Empathy Under the Water Bubble

 

As someone who has studied Psychology and Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University, I am engrossed in the underpinnings of society and various manufactured bubbles we refer to as communities. And deeper, in that, how humanity is lost even amongst those who truly believe in humanity.

There is a woman I met in the spring of 2026. She is an empathetic person, an extremely empathetic person. At times it is excruciatingly difficult for me to listen to her beautiful voice and not think that her empathy is to her detriment. Her empathy is her strength. It is not an understatement for me to say, I will not be writing this today, if it was not for the chance encounter and honour of meeting her. Now it feels as though it was and is more than chance. She is deeply, to her core, an Empath. A rare quality to genuinely see in someone.

Our society has created bubbles within the areas we live, that excludes undesirable people and undesirable qualities within people. Empathy is increasingly becoming one of those undesirable qualities. It shows up in policy making and in everyday workplaces.

A simple example is access to water. Something I did not see until she showed me. She showed me how many spaces that the rest of us take for granted that have water bottle refilling stations are not friendly nor accessible to people who look and smell homeless. Many people in restaurants show hostility to those who look and smell homeless. For the rest of us who do not experience this hostility, we do not see it. Water is a problem of the developing world, not a Canadian problem, it is not a Waterloo Region problem, it is not in our backyard. She showed me, that the water crisis we donate money to everyday is indeed a local problem.

She showed me how our lack of empathy has created a water crisis for our friends and classmates that we played with as children. Those same friends and classmates that made us laugh, when the teacher was being too strict. Those same friends and classmates who made us happy, who gave us strength who made us who we are today, we now abandon and we refuse them access to WATER.

Most of us already know in the back of our mind that many of the organizations we donate to are merely selling us a product instead of committing to the good deeds that they place in their brochures. We buy the feeling of doing good. Those who are doing good are those at St. John’s Kitchen, who are handing out water bottles and feeding our family members who are in pain.

We are at the final examples I want to highlight. We went out to eat, nothing fancy, just fast food. Asking for tap water to avoid using a plastic bottle was challenging. The simplicity of the request and the conversation required to obtain tap water blew my mind. I will forever, be traumatized. At another restaurant she was charged for tap water.

The amount of work it takes to get water is immense. In another timeline, for suggesting, adding a water refilling station to my place of employment would have justified a meagre, thousand dollar bump to my end of year bonus. And for those outside of our privileged community, they have to stand and beg for money, so they can stand and beg to buy tap water. Never have I ever.

The moral of this story is not to fake it until you make it. It is common sense. The lack of common sense. Our gross ability to deny WATER to those in need.

Before she showed me these things, she told me stories of the depravity people experience. People being so deprived that they resort to drinking WATER directly from Victoria Park Lake. Drinking WATER from storm water management areas. Drinking water from places we would not allow our DOGS to drink from. It was hard to believe it, until I saw and experienced it. I experienced the best of it. I could not stand in the shoes of those who experience the average of it, let alone the worst of it. Now that pain of knowing how my peers from elementary school, summer camp, and high-school have been living, haunt me. I hope it haunts you to action.

Empathy Under the Water Bubble © 2026 by Delali Hotsonyame is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

 An Intro to Asset Liability Management in Regards to Social Impact Credits

My aim is to make this brief. Let us begin with our current understanding of market premiums when purchasing shares of companies. We employ ALM techniques to understand and quantify risk. The asset risk as we know can be affected by common expectations such as company x reaching quarterly sales targets or uncommon events such as an executive of company x deciding to publicly expose their political ideology or will towards managing a nations social services in a corporate fashion. The question is what are key factors that go into the quantifying the market premium on social impact credits(SICs).

The factors I am discussing here include, savings to society, and capitalization of development costs. I am leaving out tangible assets of a social development organization (SoDev) in order to avoid the expiring vs non expiring credit conversation. This discussion relates to both. I aim to stay neutral in this paper between the expiring vs non expiring debates. If you have heard me speak you probably know where I stand.

First of why is this conversation necessary?

