What is Social Performance?
29 June 2010 at 00:01 James Allman-Gulino 10 comments
By James Allman-Gulino, KF11 Uganda
One of the newer fields that’s getting more attention within microfinance is trying to measure microfinance institutions’ (MFIs) social performance, which broadly is an indication of how well an MFI meets the social goals outlined in its mission and vision. Social performance is reflected in a wide range of indicators, including:
- an MFI’s policies towards employees, like providing health care or maternity leave;
- to what degree an MFI targets the poorest of the poor for financial services;
- an MFI’s policies on environmental conservation;
- how low an MFI keeps its interest rates;
- how transparent an MFI is about these interest rates and other loan terms; and
- how an MFI’s services translate into improved lives for their clients.
In some ways social performance for MFIs is analogous to the idea of corporate social responsibility, which speaks to how corporations pursue explicitly pro-social goals and limit any detrimental byproducts of their operations.
The trickiest aspect of social performance is the last indicator I mentioned, trying to capture how microfinance changes the lives of the poor. Unsurprisingly, this is the ultimate goal of any development-related intervention; the idea is to empower the poor and enable them to create better standards of life for themselves. Measuring this is often called impact analysis, or impact assessment. But while this analysis is important, since we want to see if and how much microfinance actually benefits borrowers, it’s also extremely difficult (and expensive) to measure. For instance, a farmer might get an agricultural microloan but experience a severe drought, leading to a large drop in income. The impact of that loan would actually seem to be detrimental in that case. On the individual level, obviously we could see that the decrease in the farmer’s income was due to other factors; but when you’re trying to study impact over a wide population, you often can’t account for all such factors. This makes it very difficult to analyze microfinance “interventions” to really see what benefit microfinance creates in the lives of the poor.
As an organization that explicitly supports microfinance as a tool for “alleviating poverty”, Kiva has interest in working with MFIs that bring a strong social focus to their operations. Kiva’s partner MFIs, which do tremendous work in their outreach to the poor and often set the bar for ethical conduct amongst non-governmental organizations, also want this non-financial aspect of their operations to be properly appreciated. It is for this reason that Kiva and its Field Partners are beginning to work on measuring their social performance in the fields I bulleted above. To do this Kiva and its partners are using the CERISE Social Performance Indicators tool, which analyzes an MFI’s social performance across a wide range of operations and attempts to quantify the results. The results can help an MFI see where in their operations the social mission is strongest, and where otherwise they may need targeted attention or improvement. In the future, MFIs might also use the resulting scores to emphasize their social performance to lenders, who could be interested in supporting certain MFIs with a particular social focus.
However, what the new use of the CERISE tool won’t include is the type of impact analysis/assessment that I noted above. While both Kiva and our partner MFIs would love to measure how microfinance improves the lives of borrowers, it’s simply too difficult to isolate Kiva loans as the lone source of that improvement, and to quantify exactly how a borrower’s life has “improved” thanks to a loan. Our social performance measurement will instead focus on MFIs’ operations and their internal policies, to capture how responsibly they act towards their borrowers, employees, and the local communities they serve.
If you have any questions about social performance or the ideas behind it, please feel free to leave comments and I’ll try to respond. I will be one of the Kiva Fellows spearheading our new work on social performance and helping Kiva’s Field Partners to collect CERISE data, so I hope to comment more on this topic throughout my Fellowship. Thanks everyone-
James is a Kiva Fellow in Kampala, working with Kiva partners BRAC Uganda, MCDT SACCO, and Pearl Microfinance Limited. To support their work in Uganda, consider making a loan to clients of these field partners today.
Entry filed under: BRAC Uganda, KF11 (Kiva Fellows 11th Class), Micro Credit Development Trust SACCO (MCDT), PEARL Microfinance, Uganda. Tags: blogsherpa, impact analysis, James Allman-Gulino, KF11, social performance, Uganda.


1. Navigating the Social Performance Jungle « Kiva Stories from the Field | 7 December 2010 at 08:01
[...] poverty measurement, and microfinance. Also please see these great Kiva Fellow blog posts -1- -2- regarding social [...]
2. Debating the profit motive in microfinance « Kiva Stories from the Field | 2 November 2010 at 08:27
[...] First, Humo has a social mission that drives them to target rural areas, serving a population that often would not otherwise have access to financial services, and meeting the seasonal borrowing needs of farmers who are often excluded from conventional loans. A crucial element to ensuring loans are mutually beneficial is that both sides are fully aware of the terms of the agreement. To help encourage informed decisions, Humo has client protection principles and a code of ethics that ensure cost transparency to clients and incentivize staff to avoid irresponsible lending. This year Kiva began an initiative to understand and encourage the social performance of its Field Partners (two informative blogs on the topic were written by Kiva Fellows, Betsy McCormick and James Allman-Gulino). [...]
3. Behind the Scenes: Kiva in South America « Kiva Stories from the Field | 10 October 2010 at 11:57
[...] CERISE: for more information / para más información: Webpage/página web, Recent blog (August) / blog reciente (Agosto), Recent blog (June) / blog reciente (Junio) [...]
4. Evaluating the impact of microfinance….and a Rolex recipe « Kiva Stories from the Field | 6 September 2010 at 00:02
[...] This is an enormous question, and one that’s notoriously difficult to measure. In an earlier post on social performance, I mentioned some of the issues involved with trying to obtain such a metric (chiefly: it’s [...]
5. Magdalena | 22 July 2010 at 05:48
Thanks James for this great explanation and perspective on CERISE. I am updating the study which was done in my MFI a few months ago in the DR to the 3.1 version and I have found myself questioning the utility of this tool. Gracias and good luck!
6. What is it like being a Kiva Fellow? My week with 5 Loan officers and 100 Kiva Borrowers – Part 1 « Kiva Stories from the Field | 21 July 2010 at 15:16
[...] products and services, while providing benefits to clients and ensuring social responsibility. Read a great post by James to better under social performance at [...]
7. Eileen | 30 June 2010 at 21:47
Why not ask the borrowers themselves about how they feel their loans have impacted them? Despite how difficult it is to quantify the social impact of a microloan, there is use and value in asking borrowers to self-report intangible measures such as the impact a loan has had on their families, their communities, their self-esteem and hope for the future, etc. This subjective feedback would be a rich complement to the quantitative data that is already being gathered. Not only would lenders and investors be able to hear borrowers’ experiences in their own words, they could use this feedback to better serve their borrowers.
8. James A-G | 30 June 2010 at 23:50
Eileen,
Great point, and that certainly is done by a lot of MFIs; exit interviews are common and an excellent way to help get an idea of loan impact. As you alluded to, they are subjective and also mostly qualitative, so it’s hard to use them to get numerical measures of social impact across a wide range of borrowers; they can also be expensive/time-consuming to conduct. So I’d consider them a great tool to use, but just one that is part of a number of different means for trying to get a handle on social performance and loan impact.
9. Laura | 29 June 2010 at 15:50
I’m glad you are taking on this topic. I’ve been somewhat distressed by some of the press microfinance has been getting, but accurate information–whether good or bad–is what we need to make the impact we want to make.
Please give my love to the folks at MCDT! I think of them often.
Laura Toepfer (KF4–Spring 2008)
10. Measuring its Social Performance and Impact of Microfinance « Microfinance Hub | 29 June 2010 at 12:48
[...] returns to investors. The multi-dimensional nature of microfinance makes it harder to determine the exact meaning of ‘social performance’, and hence, we ‘deal more in anecdotes than data’ (Alex Counts, President of the Grameen [...]