Everybody wins? A discourse analysis of competing stakeholder expectations in Social Impact Bonds

Figures & data

Table 1. Press releases by country, issue and actor.

Country	SIB focus		Investor	Government	Service provider	Inter-mediary	Total
	Child/family	Homeless
Australia	3	3	10	16	10	6	42
UK	6	11	31	34	19	10	94
USA	2	4	22	10	8	7	47
Totals (29 SIBs)	11	18	63	60	37	23	183

Figure 1. The dominant discourses.

Table 2. Exemplar quotations of underlying discourses.

Discourse	Exemplar quotations
Social finance discourse
Innovative funding mechanism	‘This social benefit bond is an innovative financing solution … it is structured more like an actual bond, with capital protection measures in place to manage investor risk and rewards’ (Australia—Westpac—investor)
Build social finance sector	‘The launch of this SIB by Essex County Council is a major breakthrough and shows the potential for the development of the market in social investment’ (UK—Essex—investor)
Attracting additional/private capital	‘Now, with a new infusion of dollars and a new financing mechanism, the program will be scaled-up’ (USA—Connecticut—government)
Collaboration discourse
Cross-sector collaboration/partnering	‘ … public, private and voluntary sectors set to come together in UK first … it represents the broadest range of partners that have ever come together for a government-backed initiative of this type’ (UK—Manchester Housing—government)
Win–win–win Savings for government	‘ … the objective of providing cost savings to government … effective use of public funds’ (Australia —The Benevolent Society—government)
Flexible funds for service provider	‘Social impact bond (SIB) allows frontline staff to deliver only outcomes and gives them the freedom to tailor the approach to the precise requirements of the individual without encountering imposed and unhelpful output measures and contract requirements’ (UK—Manchester Mayday—service provider)
Financial returns for investors	‘[SIBS give investors] an opportunity to invest in their communities … with the ultimate goal of a receiving both a social and financial return’ (USA—Ohio—intermediary)
Impact discourse
Long-term/better outcomes for communities/people	‘This social impact bond is designed to provide better support to adolescents and their families on the edge of the care system’ (UK—Essex—intermediary)
Measurable benefits/ accountability /evidence/data	‘ … these service providers have an opportunity to have the impact of their services, validated by outside researchers in a randomized control trial. The study will also provide evidence of the effectiveness of these two interventions provided together’ (USA—Denver—investor)
Innovation in service provision (for example prevention, early intervention)	‘Massachusetts is on the cutting edge of efforts to end homelessness … away from overreliance on crisis health and shelters and toward more permanent solutions that provide the stability people need to end their homelessness’ (USA—Massachusetts—investor)

Table 3. Dominant discourses for different actors.

Discourses	Government	Intermediary	Investor	Service provider
Innovative funding mechanism	52%	18%	34%	24%
Build social finance sector	8%	0%	13%	3%
Attracting additional/private capital	0%	0%	5%	0%
Social finance discourse	60%	18%	52%	27%
Cross-sector collaboration/partnering	10%	27%	8%	21%
Win–win–win Savings for government	8%	9%	2%	5%
Flexible funds for service provider	0%	0%	0%	3%
Financial returns for investors	2%	18%	10%	0%
Collaboration discourse	20%	54%	20%	29%
Long-term/better outcomes for communities/people	17%	14%	16%	39%
Measurable benefits/accountability/evidence/data	2%	9%	7%	3%
Innovation in service provision (for example prevention, early intervention)	2%	5%	0%	3%
Impact discourse	21%	28%	23%	45%

Table 4. Dominant discourses during launch versus implementation.

Discourses	Launch	Implementation
Innovative funding mechanism	40%	21%
Build social finance sector	8%	5%
Attracting additional/private capital	2%	0%
Social finance discourse	50%	26%
Cross-sector collaboration/partnering	17%	0%
Win–win–win Savings for government	5%	8%
Flexible funds for service provider	1%	0%
Financial returns for investors	3%	15%
Collaboration discourse	26%	23%
Long-term/better outcomes for communities/people (solving a social problem)	18%	33%
Measurable benefits/accountability /evidence/data	3%	10%
Innovation in service provision (for example prevention, early intervention)	1%	3%
Impact discourse	22%	46%

Table 5. Dominant discourses in different jurisdictions.

Discourse	AU	UK	USA
Innovative funding mechanism	29%	37%	45%
Build social finance sector	0%	12%	6%
Attracting additional/private capital	0%	1%	4%
Social finance discourse	29%	50%	55%
Cross-sector collaboration/partnering	2%	22%	9%
Win–win–win Savings for government	5%	1%	15%
Flexible funds for service provider	0%	1%	0%
Financial returns for investors	20%	3%	0%
Collaboration discourse	27%	26%	24%
Long-term/better outcomes for communities/people	41%	17%	9%
Measurable benefits/accountability/evidence/data	0%	2%	11%
Innovation in service provision (for example prevention, early intervention)	2%	1%	2%
Impact discourse	43%	20%	22%