Social Outcomes and Impacts

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2019

Despite the importance of social impact to social entrepreneurship research, standards for measuring an organization’s social impact are underdeveloped on both theoretical and empirical grounds. We identify a sample of 71 relevant papers from leading (FT50) business journals that examine, conceptually or empirically, the measurement of social impact. We first describe the breadth of definitions, data sources, and operationalizations of social impact. Based on this analysis, we generate a typology of four approaches to conceptualizing social impact, which we use to organize insights and recommendations regarding improved measurement of the social impact of entrepreneurial ventures.

2014

We live in a world where accountability has become an institution and where what gets measured gets valued due to the increasing demands of stakeholders. The purpose of the hereby paper is to address change and the impact of change upon society. Whether the change is caused by social innovation, social entrepreneurial organizations or social responsibility actions, it translates into a modification in the status quo of the society. Thus, the discourse of our paper revolves around social value, social problem, social entrepreneurship and it connects them to the social impact they generate by presenting the methods used to measure this impact and their basic assumptions, who applies the methods and what are their effects. The methods for measuring the social impact found in the literature lean on quantifying everything in money and they also tend to overlook the importance of the psychological impact a company might have over its target clients. Furthermore, social impact is measured from the perspective of the companies and of the investors, neglecting the customers who are the target of the impact. Also findings reveal that there is no proper legislation to regulate this field and no specialized control bodies to oversee the activity of the third sector regarding social impact. We propose three principles underpinning our own social impact measurement model (sustainability, added value and scalability (spillovers).

Non-Profit Social Purpose and Social Enterprise Outcome Themes that transfer to Businesses , 2022

The attention cast toward social enterprise since the mid to late 1990s by private businesses, nonprofit human service organizations, and public sector stakeholders has driven interest in the best ways to measure social mission-related outcomes and whether or not such endeavors truly achieve impactful change. Little clarity from the methodological models has emerged to inform social mission outcome measurement due in part to the blurring of cross-sector principles underlying the tasks at hand. A barrier is that businesses engaged in social mission must make choices that redefine profit-making, and it is a rare case where nonprofit and social purpose organization (SPO) evaluation models trace whether or not and to what degree their efforts have led to the social outcomes they profess to accomplish. This essay depicts the compromises and accommodations leaders and decision makers among five case examples encompassing philanthropic, nonprofit human services and social service providers, government and business actors make in their social enterprise work toward social mission outcomes and impact.

Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2008

This article considers the methodological challenge of quantifying the social value generated through social enterprise activity. It argues that in the context of increasing enthusiasm for social enterprise as a mechanism for delivering social services and for tackling social exclusion, it is increasingly necessary to be able to value social impacts. Further it will be necessary to be able to assess the potential creation of social value from different investments in social enterprise. Specifically, this article considers methodology of social return on investment (SROI). SROI has become increasingly promoted in both policy and practice in the United States and the United Kingdom. This article considers the development of this methodology and draws on lessons from international development to highlight the limitations of the current use of SROI.

This article contains some recommended areas for research on social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, which can be summarized as opportunity exploitation, performance measurement, scalability, and multiple and conflicting logics. Research has a catch-up role with practice, as this field presents many opportunities f conceptualizing, theorizing, and finding systematic, empirical validation through case studies, surveys and other methods.

Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 2014

Abstract: We live in a world where accountability has become an institution and where what gets measured gets valued due to the increasing demands of stakeholders. The purpose of the hereby paper is to address change and the impact of change upon society. Whether the change is caused by social innovation, social entrepreneurial organizations or social responsibility actions, it translates into a modification in the status quo of the society. Thus, the discourse of our paper revolves around social value, social problem, social entrepreneurship and it connects them to the social impact they generate by presenting the methods used to measure this impact and their basic assumptions, who applies the methods and what are their effects. The methods for measuring the social impact found in the literature lean on quantifying everything in money and they also tend to overlook the importance of the psychological impact a company might have over its target clients. Furthermore, social impact is measured from the perspective of the companies and of the investors, neglecting the customers who are the target of the impact. Also findings reveal that there is no proper legislation to regulate this field and no specialized control bodies to oversee the activity of the third sector regarding social impact. We propose three principles underpinning our own so

