Grounding Social Value: Capturing Nuru’s Social Impact via Social Return on Investment (SROI)

Chantal Braunwalder, Molly Knapp, & Jeremy Kundtz are members of Georgetown University’s Global Human Development Class of 2026. Between October 2025 and April 2026, they partnered with Nuru to help the organization understand the concept of Social Return on Investment (SROI). 

Nuru has long measured impact through concrete outcomes such as improved yields, increased income, and stronger farmer cooperative agribusinesses. But some forms of change are harder to capture in standard metrics. How do we understand improvements in women’s agency, community trust, household security, or farmers’ confidence in the future?

This blog post explores whether Social Return on Investment (SROI) can help Nuru better understand and communicate these broader forms of value. It shares the research process, key findings from fieldwork in Ethiopia, and outlines what these findings may mean for Nuru’s future approach to measuring social value.

The  Guiding Research Question

“What is your organization’s SROI?” For organizations like Nuru, this question has become increasingly common. Amid recent upheaval in the international development sector, including major disruptions to traditional aid funding, organizations and donors alike are seeking to maximize the impact of increasingly limited resources. In this landscape, Nuru thinks critically about its impact, in both economic and social terms. Nuru is considering not only the income gains of farmers, but also whether and how its work supports outcomes such as women’s inclusion and social cohesion. Such social value is inherently difficult to quantify. To explore this challenge, Nuru partnered with Georgetown’s Global Human Development Capstone program to examine SROI, or the “social value” generated for each dollar Nuru invests. 

Georgetown researcher Molly Knapp facilitating a focus group discussion at Chilashe Primary Cooperative.

Over the course of six months, the research team conducted an extensive literature review, developed operational definitions of the terms “SROI” and “social value,” and the team completed fieldwork in Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Their trip focused on answering the research question: What is “social value,” and do Nuru staff and Nuru affiliates, including farmers, primary cooperatives, cooperative unions, and peer NGOs, think about social value in the same way? These answers can help Nuru use SROI to communicate impact while grounding social value in farmers’ lived experiences.

Understanding Social Return on Investment

SROI was first developed in the mid-1990s by an NGO seeking to measure the broader value it created beyond financial returns. In simple terms, SROI involves 

• identifying the key dimensions of ‘social value’ supported by an intervention,
• assigning indicators to measure them,
• using financial proxies to estimate that value in monetary terms, 
• and comparing the estimate with program costs. 

The result is an ‘SROI ratio’ showing how much social value is created for every dollar invested. However, because SROI refers to both a ratio and to the process of calculating it, and because ‘social value’ is context-dependent and subjective, SROI is not applied uniformly across organizations. 

Despite this ambiguity, SROI is widely used by social enterprises and NGOs. For organizations like Nuru, it can bring different forms of impact into a single framework, support decision-making, and communicate hard-to-quantify value. However, reducing complex change to one number can obscure impacts rooted in systems change, social cohesion, or gender equality, and it may shift attention toward easier-to-measure outcomes rather than what communities value most.

Given Nuru’s interest in SROI, the researchers’ project focused on one of its central methodological questions: what constitutes social value, and do relevant stakeholders define it similarly? Without answering this question, organizations risk measuring value in ways that reflect donor priorities more than community realities. Because Nuru is committed to community-driven development, addressing this question was especially important before making other subjective choices required by SROI analysis, such as selecting indicators and assigning financial proxies to non-market outcomes. The following sections detail the methodology, findings, and implications for Nuru moving forward. 

SROI Research Methodology

The research team first identified the stakeholder groups most relevant to understanding social value across Nuru Ethiopia’s impact model. 

• Primary cooperatives remain Nuru Ethiopia’s main point of engagement with farmers. In rural settings, they often serve as training providers, storage facilities, lenders, market access points, solidarity hubs, and spaces that help equalize power relations. 
• Cooperative unions facilitate training and provide resources for primary cooperatives, while also serving as Nuru Ethiopia’s main entry point into the cooperative system. Within the Nuru Collective, Nuru Ethiopia is the only organization to have invested extensively in cooperative unions, enabling it to reach over 220,000 farmers with a lean team. The research team conducted focus group discussions with Hidota Union, a highly successful Nuru-supported cooperative union, and Gamo Fruit & Vegetable Union, a peer union that will soon receive Nuru’s support. 
• NGOs provided a point of comparison for understanding how implementing organizations define and prioritize social value relative to farmers, primary cooperatives, and cooperative unions. The research team spoke with Nuru Ethiopia and a peer NGO working in Arba Minch. 

