Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Blended Value Accounting in the Evaluation of Socio-Economic Impact of Social Enterprises

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social enterprise has become a key phenomenon in providing public services in many developed countries. The debate on the evaluation of the socio-economic impact generated by this kind of organization has gone hand in hand with the growth of social entrepreneurship. This study provides an exploratory analysis of the emerging practice of measuring the socio-economic impact of social enterprises using the theoretic construct called “Blended Value Accounting” (BVA). Among the models and tools proposed by BVA, we examine in particular the Social Return on Investment (SROI)—an instrument of causal contribution analysis—conducting a literature review on its application to the evaluation of socio-economic impact of social enterprises and on its implications for BVA. Finally, we reach a conclusion as to the role that these tools of mixed accounting and assessment might play—particularly the one examined—with respect to the positivist, critical, and interpretative theories of accounting, thus identifying the areas for further research.

Résumé

L’entreprise sociale est devenue un acteur clé de l’offre en matière de services publics dans de nombreux pays développés. Le débat sur l’évaluation de l’impact socio-économique généré par ce type d’organisation est allé de pair avec une croissance de l’entreprenariat social. Cette étude offre une analyse exploratoire de la pratique émergente consistant à mesurer l’impact socio-économique des entreprises sociales en utilisant la construction théorique connue sous le nom de « Comptabilité de Valeur Mixte » (CVM). Parmi les modèles et les outils proposés par la CVM, nous examinons en particulier le Retour Social sur Investissement (RSSI)—un instrument d’analyse de la contribution causale—en passant en revue la littérature portant sur son application à l’évaluation de l’impact socio-économique des entreprises sociales et de ses conséquences pour la CVM. Enfin, nous offrons une conclusion sur le rôle que ces outils de comptabilité et d’évaluation mixte—en particulier celui examiné ici—pourraient jouer en relation aux théories positiviste, critique et interprétative de la comptabilité, identifiant ainsi des domaines susceptibles de faire l’objet de plus amples recherches.

Zusammenfassung

In zahlreichen Industrieländern spielen Sozialunternehmen inzwischen eine wichtige Rolle bei der Bereitstellung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen. Die Diskussion über die Bewertung der sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen seitens dieser Organisationen geht Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum des sozialen Unternehmertums. Unter Anwendung des theoretischen Konstrukts „Blended Value Accounting (BVA)“—die buchhalterische Erfassung des gemischten Wertes—stellt die vorliegende Studie eine exploratorische Analyse der zunehmenden Praxis der Messung sozioökonomischer Auswirkungen auf Sozialunternehmen bereit. Von den im Rahmen des BVA vorgeschlagenen Modellen und Werkzeugen untersuchen wir insbesondere die Sozialrendite—ein Instrument der kausalen Beitragsanalyse—und führen eine Literaturauswertung hinsichtlich seiner Anwendung bei der Bewertung sozioökonomischer Auswirkungen der Sozialunternehmen und hinsichtlich der Konsequenzen für das BVA durch. Abschließend gelangen wir zu einer Schlussfolgerung über die Rolle, die die Instrumente verschiedener Buchhaltungs- und Bewertungskonzepte, insbesondere das näher untersuchte Instrument, mit Hinblick auf die positivistischen, kritischen und interpretativen Buchhaltungstheorien gegebenenfalls spielen und identifizieren so Bereiche für weitere Forschungen.

Resumen

La empresa social se ha convertido en un fenómeno clave proporcionando servicios públicos en muchos países desarrollados. El debate sobre la evaluación del impacto socioeconómico generado por este tipo de organización ha ido mano a mano con el crecimiento del espíritu emprendedor social. El presente estudio proporciona un análisis exploratorio de la práctica emergente de medición del impacto socioeconómico de las empresas sociales utilizando el constructo teórico denominado “Contabilidad del Valor Combinado” (BVA, del inglés Blended Value Accounting). Entre los modelos y herramientas propuestos por BVA, examinamos en particular la Rentabilidad Social de la Inversión (SROI, del inglés Social Return on Investment)—un instrumento de análisis causal de las contribuciones—realizando una revisión del material publicado sobre su aplicación a la evaluación del impacto socioeconómico de las empresas sociales y sobre sus implicaciones para BVA. Finalmente, llegamos a una conclusión en cuanto al papel que estas herramientas de contabilidad y evaluación mixtas pueden desempeñar—en particular la examinada—con respecto a las teorías positivistas, críticas e interpretativas de la contabilidad, identificando de este modo áreas de investigación futura.

