Review valuation sources, assumptions and overlap before combining social value. A practical portfolio exercise that keeps measured outcomes separate from estimates.
By Sopact · Updated September 12, 2026
Use SROI across a portfolio only after checking that the underlying valuations have compatible boundaries, assumptions and time periods. Keep observed outcomes separate from monetary estimates. Review overlap between organizations, align the investment denominator and disclose uncertainty before combining values. Do not average investee SROI ratios or treat a high ratio as proof that one organization creates more impact than another.
This lesson is for portfolio and impact teams considering whether separate social-value analyses can inform a combined review. Bring the aggregation and overlap checks from the previous lesson. You will create a valuation register and test a combined ratio. The numerical exercise is illustrative; it is not a completed SROI analysis or investment recommendation.
SROI expresses assessed social value relative to the investment required within a defined scope. The Social Value International guide provides the fuller framework. A portfolio calculation needs more than ratios supplied by individual organizations: you need to understand the underlying analyses and what each one includes.
Start with the decision. Are you reviewing a set of activities over a common period, examining alternative scenarios or communicating the value assessed across a funding program? If the analyses use incompatible boundaries, present them separately with explanations rather than force a single headline.
A monetary estimate is not cash returned to the funder. It is also not a substitute for reporting who experienced change, what changed and whether important outcomes were omitted.
Record the evidence of change before the monetary proxy used to represent its value. A participant’s observed outcome and a benchmark valuation from another context are different kinds of information.
| Layer | What to record | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome evidence | Who experienced what change, when and how it was observed | Is this an outcome rather than an activity or an unsupported forecast? |
| Valuation | Proxy, source, geography, currency, price year and valuation period | Does the proxy represent this outcome for this population and context? |
| Adjustments | Assumptions about what would happen anyway and other contributions | What evidence supports the claim retained in the analysis? |
| Time | Duration, any drop-off and discounting assumptions | Is continued value supported rather than assumed indefinitely? |
| Investment | Resources included and the matching boundary | Does the denominator correspond to the value being claimed? |
Do not use AI to invent a proxy or quietly choose the largest number it finds. A published proxy may still be unsuitable for your outcome. Retain the source and the reason for using, adapting or rejecting it.
Social Value International’s do-not-overclaim guidance addresses the value attributable to the activities being assessed. Review what would have happened without the activity, the contribution of others and possible displacement. Keep the rationale with the calculation.
Deadweight concerns change that would have happened anyway. Attribution concerns the contribution of others. Displacement concerns whether a positive outcome is offset elsewhere. Drop-off concerns declining outcomes over time. These concepts should not be turned into unexplained default percentages.
Review material negative outcomes too. A high positive total that excludes relevant harms gives an incomplete account. If the evidence is insufficient for a particular adjustment or outcome, disclose that limitation and test how it affects the interpretation.
Two credible analyses can still be unsuitable for one combined ratio. Compare their scope and assumptions, and retain a record of which components were included or excluded.
| Compatibility check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Observed versus forecast | Projected future outcomes should not be silently presented as measured results |
| Outcome and stakeholder overlap | Two organizations may claim value arising from the same change |
| Currency and price year | Nominal amounts from different contexts are not directly comparable |
| Time horizon and present value | A one-year value and a multi-year discounted value represent different scopes |
| Investment boundary | Counting all program value against only one funder’s contribution can misstate the ratio |
| Valuation and adjustment methods | Different assumptions may drive the apparent difference between organizations |
Do not deduplicate merely by deleting matching names. Trace the outcome and stakeholder relationship. Shared beneficiaries may experience distinct outcomes, while different reporting organizations may describe the same outcome twice. The relevant question is what value is being counted.
Fictional arithmetic exercise. Assume two analyses have already been reviewed, use compatible boundaries and do not overlap. Organization A has assessed present social value of 200,000 and investment of 100,000: 2:1. Organization B has assessed present social value of 900,000 and investment of 300,000: 3:1. All amounts use the same currency and price basis.
The combined calculation is (200,000 +900,000) ÷(100,000 +300,000) =1,100,000 ÷400,000 =2.75:1. Averaging 2:1 and 3:1 would give 2.5:1, which ignores the different investment amounts.
This result is valid only under the exercise’s assumptions. If a review identifies 100,000 of duplicated value, the adjusted combined numerator becomes 1,000,000 and the ratio becomes 2.5:1. That correction does not make either original analysis automatically invalid; it changes what can be claimed at the combined boundary.
| Scenario | Assessed value | Investment | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compatible, no overlap assumed | 1,100,000 | 400,000 | 2.75:1 |
| 100,000 duplicated value removed | 1,000,000 | 400,000 | 2.50:1 |
| Further justified valuation revision to 900,000 | 900,000 | 400,000 | 2.25:1 |
The third row is a sensitivity scenario, not an observed finding. Record why a scenario is plausible. Do not adjust assumptions solely to produce a preferred ratio.
A benchmark can help frame a question, but multiplying every investment by a sector’s published SROI ratio does not establish measured portfolio value. The benchmark may concern a different population, service model, outcome mix, price basis or time horizon.
If you use such an estimate for planning, label it as a scenario and show the transfer assumptions. Keep it separate from evaluated results. Avoid ranking organizations by headline ratio when differences in measurement or valuation may explain the ordering.
For each included outcome, retain the organization and period, source evidence, proxy and source date, adjustment rationale, duration, calculation and review status. Add an overlap reference where the outcome relates to another organization’s claim.
Record unvalued material outcomes as well as valued ones. The register should make omissions visible. A social-value account is weakened when the reader sees only the outcomes that were easy to price.
Ask a reviewer to reproduce one row from its sources and trace it into the total. If that cannot be done, resolve the evidence gap before treating the portfolio number as ready for external use.
Present the question, scope, included organizations, observation period, valuation approach, material exclusions and sensitivity results alongside the ratio. Distinguish evaluated outcomes from forecasts and scenarios.
Use the impact reporting guide and report examples to make that explanation readable. Do not call the result audited, assured or verified unless the corresponding review has actually been completed and its scope is clear.
4 minutes 13 seconds · SROI explainer with a worked 3:1 example and the assumptions behind it.
Bring one outcome row with its evidence, proxy source and assumptions. Check whether the record keeps observations separate from valuation inputs and whether a reviewer can trace a changed assumption through the result.
Then test two organizations with a possible overlap. The platform can support the evidence and analysis workflow, but a knowledgeable person must judge the valuation’s appropriateness and claim boundary. Confirm the calculations and supported configuration rather than assuming software supplies a defensible proxy automatically.
Do not use a simple average as a portfolio ratio. Where analyses are compatible, combine their underlying assessed values and matching investments after checking overlap.
No. It expresses assessed social value relative to investment within the analysis’s boundary. It is not a financial cash-return measure.
It can inform a clearly labeled planning scenario, but it does not establish evaluated outcomes for your investees. Explain transfer assumptions and keep estimates separate.
Report it and its importance without inventing a value. Explain why it remains unvalued and whether the omission affects the interpretation.
Not necessarily. Differences in scope, population, valuation and assumptions can dominate the comparison. Examine the underlying evidence and purpose.
Review boundaries, sources, adjustments, overlap, calculations and uncertainty. Describe any assurance accurately and include material limitations with the headline.
Continue to compare and benchmark investees, carrying forward the compatibility and uncertainty checks from this lesson.
Bring one outcome valuation, its sources and assumptions. Work through the evidence and reporting workflow with Sopact.
Explore Impact & ESG Portfolio →
