Keywords

5.1 Introduction

‘Civil society’ is a term increasingly used to refer to social institutions outside of the confines of households, the market and the state. Such social institutions are typically characterised by varying degrees of self-governance, voluntarism, and not-for-profit operation (Salamon et al., 1999). Civil society includes a wide range of voluntary, social and community organisations including charities, social and sports clubs, political parties, religious bodies amongst others (see Table 5.2). These civil society organisations (CSOs) often play an integral role in rural society providing an important underlying social fabric in a community and addressing issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the market or state. Like commercial and indeed government institutions, digital technologies have the potential to transform organisational capacity and stakeholder engagement in and with civil society institutions yet CSOs are rarely included in indices seeking to measure digital progress in society.

The remainder of this chapter defines civil society and discusses the role of CSOs in the context of rural communities. The opportunities and challenges for the digital transformation of CSOs are then discussed followed by a discussion of extant attempts to measure digital adoption and use by civil society.

5.2 Defining Civil Society

‘The Third Sector’, ‘the independent sector’, ‘the nonprofit sector’, and CSOs are just a few of the terms used loosely to refer to civil society (United Nations, 2003). In many respects there are broad and narrow perspectives to defining civil society. Anheier et al. (2001, p. 21) define civil society as:

the sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and individuals located between the family, the state, and the market and operating beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies.

In this respect, they conceive civil society as a broad, global and somewhat abstract concept, which has been critiqued as lacking in rigor and precision (Taylor, 2002). In contrast, Salamon and Anheier (1998, p. 216) define civil society as a collection of entities that share five characteristics:

  • organisations, i.e., institutionalised to some meaningful extent;

  • private, i.e., institutionally separate from government;

  • non-profit -distributing, i.e., not returning profits generated to their owners or directors;

  • self-governing, i.e., equipped to control their own activities; and,

  • voluntary, i.e., involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation.

While providing specific criteria for inclusion in a civic society or nonprofit ‘sector’, this definition is also sufficiently broad. As such, it encapsulates a wide range of organisations including those involved in culture and recreation, education and research, health, social services, education, environmental protection and conservation, human rights advocacy, religion, and politics, amongst others. Furthermore, as an operational definition, it clearly distinguishes between households, the market, and the private sector, the other three economic units defined in the System of National Accounts by the United Nations (United Nations, 2003). Internationally, civil society both varies in presence, composition, financing and scale with specific CSO categories more or less prominent depending on context (Salamon et al., 1999). Notwithstanding this, education and research, health, social service, and culture and recreation are historically dominant in most countries (Salamon et al., 1999; Indecon, 2018). Given that many of these activity categories are influenced by government, Salamon et al.’s (1999) five defining organisational characteristics serve to distinguish CSOs from facilities and services provided from entities other than households, the market or the state.

5.3 The Role of Civil Society

A number of theories have been posited to explain the pattern of civil society growth in a given region (Salamon, 1999). These are summarised in Table 5.1. Although the most common and prevalent theory is the market failure/government failure theory, it does not fully explain the patterns for growth although the remaining anomalies can be explained by a combination of other theories, namely supply-side and social origins theory (Salamon, 1999).

Table 5.1 Major theories explaining the presence of civil society institutions (Salamon et al., 1999)
Full size table

At a practical level, civil society institutions play a number of important roles. Firstly, CSOs play an important role in the context of society. They play a key role in not only encouraging community involvement but promoting citizenship values, skills and attitudes and motivating citizens to use in the public interest (Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). Secondly, they play a representative and contestory role for presenting and advocating distinct interests and diverse points of view (Ben-Ner & Van Hoomissen, 1992; Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). Thirdly, they perform a variety of public and quasi-public functions through service delivery (Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). These roles are reflected in the wide range of activities they perform and are summarised in Table 5.2. As discussed, education and research, health, social service, and culture and recreation are historically dominant CSO activities in most countries (Salamon et al., 1999; Indecon, 2018).

Table 5.2 Civil society organisations and activities (adapted from Salamon et al. (1999) and ISIC (United Nations, 2008))
Full size table

Secondly, the nonprofit sector is a significant employer. For example, recent data suggests that the sector is the third largest employer in the US with 12.5 million paid workers (Salamon & Newhouse, 2020). Similarly, in Europe the sector employs 28.3 million full-time equivalent (FTE) workers (paid and volunteer) in the EU28+ countries, accounting for c. 13% of the European workforce (Salamon & Sokowlowski, 2018). Thirdly, in addition to social impacts and employment, these institutions create significant economic value through expenditure. Even in relatively small countries the impact can be significant. For example, a recent report on the social and economic impact of the nonprofit sector in Ireland estimated that charities in Ireland resulted in direct, indirect and induced expenditure of €24.98 billion in 2017 (Indecon, 2020). Significantly, the economic value of volunteering alone was estimated at €649 million per year driven by more than 300,000 volunteers working over 67 million hours in 2017 (Indecon, 2020).

