Make An Impact Podcast
Make An Impact Podcast
Social Value vs. Social Impact: Moving Beyond Box-Ticking
Are companies genuinely committed to creating social impact, or is it all just elaborate PR? In this thought-provoking conversation with Jimmy Cockerton, CEO of Impact Advantage, we cut through the noise surrounding social value measurement to reveal what's really happening beneath the surface.
While headlines might suggest companies are retreating from ESG commitments, Jimmy observes the opposite trend behind closed doors - more organisations are recognising how delivering impact connects directly to business success. Yet this enthusiasm often fails to translate into meaningful change. We explore what separates authentic impact-led organisations from those merely seeking positive publicity through one-off community initiatives.
The discussion tackles the fundamental flaws in current social value measurement frameworks that encourage box-ticking rather than addressing root causes of social challenges. Through practical examples like employment metrics, we demonstrate how companies can claim substantial "social value" without creating any new impact whatsoever. Of the billions reportedly generated in social value through public procurement, Jimmy provocatively suggests only a tiny fraction represents genuine new value for communities.
We also examine the untapped potential of cross-sector collaboration by leveraging what each does best - businesses excel at making money and innovation, while social enterprises better understand communities and delivering impact. However, political short-termism presents a significant barrier to solving complex social issues that require decades of sustained effort rather than quick fixes aligned to electoral cycles.
The evidence increasingly shows that businesses prioritising social impact alongside financial returns tend to outperform their peers financially - a compelling case for integrating impact into core strategy rather than treating it as a peripheral activity. Whether you're in business, government, or the social sector, this episode offers critical insights for anyone seeking to move beyond performative metrics toward creating genuine, lasting change.
Connect with Jimmy on LinkedIn or visit www.impactadvantage.co.uk to learn more about measuring real social impact that transforms communities and businesses alike.
Hi, I'm Heidi Fisher, the host of the Make an Impact Podcast. I'm an impact measurement expert, passionate about helping you make a bigger impact in the world by maximising the impact your services have.
I can help you to measure, manage and communicate the impact you have better to funders, investors, commissioners and other stakeholders, and to systemise your data collection and analysis so that it frees up time and doesn't become an additional burden.
I love helping you to measure social and economic impacts, including Social Return on Investment or value for money assessments, as part of understanding the change you make to peoples' lives.
You can get in touch via LinkedIn or the website makeanimpactcic.co.uk if you'd like to find out more about working with me.
Welcome to Make an Impact podcast, where we dive deep into the stories, strategies and solutions that drive real change. I'm Heidi Fisher and I work with organisations on a mission to tackle poverty, reduce health inequalities and create lasting social impact. In each episode, I bring you inspiring conversations with change makers, social entrepreneurs and thought leaders who are making a difference. Whether you're looking to boost your impact measurement, learn from innovative projects or find fresh ideas to transform your work, you're in the right place. Welcome to today's episode of the Make an Impact podcast. Today, I'm joined by Jimmy. Jimmy, would you like to introduce yourself to our audience?
Speaker 2:Yes, hello everybody. So I'm Jimmy Cocton. I am the CEO of Impact Advantage, so we measure the impact that companies, governments and charitable organisations have on the world through both their business operations and the good they do into society.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Jimmy. I'm very interested in your opinions and perspectives on what's working within the impact measurement world at the moment.
Speaker 2:What's working well is that I have this debate with a lot of people about whether there is a ground smell moving towards organizations being more impactful, moving towards more ESG impact, social value delivery, or moving away from it, and I think what you see is public sentiment is that people and companies are moving away from it, because that's what you see a lot of noise about in the press, but actually what I hear from talking to a lot of companies is that actually more organizations are leaning into it and they are understanding that the world of impact is intrinsically linked to how they do business and it is important both from a risk perspective, but also both from a commercial advantage perspective.
Speaker 2:So I think what I think is working well is that there is a good momentum from people that really do want to build real impact and real purpose into their organizations. But you can never fault enthusiasm and movement for a good cause.
