact evaluation reports and SROI measurement, using stakeholder analysis, financial proxies and sensitivity analysis.
BigCat's published evidence policy: sources are separated by reliability (official data, sector reports, company statements, stakeholder testimony, digital traces), findings are separated into strong evidence, directional signals and areas needing further validation, and reports state scope, data source and sample.
Published programme examples, cited by programme and source (results belong to those programmes and cannot be transferred to your project):
- Habitat Association / UN Women programme: a social impact analysis reporting 2.57 TL social return per 1 TL invested and a mixed-methods analysis of 1,519 participants. Report (Habitat Association)
- FESAS: a field operation with 7,000+ respondents across 6 provinces and 25 districts, in an impact evaluation context with World Bank technical coordination (field capacity example only; it is not an SROI result).
If you are scoping a study, a short conversation is enough to check whether a brief is complete: contact.
Author: BigCat Research team. Last reviewed: 3 October 2026.