Advertisement

Social Impact Measurement as a Dynamic Process: A Study in a French Non-profit Organization

  • Julien Kleszczowski
  • Nathalie Raulet-Croset
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)

Abstract

Social impact measurement has become an increasingly important topic in the non-profit sector. In order to achieve this goal, new management tools have been designed and implemented by Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs). This chapter proposes a dynamic analysis of two social impact measurement processes implemented in a large NPO. We show that processes alternate steps of closing phases and opening phases, the former reducing the evaluation spectrum and the latter broadening the spectrum of evaluation. We argue that closing phases are a response to external demands for simplification, while opening phases meet internal forces for maintaining complexity. We then conclude that social impact measurement is in search of a balance between these two contradictory demands which plays a critical role in the design of the measurement tool itself.

Keywords

Accountability Action research Blended value Complexification Conformity Management tool agency Monetary valuation Quantification Representation Simplification 

References

  1. Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2006). Creative philanthropy: Toward a new philanthropy for the twenty-first century. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailin, M. A. (2003). Requestioning, reimagining, and retooling philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barraket, J., & Yousefpour, N. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baruch, Y., & Ramalho, N. (2006). Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, M. (1983). Une technologie invisible? L’impact des instruments de gestion sur l’évolution des systèmes humains. Paris: Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
  9. Bouchard, M. J. (2004). Vers une évaluation multidimensionnelle et négociée de l’économie sociale. RECMA: Revue Internationale de l’ Economie Sociale, 292, 59–74.Google Scholar
  10. Campos, L., Andion, C., Serva, M., Rossetto, A., & Assumpção, J. (2011). Performance evaluation in non-governmental organizations (NGOs): An analysis of evaluation models and their applications in Brazil. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carman, J. G., & Fredericks, K. A. (2008). Nonprofits and evaluation: Empirical evidence from the field. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(119), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chemin, C., & Gilbert, P. (2010). L’évaluation de la performance, analyseur de la gouvernance associative. Politiques et Management Public, 27(1), 55–78.Google Scholar
  14. Chiapello, È., & Gilbert, P. (2013). Sociologie des outils de gestion: introduction à l’analyse sociale de l’instrumentation de gestion. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  15. Chiapello, E., & Gilbert, P. (2016). L’agence des outils de gestion. In F.-X. de Vaujany, A. Hussenot, & J.-F. Chanlat (Eds.), Théorie des Organisations: nouveaux tournants. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley—Center for Responsible Business.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, T. J., Vansant, J., Stewart, L., & Adrian, J. (1995). Performance measurement: Lessons learned for development management. World Development, 23(8), 1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cordery, C. J., & Sinclair, R. (2013). Measuring performance in the third sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3–4), 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Costa, E., Ramus, T., & Andreaus, M. (2011). Accountability as a managerial tool in non-profit organizations: Evidence from Italian CSVs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 470–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. David, A. (2012). La recherche-intervention, cadre général pour la recherche en management? In A. David, A. Hatchuel, & R. Laufer (Eds.), Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion : éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management. Paris: Presses des Mines.Google Scholar
  21. de Vaujany, F.-X. (2006). Pour une théorie de l’appropriation des outils de gestion : vers un dépassement de l’opposition conception-usage. Management & Avenir, 9(3), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Materiality and space: Organizations, artefacts and practices. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability Myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper No. 10-099.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). Non-governmental organisations: Performance and accountability beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Intgrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frumkin, P. (2003). Inside venture philanthropy. Society, 40(4), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises a cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall, M. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hatchuel, A. (1994). Les savoirs de l’intervention en entreprise. Entreprise et Histoire, 7, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1992). L’expert et le système: gestion des savoirs et métamorphose des acteurs dans l’entreprise industrielle. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  34. Herman, R. D. (1992). Nonprofit organization effectiveness: At what, for whom, according to whom? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanter, R. M., & 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 non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 154–166). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Katz, S. N. (2005). What does it mean to say that philanthropy is “effective”? The philanthropists’ new clothes. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149(2), 123–131.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lemaire, C. (2013). Le processus de construction d’un outil de contrôle de gestion inter-organisationnel: le cas de l’expérimentation d’un outil de pilotage de la performance dans le secteur médico-social. Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, École doctorale Augustin Cournot, Université de Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  41. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  43. Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (Vol. 27, pp. 171–202). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacIndoe, H., & Barman, E. (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits exploring a multidimensional measure. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 716–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moisdon, J.-C. (1997). Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion: les instruments de gestion à l’épreuve des organisations. Paris: Seli Arslan.Google Scholar
  47. Mook, L. (2013). Accounting for social value. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.Google Scholar
  48. Moxham, C. (2013). Measuring up: Examining the potential for voluntary sector performance measurement to improve public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. (2011). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Riveline, C. (1991). Un point de vue d’ingénieur sur la gestion des organisations. Gérer et Comprendre, 25, 50–62.Google Scholar
  56. Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stievenart, E., & Pache, A.-C. (2014). Evaluer l’impact social d’une entreprise sociale : points de repère. RECMA, Revue Internationale de L’Economie Sociale, 331, 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teglborg, A. C., Gilbert, P., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2015). The management device in the blind spot to resistance to change. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 98(4), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wainwright, S. (2002). Measuring impact: A guide to resources. London: National Council for Voluntary Organizations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Kleszczowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nathalie Raulet-Croset
    • 3
  1. 1.i3 CRG, Ecole Polytechnique CNRS Université Paris SaclayPalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.ISG International Business SchoolParisFrance
  3. 3.Sorbonne Graduate Business SchoolParis Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations