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.

English social housing providers are increasingly turning to social impact measurement to assess their social value. This paper aims to understand the contextual factors causing this rise in the practice, specifically within this sector; the mechanisms that enable it to be effectively implemented within an individual organisation and the outcomes of successful implementation for individual organisations and more widely across the sector and beyond.

A realist theory-based approach is applied to the study of a small number of social housing organisations and leaders within the sector to explore the use of social impact measurement. The paper addresses three questions: Why is social impact measurement being adopted in this sector? How is it successfully implemented? And what happens (outcomes) when it is successfully implemented? Addressing these questions necessitates deeper insight into the contextual pressures that have brought to the fore social impact measurement within the sector and the beneficial outcomes the practice provides (or is anticipated to provide) to social housing providers. The methodological approach of Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997, 2004) is used to structure and analyse the empirical data and findings into a programme theory for social impact measurement. Realist Evaluation provides a programme theory perspective, seeking to answer the question “what works, for whom and in what circumstances?”. In this research, the “whom” refers to English social housing providers and the circumstances are the contextual conditions experienced by the sector over the past decade. The programme theory aims to set out the links between the contextual drivers for social impact measurement, the mechanisms that bring about its implementation and the outcomes that occur as a result. Within this, greater detail on the implementation perspective is provided by developing an implementation theory using a Theory of Change approach (Connell et al., 1995; Fulbright-Anderson et al., 1998). The implementation theory is then embedded within the wider programme theory so as to bring the two elements together, thereby creating a refinement of the overall theory for social impact measurement. In turn, this paper demonstrates its importance (the outcomes that it can achieve for organisations and the sector) and how it can effectively be implemented to bring about those outcomes.

Social housing providers use social impact measurement both internally, to determine their organisational priorities and externally, to demonstrate their value to local and national governments and cross-sector partners then to shape and influence resource allocation. The practice itself is shown to be an open and active programme, rather than a fixed calculative practice.

The intensive nature of the research means that only a limited number of cases were explored. Further research could test theories developed here against evidence collected from a wider range of cases, e.g. other types of providers or non-adopters.

The research makes a strong contribution to practice in the form of a re-conceptualisation of how social impact measurement can be shown to be effective, based on a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms, how they interact and the outcomes that result. This is of value to the sector as such information could help other organisations both to understand the value of social impact measurement and to provide practical guidance on how to implement it effectively.

As the practice of impact measurement continues to develop, practitioners will need to be aware of any changes to these contextual factors and consider questions such as: is the context still supportive of impact measurement? Does the practice need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the current context? For instance, the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower has led to a reconsideration of the role of social housing; a new Green Paper is currently being drafted (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). This may have a number of implications for social impact measurement, such as a rebalancing of emphasis on outcomes relating to environmental improvements, towards outcomes relating to the well-being of tenants.

Existing literature is largely limited to technical guides. This paper links theory-based evaluation to practice contributing to social housing practice.

The emergence of social entrepreneurship, since its nascent stage, brought to light the imminent need to make the social value creating models workable by measuring the value created by them. This study reviews the existing literature from the past two decades to establish the role of accounting techniques in the measurement of social value. Nine databases were searched with the word combination “SROI” and “social enterprise” to determine the number of publications related to the field and the trend in its publishing. A classification of themes from selected studies was conducted to establish the direction of research in this context. Social return on investment (SROI) has been tested as a compatible measure and its implementation in various scenarios produced results; however, the inadequacy of its outcomes gives rise to the question whether any measurement tool can be appropriate for social value measurement because there is a need to justify the measurement of social value. The current trends call for further research in the field of customized measurement tools for the measurement of social value.

Acknowledgement of the social impact created by organisations has become an increasingly frequent discussion among practitioners. The importance of such value creation cannot be understated, yet in an increasingly competitive funding environment, the need to articulate “true” value is paramount. The purpose of this paper is to examine how Australian and US managers of non-profit organisations (NPOs) and foundations view the measurement of the social impact of NPOs.