Speaker 1:I'm not so sure I might disagree with you about that. The enthusiasm, um. So the enthusiasm quite often ends up as a good bit of pr or publicity for a big company or a corporation because they've done something nice within their community. And for me, I think the issue is that it's often just a one-off, like a one-hit wonder, and it isn't part of that bigger picture and it isn't part of shifting to what I would class as a an impact-led organization. So how do you discern whether an organization is genuine about being impact-led organisation? So how do you discern whether an organisation is genuine about being impact-led versus they want just a piece of good publicity? Well, so I think there's a couple of bits in there.
Speaker 2:I totally agree with you that a one-off thing just for publicity is not good. However, I do think that for an organisation that is genuinely doing good, using it for publicity and to help them grow is not a bad thing, because I think driving people and buyers to genuinely impactful companies is a good thing. I also think that the more you can link commercial growth to doing and creating real impact, the more impact an organisation will create, and that's our theory of change.
Speaker 2:Within Impact, advantage actually is the more we can help companies grow through delivering impact, the more impact they will deliver. It's a theory of change. We'll see how that pans out in reality, but the way that we can tell the difference is because what we do is we do real impact measurement. So if you send 30 people to go and paint some fences at the scalp hut and then make a big deal about it, there's not a great deal of real impact that's created, and that's a big difference about what we do. So we are very choosy with which customers we work with, because we can only measure real impact when a change occurs, and so if it is for show, it's a bit embarrassing because nothing comes out. The other end and that's the sort of challenge we've got is that you've got people that impact has been being measured.
Speaker 2:Social value and impact has been measured for ages, and it's traditionally always been done by consultants, and there is no better way to do it than consultancy. You cannot get a more accurate view of the world. However, we can't scale that to every single opportunity in every business. It just doesn't work. So technology or some other solution needs to come in to try to do that. The challenge is that the technical solutions that have come in to do that are all using these one size fits all frameworks, and these one size fits all proxy frameworks of course enable and almost encourage that kind of one off box ticking for show, social value, rather than going deep. So, from my perspective, how can you tell if a company is good or not? We do an assessment with them over an hour almost straight away, and we can tell straight away whether this is someone we could work with or not. And we turn down as much work as we take on as well, because I don't think a company should be penalized for not delivering enough impact. But it's on the right journey. But if it is just for show, if it is just box ticking, then it becomes clear really fast.
Speaker 2:A big question we often ask is how embedded is it in the business as well? So are you doing this just for public sector bids? And if the answer is yes, you're probably not really an impactful led company. You're just using it as a commercial advantage. And do you know what? If you're open about that and you're honest about that, then good on you. You know who you are and you crack on, but if you start to see organizations where these impact programs are ingrained in what they do, so they would be doing this even if they didn't have to do it for public sector bidding. You're talking to a good company who knows what they're doing.
Speaker 2:I think the last one of this is an organisation that gets the complete other side of the coin, which is forgetting the commercial side of things, but they get that. It's really important to their longevity and sustainability as an organisation. For example, somebody that we're working with that wants to measure the impact of their factories around the world unless they are looking after the local community, caring for the environment and the ecology around the sites that they have, they're not going to have the employees they need. They're going to have people that are reluctant to them operating those areas. They know that if they don't look after the natural resources they need to make their products, they can't make their products anymore. So actually this isn't something that has to be nice to do. This is something they have to do from that risk side. So that's how we tend to look at these things wonderful.
Speaker 1:It's good to hear someone else's perspective of how you you choose a genuine, impact-led organization versus you, how you look at someone that's less genuine in there. You mentioned about box ticking and I'd like to quiz you a bit more on that. Personally, my view is that we can tick boxes if we're accurate. I think where we've got to with the social value agenda is that people are ticking boxes and stating and making claims about what they can deliver and then not actually delivering. It Interested to hear your views around box ticking.
