Search results

The paper aims to assess the strengths and weaknesses of sustainable return on investment (SuROI) to determine it suitability as a means through which social value can be predicted in line with public procurement directives and the Social Value Act, whilst at the same time as fitting the developer’s business model and CSR commitments.

Using a multi-case design, findings from a comprehensive evaluation of three major housing-led mixed-use regeneration developments are presented. The three case study locations were selected on the basis of the developer’s strong commitment to place-making and social sustainability. Together with a strong strategic desire to reposition their organisation away from the traditional business as usual profit-led model.

Whilst the social return on investment methodology is applicable to the charity sector, its use in the built environment is highly questionable. When applying the model to the mixed-use housing projects, the authors identified a number of technical limitations to the model, inter alia a lack of suitable proxies and especially proxies relating to the built environment for the valuation of identified outcomes; the use of monetisation as a evaluating measure which did not support some of the more abstract or softer benefits identified; problems collecting, identifying and evaluating data to inform the model given the complexity and scale of the project; and significant time and expense associated with the valuation and finally the inability to benchmark the report on completion. These findings have implications for the social housing providers and local authorities looking to use SuROI to evaluate potential built environment projects.

The paper offers unique insights into the viability of using existing social value measurement methodologies. The paper identifies the significant limitations associated with the SuROI methodology.

To apply the social return on investment (SROI) concept to a case study based on the Furniture Resource Centre Group (FRC Group), a social enterprise based in Liverpool, UK, to satisfy a need for quality affordable furniture for low‐income households.

The nature of FRC Group’s business is discussed from the viewpoint of how it exemplifies Westall’s (2001) values‐led operation concept with four core values (bravery, creativity, professionalism, passion). Discusses the value of social enterprises and the importance of identifying their social returns as measured by the SROI approach, which was adapted by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) to take account of stakeholder engagement, materiality, impact map, and appreciation of deadweight. Reports on the action research based case study which explored the relationship between the social enterprise business model and the concept of sustainable development.

The results indicated that the SROI technique demonstrated many qualities of sustainability and, with stakeholder inclusiveness pivotal to the innovative process, it allows for truly connected thinking that reveals advancements in sustainable development.

Provides a stimulus for ongoing research and thought on the dynamic concept of sustainability.

To develop a model that bridges the gap between CSR definitions and strategy and offers guidance to managers on how to connect socially committed organisations with the growing numbers of ethically aware consumers to simultaneously achieve economic and social objectives.

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the theoretical foundations of corporate responsibility (CR) and proposes a new strategic approach to CR, which seeks to overcome the limitations of normative definitions. To address this perceived issue, the authors propose a new processual model of CR, which they refer to as the 3C‐SR model.

The 3C‐SR model can offer practical guidelines to managers on how to connect with the growing numbers of ethically aware consumers to simultaneously achieve economic and social objectives. It is argued that many of the redefinitions of CR for a contemporary audience are normative exhortations (“calls to arms”) that fail to provide managers with the conceptual resources to move from “ought” to “how”.

The 3C‐SR model offers a novel approach to CR in so far as it addresses strategy, operations and markets in a single framework.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how social capital is developed in a third sector organisation based in the north-west of England, a small food cooperative run by volunteers. Social capital comprises the bonds, bridges and linkages that hold together societal members, and it can be considered to be a precursor of economic capital.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews with key informants, observations and documents. Data were analysed using either a template or a thematic analysis to identify aspects of social capital development.

A model of the interactions between and within the three main stakeholder groups involved in the cooperative is presented. This model shows how these interactions can develop social capital, and it discusses how potential deficits in social capital can occur.

The findings have practical and theoretical implications, in that they may better equip third-sector organisations to understand how social capital is developed.

This is one of few practical studies of social capital development in a social enterprise and provides valuable insights into the processes by which this is done.

The purpose of this paper is to gain a greater depth of understanding of both the pressures and barriers for embedding responsible management education (RME) within business and management schools.

This paper utilises a longitudinal case study design of six business/management schools.

This research identifies a set of institutional pressures and barriers for RME in the business schools selected. First, the pressures appear to come from a number of external business school sources and the barriers from a series of organisational resource and individual factors.

RME cannot be seen as just a bolt on. The orientation needs to change to view RME as requiring a shift in culture/purpose/identity. Due to the barriers this will require systemic organisational change at all levels and an organisational change process to bring about implementation.

The results clearly show these market pressures are no passing fad. Failure to respond in a systemic way will mean business schools will run into serious problems with legitimacy.

This paper fulfils a need for an in depth study of a number of business schools to identify the barriers to RME. This is now a critical issue for schools and this research has provided a number of practical recommendations which will help business schools overcome the identified barriers.

A Process Model During the last five years, American businesses have increasingly accepted the notion that product quality is necessary for them to compete in today′s world markets. Product quality, in the context here, can be defined by an agreed set of standards and tolerance limits between the firm and its customers. Quality is achieved through the successful creation of form, possession, time, place, and quantity utilities for the firm′s products. Control must be implemented in order to ensure that these utilities are created to meet the standards and tolerance limits agreed upon by the firm and its customers. The purpose of exercising control is to ensure that desired results are attained from an activity or process. As such, it is important to exercise control over the logistics activities to make sure that time, place, and quantity utilities are created in accordance with customer needs. The purpose of this monograph is to present a rather comprehensive discussion of the concept of control. Specific control concepts presented include a discussion of the link between control and quality, the development of the characteristics of control and levels of sophistication of control, the presentation of an eclectic process control model, and suggestions to managers on how to implement the control process over logistics activities.

In her popular Development of Economic Analysis, Ingrid Rima writes early on of the “compatibility” of “emphasis on the state as an instrument to achieve socially optimal results…with what has come to be called social economics”. Subsequently (1978, p. 322; 1986, p. 396), she treats of J.M. Clark's “crucial” contribution to the development (1920s/1930s) of a new type of economics he describes as “social”. Similarly, George F. Rohrlich, in his 1970 introductory essay, “The Challenge of Social Economics”, wrote of “The emerging field of social economics”, and noted that “in the United States the term was used in the 1930s and occasionally thereafter”. More recently (1982), Samuel Cameron singles out Mark A. Lutz's 1980 USE contribution, e.g., for neglecting Charles Devas(op. cit., 1876–1907) “as a contributor to the founding of social economics”, while comparing Devas to “the modern social economist”.

In previous efforts I have dated the birth of (modern) Social Catholicism (alias: Roman‐Catholic Social Economycs) with the publication of the closely associated works of Charles de Coux (1832) and Alban de Villeneuve‐Bargemont (1834/37). If indeed (and without going all the way back to Jesus of Nazareth, via Thomas Aquinas, Jerome and Ambrose et al.) that be the case, and the implication of the present assignment be correct, then we should have to date the “birth of solidarism” in the Social‐Catholic vein identically. Undaunted by Gide's virtual declaration that “they were all solidarists then”, this is what we set out to show, viz. that our Solidarism did have its birth therewith.