Risk mitigation. When we all start on an even playing field we can avoid over speculation on SIC valuation. History tells us that each time a new asset class comes into play or a new industry that requires an alternative asset assessment methodology emerges a bubble is formed due to excitement and misunderstanding of the real factors which affect the assets’ market premium.

There are two key factors and recurring threads in the world of SIC research, expansion and delivery. The first is savings to society or the general economic impact. The short end of savings to society is simple. How much would society be spending if the actions of the SoDev never occurred, and how long will society be spending that amount of money.

When you assess in broader terms the general economic impact, you are then also bringing into view the larger picture on how the economy is impacted beyond the immediate direct public program expenditure. For example the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation commissioned a study on the impact of investing in early learning and child care. The report highlighted impact factors such as labour market participation, reduction in income inequality, and a decrease in the need for special education. The estimate was as high as for every $1 invested there is an economic impact as high as $5.8. And, that is part of the ROI when investing in SoDevs.

Now, lets move on to capitalization of program development. In short, think tech, think of developing a valuation on a technology application that has not entered into its first sales cycle. Here it becomes easy to see. We know that there is a high development cost and removing that development cost from product or service valuation will create disinterest in further developing technological innovation.

In the same vein in order to create better and more effective social service programs the same methodology that has kept developers in Silicon Valley and other tech centres around the world, building and creating mass amounts of economic returns, must also be attributed to programs that social development organizations produce. The incentive for a SoDev becomes, getting the job done right, and getting the job done effectively. This is a market approach.

Although I aimed to stay neutral in the debate between expiring vs non expiring credits, there are clues as to which system works better than the other when transferring an intangible asset created by a SoDev to a tangible asset that can hold liquid value.

The combined value of savings to society or economic impact and capitalization of development costs will provide that baseline number, that is required to understanding when a credit is reaching a state of being undersold or oversold.

Written by Delali Hotsonyame

    An Intro to Asset Liability Management in Regards to Social Impact Credits  © 2026 by Delali Hotsonyame is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of the Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of the Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations

Abstract

Canada’s not-for-profit sector delivers essential social programs that generate measurable economic value, yet this value remains largely unrealized within traditional financial systems. With thousands of not-for-profit organizations operating nationwide, the sector represents a substantial but under recognized contributor to Canada’s economic stability, social resilience, and long-term growth. This paper introduces a conceptual framework that addresses the mechanics of turning social programs into economic assets and proposes social credits as a mechanism for capturing and mobilizing the unrealized value produced by these assets.

Using a simple Social Return on Investment (SROI) program calculation, we estimated that the sector generates at least $8 billion in unrealized economic value annually. Using an exploratory case study the suggested figure may very well exceed $40 billion. We argue that recognizing and mobilizing this value could significantly strengthen Canada’s economy, enhance ESG accountability, and create new pathways for social investment.

The Waterloo STEAM Academy will like to work with a partner institution to create a Canada first formalized structure that not-for-profit and non profit organizations can utilize to turn assets into currency. In short the receiving organization maintain rights to further develop and administer their programs, while exchanging that balance sheet monetary asset for sponsorship dollars.

This will allow for the maximization of value per program and better incentivise corporate giving.

1. Introduction

Canada’s not-for-profit organizations play a central role in delivering social services, educational programs, community supports, and research initiatives. These programs reduce homelessness, improve mental health outcomes, support youth development, and strengthen local economies. Despite their importance, the economic value created by these programs is rarely captured in a way that reflects their true contribution to national productivity and social well being.

This paper proposes framing program assets as an asset class, social credits. When a not-for-profit designs and delivers a program, it creates a reproducible, improvable, measurable asset that generates social and economic value over time. However, because not-for-profits cannot distribute surplus as dividends, much of this value remains unrecognized and unused.

We introduce social credits as a mechanism for capturing this unrealized value and outline how SROI methodology can quantify program value in ways that support ESG reporting, impact investment, and national economic planning.

2. Background and Literature Context

2.1 The Not-for-Profit Sector in Canada

According to madeinca.ca, Canada has over 80,000 not-for-profit organizations. This amounts to a multibillion dollar social impact ecosystem. Statistics Canada in a report on non-profit sector contributed 216.5 Billion to the Canadian economy. These organizations operate across sectors including:

• Housing and homelessness

• Mental health and addictions

• Youth development

• Education and workforce training

• Arts and culture

• Environmental stewardship

Collectively, they form a critical part of Canada’s social infrastructure.

