SDG vs SROI: which impact framework should you use, and when

Most community organisations and councils face the same question: which impact framework should we use? The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) are two of the most common frameworks, but they serve different purposes and have different costs. Understanding when to use each one or both-can save significant time and improve the quality of your impact reporting.

What SDGs are good for, and what they miss

The SDGs provide a universal language for impact. They are recognised internationally, align with government priorities, and offer a standardised way to communicate impact across sectors. This makes them particularly useful for:

Communicating with international funders or partners
Aligning with government reporting requirements
Comparing your impact with similar organisations globally
Demonstrating contribution to broader social and environmental goals

However, SDGs have limitations. They are outcome-focused but don't provide a clear method for attributing change to your specific activities. They also don't quantify the economic value of social outcomes, which can make it difficult to demonstrate value for money to funders who need to justify resource allocation.

SDGs work best when you need to show alignment with global priorities or when multiple stakeholders need a common language. They are less useful when you need to demonstrate causal attribution or quantify the economic value of your impact.

What SROI is good for, and what it costs to do well

SROI provides a financial value for social outcomes, expressed as a ratio. For example, an SROI of 3:1 means that for every dollar invested, three dollars of social value were created. This makes it powerful for:

Demonstrating value for money to funders and boards
Comparing the relative impact of different interventions
Making investment decisions when resources are limited
Communicating impact in terms that financial stakeholders understand

However, SROI is resource-intensive. A credible SROI analysis requires:

Clear evidence of attribution (proving your activities caused the outcomes)
Financial proxies for non-financial outcomes (e.g., the value of improved mental health)
Deadweight, displacement, and attribution calculations
Significant time and expertise to complete properly

A well-executed SROI can take three to six months and may require external expertise. For small organisations, this can be prohibitive. SROI also requires outcomes to be measurable and attributable, which may not be feasible for all types of work.

When to use one, the other, or both

The choice between SDGs and SROI depends on your context:

Use SDGs when:

You need to align with government or international reporting requirements
Multiple stakeholders need a common framework
You want to demonstrate contribution to broader goals
You lack resources for intensive analysis
Your outcomes align well with SDG targets

Use SROI when:

You need to demonstrate value for money
Funders require financial justification for investment
You can clearly attribute outcomes to your activities
You have resources and expertise for detailed analysis
You need to compare different interventions

Use both when:

Different stakeholders require different frameworks
You need both alignment (SDGs) and value demonstration (SROI)
You have the capacity to maintain both reporting streams
You want to communicate impact to diverse audiences

A practical decision tree

Start by asking these questions in order:

What do your funders require? If they specify a framework, use that. If they accept multiple frameworks, proceed to the next question.
Do you need to demonstrate value for money? If yes, and you have resources, consider SROI. If no, or resources are limited, SDGs may be sufficient.
Can you clearly attribute outcomes to your activities? SROI requires strong attribution. If attribution is weak, SDGs may be more appropriate.
Do you need to align with government or international priorities? If yes, SDGs provide that alignment. You can still add SROI for value demonstration.
Do different stakeholders need different information? If yes, consider using both frameworks and presenting different views to different audiences.

How CIIS supports framework-aware reporting

The challenge with multiple frameworks is not only different formats. It is keeping outcome statements tied to evidence as you translate between audiences. CIIS focuses on structured outcomes, measures, and evidence support first; framework lenses are applied where the deployment and pilot scope support them.

In that model, teams work from a unified structured dataset where possible, then interpret results through selected lenses without implying every framework rule is automated or certified.

That can help teams:

Reduce redundant re-keying when definitions are aligned
Keep evidence context visible across reporting views
Export report-oriented outputs where generators and validation paths support them
Surface limitations before outputs reach boards or funders

CIIS does not remove the need for professional judgement, framework expertise, or legal sign-off where your context requires it.

Next Steps

If this topic resonates with challenges you're facing, consider:

Request a guided pilot conversation frameworks