Overall, the research team spoke with farmers from two primary cooperatives, leaders from two cooperative unions, Nuru Ethiopia staff, and staff from a peer NGO. To assess gender differences, the team conducted separate discussions with two groups of men and two groups of women from primary cooperatives. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. 

The research team conducted both focus groups and interviews. Focus groups provided a high-level understanding of how different stakeholders thought about social value, while interviews offered deeper insight into individual stakeholder experiences.

The research questions were based on a literature review and conversations with Nuru Kenya and Nuru Nigeria leadership. Because the literature does not clearly define “social value,” the research team had to operationalize the concept for this project. The initial definition focused on individual- and community-level change across three categories: 

• Health
• Safety
• Capacity (understood as knowledge and skills)

Once in the field, however, the research team found that these categories, while priorities for Nuru, did not fully capture all forms of value creation. The team therefore broadened the questions, asking generally about changes in stakeholders’ lives following their engagement with Nuru rather than focusing only on predefined categories. As a result, the project’s definition of “social value” emerged organically from recurring themes in focus groups and interviews. 

Ultimately, the team defined the following five dimensions of social value (see Table 1): 

• Capacity: Capacity refers to stakeholders having access to knowledge, skills, and the resources necessary to leverage said knowledge and skills.  
• Health: This dimension of social value refers to mental and physical well-being. 
• Security: Security involves safety from chronic and sudden threats to one’s survival and strengthened stability, resilience, and preparedness at the household and community level. Researchers divided security into four categories: physical, psychological, economic, and environmental. 
• Community: This aspect of social value involves improved relationships within and between communities, and between communities and public- and private-sector institutions.
• Women’s Inclusion: This dimension of social value refers to increased autonomy, decision-making power, and social and economic participation of women. 

To analyze the qualitative data, the research team identified which themes appeared most often across stakeholder groups and which themes most often appeared together. The team also assessed whether men and women, as well as Nuru and non-Nuru stakeholders, had different understandings of social value. 

Photo 2. Chantal Braunwalder facilitating the women’s FGD at the Chilashe primary cooperative.

How Do Nuru Stakeholders Think About Social Value?

The research uncovered three key findings, each with implications for whether and how Nuru decides to use SROI moving forward. 

Finding 1: All stakeholder groups identified the same broad dimensions of social value. Primary cooperatives, cooperative unions, and NGOs all discussed security, capacity, community, women’s inclusion, and health, suggesting a meaningful degree of alignment across the Nuru value chain. However, stakeholders emphasized these dimensions at different levels. Farmers focused more on household- and community-level impacts, while cooperative unions and NGOs connected similar themes to markets, institutions, and broader systems. This suggests that stakeholders were not “talking past” one another, but instead articulating social value from different positions within a unified system. Figure 1 shows the proportion of each social value category mentioned by the three stakeholder groups. For each group, the figure shows the relative distribution of the five categories of social value discussed during interviews and focus groups. 

Figure 1: Distribution of parent categories across key stakeholder groups

Finding 2: Stakeholder priorities differed in important ways. The analysis highlighted important differences in what stakeholders prioritized. Environmental security, for example, was more visible among cooperative unions and Nuru staff than among farmers, who focused more on immediate livelihood stability, income, skills, trust, and communication. This distinction matters for SROI because externally imposed frameworks may emphasize outcomes, such as environmental value, that are less central to how individuals describe change in their own lives. 

Finding 3: Stakeholders did not separate ‘social’ and ‘economic’ value as clearly as SROI literature often does. Even when asked about non-economic value, respondents repeatedly discussed increased crop yields, income, and profit. Rather than treating these outcomes as separate from social value, stakeholders often understood economic improvements as deeply connected to security, dignity, capacity, and community well-being. 

Key Takeaways by Dimension of Social Value 

Across the five categories of social value, focus group and interview transcripts show that Nuru stakeholders discussed security, capacity, and community most frequently, followed by women’s inclusion and health. Figure 2 shows how often stakeholders across the three groups mentioned each category. The rest of this section discusses similarities and differences in how stakeholders described each category. 

Figure 2: Frequency of social value categories across stakeholder groups

Stakeholders discussed security extensively across four dimensions: psychological, environmental, economic, and physical. 

