Search results

The purpose of this research paper is to identify the impact of contextual and processual factors on the development, use and impact of performance measurement systems in voluntary and community organisations.

The paper reviews the applicability of business and public sector performance measurement frameworks to voluntary organisations. It presents the findings of a study through four case studies and draws conclusions on the impact of measurement systems in the voluntary sector.

The research identifies a low utilisation of performance measurement frameworks and discusses what systems are currently used, how such systems are administered and the impact of measurement on performance.

The evidence is based on four micro‐voluntary organisations that receive public sector funding. The findings are based on the perceptions of the organisations delivering the services and illustrate the relationship between the public and voluntary sectors. Further, cases utilising a range of stakeholders should be studied to examine the validity, reliability and generalisability of the presented results. However, given that there is practically no empirical evidence at all on this issue at present, the study provides useful evidence that can be further developed.

The research findings present contextual and processual barriers to measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of voluntary organisations. For performance measurement frameworks to support current practice, these barriers need to be recognised and addressed.

The paper highlights performance measurement implications for a sector that is unaccustomed to scrutiny. As little research has been conducted within this sector, these findings contribute to the body of knowledge.

As an emerging field of financing, impact investing is under-institutionalised and is in a legitimacy building phase. In an attempt to unpack how impact investing is deployed in global markets, the key elements of its definition (intentionality, returns and measurement) are examined through a review of academic and practitioner literature. A refined definition is developed which emphasises the key elements of intentionality and measurement as separating impact investment from the established field of socially responsible investment (SRI).

Funds and products from a publicly available database are systematically analysed against the refined definition to determine the rigour with which intentionality and measurement are applied by self-identified market participants. These elements are used as a proxy to determine “purpose-washing” – a process where funds are presented as impact investments but do not satisfy a tightly applied definition. Purpose-washing enables the possibility of “retrofitting”, where funds originally defined as other products (e.g. SRI) retrospectively claim to be impact investments.

Having found evidence of purpose-washing but not retrofitting, actions are identified to enhance impact investment’s integrity, focussing on intentionality, measurement and transparency. Clarity of definition and purpose are important for a field in the market-building phase, as a lack of clarity could have negative implications for integrity and growth. The authors postulate that purpose-washing may be attributed to twin but distinctive motivations by market participants: interest in fee-generation among fund managers and attempts to bolster field legitimacy by demonstrating sector growth among impact investing proponents.

This paper represents a unique analysis of impact investments against a robust and refined definition. By doing so, it offers a systematic appraisal of impact investments and an overall assessment of market integrity in its field-building phase.

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 develop a coherent and robust methodology for social impact measurement of social enterprises (SEs) that would provide the conceptual and practical bases for training and embedding.

The paper presents a holistic impact measurement model for SEs, called social impact for local economies (SIMPLEs). The SIMPLE impact model and methodology have been tried and tested on over 40 SEs through a series of three day training courses, and a smaller number of test cases for embedding. The impact model offers a five‐step approach to impact measurement called SCOPE IT; MAP IT; TRACK IT; TELL IT and EMBED IT. These steps help SE managers to conceptualise the impact problem; identify and prioritise impacts for measurement; develop appropriate impact measures; report impacts and embed the results in management decision making.

Preliminary qualitative feedback from participants reveals that while the SIMPLE impact training delivers positive learning experiences on impact measurement and prompts, in the majority of cases, the intensions to implement impact systems, the majority feels the need for follow up embedding support. Paricipant's see value in adopting the SIMPLE approach to support business planning processes. Feedback from two SEs which has receives in‐house facilitates embedding support clearly demonstrates the benefits of working closely with an organisation's staff team to enable effective implementation.

Some key future research challenges are identified as follows: systematically research progress in implementation after training for those participants that do not have facilitated embedding; to further test and develop embedding processes and models (using SIMPLE and other methods) with more SE organisations to identify best practices.

The SIMPLE fills a gap as a tool for holistic impact thinking that offers try and test accessible steps, with robust measures. The innovative steps take SEs through all key impact thought processes from conceptualisation to embedding guidance, feeding into business planning and strategic decision‐making processes. The comparison between the limitations of stand alone impact training and the benefits of facilitated embedding processes is instructive.

This paper aims to discuss the notion of social impact of social impact measurement in social enterprises by supporting the multiple-constituency theory as a contribution to this under-theorised issue. Moreover, the paper proposes the stakeholder-based approach as the most appropriate solution for selection among metrics related to the growing number of social impact measurements.

The paper proposes a review of social impact measurement studies by considering contributions from both academia and practitioners, while providing a reassessment and conceptualisation of this issue in terms of the multiple-constituency theory.

The paper criticises the “golden standard approach” to social impact measurement according to which social enterprises have to find one standardised metric capable of determining an organisation’s real impact. The golden standard approach promotes a more “political view” of social enterprises, according to which multiple stakeholders set performance standards based on their viewpoints regarding the measurement’s purposes.

The paper responds to the urgent call to define a theoretical framework that might guide social impact measurement, seeking to avoid the current lack of order and transparency in existing practices that could serve as a vehicle for camouflaging corporate social un-sustainability.

