1. Consideration should be given for the development of a commonly embraced set of standards and definitions of data to be a shared basis for discussion. Most likely, such a set of standards will need to be broken out by organizational type, program area and industry group in order to be most effective.

2. A common understanding with regard to language, terms and concepts could be created. At present, while the basic task is similar (i.e. exploring how to measure social value created by a nonprofit organization and that created by for-profit companies involves a large number of similar challenges), most of the discussion among those advancing this agenda takes place within individual silos each with its own language and jargon. This makes it difficult to achieve leverage off each other's work.

3. We should explore how best to work to create a practical data gathering methodology that does not place undue burden upon managers (whether for-profit or nonprofit) attempting to gather and track that data. At the same time, efforts should be made to ensure the methodology is capable of generating data that is sufficiently detailed for analysis and use both by internal actors and external stakeholders.

4. Actors could be convened to participate in discussions regarding how funding could best be provided to build reporting systems to generate and track the required data. At present, reporting systems are viewed as a form of overhead. While investors wouldn't think of providing capital to a firm without the capacity to report accurate financial data, investors (both market-rate and philanthropic) don't hesitate to provide capital to organizations without adequate (or any!) social reporting management information systems. Providers of capital must come to view the existence and use of such systems as a requirement of funding-yet they must also recognize there is a cost to the creation of such systems and be willing to help share that cost.

5. The process by which standards are set and reporting goals established should be one in which practitioners are intimately involved. The importance of "metrics" is not simply to assure investors that capital is achieving its highest and best use, but also to provide managers with the information they need to create more effective and efficient strategies of practice. In order to achieve this goal, data must be credible and useful to those in positions to improve practice and performance.

6. Reporting systems should be developed that build upon current triple bottom-line reporting practices with an eye toward assessing the "full" spectrum of both capital and organizational performance-economic, social and environmental. Too often systems are created with a bias toward one or the other of the three, but if we are to assess the full value of an organization and track the total returns of capital, the reporting systems we create must be up to that task. The time to embrace such a goal is not ten years from now after all the current systems have reached maturity, but rather today while there is still time to create systems capable of capturing the full value of the organization. While some may think this statement applies only to for-profit firms, it applies to nonprofit/NGOs as well. The day when nonprofit/NGOs can function in the market and not hold themselves accountable to the same performance standards we advocate for for-profit companies is past; NGOs create economic, social and environmental value for which they should be accountable and rewarded.