Advertisement

Performance Measurement for Social Enterprises

  • Marika Arena
  • Giovanni Azzone
  • Irene Bengo
Original Paper

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, the issue of performance measurement in Social Enterprises (SEs) has gained increasing relevance among researchers and practitioners. From an academic perspective, there has been an explosion in methodologies and tools for assessing social performance and impact, but with little systematic analysis and comparison across different approaches. From a practitioner perspective, SEs need to start measuring their performances in a systemic way, in order to support decision making and ensure accountability towards their stakeholders. In this context, this paper aims to contribute to the state of the art literature by developing an approach that could be applied to/by SEs to measure their results with respect to social, environmental and economic impacts. The proposed approach consists of a “general” PMS model for SEs—i.e., the performance dimensions that should be measured—and a stepwise method to be used by SEs to develop their own PMS. For sake of clarification, the proposed approach is applied to the case of an Italian SE competing in the energy sector to develop a set of key performance indicators.

Keywords

Social enterprises Performance measurement system Stakeholder involvement Performance dimensions Key performance indicators 

Résumé

Les vingt dernières années ont vu croître la pertinence donnée à la problématique de l’évaluation des performances des entreprises sociales (ES) par les chercheurs et les professionnels du secteur. Du côté universitaire, nous avons assisté à une explosion des méthodologies et des outils d’évaluation de performances et d’impact sociaux, toutefois peu accompagnée d’analyses et de comparaisons systématiques entre les différentes approches. Du côté des professionnels, les ES doivent mettre en œuvre une évaluation systémique de leurs performances afin d’aider à la prise de décision et de pouvoir rendre des comptes à leurs partenaires. Dans un tel contexte, cet article se veut une contribution à la littérature portant sur l’état de l’art: il élabore une approche applicable aux ou par les ES, visant à mesurer leurs résultats en termes d’impact social, environnemental et économique. L’approche proposée consiste d’une part en un modèle « général » de système de gestion de la performance (SGP) adapté aux ES, en d’autres termes, les dimensions de performance qu’il faut mesurer, et d’autre part en une méthode pas-à-pas destinée aux ES pour leur permettre d’élaborer leur propre SGP. Dans un souci de clarté, cette approche est appliquée au cas d’une ES italienne œuvrant dans le domaine de l’énergie pour développer un ensemble d’indicateurs de performances clés.

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten 20 Jahren hat das Thema Leistungsmessung in Sozialunternehmen für Forscher und Praktiker zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. Aus der akademischen Perspektive betrachtet gab es einen wahren Ausbruch von Methodologien und Instrumenten zur Messung der gesellschaftlichen Leistung und Auswirkung, jedoch gingen diese mit nur geringer systematischer Analyse und wenig Vergleiche zwischen den verschiedenen Ansätzen einher. Aus der praxisorientierten Perspektive müssen Sozialunternehmen ihre Leistungen systematisch messen, um ihre Entscheidungsfindungen zu unterstützen und die Wahrnehmung ihrer Rechenschaftspflicht gegenüber ihren Stakeholdern zu gewährleisten. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte die vorliegende Abhandlung zur neuesten Literatur beitragen. Dazu wird ein Ansatz entwickelt, der auf Sozialunternehmen anwendbar ist bzw. der von diesen verfolgt werden kann, um ihre Ergebnisse in Bezug auf die gesellschaftlichen, ökologischen und wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen zu messen. Der vorgeschlagene Ansatz beinhaltet ein „allgemeines“Modell für ein Leistungsmanagementsystem für Sozialunternehmen, d. h. die zu messenden Leistungsdimensionen, sowie eine stufenweise Methode, die von den Sozialunternehmen anzuwenden ist, um ihre eigenen Leistungsmanagementsysteme zu entwickeln. Der Klarheit halber wird der vorgeschlagene Ansatz auf das Beispiel eines italienischen Sozialunternehmens im Energiesektor angewandt, das bestrebt ist, eine Reihe wichtiger Leistungsindikatoren zu entwickeln.

Resumen

A lo largo de los últimos veinte años, el problema de la medición del rendimiento en las Empresas Sociales (SE, del inglés Social Enterprise) ha cobrado una creciente relevancia entre los investigadores y los profesionales. Desde una perspectiva académica, se ha producido una explosión en las metodologías y las herramientas para la evaluación del rendimiento y el impacto social, pero se han realizado pocos análisis sistemáticos y comparaciones entre los diferentes enfoques. Desde una perspectiva profesional, las SE necesitan comenzar a medir su rendimiento de manera sistémica, con el fin de apoyar la toma de decisiones y garantizar la rendición de cuentas ante sus partes interesadas. En este contexto, el presente documento tiene como objetivo contribuir al material publicado de vanguardia mediante el desarrollo de un enfoque que podría ser aplicado a/por las SE para medir sus resultados con respecto a los impactos sociales, medioambientales y económicos. El enfoque propuesto consiste en un modelo PMS “general” para las SE, es decir, las dimensiones del rendimiento que deben ser medidas—y un método escalonado que deben utilizar las SE para desarrollar su propio PMS (sistema de medición del rendimiento). Con fines de aclaración, el enfoque propuesto se aplica al caso de una SE italiana que compite en el sector energético para desarrollar un conjunto de indicadores del rendimiento claves.