Speaker 2:I think I guess what we mean when we talk about box ticking. Let's dive into the specifics of what we really mean. What we really mean is that there are people out there that are bidding for contracts. They are picking things off a social value menu and they are picking the highest things they can. Because they're a big organization, they can afford to do it. And then it's questionable about whether or not the things they've ticked a get delivered, which the new procurement act is supposed to strive to tidy up. But also, the bigger thing for me is the problem with that approach for me is what changed, and I think this is what people don't understand.
Speaker 2:People think that impact is just another way of talking about social value, but it's not the word. Impact means what changed and that's what you need to understand. And so my challenge with the kind of one-size-fits-all box ticking is that if you tick a box to say, this year we spent 50 million with local suppliers and then next year you tick the same box, well, nothing's changing. You're not creating any new impact. And so I always say, as an example to people if I run out of milk now, I'm going to go to the local shop to replace that milk, I was never going to go to Tesco's 10 miles away to buy it. Now, if I always went to Tesco's to buy that milk and I suddenly went to the local shop to buy it, I've created a change and I'm putting different money into that economy. So that's when an impact happens. And this is my problem with the box ticking and the one size fits all is that we're not really measuring what's changed and we're not really moving towards solving any root causes or real problems with society, towards solving any root causes or real problems with society. So all of these billions and billions of pounds that people talk about and social value that's created, I don't believe anything new has been created, and we see some ludicrous examples these days of people claiming 80 million in social value.
Speaker 2:There was one report and 79 million of it was all to do with employing local people. Now this organisation has factories, so every one of your employees has to be local. They always did so. Again, there's no social value there. You're calling it social value. It doesn't mean there's not impact. That's created like employee and economic impact, but it's not social value. And so my challenge with the box ticking is, if you go right back to what the Social Value Act was there to do. It was trying to solve big societal issues and social good with public money. I don't think that's happening now. It is, but in small pockets. So say, let's pick numbers up here. Let's say 20 billion in social value has been created through public sector procurement. I think we'd be lucky if more than about 10 million in real value had been created out of that.
Speaker 1:Totally agree. I think for me, the issue with the way that we account for social value is that we don't adjust what we put in there. So if you have recruited 50 people, you'd claim that there's 50 new jobs created. We don't then say how many of them were replacing jobs that were previously there and adjust for that, because 45 of them were just replacing people that left and how many of the remaining five people were just moving from another job. So it's not really creating a new job and we don't do that adjustment in the social value process. You can just say they're new jobs and just put it in there and those numbers can be thrown around.
Speaker 1:And I'm picking jobs because that's the easiest one to talk about but it's a very similar approach to all of the aspects within there. I suppose the next thing I'm really curious about is I personally make a distinction between social value and social impact, because I think social value is about legislation and a requirement in legislation and there's particular things that get measured through that, and then there's social impact, which is the bigger picture impact that we want to create for the world. That actually covers things that perhaps more meaningful to communities and society and people. How do we get social value to actually take into account those things I would class as social impact that perhaps are more meaningful?
Speaker 2:I think this is the wonderful challenge, isn't it? Where every industry does this. But I've worked in a number now where we monopolize and create our own words, and I think we all do it so that people can't think we're clever and can't do what we do, but you get it in every industry. But social value, by its very definition, existed as a term for many years, going right back to and I'm not saying these were necessarily like the best pillars of the community, but people like Henry Ford, joseph Roundtree, cadbury's brothers they all created social value by building houses for employees and green spaces around the factories and things like that. So this concept of social value and the word social value existed long before it was built into procurement. I think the problem is that whether you call it social value, whether you call it social impact or whatever you want to call it, it's probably not the most important thing. I think the thing we've got to think about is that term social value has been hijacked by social value in procurement, and that's, I guess, that's why you say we need a new word, really, isn't it? So how do we get people to move on from it? I think we need to help people realise what's not happening. We need to make people realise that what we talked about earlier was you need to understand the change, otherwise there is no real impact.
