Search results

There is currently a wide range of methods for measuring social impact. Each method uses specific indicators, mainly because of the diverse characteristics of social enterprises (SEs) and the type of impact that is analysed, thus hindering the definition of a single, shared measurement system and, at the same time, prompting the proliferation of countless alternative methods. Many enterprises experience difficulties in selecting the best method to carry out the measurement process correctly. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to filling in conceptual gaps inherent to measuring impact and value creating in the domain of social entrepreneurship (SE), as well as equipping the social entrepreneur with better knowledge of the methodologies available for measuring impact and supporting their decision-making process.

The aims of this paper are, therefore, threefold: to identify the common conditions of how to measure social impact (literature); to analyse how measurement is actually undertaken in practice (process); and to compare the four main methodologies, among the numerous ones, that have been developed to measure the impact generated by SEs so far (methods and comparison). The authors compared four of the most commonly used methodologies in the field of social impact measurement, analysing advantages, disadvantages and application fields. They evaluated whether a method can be considered preferable to others in each case.

The paper demonstrated the high fragmentation that characterised the existing literature concerning the measurement of social impact and the wide range of methodologies used, thus leading to a great confusion in regard to the selection of the most appropriate methodology for the pursuit of one's own ends. This often discourages the undertaking of the measurement process. The analysis used in this paper leads us to conclude that the social return on investment method is more popular than the other three alternatives.

There are significant deficiencies in methodologies adopted, and researchers must use innovative, situated approaches that fit with the SE literature. The authors concluded that for the future, there is a need to do a SLR in a disciplined way. Further research is strongly recommended in this area, to provide more comparative studies of existing methods. It is hoped that enterprises can be directed towards using a limited range of formal methods that can capture the diversity of the various application cases, thus making it possible to compare different situations: a limited range of formal methods that can capture the diversity of the SEs considered and the impacts generated will be promoted.

The authors also want to analyse how the SEs concretely realise the measurement of their impact that often do not use the formal methodologies presented in the literature but rather tools created by the ad hoc companies on the basis of their specific needs.

This paper makes a theoretical contribution to the literature of the theory on social value within the SE field by having regard to how to measure social impact. It partially responds to Choi and Majumdar’s (2014) and Hlady-Rispal and Servantie’s (2016) calls for the development of a theory of measuring social value.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the changing role of governments promoting corporate responsibility (CR) as a result of the challenges raised by globalisation.

CR is linked to the restructuring of governments' agendas in the framework of government/private sector/civil society relationships. It is a result of the research project that applies the Relational State Model Approach to the analysis of CR public policies. The relational state situates the relations between the public and private sectors, between the state and society, in the sphere of co‐responsibility.

The paper concludes that in the UK a more systemic, national government‐centred and business‐oriented approach prevails, while Italy has a more extensive, multi‐stakeholder and multi‐level approach.

Future research should complete the comparative analysis expanding it to other European countries: northern and central European countries to analyse the difference between all European governments in order to promote CR.

The analytical framework of this paper could be used for academic, business leaders and policy makers to develop future actions in relation to CR public development.

The objective to be achieved is to understand the new political and public framework incorporating CR as a new form of governance. We compare two countries that represent two very different models of government action. The theoretical approach of the paper is based on the comparative analysis of CR governmental vision, objectives, strategies and internal government CR structure.

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement has gathered great momentum over the past number of years and is now regarded as being at its most prevalent. However, there has been a lack of attention to, and discussion of, CSR in Ireland and in relation to small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). The purpose of this paper is to overcome both of these research gaps and provide deep understanding of the nature of CSR in Ireland. Specifically this research aims to uncover the difference between large firms and SMEs operating in Ireland with regard to their understanding of CSR, the type of CSR activities undertaken and the management of CSR. In addition, this research analyses the barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR.

This paper reviews the relevant literature of CSR. Then, through semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with 13 firms, this study analyses CSR from both a large firm and an SME perspective in an Irish context.

This paper highlights the way in which firms operating in Ireland define CSR. It differentiates between the management and activities of CSR among SMEs and large firms and uncovers barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR.

It is hoped that this paper provides initial insights into the nature of CSR in Ireland.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the implementation of a defined competitive strategy – differentiation or cost leadership – brings about different value creation levels, where “value” is defined in a twofold perspective as “shareholder value” vs “stakeholder value” and “social capital”.

A sample of 169 European companies is investigated. Simple linear regressions and t-tests for the equality of means are conducted.

While no significant differences are found in the creation of value for the shareholders, firms following differentiation strategies generate considerably higher value for all the stakeholder groups than companies pursing cost leadership strategies. Results also show that size and reputational considerations play a significant role in explaining the different stakeholder value performances.

Some data such as off-balance sheet items could have influenced the calculation of the discriminant values for strategy classification.

Although the two groups manage to achieve comparable levels of profitability, the differentiators, presumably because of their structural outward-facing orientation, seem to be better positioned to meet the challenges of the next wave of growth, which resides in the substantial interconnection between economic and societal value. Companies need a better understanding of how the stakeholder value theory and social capital can influence value creation and long-term success.

In light of the importance of competitive strategy as a value-creation tool, the paper sheds new light on the relationship between competitive strategies and value creation.

This paper sets out to investigate the effect of differences in national cultures on the social and environmental performance of companies around the world.

Theoretical propositions on how the various dimensions of national culture influence corporate social responsibility are developed and empirically tested.

The authors propose that companies based in countries characterized by higher levels of power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance exhibit lower levels of social and environmental performance. Empirical tests of these propositions are performed via pooled ordinary least squares regression models using a novel proprietary dataset on 463 firms from 23 North American, European and Asian countries. Power distance and masculinity are found to have a significant negative effect on corporate social and environmental performance, whereas cultural differences with respect to individualism and uncertainty avoidance have no significant effect.