The paper includes 19 in-depth interviews of non-profit professionals in the USA and Australia. Respondents included non-profit managers, foundation managers and consultants in both countries.

The in-depth interviews found that in both countries respondents generally agreed that objective measures of impact are desirable, but recognised the difficulties in developing objective assessment frameworks enabling comparisons across the non-profit sector. These difficulties, as well as the implications for developing assessments of social value for NPOs, are discussed. This paper demonstrates that there is an opportunity to reposition reporting expectations. The NPO sector can pool together and build on each other’s strengths and market their outcomes as a collective entity. A sector-wide approach provides potential for much needed within-sector mentoring and will showcase the rich and varied outcomes generated by NPOs.

This research compares viewpoints in two Western countries, thus offering at least an exploratory examination of social impact assessment from an international perspective. Additionally, this research shows commonalities in terms of what is valued and what is most difficult for non-profits when determining social impact.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the interaction between mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosures of banks and the information content of corporate disclosures on firm performance.

Based on the US-listed banks from 2007 to 2015, this paper examines the interplay among the fair-value measurement, corporate governance disclosure and voluntary social responsibility disclosure. In addition, the paper examines the extent of such disclosure of mandatory items (fair-value measurement) versus voluntary items (corporate governance and social responsibility issues) on banks’ performance in terms of their return on equity and return on asset.

This paper finds that banks with a higher social responsibility disclosure score and stronger corporate governance tend to have lower percentages of Level 3 fair-value assets. Banks with a higher Level 3 fair-value asset disclosure have a lower financial performance.

This paper provides evidence of the interplay of various corporate disclosures by banks and implies that banks use fair-value measurements to disguise their poor performance. The findings provide insights for the policymakers, investors and regulators to assess banks’ disclosure.

This paper extends the study of banks’ fair-value measurements and is the first study to examine the interaction between voluntary and mandatory disclosures. This study sheds lights on the theories of performativity, agency and stakeholder by demonstrating the information contents of corporate disclosures on firm performance.

Despite the prevalence of academic literature debating and proposing competing conceptions of social value creation through socially driven enterprises, there is a lack of empirical studies on established impact measurement methodologies in the context of real-world ventures. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a structured process of conducting social impact assessments (SIAs) through the real-world case of Richmond, Virginia Works Enterprise Support (RVA Works), a social enterprise in Richmond, Virginia, that provides educational programming on small business ownership to minorities and lower-income individuals.

This qualitative research study incorporates an in-depth case study methodology. Evidence was collected through interpretive/qualitative interviews and direct observations by the researchers.

Using the example of RVA Works, the authors show that there is a lack of standardization and guidance for social entrepreneurs in choosing methods to assess their organizational performance, and that leading conceptions of social impact continue to face key weaknesses in their methodologies.

By incorporating a qualitative case study approach, the authors present a real-world study of a social enterprise – specifically a microenterprise development organization – that may serve as a valuable example to social entrepreneurs and not-for-profit leaders facing similar challenges of social value creation and impact measurement.

In studying the experience of conducting SIAs by social enterprises, the authors illustrate the real-world challenges faced by entrepreneurs in applying theoretical conceptions of social value to the outcomes of their ventures, thus illustrating a need for additional clarity and discussion around a more comprehensive, standardized and broadly applicable measurement approach.

It is well known that culture is a catalyst for change, helping economies respond to societal problems and demands and that culture is where people turn to in moments of crisis. In this case study around designing and implementing evaluation methodologies/frameworks for Coventry UK City of Culture 2021, it is suggested that in English public policy and within publicly invested arts there is a maturation of thinking around recognising/measuring the public value of culture including its social value. The purpose of this paper is to chart the recent policy of justifying cultural expenditure with social value claims and highlight challenges for evaluating activity within Coventry UK CoC 2021 as a change in wider policy is taking place.

