In recent years, the concept of Social Return on Investment (SROI) has surged to the forefront of social impact assessment methodologies, marking a significant shift in how researchers and practitioners evaluate the value generated by social initiatives. A groundbreaking bibliometric study, conducted by Gutiérrez-Nieto, Camón-Cala, Cuéllar-Fernández, and colleagues, delves into the evolution, scope, and intricate dynamics of SROI research through a rigorous and comprehensive analytic framework. This work, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, harnesses the power of citation analysis, co-occurrence, and co-citation mapping to unravel the complex intellectual landscape shaping this field. Employing VOSviewer—a sophisticated bibliometric visualization tool—the study sheds light on global research patterns, thematic foci, and emerging trends that define the state of SROI scholarship up until December 2022.
The study identifies a pronounced increase in SROI-related scholarship beginning in the mid-2010s, a period that corresponds with heightened global interest in socially accountable frameworks and outcome-based evaluations. By analyzing publications spanning numerous formats—including articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, and reviews—the authors chart the trajectory of SROI research from its inception to a peak period of accelerated growth. This temporal progression reveals not only the expansion in volume but also the diversification of disciplinary lenses through which SROI is studied, underscoring the multidimensional character of social impact assessments in contemporary scholarship.
Geographically, the bibliometric analysis highlights an intriguingly broad distribution of SROI research origins, emphasizing significant contributions from North America, various European countries, and Australia. This dispersed scholarly engagement signifies the global resonance of SROI as a metric that transcends regional and cultural boundaries, aligning diverse fields such as health sciences, social policy, and accounting. Importantly, the study notes a clear concentration of influential journals specializing in health and social disciplines, pointing to the interdisciplinary nature of SROI research as scholars grapple with translating qualitative social phenomena into quantifiable metrics.
Central to the methodological configuration of the study is the application of co-occurrence analysis, which examines how frequently specific terms and concepts appear together across the literature corpus. Such analysis unveils four dominant clusters that illuminate the thematic structure of SROI research. The first cluster orbits around accounting principles—highlighting ratios, monetary valuations, and financial assessments—reflecting the foundational desire to quantify social impact in economic terms. A second cluster focuses on social issues, including demographics such as women and families, as well as health-related dimensions, thereby anchoring SROI firmly within the social fabric it seeks to measure.
The third cluster reveals a concentration on methodological debates and reflections, encompassing theoretical frameworks, practical applications, measurement approaches, and indicator development. This cluster underscores an ongoing dialogue within the research community about best practices and standardization efforts necessary to refine SROI’s analytical robustness. The fourth cluster spotlights efficiency and strategic considerations, reflecting an orientation towards optimizing resource allocation and maximizing social value through deliberate planning and policy design. This diversity of clusters indicates SROI’s capacity to function both as a methodological tool and a strategic guidepost.
Tracing the temporal development of key research themes, the authors observe a notable shift from early explorations centered on employment, social enterprise, and knowledge management to more recent emphases on health and strategic management. The rising prominence of health-related terminology, in particular, suggests a future trajectory where SROI frameworks increasingly inform public health initiatives and policy evaluation, extending its applicability beyond traditional non-profit and social enterprise contexts.
Complementing the co-occurrence insights, co-citation analysis offers another dimension by mapping how scholarly works are cited together, indicating intellectual affinities and research communities within the SROI field. Three distinct co-citation patterns emerge: one encompassing social, accounting, and non-profit sectors; another centered on health-related research; and a third focused on sustainability concerns. This tripartite constellation reflects the multifaceted nature of SROI research, bridging sectors that address societal well-being, financial accountability, and long-term environmental and social viability.
Despite its comprehensive scope, the study also acknowledges inherent limitations stemming primarily from data sources and software capabilities. The exclusive reliance on the Web of Science database—while reputable—may constrict the dataset, omitting relevant work in less indexed or emerging venues. Additionally, attributing research origin based solely on the first author’s affiliation can obscure the collaborative and often multinational nature of contemporary scholarship. From a technical standpoint, VOSviewer’s effectiveness is contingent upon the integrity and completeness of input data, and its visualization-oriented outputs do not substitute for qualitative content analysis. The authors also emphasize the critical need for bibliometric tools to evolve continuously, incorporating emerging metrics and contextual information to maintain analytic relevance.
Notwithstanding these constraints, the study contributes valuable empirical insights and methodological clarity to the expanding body of SROI literature. By systematically quantifying citation patterns, thematic coalescence, and geographic distribution, the research equips scholars and policymakers alike with a more nuanced comprehension of how SROI theories and applications have matured. The findings also highlight knowledge gaps and trending topics, guiding future research directions and fostering cross-disciplinary engagement.
One of the most compelling implications of this bibliometric investigation lies in its illustration of SROI’s dynamic evolution— from initial theoretical explorations to a more applied focus enriched by strategic and sector-specific concerns. The identification of dominant research clusters elucidates not only what topics command attention but also how conceptual frameworks intersect, diverge, and coalesce within the broader landscape of social impact evaluation. For researchers, this means an enhanced ability to position their work within a globally interconnected knowledge network, while for practitioners, it signals emerging priorities and best practices informed by academic rigor.
Moreover, the visualization of term relationships and clusters reveals shifting research emphases, with health-related inquiries projected to ascend in prominence. This trend aligns with global challenges such as pandemics, aging populations, and health equity, suggesting that SROI methodologies could become indispensable in assessing the societal value and efficiency of health interventions. As strategic concerns grow, the integration of SROI into organizational decision-making frameworks promises deeper insights into balancing financial constraints with social imperatives.
The co-citation analysis further reinforces the interdisciplinary nature of SROI by clustering references into social-accounting, health, and sustainability categories. This segmentation reflects the broader intellectual currents shaping scholarly inquiry, where overlapping disciplines collaborate to refine tools capable of capturing complex social phenomena. As sustainability gains traction alongside social equity and economic accountability, the synthesis of these fields fosters innovative approaches to measuring impact that transcend conventional boundaries.
This rigorous bibliometric study, therefore, stands as a foundational reference for academics, NGO workers, policymakers, and evaluators keen to grasp the contours of social impact measurement. Its methodological transparency and expansive scope provide a replicable model for future meta-analyses, while its results inform the strategic evolution of SROI methodologies to better address societal needs in a changing world. The research encourages a holistic view of social return, integrating financial, social, and environmental dimensions into a unified evaluative paradigm.
In conclusion, as social enterprises, governments, and international organizations increasingly seek ways to articulate the value of intangible benefits, SROI is poised to become a cornerstone metric. The bibliometric analysis conducted by Gutiérrez-Nieto and colleagues not only captures the current landscape but also anticipates emergent directions that promise to make social impact assessment more precise, actionable, and insightful. By mapping scholarly activity and thematic trends with fine granularity, this study equips the global research community with crucial knowledge to refine, disseminate, and expand the utility of SROI, ensuring its relevance and adaptability for years to come.
Subject of Research:
Bibliometric analysis tracing the evolution, thematic clusters, and global research patterns of Social Return on Investment (SROI) literature until 2022.
Article Title:
A bibliometric analysis of the social return on investment.
Article References:
Gutiérrez-Nieto, B., Camón-Cala, J., Cuéllar-Fernández, B. et al. A bibliometric analysis of the social return on investment.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1189 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05529-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