The potential contribution of this work lies in offering empirical evidence to test the widely held assumption that corporations' socially responsible behavior is influenced by the cultural context in their home country. The adoption and the external appreciation of this kind of behavior does appear to be contingent on specific dimensions of national culture, but not on others. Thus, positive social change through voluntary corporate action may be optimized via initiatives that build on specific cultural values in the relevant country.

This paper aims to offer the Italian Banking Association's view on corporate social responsibility (CSR) as the strategic management of a firm that is multistakeholder‐oriented and that is careful to produce value for all those with whom the firm has relationships and daily interchange.

The strategic approach outlined, which gives rise to a variety of activities in different firms, is shared by the banks that have worked on the subject. This contribution falls within the logical framework on CSR developed by ABI, interested banks, and stakeholders that have been provided, analyzing the central role of stakeholder engagement.

The paper presents the modular approach given to CSR and the need for integrating CSR into the “fundamental strategic orientation” of a bank, in order to mainstream CSR into the heart of business theory and practice.

The paper contains a brief reflection on stakeholder engagement, its main challenges and open questions. Finally some possible practical steps are suggested.

This paper seeks to demonstrate that a specific business/education partnership model – bridge to employment (BTE) – benefits society by re‐establishing the critical connection between academic achievement and practical application, i.e. the connection between the world of school and the world of work. Representatives of the corporation engage community stakeholders to identify opportunities in the schools where Johnson & Johnson support and volunteerism can help make a difference in the lives of young people.

The paper reports on an existing school to career program that was developed in the USA but has recently been adapted to meet the needs of Ireland's education community.

Past research has shown the importance of linking academic studies with real world applications to improve educational outcomes for pre‐college students. The BTE program has been shown to have positive benefits for students, schools, communities and Johnson & Johnson employees. In addition, BTE may provide a possible solution to the declining number of students pursuing health care careers.

This paper looks at a unique US‐based business/education intervention from the perspective of stakeholder engagement. Second, the paper provides an example of a US education model's application to a European Union context.

This paper aims to examine the strategic implications of stakeholder engagement in emerging economies.

The author examines a range of current theories that address the question of “why corporate morality pays”, most notably instrumental stakeholder theory. The focus is not on theoretical validity but the institutional assumptions that underpin the theory. It then compares these assumptions with the reality in emerging economies to challenge the universality of the theory.

Existing interpretations of stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are heavily influenced by the west and developed countries. Only when firm‐stakeholder interactions are overwhelmingly rule‐governed will developing a trustworthy and cooperative relationship with stakeholders result in competitiveness.

A warning to CSR managers and multinational corporations that pursue competitive advantages in emerging economies such as China and India.

A new, critical approach to rethink stakeholder management in a cross‐border/cultural context.

This paper seeks to explore the interplay between corporate social responsibility and innovation and questions the premise, often underlying EU communications, that the two agendas are in general mutually supportive. In order to accommodate a closer fit the paper argues for a dynamic reinterpretation of CSR.

This is a conceptual paper that presents discussions and conclusions at the theoretical level. It provides a brief overview of core parts of the CSR and the innovation literature and then analyses how the perspectives on the firm in these two literatures fit together. The final section raises normative and theoretical issues with respect to innovation and CSR.

The paper documents the difficulties of assuming that innovation policy and CR policy can easily be mutually supportive. While the assumption of compatibility and synergy may be reasonable for some types of innovation, and some types of CR, it can hardly be argued on a general basis. A core finding is the need to differentiate between complementary static and dynamic views. While much of the innovation literature is dynamic in its nature, much of the CR literature has traditionally been given a static interpretation.

The original value of the paper is that it highlights inconsistencies in the dominant static interpretation of CSR with important sides of the innovation economy. It also shows the way towards a more dynamic interpretation, but then also recognizing some of the important limits of CSR, even in a dynamic mode, calling for engagement from the state in certain types of industrial restructuration.

Examining a three‐year disclosure experience of a sample of Fortune 100 global companies, the paper aims to propose and test a model that relates the structure of CSR disclosure to corporate social performance. Based on the results obtained, it proposes to draw implications for emerging economies.

Combining content analysis of CSR reports and corporate social performance data, the paper built a longitudinal dataset starting from the population of worldwide companies included in the AccountAbility Rating between 2004 and 2007. Longitudinal regression analysis is performed on a final sample size of 114 firm‐year observations involving 38 firms over a three‐year period.

The paper finds evidence that the level of disclosure does not improve firm ability to manage stakeholders. However, a finer‐grained analysis of the structure of disclosure shows that better social performers are those who increased the breadth of their disclosure to stakeholders and uniformly distributed disclosure across stakeholders.

Results provide an empirical test for the theories describing true responsible economic actors as those who are able to combine high engagement with the social context of reference and balanced coverage of diversified interests. However, the study suffers the usual limitations of content analysis‐based research, as well as exclusively relying on CSR disclosure by large corporations.

Findings suggest not only the importance of structuring the report in a comprehensive way, and extending coverage to multiple stakeholders and related issues, but also the need for balance between informative needs, thus avoiding concentrated structures. Accordingly, companies that report on more themes, presenting a balanced and comprehensive product, develop a better ability to manage their stakeholder network, thus gaining higher corporate social performance.

The study seeks to revisit the relation between CSR disclosure and corporate social performance, answering the request for more rigorous measures. It goes beyond the level of disclosure as a comprehensive proxy of firm‐stakeholder dialogue and demonstrates how a finer‐grained analysis of the structure of disclosure can be a better predictor of superior performance.