• Primary Cooperatives: For farmers, security is the key form of social value creation. This includes reduced exposure to market fluctuations, access to loans, and increased job opportunities. Farmers described the shift from subsistence to more stable and secure livelihoods as critical because it allowed them to plan for the future and reduce psychological stress.
• Cooperative Unions: Cooperative unions provided a broader safety net by creating market linkages, increasing transparency, and reducing farmers’ reliance on informal intermediaries who weakened price transparency. This improved price stability and harvest consistency helped farmers move from a “fear of survival” toward a clearer path to prosperity. Interviewees also highlighted cooperative unions’ role in mitigating the effects of drought and contributing financially to disaster relief, which supported both environmental and psychological security. 
• Nuru Ethiopia: Although security ranked third among social value categories for Nuru Ethiopia, staff emphasized its importance through market linkages, environmental disaster mitigation, carbon sequestration, and strengthened community self-reliance. Psychological security was also important, particularly in the community’s growing confidence that it could sustain progress without Nuru’s continued support.

“We coach and mentor the leadership of these [primary] cooperatives, so no new farmers don’t just wait for any direct aid. That way, in our community, I can say there is no such…aid dependency syndrome that was created by our project implementation.”  -Nuru Ethiopia staff member

Capacity was especially important to farmers and Nuru Ethiopia staff. 

• Primary Cooperatives: Training through primary cooperatives helped farmers gain the knowledge and skills needed to market their products more effectively, plant improved seed varieties, and take on greater leadership roles. 
• Cooperative Unions: Cooperative unions created social value by training primary cooperatives, strengthening technical skills, and increasing leadership and ownership within the cooperative system. 
• Nuru Ethiopia: Nuru Ethiopia emphasized the shift from farming as a subsistence activity to farming as a business opportunity. By strengthening the capacity of primary cooperatives and cooperative unions, Nuru Ethiopia helped improve service delivery and support broader changes in local relationships and institutions.

Alongside security and capacity, community-level value was central to Nuru’s impact.

“There is more cohesion and love among the community now, since we meet on a regular basis more frequently, this has improved our social life and integration.”  – Chilashe Primary Cooperative member

• Primary Cooperatives: Farmers described stronger trust, solidarity, and mutual support within their communities. Increased collaboration helped reduce conflict and created a greater sense of belonging within the community.
• Cooperative Unions: Community was ranked second among social value categories for cooperative unions, which is unsurprising given their role in facilitating connections across the cooperative system. Community value came from strengthening relationships both vertically and horizontally, within and beyond the cooperative system. Hidota Union, for example, has become a trusted partner for government programs. Unions also supported stronger individual and institutional leadership, creating more accountability and effective governance within primary cooperatives. 
• Nuru Ethiopia: Community was the most frequently mentioned social value category among Nuru Ethiopia staff. Staff emphasized Nuru’s role in building an enabling ecosystem for farmers by strengthening trust, collaboration, local leadership, and social cohesion. Rather than investing only in isolated interventions, Nuru Ethiopia supports a broader shift from aid dependency toward self-reliance. 

“We also build trust with different market actors, exporters,with government agencies, like the school feeding program, the Bureau of Education.” – Hidota Union representative

Because Nuru follows a women-first approach, gender equity was considered a distinct form of social value. While women’s inclusion was visible across stakeholder groups, farmers mentioned it most frequently, likely because they are closest to its outcomes. 

Primary Cooperatives: Without being prompted specifically on gender, the women’s groups immediately described significant changes in their lives and their children’s futures. Women noted that they had become more economically independent, respected, confident, involved in household decision-making, and able to participate more equally in community events. Men tended to emphasize the broader economic benefits of women entering the labor force, including increased household income and security. 

“We thank God for this. We have no words to express the changes we have seen all around us.” -Chilashe primary cooperative woman member

Health: Mental and physical health were mentioned least often across stakeholder groups. While the interventions appeared to have indirect health effects, such as improved mental well-being, these effects were discussed less frequently than other forms of social value. 

Key Takeaways: Distinctions Across Stakeholder Groups

There were several notable distinctions across stakeholder perspectives.