在过去的二十年,社会企业单位绩效评估的问题使得更多相关的研究在调查者和从业者中展开。从学术的角度,对于评估社会绩效和影响的方法论和工具已经有很多了,但是很少有跨越不同方法的系统性的分析和比较。从从业者的角度来看,为了支持利益共享者的决策和保证其责任,社会企业需要以一种系统的方式来评估从业者的业绩。 关于这点,此篇论文主要是致力于提高文艺文学的水平而提出了一种适用于社会企业在考虑社会,环境和经济的影响下进行测试绩效的方法。被提议的方法包括社会企业的全面的采购管理系统–比如,业绩标准应当被测量,以及社会企业要使用分段法来开发它们各自的采购管理系统。为了更好地说明,此提议方法被使用到一家意大利社会企业能源竞争的案例中,开发出了一系列的关键绩效指标。.

社会的企業 (SE) の業績評価の問題は過去 20 年間にわたり、研究者と実務家における関連から増大している。学術的観点からは社会的業績と影響を評価する方法論とツールには爆発的な人気があるが、異なるアプローチにおける体系的な分析と比較には関連がない。実践者の観点からすると、社会的企業は意思決定を支援して、利害関係者の信頼性を確保するために、組織的な方法で業績を確実にする必要がある。 このような事情から、本論文では社会、環境、経済への影響に関する結果を評価するために、社会的企業に適用できるアプローチを開発して、最先端の文献に貢献することを目的とする。提案手法は、「一般的な」PMS モデルと社会的企業すなわち実績範囲と、独自の PMS を開発するために社会的企業が使用する段階的な方法で構成する。明確化するために、主要業績評価における指標のセットを開発して、エネルギー分野で競合するイタリアの社会的企業のケースに提案アプローチを適用する。.

على مدى السنوات العشرين الماضية ، إكتسبت مسألة قياس الأداء في المؤسسات الإجتماعية (SEs) أهمية متزايدة بين الباحثين والممارسين. من وجهة نظر أكاديمية ، كان هناك أنشطة كثيرة في منهجيات وأدوات لتقييم الأداء الإجتماعي والتأثير، لكن مع القليل من التحليل المنهجي و المقارنة بين مناهج مختلفة. من منظور الممارس ، المؤسسات الإجتماعية (SEs) تحتاج لبدء قياس أدائهم بطريقة نظامية ، ذلك لدعم إتخاذ القرار و ضمان المساءلة تجاه أصحاب المصلحة.

في هذا السياق ٬ يهدف هذا البحث إلى أعلى مستوى من التنمية العامة من خلال تطوير النهج التي يمكن تطبيقه/من قبل المؤسسات الاجتماعية (SEs) لقياس نتائجها فيما يتعلق بالآثارالإجتماعية والبيئية والإقتصادية. النهج المقترح يتكون.

من نموذج نظام قياس الأداء (PMS) “عام” للمؤسسات الإجتماعية(SEs) - مثل أبعاد الأداء التي ينبغي أن يقاس - و أسلوب متدرج لإستخدامه من قبل المؤسسات الإجتماعية (SEs) لتطوير نظام قياس الأداء (PMS) الخاص بهم. من أجل التوضيح، يتم تطبيق النهج المقترح لحالة المؤسسات الاجتماعية (SEs) الإيطالية المتنافسة في قطاع الطاقة لتطوير مجموعة من مؤشرات الأداء الرئيسية.

