For the second time in as many months, I’m disappointed in the Wall Street Journal’s choice to publish tired opinions and outdated views of corporate social responsibility. 

The following excerpt is taken from an article by Jason Saul and Cheryl Davenport currently featured on CRO Magazine's website and to be published in the October print edition.    

Stanford Social Innovation Review just published a wonderful article by Geoff Mulgan entitled "Measuring Social Value."It is very timely, in fact, because it continues the commentary of a recent Thoughtscrap by my colleague, Rick Groves, which provides a compelling argument on the need for the right data, whether quantitative or qualitative, when measuring social impact as opposed to data for data sake. I will let you all read through this piece but will offer up some of my favorite points:

In an opinion piece in last week’s Washington Post, the respected author and global editor of Thomson Reuters, Chrystia Freeland, blasted corporate social responsibility as a “cult” and a “fetish.”    At first glance, I found Ms.

It’s 18 months into the launch of an African development program and we’re rethinking our client’s logic model.  “Uh oh,” you say, “why wasn’t this fully baked from the get-go?”  As it turns out, the opportunity to revisit and revise theories, logic and ideas is truly terrific.  It’s terrific because the organization has invested in measurement and now has the data to inform and improve its strategy and produce greater if not significantly greater impact later.

On April 28, 2010 The Resource Foundation (TRF) and The United Nations Office for Partnerships co-hosted a forum on Evaluating the Dynamics of Partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean at the United Nations headquarters. This event brought together 65 corporate and foundation leaders, along with evaluation specialists to discuss the potential, challenges, intricacies and importance of partnerships, particularly as they relate to promoting development activity in Latin America and the Caribbean.

“To realize meaningful benefits, philanthropy cannot be treated as just another ‘check the box,’ but rather must be executed no less professionally, proactively, and strategically than other core business activities.”

‘Why measure?’ is a question that has been bandied about by social change agents —business people, nonprofit professionals, educators—for quite some time.  How we measure is also a source of debate.  From randomized testing to post-activity evaluation, there is no real consensus on how and why to measure.  But most people can agree that measurement is effective when it enables you to clarify desirable results, create a system to track progress, and communicate effectiveness.  However, this assumes that measurement is being used to highlight what’s working in real time, not to determine attribution after the fact.

The first time a client used the term “WIIFM” (pronounced whiff-um) in a sentence as though it were a real word, I thought perhaps she was speaking another language or using an industry-specific expression that I wasn’t familiar with.  I quickly learned that WIIFM is not only a part of the English language but also a concept that’s relevant to every industry and every project I’ve worked on.  WIIFM stands for “What’s In It For