Commentary
Most of the high profile interviews about monitoring social performance end up with reference to a small number of approaches, none of which seems to be heading towards a really universal acceptability. In my view this is because they are not structured to facilitate analysis that is particularly useful.

For TrueValueMetrics the goal is to help make better decisions about the allocation of resources to be made. It should not matter whether the organization has a for-profit or a for-benefit goal, the metrics of performance should apply equally. I would argue that it should be possible to have a high profit high benefit outcome from the use of resources, but that this will never become the norm unless the system of metrics helps to facilitate the needed decisions.

There are many initiatives about monitoring social performance ... this TVM dialog will try to compile easily accessible material to facilitate understanding their strengths and weaknesses. See: LINK TO COME
Peter Burgess

In an interview with GIIN (GIIN) in September 2011, Lisa Hall, CEO at the Calvert Foundation was asked this question:

GIIN: How do you monitor your social performance?

Her answer was as follows:

LH: Currently, we use our own model for monitoring the social performance of our investments. We call it the social calculator, and it generally looks at outputs, such as the number of houses built and the number of jobs generated - rather than outcome-driven results. We also report a lot of qualitative information about the results of our investments.

LH. As the market grows, we know it's going to be important to be able to demonstrate social return with standardized data and metrics. In the past, we were only one of a few players. Now it's a more crowded space and we want to be able to show that we are a serious impact investor. We're currently working to incorporate more social return and benefit measurement, and recently signed on as a GIIRS Pioneer Investor with the Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS).