Walk into almost any boardroom and ask how an organisation is performing on social value. You will be shown a number. A figure with a pound sign in front of it, often presented as proof of impact. The higher the number, the greater the perceived success.
Ask where that number comes from, and the answer is rarely straightforward.
In most cases, it is derived from proxy values, usually cost–benefit assumptions, or modelled estimates. These tools were never designed to define impact. They were created to help compare investments and justify funding decisions, not to prove what actually happened on the ground. Yet over time, the market has started to treat these calculated figures as if they are the impact itself.
This is where the misunderstanding begins.
Impact does not start with a proxy value. It starts with people, the challenges that needs solving.
Long before social value became embedded in procurement frameworks, VCSE organisations were measuring impact through real engagement with beneficiaries. They designed projects based on need, tracked participation, and understood outcomes through lived experience, case studies and feedback. That is the foundation of impact: evidence of change in people’s lives.
Monetisation came later as a way to translate that change into a financial language that policymakers and investors could understand. But in doing so, the order was reversed. The output of a model began to replace the evidence of reality.
The problem is not that monetisation exists. The problem is how it is being used.
Cost–benefit models, SROI and other monetisation approaches will often produce different values for the same activity because they rely on assumptions, averages and attribution rules. They are analytical tools, not measurement systems. They can support decision-making, but they cannot define success on their own. A high financial value does not guarantee meaningful impact, and the absence of a proxy value does not mean that impact does not exist.
This is where the current system becomes risky. When organisations rely solely on monetised outputs, they risk reporting success without being able to evidence real outcomes. In some cases, impactful work is undervalued simply because it does not fit neatly into a proxy framework. In others, activities are overstated because the model assumes an outcome that has not been verified.
The logic that “no proxy value equals no impact” is not just flawed, it is dangerous.
Real impact is always evidenced first. It is grounded in inputs, outputs, and, critically, outcomes. It is supported by data, but also by case studies, testimonials and qualitative insight that explains what changed and why. This is not anecdotal. When structured properly, it is measurable, comparable and auditable.
Only once that evidence exists does monetisation have a role to play. At that point, it becomes a lens, not the foundation. It can help translate impact into financial terms, but it should never replace the underlying evidence.
The challenge today is not a lack of frameworks or tools. It is a confusion of purpose. The market has conflated evaluation models with impact itself, and in doing so, has moved away from the very thing social value was meant to capture: real change for real people.
If social value is to remain credible, the order needs to be restored. Evidence must come before valuation. Outcomes must come before proxies. And impact must be understood as something that is demonstrated, not assumed.
This is not about rejecting monetisation. It is about putting it back in its proper place.
Because ultimately, social value is not a number. It is what happens to people and the Planet.
That is why we built whatimpact 2.0.
See how whatimpact 2.0 handles framework-aligned impact reporting and grant management at scale. Book a 20-minute walkthrough with the team.