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2017

Since the early 2000's there has been growing interest in using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) as a measure for assessing the performance of social enterprises. By analogy with its business counterpart, the Return on Investment (ROI), the SROI is a metric that compares the monetized social costs of a program with the monetized social benefits of achieving an outcome (or set of outcomes). For example, calculating the SROI of a nonprofit halfway house for drug addicts might involve estimating the reduced social costs attributable to successful rehabilitation of addicts, and comparing this to the social costs of operating the halfway house. Alternatively, the total return of a for-profit social enterprise providing affordable housing might consist both of the traditional private return on investment along with the economic value of meeting the housing needs of lower income households. Early descriptions of the methodology for calculating the SROI suggest that the approach initially evolved from standard methodologies found in the business finance literature for evaluating investments, with the important twist that nonprofit sector returns/payoffs are defined in broader social terms (Thornley, Anderson, & Dixon, 2016). Yet, someone who is familiar with the economic literature on cost benefit analysis (CBA) as it is applied to the evaluation of public programs cannot help but be struck by the similarity between the outcomes that CBA is intended to measure, and those that are the object of efforts to calculate the SROI. One implication is that the literature on the theory and practice of cost benefit analysis offers useful lessons about how to measure the social return on investment, as well as about potential caveats and limitations that need to be confronted when attempting to undertake an analysis of the SROI. The paper discusses the potential uses and limitations of CBA and SROI as tools that governments, private donor/investors, and foundations can use to help set funding priorities, and evaluate performance. It summarizes: (1) the conceptual foundations of CBA and its application to SROI analysis, (2) issues raised in the implementation of CBA and SROI in practice, and (3) discusses when CBA and/or SROI approaches are a useful lens for setting priorities and/or evaluating performance, as well as important limitations of such methods.

International Journal of Management and Humanities (IJMH), 2020

In this reality accountability has turned into an institutional foundation and measurement defines value as per increasing requirements of stakeholders. The motivation behind this paper is to address change and its effects in progress on a social level. No matter the harbinger of change is social entrepreneurial ventures, social innovation or socially obligated activities, it deciphers into a change in business as standard of the society. In this way, the dialogue of our paper spins around quality, social issue, enterprise and it associates them to the effect on social level they produce by introducing the systems used to quantify this effect and their essential reservations. The systems for measuring the societal effect found in the literature inclines toward measurement in monetary sense and it tends to disregard the significance of the psychological influence an organization may have over its objective customers. Moreover, social effect is translated from organizational aspects and of the financial specialists, disregarding the clients that are the object of the influence. Additional discoveries expose that there is no appropriate legal enactment to manage this turf and no specific regulatory frameworks to administer the social affect. Three standards are proposed supporting social effect estimation model (supportability, included quality and adaptability).

Chapter 1 gives a short introduction to the historical roots of the recent discourse on social enterprises. Based on these insights we discuss the background context to specific characteristics of contemporary social enterprises. The second part of the chapter introduces the social enterprises visited by the authors of this paper in mid-2014. These businesses give an idea of the diversity of social enterprises. Chapter 2 raises a number of basic issues for the self-understanding of social enterprises, and on various fields which are important for their success, especially considering the broad range of entrepreneurial and associational forms in which they work. This chapter takes up important points discussed in the literature on social enterprises as well. These are issues which will be raised in this background paper: • How social enterprises define themselves and their ethical foundation, • various economic issues related to the success of social enterprises (mobilizing financial resources, organizing the enterprise, creating social, political, and economic networks, and positioning the business in appropriate value chains), • the relation to the state, • their contribution to poverty reduction and inclusive growth, and • the complex problems of evaluating the impact of a social enterprise on social “change-making”. Chapter 3 introduces concrete questions about specific social enterprises. We illustrate how they deal with the challenges previously analyzed by providing concrete examples in the form of short focus statements, supplemented by some short explanations and information boxes where necessary. This demonstrates that various types of challenges are handled quite differently by social enterprises in different social, political, and economic environments. Chapter 4 gives a summary of the main conclusion of our analysis.

Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Solidaria e Innovación Socioecológica

Social enterprises from government, society, and financiers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their social impact. To do this, social enterprises need to implement social impact assessments in their organizations. It is noteworthy that there are many different methods and tools for impact assessment and measurement, which often make it unclear to social enterprise managers what is best for their enterprise. Also, many social impact assessment and measurement methodologies are complex enough and require specific competencies, time, and other extra costs. However, social impact assessment is an essential process, as it helps to build trust in these organizations by the public, state institutions and investors, to ensure the transparency of their activities and to meet their goals. Social enterprises are a new phenomenon in the Baltic States, so it is essential to clarify the attitude of the leaders of the organization to the social impact assessment and what practices they ...