摘要

社会企业已成为许多发达国家提供公共服务过程中的一个重要现象。对社会此类机构引起的社会经济影响的评估辩论与社会企业家精神的增长密切相关。本项研究对运用所谓的“混合价值会计”(BVA)理论框架衡量社会企业的社会经济影响这一新兴做法提供探索性分析。在BVA提出的模式和工具之中,我们着重研究了投资社会回报(SROI)这一因果贡献分析中的工具,并对其在社会企业的社会经济影响评估中的应用及其对BVA的影响开展文献综述。最后,我们对混合会计和评估中使用的这些工具(尤其是我们研究的那一个工具)在会计实证主义、批判和阐释性理论中的作用得出结论,从而提出进一步研究的领域。

ملخص

أصبحت المشاريع الاجتماعية ظاهرة رئيسية في توفير الخدمات العامة في كثير من البلدان المتقدمة. لا يزال الجدل بشأن تقييم الأثر الإجتماعي والإقتصادي الذي نشأ بواسطة هذا النوع من التنظيم جنبا˝ إلى جنب مع نمو المشاريع الإجتماعية تقدم هذه الدراسة تحليلا˝ إستكشافيا˝ عن الممارسة المستجدة لقياس الأثر الاجتماعي والإقتصادي للمؤسسات الإجتماعية بإستخدام نظرية البناء التي تسمى “القيمة المخلوطة للمحاسبة” (BVA). بين النماذج والأدوات التي إقترحها(BVA)، نحن ندرس على وجه الخصوص العائد الإجتماعي على الإستثمار (SROI)- أداة لتحليل المساهمة الغير رسمية—إجراء مراجعة الأدب على تطبيقها لتقييم الأثر الإجتماعي والإقتصادي للمؤسسات الاجتماعية و على آثارها على (BVA). وأخير˝ا، نصل إلى إستنتاج بشأن الدور الذي يمكن أن تقوم به هذه الأدوات للمحاسبة المختلطة و التقييم—خاصة الذي يفحص—فيما يتعلق بالنظريات الوضعية، الحرجة و التفسيرية للمحاسبة، بالتالي تحديد المجالات التي تحتاج إلى مزيد من البحث.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock, P., Millar, R., Hall, K., Lyon, F., Nicholls, A., & Gabriel, M. (2012). Start up and growth: National evaluation of the social enterprise investment fund (SEIF). London: Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angroff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H., & Leat, D. (2006). Creative philanthropy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidson, M. (2009). Impact and evaluation in the UK third sector: Reviewing literature and exploring ideas. Working Paper 27. Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

  • Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2010). The ambitions and challenges of SROI. Working Paper 49. Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

  • Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprise. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernholz, L. (2004). Creating philanthropic capital markets. Hoboken: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertotti, M., Leahy, G., & Sheridan, K. (2011). To what extent do social enterprises measure their social and environmental impact? British Journal of Healthcare Management, 17(4), 152–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism: How the rich can save the world and why we should let them. London: A and C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Galera, G. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschee, J., & McClurg, D. (2003). Toward a better understanding of social entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions. Minnesota: Institute for Social Entrepreneurs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. (1993). The reforming organization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M. (2007). Balance: The development of a social enterprise business performance tool. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, W. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61(4), 601–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. (2004). Dissolving the public realm? The logics and limits of neo-liberalism. Journal of Social Policy, 33(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., & Samuel, S. (1996). Managerial accounting research: The contributions of organizational and sociological theories. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Anheier, H. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist. (2006). The rise of the social entrepreneur, 23, February.

  • Economist. (2009). Saving the world, special report on entrepreneurship, 12, March.

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: The Roberts Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J., Wachowicz, J., & Chun, S. (2000). Social return on investment: Exploring aspects of value creation in the nonprofit sector. San Francisco: REDF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazzi, L. (2012). Social enterprises, models of governance and the production of welfare services. ‘Public Management Review’, 14(3), 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flockhart, A. (2005). The use of social return on investment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) to bridge the financial credibility gap. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gair, C. (2009). SROI II: A call to action for next generation SROI. San Francisco, CA: REDF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambling, T., Jones, R., & Karim, R. (1993). Credible organizations: Self regulation vs. external standard setting in Islamic banks and English charities. Financial Accountability and Management, 9(3), 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, R. (2004). Social enterprise: The new economic engine? Business Strategy Review, 15(4), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, T., & Houghton, G. (2007). Assessing the economic and social impact of social enterprise: Feasibility report. Centre for City and Regional Studies: University of Hull.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. (1978). Towards an organizational perspective for the study of accounting and information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(3), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D. (2000). Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: Theory, experience and better practice. World Development, 28(1), 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, A. (2003). Attribution and aid evaluation in international development: A literature review. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, A. (2006). Helping people is difficult: Growth and performance in social enterprises working for international relief and development. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, P. (2005). Governance and accountability of environmental NGOs. Environmental Science and Policy, 8(5), 515–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, R. (2006). Venture philanthropy: The evolution of high engagement philanthropy in Europe. Oxford, UK: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter Moss, R., & Summers, V. D. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in non-profit organizations and the need for a multiple constituency approach. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (2000). Measuring the performance of voluntary organizations. Public Management, 2(1), 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottak, C. P. (1985). When people don’t come first: Some sociological lessons from completed projects. In M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting people first. New York/London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, R. (1999). Critical accounting: Nature, progress and prognosis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(1), 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F., & Vaessen, J. (2009). Impact evaluations and development: NoNIE guidance on impact evaluation. Washington DC: The Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeGrand, J. (2003). Motivation, agency, and public policy: Of knights and knaves, pawns and queens. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2004). The third sector, the state and the European union. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004). Guidelines for social return on investment. California Management Review, 46(3), 116–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Scott, W. (1992). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2012). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement. Public Management Review. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.698857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. B. (1995). Impact analysis for program evaluation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mook, L., Quarter, J., & Richmond, B. J. (2007). What counts: Social accounting for nonprofits and cooperatives. Cambridge: Sigel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mook, L., Quarter, J., & Ryan, S. (2012). Business with a difference: Balancing the social and the economic. Toronto: Scholarly Publishing Division, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A. (1998). Performance measurement: Why, what and how. London: Economist Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Network, S. R. O. I. (2011). Guide du retour social sur investissement (SROI). Cergy-Pontoise: Les Cahiers de l’Institut de l’Innovation et de l’Entrepreneuriat Social-ESSEC IIES.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Economics Foundation (NEF). (2004). Social return on investment: Valuing what matters. London: New Economics Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Economics Foundation (NEF) and Cabinet Office. (2009). A guide to social return on investment. London: Society Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Philanthropy Capital. (2010). Social return on investment. Position paper. London: New Philanthropy Capital.

  • Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. In D. Jones-Evans & S. Carter (Eds.), Enterprise and small business: Principles, practice and policy. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. (2007). Why measuring and communicating social value can help social enterprise become more competitive. London: Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we?: ‘Blended value accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A., & Cho, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NONIE The Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation-Subgroup 2. (2008). Impact evaluation guidance. NONIE impact evaluation guidance. Washington DC: NONIE.

  • Nyssens, M. (2006). Social enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Third Sector. (2009). A guide to social return on investment. London: Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, S., & Lingane, A. (2003). Social return on investment: Standard guidelines. Berkeley CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, P., & Vinten, G. (1998). Accounting, auditing and regulating charities towards a theoretical underpinning. Managerial Auditing Journal, 13(6), 346–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Social enterprises: Diversity and dynamics, contexts and contributions. A research monograph. Cardiff: ESRC Centre for Business Relationships.

  • Potter, C. (2006). Program evaluation. In M. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Cape Town: UCT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1994a). The audit society. In A. Hopwood & P. Miller (Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1994b). The audit explosion. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M., & Laughlin, R. (1996). Habermas, law and accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(5), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • REDF-Roberts Enterprise Development Fund. (2000). SROI methodology. San Francisco, CA: REDF.

    Google Scholar 

  • REDF-Roberts Enterprise Development Fund. (2009). SROI Act II: A call to action for next generation SROI. San Francisco, CA: REDF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley Duff, R., Seamour, P., & Bull, M. (2011). Measuring social outcomes and impacts. In R. Ridley Duff & M. Bull (Eds.), Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotheroe, N., & Richards, A. (2007). Social return on investment and social enterprise: Transparent accountability for sustainable development. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, P. W., & Lyne, I. (2008). Social enterprise and the measurement of social value: Methodological issues with the calculation and application of the social return on investment. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(3), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, B., Scapens, R. W., & Theobald, M. (2002). Research method & methodology in finance & accounting. London: Thomsom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, N. K. (1997). Defining the non-profit sector. A cross national analysis. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmen, L., & Kane, E. (2006). Bridging diversity. Participatory learning for responsive development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scholten, P., Nicholls, J., Olsen, S., & Galimidi, B. (2006). SROI. A guide to social return on investment. Amstelveen: Lenthe Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Enterprise Partnership UK. (2003). SEP project overview. London: Social Enterprise Partnership UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Ventures Australia (SVA) Consulting. (2012). Social return on investment, lessons learned in Australia, investing in impact partnership. Sydney: SVA Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 517–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. (2004). Performance measurement, reporting and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. Public policy paper series (23). Saskatoon, SK: The Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, J., & Wright, V. (Eds.). (1988). The politics of privatization in Western Europe. London: Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Working Paper 3. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (2010). A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation. Evaluation, 16(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, G. (1986). Financial accounting theory: An over-view. The British Accounting Review, 18(1), 4–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zald, M., & Davis, G. (2005). Social change, social theory, and the convergence of movements and organizations. In G. Davis, D. McAdam, W. Scott, & M. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, J., & Stevens, B. (2006). The use of performance measurement in south carolina nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(3), 315–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Manetti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manetti, G. The Role of Blended Value Accounting in the Evaluation of Socio-Economic Impact of Social Enterprises. Voluntas 25, 443–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9346-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9346-1

Keywords

Navigation