This paper provides creative insights into the design and implementation of the evaluation methodologies/frameworks for Coventry UK City of Culture 2021. The authors of this paper as the collective team undertaking the evaluation of Coventry's year as UK City of Culture 2021 bring first-hand experiences of challenges faced and the need for a cultural mega-event to evidence its value.

The case study aims to address the concepts of measuring value within cultural events and argues that a paradigm shift is occurring in methods and concepts for evidencing the aforementioned value.

The case study within this paper focuses on the build-up period to the UK City of Culture 2021 year and the thinking and logic behind the creation of the evaluation/measurement framework and therefore does not include findings from the actual cultural year.

It is acknowledged that there are papers examining measuring and evidencing the “value” of cultural mega-events, the authors bring real-life first-hand experience of the concepts being utilised by them on the ground in the delivery and evaluation design of Coventry, UK City of Culture 2021.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and test the direct and indirect effects of utilitarian, hedonic and social values integrated into the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to achieve a deeper understanding of consumers’ intention to adopt mobile commerce (MC) in the context of a developing country, Vietnam.

Based on self-administered survey data of 382 Vietnamese consumers, a structural equation modelling approach with latent constructs is used to test the hypotheses.

Perceived values explain consumer attitudes, subjective norms and behavioural intentions in the MC context. In particular, they help to increase the explained variance of the intention to adopt MC by about 9.58 per cent compared with the TPB. Finally, a cross-effect on consumer attitudes from subjective norms is also found.

Future studies would benefit from investigating other variables (e.g. innovativeness or trust) and using actual behaviour (e.g. online purchases).

Business managers should pay attention to different forms of consumer values to understand how and why consumers adopt MC in a developing country.

This study fills the gap in the literature by simultaneously investigating the role of utilitarian, hedonic and social value in a TPB model in the MC context.

The purpose of this paper is to amplify the importance of social responsibility in supply chain finance to promote the “S” in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing and and highlight key methods deployed to quantify and measure social impact.

This paper provides an insightful exploratory study based on a framework for supply chain financing to accomplish ESG goals that is based on literature review, current policies and practitioner's observations.

With this paper, the authors have started the journey to discuss the importance to look at the social side of supply chain with a goal to attain and fulfill the ESG objectives and discuss different methodologies that can be deployed to translate qualitative information into quantitative data for ESG purposes.

The research focuses on the growing legal and regulatory focus on organizations to address the adverse impacts their supply chains have on environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) related issues. This research has brought in light methods to measure social impact within the supply chain that will help to accelerate the ESG objectives. A global lens will provide a holistic view of the ESG framework.

The social responsibility framework for supply chain financing and identified methodologies will facilitate managerial decision making that will expedite the integration of “S” in the ESG.

This research highlights the criticality of looking at social aspects in ESG. The research also presents a social responsibility framework for supply chains to accomplish ESG goals.

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of social return on investment (SROI) as a measure of the social impact produced by non-profit organisations and social enterprises that support family-centred care, an approach that focuses on the pivotal role of families in paediatric health care.

The study offers an analytical evaluation of the SROI created by the Italian branch of the Ronald McDonald House Charities and highlights (a) the participatory analysis of stakeholders and outcomes; (b) the measurement of inputs; (c) the definition of outputs and proxies for the measurement of outcomes; (d) the calculation of the SROI ratio; and (e) the results of a sensitivity analysis.

This study discusses the advantages and shortcomings of SROI analyses, the practical implications of this research on governance and management and the role of engagement in managing the expectations of stakeholders. The value of SROI measurements in shaping strategic and management decisions – with special emphasis on stakeholder relations – is also discussed.

Non-profit organisations and social enterprises often require tools that assess the outcomes of their activities. The present research can provide new guidance to SROI analysts, while drawing attention to the most suitable proxies and indicators for evaluating the SROI of organisations operating in the health care sector.