Part of the problem in quantifying the size of the social impact ecosystem is the use of terminology between not-for-profit and non profit. I suspect the program creation economics are similar if not the same.

2.2 The Problem of Unrealized Social Value

Traditional accounting frameworks do not capture:

• Avoided public costs

• Long-term productivity gains

• Community stabilization effects

• Inter-generational benefits

• Research and innovation outputs

As a result, billions of dollars in social value remain invisible to policymakers, investors, and the public.

Realizing the additional value creation can result in a significant boost in the economy via direct capital and the resulting social benefits they create.

2.3 SROI as a Measurement Tool

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is increasingly used to quantify social outcomes in economic terms. It provides a structured method for:

• Identifying outcomes

• Assigning financial proxies

• Adjusting for deadweight, displacement, attribution, and drop-off

• Calculating value created per dollar invested

SROI ratios commonly range from 1:2 to 1:4 depending on program type and population served. As institutions are beginning to grapple with this new asset class there is a need to standardize and understand the asset class.

Currently certificates of value are the norm. The issue of what becomes of those certificates in the long-term becomes questionable. Questions arise such as the tradeability of these certificates, and tracking. In order to provide sponsors of social credit surety asset-liability management and related modelling is required.

Whether or not social credits can be treated similar to stocks with a secondary market is a major subject matter that needs additional research. The potential for building an exchange with standardization is a paramount question. A clear recognizable exchange can increase the speed of adoption.

3. Conceptual Framework: Programs as Economic Assets

3.1 Defining Program Assets

A program asset is a structured intervention with:

• A defined logic model

• A measurable outcome profile

• Repeatable delivery mechanisms

• Rights of administration and advancement

• Long-term value creation potential

Programs are not one time activities; they are value producing assets. They are structured interventions with a clear goal and measurable outcomes with the ability to be audited.

3.2 The Not-for-Profit Constraint

We will explore the social organization constraint by looking at why a structured framework for defining and managing social credits lay within the difference in how a for profit corporation treats intangible assets, goodwilll and program assets versus the limitations of not-for-profit corporations.

Not-for-profits cannot distribute surplus as dividends

• Hold program value as equity

• Monetize program outcomes

• Leverage program value for investment

This creates a structural barrier that prevents the economic system from recognizing the full value of the sector’s contributions.

4. Methodology: Estimating Unrealized Social Value

4.1 National Estimate

Using a conservative average of $100,000 in annual social value per organization, we estimate:

80,000 organizations*$100,000=$8,000,000,000

Eight billion dollars in unrealized social value annually.

This estimate assumes minimal program output and does not account for high-impact sectors such as homelessness reduction or mental health.

4.2 Waterloo Region Case Study

A small exploratory study of five not-for-profits in Waterloo found each organization had over $500,000 in unrealized social value. This is merely based on a cost based valuation taking into consideration only the labour input.

If this pattern holds nationally:

80,000*$500,000=$40,000,000,000

Forty billion dollars in unrealized social value.

This suggests the conservative estimate may significantly understate the true scale of the opportunity.

5. Social Credits, Lets Define and Discuss the Mechanism for Monetizing Value Creation

5.1 Short Answer; What is a Social Credit?

A social credit is a documented, auditable claim on the economic value created by a program asset. It differentiates itself from equity, profit shares, and financial security in the fact that the program asset becomes a shared asset. It is a socially relevant impact asset. An asset that can be added to the assets of corporate entity, thus enabling the asset to be paid out as shares or leveraged upon.

5.2 Mechanics of Social Credit Issuance

The mechanics begin with program creation and delivery by the not-for-profit corporation and social organizations. Next is to define measurable outcomes within a standard SROI framework. The estimated economic value is calculated and a portion of value is converted into social credits.

Credits are then purchased by sponsors or impact investors. Organization retains operational rights and sponsors or purchasers retains the monetary asset value.