Speaker 2:That's happening, but also the limitations in the way we're doing things today and we've been here before we're just incredibly bad as a country at learning lessons from our own mistakes. The world has been here with emissions reporting, so everybody started to measure their emissions and their carbon using spend-based methodologies. But they realised really fast that £100,000 spent on vehicles is wildly different in terms of emissions if it's diesel vehicles or electric vehicles. So what we realised is brilliant. We've put this fantastic process in place and we can all measure exactly the same, but actually what we're measuring is complete nonsense. It doesn't tell us where the emissions are all coming. It doesn't tell us where we need to go faster and doesn't help anybody move better towards net zero.
Speaker 2:And that's exactly what we've done with the social value frameworks that are out.
Speaker 2:There is that they now enable us to all measure in the same way. But the point is social value or social impact whatever you want to call it is not always the same. It is contextual, it is different in terms of its outputs. It needs to be dynamic. It needs to take into account the positive and the negative impact, and if you have a static framework for doing that, yes, we're all on the same page, but it is impossible to take all of that into account, which is why it has to be measured individually each time.
Speaker 2:So I think helping people understand all of the stuff that's not happening and the fact that we're not actually moving towards any form of societal goal means that is that social value spend now making good change in society, or is it a whole bunch of money that's being wasted? And I would argue that government has a role to play in this, because I will moan about people ticking boxes about local spend, but some of that direction has come from government and they still ask for those things, so there's a little bit of lazy social value procurement in public sector too.
Speaker 1:Yeah, obviously we've had the new procurement act that came out a couple of months ago and in there is that's either people can adopt early or they can wait and adopt in October, and in there the PPNs around social value are very prescriptive about connecting it to the five national missions in England, and so it's very economic focused and I think for me that misses the point, purely because I'd love to see is that actually when, if you were a commissioner, you're really thinking about what is it that I want to include as social value, as opposed to just looking off that that list and selecting options, which I know is what the, the legislation and the supporting documents are trying to encourage to make it more consistent.
Speaker 1:But I think we actually need to be perhaps less consistent in that we need to go move away from that standardized approach to something that's more customized for communities. How, if that was an approach that we took, how would that work, given that we might have a national contract? So how could you customize that for a community when the community is the whole country, versus a local contract where it's much easier to customize?
Speaker 2:I think there's a number of things. The first thing, I think, is that I think removing monetary values from the bid stage would make a lot of sense now. I know they tend to do that at a central government level, but it's still very inherent in local government contracts. The other thing is, I think that there's a lot of procurement people out there and they have to follow a lot of regulation, and they like to follow regulation and be told this is how to procure, this is how to score, this is how to do it. If something goes wrong during that procurement, suppliers are very quick to cry foul and challenge. Now that might not sound like the end of the world, but if you spend 18 months buying something to replace a system that's creaking and breaking and the whole procurement falls apart because you did something wrong, not only have you got to run it again over another 18 months, but you've got to pay this old supplier, so it just everything falls apart a bit. So I get why they're so rigid with that and that's how we've ended up having these systems. So tell me exactly what to do and what I can pick, and then I can go and pick it. But I think you're right. What we have to say is that we are either serious about using public money to create change, real social impact, or we're not. And if we are serious about it, then it needs to stop being something that's an afterthought at the end of a bid, and you can tell straight away when you see a public sector bid how much thought has gone into the social value or not.
Speaker 2:What always surprises me is that I think the social value bit is obviously added in by whoever commissions the project and the procurement, and quite often the answer will be I didn't quite know what local needs were or what to put in. Now I've worked with enough councils to know that there is an expert in almost every single one of these areas. There will be somebody that is an expert in the education space. There will be somebody in digital inclusion. There will be somebody thinking about homelessness. There will be somebody thinking about jobs, like they're in there, and they know that those problems back to front. They also know the vcses in the community that are working with them as well. So what I can only assume is that all of that is not being collated into a central place and updated and then being thought about strategically about.
