Why Some Values Defy a Price Tag
- Albert Schiller
- Aug 19
- 3 min read
My Sustainable Encounter with Shashank S
In our increasingly metric-driven world, the impulse to assign a number to everything runs deep. From health outcomes to community well-being, the push to quantify impact often leads to attempts at financial valuation, perhaps best exemplified by concepts like Social Return on Investment (SROI). But can a price tag capture the essence of something priceless? Shashank S, whose expertise bridges the precise world of finance and the nuanced domain of sustainability, questions this practice.
Shashank expresses an apparent skepticism about the direct measurement of social investments in purely monetary terms. He states, "I don't think you can directly measure... the returns that you made on the social investments". He acknowledges that sophisticated calculators, combined with "vivid imaginations and assumptions," can produce a numerical figure. However, he argues these figures fail to reflect the true underlying value of the impact. The problem lies not in the arithmetic, but in the inherent nature of what is being measured.
Consider his analogy: giving two cents to someone who already has 100 cents might not make much difference. However, providing those same two cents to an individual who possesses only one cent would result in "the return would be huge, [as will] the satisfaction". This illustrates a core economic principle: the marginal utility of a resource changes dramatically with context. The satisfaction derived, the true benefit, cannot be reduced to a static monetary value.
This perspective challenges the conventional wisdom that all value can be converted into a financial equivalent. If the real impact depends on the recipient's baseline, how can a universal monetary value represent the social upliftment or environmental restoration provided? Shashank's argument implies that while a company may report a specific investment, the positive change it brings about in a community might be far greater or less than the numerical representation suggests. This qualitative aspect of impact, rooted in human experience or circumstance, often escapes the confines of a spreadsheet.
"The concept, like SROI impact assessment, will not work to a great extent. It's all just assumptions". This is because the valuation is inherently subjective. "My perspective would have been different. The person getting the benefit would have been different". A single number cannot encapsulate the experiences and satisfaction that a social investment might create. This forces a re-evaluation of how we assess the success of our most meaningful endeavors. What does "return" mean when it comes to improved health, cultural preservation, or the restoration of an ecosystem? It compels us to look beyond existing models and consider a broader value spectrum.
Yet, despite his philosophical reservations about monetizing the priceless, Shashank acknowledges the pragmatic necessity of measurement within the corporate world. He compares it to a doctor examining a patient: without metrics like "temperature, blood pressure, and sugar levels," a doctor cannot "prescribe the medicine". Measuring, he states, is of "great importance, and I think it is the first step... that people should take... towards sustainable goals". This dual perspective points out the tension inherent in sustainability efforts: while accurate social returns might defy simple quantification, the language of numbers remains essential for corporate engagement and progress.
He stresses that "unless and until you put a number to it, I don't think the world's corporations will take you seriously because you can't. The world runs on economics". This candid observation underscores a critical reality: for sustainability to move beyond theory and into actionable corporate strategy, it must speak the language of finance. Investors need quantifiable data. He cites the investment fund BlackRock, which stated that "climate risk is as good as an investment risk". This signifies a decisive shift, indicating that "putting numbers to sustainable... metrics and sustainable measures is the next right direction to go".
This concludes that the challenge is not to abandon measurement, but to understand its limitations and apply it judiciously. While not everything can be captured in a financial statement, specific metrics are indispensable for accountability and driving corporate action. The goal is to avoid the false precision of a single number, while still providing enough data to inform decisions and demonstrate tangible progress. It is about navigating that "gray area," where the unquantifiable human element meets the quantifiable corporate imperative. The insights of professionals like Shashank S guide us in this complex interplay, ensuring that our pursuit of sustainability is both meaningful and actionable.
So what can we take from his approach?
Questions for Audience
If traditional monetary metrics often fail to capture true social impact, what alternative, qualitative frameworks can organizations develop to genuinely demonstrate their societal contributions?
How can businesses be incentivized to invest in "priceless" social and environmental benefits, given that their core operational language is primarily financial and quantifiable?
Shashank cuts right to the paradox: numbers help corporations listen, but numbers alone can’t tell the whole story. His reminder that satisfaction, dignity, and context can’t be squeezed into a spreadsheet is a powerful nudge for anyone trying to balance impact with accountability.
Incentives often work best when they blend recognition with relevance. One route is policy: tax benefits or subsidies tied to social/environmental outcomes. Another is reputation: indices or certifications that give companies competitive advantage in capital markets. But perhaps the strongest incentive is cultural, when employees, consumers, and investors increasingly choose organizations that honor the priceless, the market responds.