The multiple-constituency approach should discourage organisations from opportunistically selecting a social impact measurement with the sole purpose of proving a higher impact, as, within the proposed new perspective, social impact metrics are no longer managed independently by the social enterprises themselves. Instead, these metrics are defined and constructed with the stakeholders. As a result, social enterprises’ manipulative intentions should diminish.

By proposing a comprehensive measurement framework, this paper attempts to move the nascent body of theoretical and empirical work on performance measurement in social entrepreneurship ventures (SEVs) into reach for practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to help social entrepreneurs and academics put current knowledge to work to gain usable feedback about the success of operations.

This paper offers a framework for measuring firm survival, social action, and social change in SEVs based on a review of theoretical and empirical work.

Early work in SEV performance measurement shows consensus that social impact is at least as important as organizational viability, albeit more difficult to measure. The SEV measurement framework developed herein creates the link between firm viability (Survival), direct social action (Action), and long‐term social impact on the technical, political, and cultural aspects of society (Change) leading to the SAC framework.

The framework proposed in the paper gives practitioners a guide for comprehensive performance measurement based on their unique organizational mission using the SAC model. Widespread use of a measurement tool that addresses viability, action, and impact, may ultimately improve the efficiency with which SEVs attack social problems.

The social value movement emerged in the 1990s from a desire to demonstrate the value of investment in people and society. To demonstrate, evidence or proof is required, thus the focus on measurement is central to the social value movement.

In addition to measurement, understanding and valuing impact upon all stakeholders is a core theme of the social value movement. With measurement, it is more possible to see when an action has led to increased inequality or has negatively impacted the environment. With measurement, one can identify opportunities to improve societal well-being.

In procurement, thinking about impact from the view of all stakeholders will illuminate pathways to achieving maximum positive impact. The journey towards the goal of achieving maximum impact begins at the design stage of the procurement process and will be informed by stakeholder experience overtime.

We should be demanding evidence of maximum positive impact – from our governments and government-funded institutions, and from all corporations and service providers. Building maximum impact capacity among purchasers of services is equal in importance to building measurement capacity at the service delivery level.

The act of procurement offers a tremendous opportunity for positive environmental and social impact. Measurement will inform and guide us on how to maximise that opportunity. This is essential if we are to successfully repair and sustain the planet. Real sustainability requires us to address inequality and to actively improve well-being in order to meet the goal of addressing climate change.

Earlier research highlights the need for the welfare service sector to measure the impacts of their services. However, it seems that the welfare services lack measures to show their long-term effects and impacts. This paper aims to present a framework to measure the multidimensional impacts of welfare service innovations and report the empirical results from two case studies.

In the first part of the paper, the impact measurement literature is reviewed and a framework for measuring the impacts of welfare services is presented. The empirical part of the paper reports the application of the framework in two cases for measuring the impacts of interventions in welfare services in Finland. The aim of the case studies was to assess and illustrate the usefulness of the framework designed.

The framework proposed in the research may serve as a practical tool for decision-makers for assessing the impacts of different services and service innovations in the welfare service sector. This type of assessment is needed, for example, when new service innovations are designed and budgeted for.

This research introduces a framework for measuring the impacts of welfare services at different levels. In addition, the paper provides information about the measurement process and challenges related to the implementation of impact measurement.

This study investigates the use of performance measures and how performance measurement impacts performance.

This study was conducted through multiple case studies in a single organisation. Comparisons are made between performance measurement practices in comparable high and average‐performing business units.

The findings suggest that current research into the impact of performance measurement on performance may be too simplistic in its approach as much of the research relies on studying the physical and formal systems used, ignoring the types of factors found to be important in this study.

Being based on a single organisation, the wider applicability of the specific findings from this study should be questioned. However, if, as we suggest, the interactive nature of the use of the measurement system is important, future research will need to find ways of observing, measuring and quantifying this interactivity to allow a richer picture of the impact of performance measurement on performance to be developed.

The differences observed between the high and average‐performing cases was in the way they managed with the measures. Average‐performing business units used the performance measurement system as a simple control system, whereas, high performing business units were using the measurement system much more interactively.

This paper highlights the importance of using performance measures interactively and suggests further research into Simons' concept of “interactive control”.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the quantitative measurement tools used in fields of study related to coproduction, as an approach to mobilizing knowledge, in order to inform the measurement of impact.

An overview methodology was used to synthesize the findings from prior instrument reviews, focusing on the contexts in which measurement tools have been used, the main constructs and content themes of the tools, and the extent to which the tools display promising psychometric and pragmatic qualities.

Eight identified reviews described 441 instruments and measures designed to capture various aspects of knowledge being mobilized among diverse research stakeholders, with 291 (66%) exhibiting relevance for impact measurement.

Future studies that measure aspects of coproduction need to engage more openly and critically with psychometric and pragmatic considerations when designing, implementing and reporting on measurement tools.

Twenty-seven tools with strong measurement properties for evidencing impact in coproduction were identified, offering a starting point for scholars and practitioners engaging in partnered approaches to research, such as in professional learning networks.

Current quantitative approaches to measuring the impacts of coproduction are failing to do so in ways that are meaningful, consistent, rigorous, reproducible and equitable. This paper provides a first step to addressing this issue by exploring promising measurement tools from fields of study with theoretical similarities to coproduction.