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the nonprofit sector. As well as rising demand for services pre-pandemic, CSOs have experienced an increase and intensification of demand resulting from the pandemic (Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020). Service delivery and fundraising were adversely impacted by increased demands from other service closures and exacerbated by social distancing requirements (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021). Unsurprisingly, many CSOs have had to reduce their workforce due to COVID-19 restrictions (Salamon & Newhouse, 2020; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021). At the same time, CSOs have reported lower income levels due to COVID-19 restrictions while also encountering difficulties in reaching and engaging volunteers and supporters (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021).

5.4 Digital Technologies and Civil Society

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are used widely in civil society reflecting, albeit lagging, commercial organisations as a whole. There is a long established body of literature on the topic, often referred to as ICT4D (Walsham, 2017).

5.4.1 Mainstream Technologies

Like commercial organisations, CSOs can generate value and exploit the same opportunities from mainstream digital technologies improved organisation capacity and stakeholder engagements, cost savings, process efficiencies, new revenue generation, and improved quality of service (Dufft & Kreutter, 2018; O’Grady & Roberts, 2019; Ehnold et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020). Indeed, there is pressure on nonprofit organisations to adopt the methods and values of the market (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). Increasingly, this includes the adoption of digital technologies and platforms. Furthermore, ICT, and internet-based technologies more specifically, are changing how civil society organisations organise themselves locally, regionally and globally (Williams, 2018). As can be seen from Table 5.3, there is a well-established literature on the use of digital technologies by nonprofit organizations for information sharing and promotion, community building, fundraising, recruitment, and advocacy. This literature cites a wide range of potential advantages including increasing organisation capacity (Sun & Asencio, 2019), improved transparency (Dumont, 2013), access to market and targeting (Shier & Handy, 2012; Saxton & Wang, 2014), message amplification and reach (Saxton & Wang, 2014; Briones et al., 2011), faster service delivery (Briones et al., 2011), and payment (donation) efficiency (Shier & Handy, 2012). Notwithstanding these benefits, academic literature suggests goals and overall organisational capacity are significant barriers to adoption, and specifically leadership, skills and training, privacy concerns, and budgetary constraints (see, for example, Campbell et al., 2014; Sun & Asencio, 2019; Mogus & Levihn-Coon, 2018; Ehnold et al., 2020).

Table 5.3 Selected scholarly research on civil society usage of digital technologies
Full size table

More recently there have been a number of surveys by private organisations seeking to benchmark use of digital technologies. Notwithstanding the promise of digital technologies, extant literature published prior to COVID-19 suggested that digital adoption by CSOs is limited (Dufft & Kreutter, 2018), with a substantial focus on the use of digital technologies for communication (Ehnold et al., 2020; Dufft & Kreutter, 2018; Skills Platform, 2019). In their 2019 survey of 5721 NGOs, Nonprofit Tech for Good (2019) found that NGOs used a wide range of digital technologies including websites, emails, online payment systems, social media, paid advertising, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, internal communications and project management tools. However, usage varied across regions and by level of intensity and sophistication. For example, only 40% use a CRM and while 68% utilise recurring/monthly giving, only 31% use some form of crowdfunding. Similarly, while 90% use social media, respondents overwhelmingly use Facebook with less than 30% using LinkedIn, WhatsApp or YouTube.

Like most organisations and society as a whole, CSOs shifted their approach to service delivery and fundraising online during the COVID-19 pandemic (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; CharityComms, 2021). In response to social distancing and increased service demand, CSOs significantly expanded their use of digital technologies for communication and collaboration, marketing and fundraising including virtual events (Techsoup Global Network, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020). The widespread adoption of web conferencing and collaboration technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic unsurprisingly led to an increase in cloud computing adoption. However, extant surveys do not provide insights in wider and more sophisticated use of the cloud. Notwithstanding this, a survey of 11,758 nonprofit decision makers from 135 countries suggests a significant proportion of CSOs are unlikely to adopt more sophisticated digital technologies in the near future including customer relationship management (CRM), donor management, marketing automation, project management, and data analytics tools (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). A number of reasons are cited for this adoption hesitance. Few CSOs have a digital strategy in place (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). Most have limited funding and small IT teams, often relying on volunteers for the most part (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). In particular, while there are many benefits to remote working, there would seem to be some evidence that it contributes to employee dissatisfaction and burnout, particularly in the charity sector (Skills Platform, 2021). Furthermore, even where digital technologies were available, skill levels are a significant barrier to successful adoption and use (Techsoup Global Network, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Skills Platform, 2021). It is important to note that while this chapter is looking at adoption and use of digital technologies from the supply side, digital inclusion is also an important consideration for civil society actors. For example, the Skills Report notes that 22% of UK charities cancelled services during the COVID-19 pandemic because their users didn’t have the skills or technology to avail of them (Skills Platform, 2021).

5.4.2 Frontier Technologies

Different parts of civil society are using and/or funding frontier technologies to a greater or lesser degree (see Table 5.4). As well as being innovation catalysts within civil society organisations, they may be catalysts for social entrepreneurship or indeed become substitutes for service delivery. In some cases, as we will discuss in the next section, these technologies may become the focus of civil society organisations e.g., in the context of advocacy.

Table 5.4 Selected frontier technologies and illustrative civil society applications
Full size table

5.4.3 Digital Inclusion and Exclusion

It is well established that digital technologies can change both how organisations operate and who can participate in civil society. In particular, there are numerous studies that suggest they can play an important role in mitigating social exclusion for those most vulnerable in society including those with disabilities (Manzoor & Vimarlund, 2018), the elderly (Biniok et al., 2016), immigrants and ethnic minorities (Maya-Jariego et al., 2009), the displaced (Benton & Glennie, 2016; Lynn et al., 2021), and other disadvantaged groups (Phipps, 2000). Despite these benefits, it is important to note that, as per Chap. 2, digital divides do exist. Many segments of society, especially the poorest in society, do not have the skills or access to avail of these technologies. In seeking to exploit digital technologies, civil society organisations must be cognizant of inclusion and exclusion, from both a social and digital perspective. While both mainstream and frontier technologies offer substantial benefits, they come with significant challenges, not least upskilling and governance. As well as leveraging these technologies, civil society will play a significant role in the governance of many of these technologies including advocating for the equality of access and protection of human rights (UNCTAD, 2021).

5.5 Measuring Digital Civil Society

As can be seen in Sect. 5.4, organisations such as Techsoup Global Network and Nonprofit Tech for Good have attempted to provide insights into the adoption and use of digital technologies by civil society. These surveys, however, suffer from a number of methodological constraints. They are typically cross-sectional, self-reported and are sometimes compiled across multiple time periods. They use inconsistent definitions of what constitutes a civil society entity, what technologies should be measured, and what scales should be used for measurement. More pertinently in the context of this book, the lens is typically at a country or regional level and not city- or town levels of granularity. As such, it does not allow comparison with other entities in society or academic studies.

Despite the significant role CSOs play in society and their contribution to the economy in terms of employment, expenditure and value added, neither civil society nor CSOs are typically measured as discrete entities in existing frameworks and composite indices for measuring digital society or the digital economy. While there are indices to measure digital social innovation, for example the DSI Index (Bone et al., 2018), these indices typically focus specifically on innovation or social entrepreneurship ecosystems rather than the use of digital technology more generally by civil society, and specifically CSOs, in their day to day activities. Again, such indices are often at a country- or city-level, and rarely include town or more general rural-level measurement. Indeed, the G20 Digital Economy Task Force (DETF) note that not only is the number of indicators produced jointly with other actors of civil society limited, where it is produced, it is nearly exclusively related to infrastructure (DETF, 2018). The DETF goes on to call for “interactions among government, business and other actors of civil society to strengthen the evidence base and complement official statistics, improving the design of frameworks that facilitate and allow a better use of data” (DETF, 2018, p. 10). While this call was reiterated in the recent DETF roadmap toward a common framework for measuring the digital economy, specific indicators for civil society organisations were not proposed (DETF, 2020). The nonprofit sector overlaps both the private sector and public sector in terms of activities; however CSOs have distinctive characteristics which should be reflected in measurement frameworks. Supporting indicators can then be used by policymakers and the nonprofit sector to inform strategy and actions for improvement.

5.6 Conclusion

Civil society plays a significant role in communities and performs a number of valuable functions that address unmet public needs. Digital technologies can support voluntary, community and social organisations in achieving and maintaining sustainability and fulfilling their missions more efficiently and effectively. Given the role and impact of civil society on society and economies as a whole, there is a clear need to measure the digital progress of this important part of society on a consistent and ongoing basis to enable comparison with other parts of society.