References

  1. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, J., Brudney, J. L., & Yang, K. (2010). Introduction to the symposium: Accountability and performance measurement: The evolving role of nonprofits in the hollow state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alter, S. K. (2004). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC. Retrieved from http://www.virtueventures.com. Accessed June 2010.
  4. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arena, M., & Arnaboldi, M. (2012). Risk and budget in an uncertain world. International Journal of Business Performance Management., 30(4), 327–339.Google Scholar
  6. Arena, M., & Azzone, G. (2005). ABC, Balanced Scorecard, EVA™: An empirical study on the adoption of innovative management accounting techniques. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 2, 206–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arena, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). Process based approach to select key sustainability indicators for steel companies. Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 37, 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arena, M., Ciceri, N. D., Terzi, S., Bengo, I., Azzone, G., & Garetti, M. (2009). A state-of-the-art of industrial sustainability: Definitions, tools and metrics. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 4, 207–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bagnoli, L. (2009). Performance measuring in social enterprises. Second EMES International Conference on Social Enterprise, Trento.Google Scholar
  11. Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beckerman, W., & Pasek, J. (2001). Justice, posterity and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bengo, I., Mereu, R., Ramírez, C., & Silva, J. (2010). Participative methodology for local development: The contribution of engineers without borders from Italy and Colombia: Towards the improvement of water quality in vulnerable communities. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24, 45–66.Google Scholar
  15. Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. (2011). Performance measurement: Challenges for tomorrow. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 273–295). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Borzaga, C., & Santuari, A. (2003). New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship. In O. E. C. D. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector in a changing economy (pp. 31–59). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction and loyalty in public and non-profit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brignall, S. (2003). The unbalanced scorecard: A social and environmental critique. Retrieved from http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/the-unbalanced-scorecard-a-socialenvironmentalcritique-2943. Accessed May 2011.
  21. Briner, W., Hastings, C., & Geddes, M. (1996). Project leadership. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  22. Brugha, R., & Varvasovsky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bull, M. (2007). Balance: The development of a social enterprise business performance analysis tool. Social Enterprise Journal, 3, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bull, M., & Crompton, H. (2006). Business practices in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 2, 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cleland, D. I. (1999). Project management strategic design and implementation. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of corporation: Concepts, evidence, implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–117.Google Scholar
  28. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper, May 2010.Google Scholar
  29. Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management, 32(4), 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. EMES. (2008). Enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Working Paper n. 08/01.Google Scholar
  31. European Commission. (2011). The social business initiative: Promoting social investment funds (FSG). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2011/social_investment_funds_en.htm/. Accessed Dec 2011.
  32. European Commission—Enterprise and Industry. (2011). Social economy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/. Accessed Sept 2011.
  33. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard—linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  36. Haberberg, A., & Rieple, A. (2001). The strategic management of organisations, 74. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Harding, R. (2004). Social enterprise: The new economic engine? Business Strategy Review, 15, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hayes, R. H., & Abernathy, W. J. (1980). Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review, 58, 67–77.Google Scholar
  39. Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62, 712–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaplan, R. S. (1984). The evolution of management accounting. Accounting Review, 59, 390–418.Google Scholar
  42. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75–85.Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001a). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001b). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part II. Accounting Horizons, 15(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas, 17(3), 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keystone. (2008). Developing a theory of change. Retrieved from www.keystoneaccountability.org/node/115. Accessed June 2010.
  47. Marchand, M., & Raymond, L. (2008). Researching performance measurement systems: An information systems perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(7), 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marks, L., & Hunter, D. J. (2008). Social enterprises and the NHS: Changing patterns of ownership and accountability. London: Unison.Google Scholar
  49. McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodgar, B., Khan, S., Harris, R., Arnaudo, G., et al. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises: The SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5, 154–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  51. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: Financial Times Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  52. New Economics Foundation (NEF) (2007). Measuring real value: A DIY guide to social return on investment. London: New Economics Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.neweconomics.org/. Accessed Mar 2009.
  53. Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we?: ‘Blended value accounting’, social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nyssens, M. (2006). Social Enterprise at the crossroads of market, public and civil society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Nyssens, M. (2010). Work integration social enterprises: A European perspective. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgard, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Sociale enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social economy, solidarity economy. An EMES Reader of the “SE field” (pp. 277–284).Google Scholar
  57. Otley, D. (2003). Management control and performance management: Whence and whither? British Accounting Review, 35(4), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Otley, D. (2008). Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Polonsky, M. J. (1995). A stakeholders theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 10(3), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pun, K. F., & White, A. S. (2005). A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: A review of systems and frameworks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richard, O., & Johnson, C. (2001). Strategic human resource management effectiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryan, P., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Social Investment Task Force. (2000). Enterprising communities: Wealth beyond welfare. A Report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. London: Social Investment Task Force.Google Scholar
  67. Simmons, J. (2003). Balancing performance, accountability and equity in stakeholder relationships: Towards more socially responsible HR practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simon, J., & Barmeier, J. (2010). More than money: Impact investing for development. Washington, DC: Centre for Global Development. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1424593/. Accessed Nov 2011.
  69. Simons, R. (1995). Levels of control—how managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  70. Slack, N. (1983). Flexibility as a manufacturing objective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 3(3), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, P. (1995). Performance indicators and outcomes in the public sector. Public Money and Management, 15, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Somers, A. B. (2005). Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Svendsen, A. C., Boutilier, R. G., Abbott, R. M., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Measuring the business value of stakeholder relationships. Research paper from The Centre for Innovation in Management (CIM), Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  75. Thomas, A. (2004). The rise of social cooperatives in Italy. Voluntas, 15(30), 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thompson, J. L., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  78. Veil, C., & Turner, J. R. (2002). Group efficiency improvement: How to liberate energy in project groups. International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Young, D., & Salamon, L. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures, and for-profit competition. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria GestionalePolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations