Angels on the head of a pin

Abstract

Purpose -By proposing a comprehensive measurement framework, this paper attempts to move the nascent body of theoretical and empirical work on performance measurement in social entrepreneurship ventures (SEVs) into reach for practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to help social entrepreneurs and academics put current knowledge to work to gain usable feedback about the success of operations. Design/methodology/approach -This paper offers a framework for measuring firm survival, social action, and social change in SEVs based on a review of theoretical and empirical work. Findings -Early work in SEV performance measurement shows consensus that social impact is at least as important as organizational viability, albeit more difficult to measure. The SEV measurement framework developed herein creates the link between firm viability (Survival), direct social action (Action), and long-term social impact on the technical, political, and cultural aspects of society (Change) leading to the SAC framework. Originality/value -The framework proposed in the paper gives practitioners a guide for comprehensive performance measurement based on their unique organizational mission using the SAC model. Widespread use of a measurement tool that addresses viability, action, and impact, may ultimately improve the efficiency with which SEVs attack social problems.

Evaluation of social impact measurement tools and techniques: a systematic review of the literature

“…The following ten models guided this framework: the framework for capability and integrative approaches (White, 2018), the performance measurement system model (Arena et al , 2015), the structural equation modelling of SI (Edwards et al , 2015), the sustainability, added value and scalability (Hadad and Găucă, 2014), the social performance framework (Ebrahim and Rangan, 2014), the analytical framework (Mouchamps, 2014), the multi-dimensional controlling model (Bagnoli and Megali, 2011), the economic survival framework (Lane and Casile, 2011), the four-category typology of alternative approaches (Polonsky and Grau, 2011), and the blended value accounting spectrum (Nicholls, 2009).…”

“…The multi-dimensional controlling model (Bagnoli and Megali, 2011) is suitable for small and medium-sized SEs with SEE goals, whereby the framework has three reference dimensions of control: economic and financial performance, social effectiveness and institutional legitimacy. Meanwhile, Lane and Casile’s (2011) economic survival framework provide SEs with measures for comprehensive performance measurement based on their respective organisational mission through using the survival, action and social change model. However, we found that the economic survival framework does not specify the firm size, although it does identify the SEE contributions.…”

The Phenomenon of Social Enterprises: Are We Keeping Watch on This Cultural Practice?

“…• Adaptability-works of authors such as Johanisova et al (2013), which investigated the adaptation of social businesses to economic crisis scenarios or degrowth, as well as other studies related to the dualistic nature of social and economic aims; a relevant legislation or proposing of a more adequate legal structure and other adaptations; • Entrepreneurship-articles that, despite having the keywords addressed in this study, only cite the subject and focus on the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship, as in Penedo and McLean (2006); • Social exclusion-studies involving social business with focus on marginalized groups, such as children and youth at situation of risk, people with mental disorders, or as in the research of Wilson (2012), communities with financial vulnerability and low-income consumers; • Management-works of author such as Lane and Casile (2011) who focused on the understanding or proposition of techniques and methods for improving business management. Some issues related to this category are management of organizational processes, strategies of resource allocation, management with indicators, and evaluation of the investment's social return; • Social intermediation-for instance, article written by Nwankwo et al (2007) who analyzed cases in which social businesses intermediate the relation between organizations interested in solving social problems and poor communities through plans of governmental initiatives, nonprofit entities, or related to corporate social responsibility; • Regionalisms-studies that comprehend business peculiarities of a particular country or region, or that use comparative studies among different regions, such as the Park and Wilding (2013) who compared government policy in UK and South Korea; • Profiles and skills-articles that reported features related to the profile of social entrepreneurs, construction and maintenance of organizational identity, satisfaction measurement, and work quality as well as specific skills observed in some enterprises analyzed.…”

The effect of network capabilities, trust and pricing and selling capabilities on the impact of social enterprise

“…Social impact assessment is complex because it often requires translating qualitative outcomes into quantifiable values (Grieco, 2015), and there is no single method to evaluate it (Lane and Casile, 2011). Measurement approaches include subjective scales (Schmitt and Alberton, 2022), non-financial reports, and tools such as social return on investment (SROI), social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA), social accounting and auditing system (SAA), social enterprise balanced scorecard (SEBS/SBSC), outcomes star (OS), social impact measurement for local economies (SIMPLE), uality first (QF), local multiplier 3 (LM3), among others (Cao, 2022;Grieco, 2015;Kah and Akenroye, 2020).…”