Speaker 2:This is what we want to change, and I think coming up with that kind of social value plan that people can enact on is what suppliers should be able to bid against. And now I've seen some people do it for public sector bidding, but that's completely the wrong way. People do it for public sector bidding, but that's completely the wrong way, and we talk to corporates about this. If you're just doing social impact for bids, then it's never going to get embedded in the business. So if the only time you think about what social value you want a supplier to deliver is when they're bidding, of course, how on earth is it ever going to make real change for your communities? So I think there's a bit there about that.
Speaker 2:But personally, I think this whole trying to deliver real impact and try and tackle the proper, like fundamental problems that are behind most of those impacts is not something you can do on a contract by contract basis. It is just not possible. And so trying to then think what's a better way of doing this and they do things like this in India, where there is almost like, just as we get a levy fee, a percentage fee on framework contracts what they've done in India is there is, I think it's a 2% fee on all public sector contracts, which goes into a pot to delivering social value. So what you can actually do is use that funding to start to really go after those big chunky issues, because we're not going to solve a contract by contract no, I've worked with a housing association a few years ago and they did a similar thing on their their contracts.
Speaker 1:They took a percentage of the contract and they then used it specifically for projects and grants within the community. So it can work. But I think the you're right that if you just look at a contract that's perhaps two years long, you're looking very short term around social value delivery versus if you really have engaged and understand the needs of the community, you will have a plan for the next five or 10 years around, or 20 years around what social value needs to be delivered, and then you're asking anyone that's looking at tendering to select things off that list of things that are actually really truly needed, as opposed to we'll create another 100 jobs when there isn't even that many people that need jobs or that want jobs so yeah, there's work to be done, definitely.
Speaker 1:I think social value could do a lot of good, but I just don't see it happening and I haven't really seen much that's impactful come from it yet.
Speaker 2:When I talk to companies and where I do see the impactful stuff is stuff that's happening not because of the Procurement Act. It's stuff that's happening because that company is delivering it, because it's core to their impact and who they are as an organization. And that is where one of the things we do with businesses is. Particularly the ones that come to us and say they're struggling to get the business on board and employees on board and signed up to it is normally it's because there's a massive mismatch between the business strategy and the.
Speaker 2:You see some really good programs, and this is one of the things we did at Microsoft is where one of our big impact goals was to get something like three million people into jobs in the next five years, and so it was a great goal and we put a lot of effort behind it.
Speaker 2:But there was also a business reason for that as well, because we wanted more Microsoft trained people in the market, so more people will use Microsoft products, and so there also a business reason for that as well, because we wanted more Microsoft trained people in the market, so more people use Microsoft products, and so there's a business like imperative behind it, which means that everybody is then behind it and they're delivering on this thing, and so when you match those two things together, I think that's when the magic happens, because what we tend to see is that the C-suite, who are all very much behind, delivering impact, and they want it and they want to see it and yes, absolutely, it's great and the employees down below are also all up for delivering this and they want to get behind it and be involved.
Speaker 2:What then happens is you get this tier of middle management who care about it as individuals, but they are also very busy doing the 101 things that's being demanded from them, from the C-suite, so it gets forgotten. So, until it gets embedded in the business in the right way, that's where it all falls apart, I think.
Speaker 1:Definitely. Yeah, there's a lot of leadership and managerial challenges within the social value. My next area I'd like to just discuss a little bit with you is this idea of superpowers. Just discuss a little bit with you is this idea of superpowers.
Speaker 1:I personally think the corporates have a what I would class a superpower around making money and being innovative, and I think social enterprises and charity and voluntary sector their superpower is delivering social impact and understanding communities and then therefore delivering social value and the public sector I don't know if I would class this as their superpower, but is providing the money for the delivery of contracts. I think that superpower is waning slightly in terms of the amount of money they have, but the idea that if each sector focused on their superpowers and came together, we could actually achieve much more social value, rather than having corporates trying to deliver social value when they actually perhaps are not best place to do that, because we've got social enterprises that better understand how to do it yeah, I've worked with government for 20 odd years and in it so like getting government departments to work together who are all trying to solve the same problem.