• Men and women farmers: Both men and women emphasized economic security and increased capacity. Interestingly, men mentioned women’s inclusion more frequently, but primarily in reference to women as income earners. Women, meanwhile, spoke about how their Nuru affiliation helped them gain not only income, but also the respect of their peers. Men and mixed groups also highlighted the ability to send children to school as a major source of value, even though formal education appeared less frequently overall. 
• Nuru and non-Nuru cooperative unions: Gender equity was more central in the Nuru-supported cooperative union, particularly in relation to women’s independence and economic integration. By contrast, the non-Nuru cooperative union focused mainly on economic benefits and increased profits. This suggests that Nuru’s model may support not only prosperity, but also stronger social cohesion, community interaction, and local networks. 
• Nuru Ethiopia and peer NGO: A peer NGO working in the same area has operated for over 20 years and has created extensive value for farmers and cooperatives. While the relative importance of social value categories was similar, the peer NGO placed greater emphasis on environmental security. The peer NGO also mentioned women’s inclusion more frequently than Nuru Ethiopia, but Nuru’s gender impact was evident in how its programs center women’s agency and economic participation. Across stakeholders, Nuru’s work appeared to focus on building a broader system rather than delivering a single intervention, addressing farmer dependency, poverty, and women’s exclusion while supporting more resilient and prosperous communities. 

Photo 3: FGD with the Hidota Union leaders.

Research Limitations

Several methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings:

1. Construct Validity and Conceptual Circularity: Because neither “SROI” nor “social value” has a single standard definition or measurement approach, the research team developed a framework based on existing literature, stakeholder input, and fieldwork in Ethiopia. While this made the analysis well-suited to Nuru Ethiopia’s context, the findings may not apply in the same way elsewhere. 
2. Sampling Limitations: This qualitative study prioritized depth over statistical representation. Given the one-week fieldwork window, the research team used targeted sampling to gather detailed perspectives from key stakeholder groups and identify recurring themes. As a result, the findings should be interpreted as illustrative rather than representative of all participants. 
3. Bias in Data Collection: Because Nuru staff supported translation during focus groups, participants may have shaped their responses to reflect positively on Nuru. Some nuance may also have been lost during translation across Gamo, Amharic, and English. However, these risks were partly reduced by the cooperatives’ relative independence and participants’ apparent comfort sharing openly. 
4. Bias in Data Interpretation: The researchers may have varied in how they interpreted and coded qualitative data. They mitigated this risk through collective operationalization of “social value” and cross-review of coding. 
5. Bias in Data Presentation: Because the research was conducted in partnership with Nuru, implicit bias may have shaped how the findings were framed, despite Nuru’s openness to critical feedback. 

While limitations remain, the research team took deliberate steps to mitigate bias, providing Nuru with a credible foundation for context-sensitive SROI analysis. 

Conclusion from Research 

Nuru has an opportunity to build on this work by using SROI carefully and contextually, rather than as a one-size-fits-all metric. This research provides a strong foundation for doing so. By developing a stakeholder-centered approach to defining social value, the research team demonstrated that Nuru is generating meaningful social value beyond income alone, particularly in areas such as security, capacity, community, and women’s inclusion. These benefits appear to be layered on top of Nuru’s more commonly reported economic gains, suggesting that traditional ROI measures likely understate the full value created by Nuru’s locally-led community development model.

Importantly, this work stopped short of assigning financial proxies or monetizing each dimension of social value. That choice reflects the limits of reducing complex social outcomes to dollar comparisons, especially when those outcomes are rooted in trust, dignity, agency, security, and community relationships. However, the extent to which stakeholders described these benefits suggests that, if carefully monetized, Nuru’s broader return on investment would likely be much greater than the raw economic outputs often reflected in MEL reports.

At the same time, social value cannot be assumed to look the same across the Nuru Collective. Because Nuru works through locally-led organizations in different environments, the outcomes that matter most will likely vary across countries, value chains, and institutional settings.

For that reason, the greatest value of this work is not simply the possibility of producing a single SROI figure. Its greater contribution is a replicable, stakeholder-centered approach for identifying, validating, and eventually quantifying social value within each local context. By applying this approach across geographies, Nuru can better understand the full value of its work and ensure future SROI efforts remain grounded in community realities.

Photo 4: Abiy Meshesha (Managing Director, Nuru Ethiopia), Ian Schwenke (MEL Advisor, Nuru), Chantal Braunwalder (GHD ‘26), Molly Knapp (GHD ‘26), and Tatek Amataw (Monitoring and Evaluation Program Manager, Nuru Ethiopia)