5.3 Benefits for Stakeholders

For not-for-profits and other social organizations there will be recognition of value created, new pathways for funding and a strong incentive to maximize resource use and allocations

For corporations they will have SMART ESG or other social impact managed by a trusted partner because of transparent reporting and verified social value creation

For Canada we will see increased economic participation, a strengthened social infrastructure, and a reduction of pressure on public systems.

6. The Numbers Game Revisited

6.1 Conservative Scenario

Capturing 25% of the conservative $8 billion estimate:

$8,000,000,000*0.25=$2,000,000,000

Two billion dollars in recognized impact assets.

6.2 Moderate Scenario

Capturing 10% of the Waterloo micro study’s $40 billion estimate:

$40,000,000,000*0.10=$4,000,000,000

Four billion dollars in recognized impact assets.

6.3 High-Impact Scenario

Capturing 25% of the Waterloo micro study’s based estimate:

$40,000,000,000*0.25=$10,000,000,000

6.4 Pulling the Numbers Together

Here I am playing with numbers. This is were cross collaboration is needed. We can see the potential is enormous. Having a clear picture of the potential will inform the speed of adoption and regulations.

As a side note, there are many more factors that add to the value of a social program such as the societal impact. The societal impact is a paramount feature because this also captures efficiency. For example if the current cost for our governments to sustain one homeless person is $40,000 per year and the social impact organization accomplishes the same goal for $10,000 they have added an additional $30,000 in value to each person in their program.

Now we can really start to get an idea of how large the social impact asset class can be. And how we can add incentives to bolster social impact.

7. Policy Implications

7.1 National SROI Standards

Canada would benefit from standardized SROI methodologies, sector specific valuation guidelines as well as the institutionalization of training and certification. A national strategy will provide procedural clarity via social credit regulations, and centralized exchanges.

7.2 Social Credit Regulation

To ensure credibility credits must be auditable. They need to have a direct link or certificate number corresponding to the asset created by the social organization. Certificate number or other identification will lend itself to preventing double counting. It will also enable transparent reporting. And, of course, third party verification must be encouraged.

7.3 Central Exchanges

Centralized exchange would be a major asset to the realization of social credits as a commonly accepted asset class. A central exchange can create a clear map to commonly used standards such as SDG indicators, GRI standards and various corporate internal ESG Frameworks.

A Canada first approach can lead to a global adoption strategy where local success can be viewed as a framework for other nations towards a goal of a single global standard.

8. Limitations

8.1 Efficacy Differential

Currently SROI relies on financial proxies that may vary by region and social organization. The discrepancy reduces trust in current programs. There is also the issue of monetization, not all outcomes are easily monetized and certain regions may see differences in the potential effect of the same program. An example is a fisheries focused re-skilling program for at risk young adults in Saskatchewan will not have the same benefit of having the same program in Nova Scotia.

8.2 The Opportunity

This is why social credit programs require careful governance and further research to normalize estimates and real value. The problem is also why the current norm of program value certificates is valuable. It maintains a record and data for asset-liability modelling and other economic modelling.

9. Future Research Directions

9.2 Research

Large scale national valuation studies. This is the big one. To create an auditable standard and centralized exchange confidence in numbers is required. The studies must have sector specific SROI benchmarks. And regional pilot programs to study efficacy and impact.

9.3 Normalizing Data

Economic modelling of long-term impacts. The main reason for normalizing data and creating mathematical models is to minimize or avoid the creation of economic bubble. The tasks required include asset liability management and related modelling, legal and accounting frameworks for social credits in order to create an integrated social impact investment market.

Conclusion

10. Let’s Get Moving

Canada’s not-for-profit sector produces billions of dollars in social and economic value every year. That value is largely invisible to the financial system. By re-framing programs as assets and introducing social credits as a mechanism for capturing unrealized value, Canada can unlock a new era of measurable, auditable, economically meaningful social impact.

Recognizing this value is not simply an accounting exercise. It is a national opportunity to strengthen communities, support vulnerable populations, and build a more resilient and prosperous Canada.

Written by Delali Hotsonyame

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations © 2026 by Delali Hotsonyame is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/