Speaker 2:I've had challenges with that over the years, let alone trying to get government to work with private sector, to work with the voluntary sector as well. I think the challenge you get with a lot of these, where I have seen those initiatives start, is government go out to talk to the private sector about what needs to happen and private sector will steer them in the direction that's best for them as a business. So not always you will get some selfless people that will think of the bigger picture, but I tend to think that then government might go down a route that isn't necessarily right for society. Do the third sector have a strong enough voice in that, or do business get more listened to? I don't know the answer to that, but I know I think I know the answer to that.
Speaker 1:I'm not in indebted or attached to any organization. I would say the businesses get and the corporates get listened to and they can force through legislation in a way that benefits them more than social enterprises can with involuntary organizations. They just don't have that waste the same as the business sector. There's a number of big macro level.
Speaker 2:Issues that affect this aren't there, that we are not going to change. So the political system that's revolved around four years of staying in power means that there is no social issue that can be fixed in four years time. It's not possible. We'd be lucky if we can make a dent in them in 20 years. It's probably more like 50 to 100 years to solve some of the root cause problems. And if we don't solve the root cause problems that are causing things like homelessness and inequality and poor health and things like that, then actually all we're doing is chipping away at the surface, trying to keep the lights on, and that is about 90% of what government does and what it spends its money on is keeping the lights on. Keeping the lights on in policing, in nursing, in firing, in education. Those are really important things. We don't keep the lights on. Children aren't educated, people aren't safe, fires don't educated People aren't safe, fires don't go out, people aren't healthy. So it's an important thing to do. But I think you talked about innovation as well. I don't think it comes from government, I don't think it comes from big corporates. It comes from the voluntary sector and it comes from small businesses and startups. Those are the people that are innovating sector and it comes from small businesses and startups. Those are the people that are innovating. That's where we should be looking and listening if we want to find innovative new changes and solutions to some of the problems we've got out there. But the question I think you raise is how does this all come together? Because it never works unless all these parties come together. And how do you do that? I think you have to almost have an organisation that has representation from all three of these, because you want something that runs with business, like efficiency, has the motivations and the vision and the heart of the voluntary sector, but has access and the remit that government does to make that sort of high level policy change. To make that sort of high level policy change, I think the voluntary sector, as much as they are the people to make this change, just don't have the funding and they don't have the teeth and they can't afford some of the people that know how to scale some of these things. But that does exist in business. But business needs to make sure that it's not just thinking about a business, a bit like we saw Donald Trump trying to run the American economy and Elon Musk like a business. It's like it's not a business.
Speaker 2:Yes, I agree with cutting waste. Yes, I agree with building inefficiencies, but you've got to remember that this isn't a business. This is here to service people, provide services, keep people safe and healthy and prosperous. That's what I think is I think we need an organisation that sits somewhere in the middle, has representation from all of those people. The voluntary sector do the delivery, the private sector funds it and also helps to operate it with really good business, like efficiency, and the government gets behind responding to that by either issuing it with supporting it to help make policy change, thinking about social bonds and outcomes contracts that can feed through to the voluntary sector. So if I think about what good looks like, that would be it, for me it shouldn't be an organization that's focused on short-term impacts. It should be that long-term, root cause problem solving that organization is focused on, because that's the stuff that needs to happen, but that's the stuff that doesn't get the headlines or the contracts, because it will take a long time before we see the results yeah, I agree with you completely.
Speaker 1:I'm a bit of an idealist and a dreamer and I still would imagine that at some point a government will set a plan for the impact they want to deliver over the next 20 plus years and the next government would take that on and support it and not change it or bin it as soon as they get into power. And I think that's where my dream lives around. This idea of that there's a longer term legacy from work as opposed to it lasts for about 18 months before we re-elect or elect a new prime minister in a new party. I'm going to hold on to that hope and vision, and that then also applies to all of the impact world and all of the stuff that happens within social value and procurement. I'm still the big dreamer there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you should be, and it's good, because the world needs the dreamers, otherwise nothing changes. The world needs a mix. It needs and I'm not one of these, but it needs the big change makers. It needs the people that are going to go and protest and stamp their feet and make a big change and make enough noise that something happens. But then it also needs the people that know how to execute. You know, realistically, on that change in the operating environment we're in, because I wish the world looked a bit different, but I'm realistic enough to know that it doesn't. And to get there will take slow change. That's where we are. But yeah, we should never stop dreaming?
Speaker 1:no, definitely not. Is there anything else that you want to share with the audience?
Speaker 2:I think for me, it's just thinking about being more open and honest about what you're doing and why you're doing it. So I have met so many different businesses in this space, from low margin businesses that say they want to be impactful but actually they just need to do it to win bids and tick boxes. I don't think that's a shameful thing. Not every business is and should be delivering impact that's a great world, but it's just not practically achievable. And should be delivering impact that's a great world, but it's just not practically achievable. People just need to be a bit more honest and open about what your intentions are and what you're doing. We shouldn't criticise people for being on a journey. I love the concept of B Corp, but B Corp is a bit binary You're good or bad, and I don't think the world works like that.
Speaker 2:I think people need to be able to move towards being that good organization as well, but I think it's understanding. How is this important to your business? So if you are doing and delivering social value just because you have to, then it's never going to be core to what you do and you're missing out on a massive opportunity because all of this stuff comes at a cost. However, you're doing it, even if you're just doing the bare minimum. So if you're not then capitalizing on that, then it's just a wasted asset you're not using. So I think people are missing a trick by just thinking about it in that box, ticking terms, but if you don't do it in the right way, you can't use it.
Speaker 2:Much more than that, I think. The other thing that I would love to see more of is I've worked with a couple of charities as well who are starting to think about how they commercialise their operations too, and I think that, moving forward, funding is going to become harder and harder to get for the voluntary sector. Much less of it is coming from governments and councils, and we're going to start to see donations getting harder and harder to get hold of as well. But if organizations can start to think about how they commercialize the services they've got and use the data and the knowledge that they have to bring in revenues, I think that we could see the voluntary sector doing a lot more with a lot more money yeah, definitely yeah definitely agree completely.
Speaker 1:I think my only challenge to you would be that I'm personally. My vision for the world is that all businesses are social enterprises that positively impact people in the planet, and so, therefore, I do believe that all businesses should convert and think about people and planet, not just be openly honest about that they don't care, because I think they, they can care, and if they do, there's a lot of metrics out there that prove that caring and doing this actually improves their financial performance yeah, I do agree, if you actually I mentioned b corp, but if you look at b corp they all outperformed by about nine percent in revenue generation against the standard revenue generation that year last year.
Speaker 2:So there is evidence out there that shows it and I totally agree with you. And I think what we are pushing for is changing the way that the world accounts for value, so that we all value a company on more than just its financials, on its social, its environmental and its employee impacts as well. I envisage a kind of integrated profit and loss statement where all of that's built in. So that's what we're doing for our customers, but it's going to be a while before the whole world is doing that.
Speaker 1:Hopefully at some point in the future that will have happened, so it's been really good talking to you today. Jimmy, Do you want to share where people can get hold of you and find out more about your work?
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. You can always find me on LinkedIn, where I'm told I'm very chatty and noisy, so look me up on LinkedIn. Jimmy Cockerton, you can find us at wwwimpactadvantagecouk, and we're always very happy to talk to people about impact.
Speaker 1:Brilliant. Thank you Lovely talking to you today. Thank you so much for engaging in this conversation about the word of impact.
Speaker 1:Thank you for joining us on this episode of the Make an Impact podcast. I hope you found today's conversation as inspiring and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed the episode, please subscribe, leave a review and share it with others who want to create positive change and share it with others who want to create positive change. You can connect with me on LinkedIn and learn more about my work at makeanimpactciccouk. Until next time, let's keep making an impact in the world.