IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/qrampp/v10y2013i3-4p234-258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures

Author

Listed:
  • Belinda Luke
  • Jo Barraket
  • Robyn Eversole

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to review the growing emphasis on quantifiable performance measures such as social return on investment (SROI) in third sector organisations – specifically, social enterprise – through a legitimacy theory lens. It then examines what social enterprises value (i.e. consider important) in terms of performance evaluation, using a case study approach. Design/methodology/approach - – Case studies involving interviews, documentary analysis, and observation, of three social enterprises at different life-cycle stages with different funding structures, were constructed to consider “what measures matter” from a practitioner's perspective. Findings - – Findings highlight a priority on quality outcomes and impacts in primarily qualitative terms to evaluate performance. Further, there is a noticeable lack of emphasis on financial measures other than basic access to financial resources to continue pursuing social goals. Social implications - – The practical challenges faced by social enterprises – many of which are small to medium sized – in evaluating performance and by implication organisational legitimacy are contrasted with measures such as SROI which are resource intensive and have inherent methodological limitations. Hence, findings suggest the limited and valuable resources of social enterprises would be better allocated towards documenting the actual outcomes and impacts as a first step, in order to evaluate social and financial performance in terms appropriate to each objective, in order to demonstrate organisational legitimacy. Originality/value - – Findings distinguish between processes which may hold symbolic legitimacy for select stakeholder groups, and processes which hold substantive, cognitive legitimacy for stakeholders more broadly, in the under-researched context of social enterprise.

Suggested Citation

  • Belinda Luke & Jo Barraket & Robyn Eversole, 2013. "Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(3/4), pages 234-258, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:10:y:2013:i:3/4:p:234-258
    DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Murphy Patrick J. & Pollack Jeff & Nagy Brian & Rutherford Matthew & Coombes Susan, 2019. "Risk Tolerance, Legitimacy, and Perspective: Navigating Biases in Social Enterprise Evaluations," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Janni Grouleff Nielsen & Rainer Lueg & Dennis van Liempd, 2019. "Managing Multiple Logics: The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Social Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Julien Kleszczowski, 2016. "La place des parties prenantes dans l’évaluation de l’impact social des organisations non lucratives: étude empirique au sein d’une organisation française," Post-Print hal-01901230, HAL.
    4. Germán Jaraíz Arroyo & Auxiliadora González Portillo, 2020. "Focus on Weaknesses or Strengths? Determining Factors for an Inclusive and Relational Management in Public Community Social Service Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Dubé, Laurette & McRae, Cameron & Wu, Yun-Hsuan & Ghosh, Samik & Allen, Summer & Ross, Daniel & Ray, Saibal & Joshi, Pramod K. & McDermott, John & Jha, Srivardhini & Moore, Spencer, 2020. "Impact of the eKutir ICT-enabled social enterprise and its distributed micro-entrepreneur strategy on fruit and vegetable consumption: A quasi-experimental study in rural and urban communities in Odis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Hochstädter, Anna Katharina, 2017. "Impact measurement in venture philanthropy organizationsː A single case study," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 42, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    7. Nakagawa, Koichi & Kosaka, Genjiro, 2022. "What social issues do people invest in? An examination based on the empathy–altruism hypothesis of prosocial crowdfunding platforms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Mercedes Ruiz-Lozano & Pilar Tirado-Valencia & Antonio Sianes & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Vicente Fernández-Rodríguez & Mª Carmen López-Martín, 2020. "SROI Methodology for Public Administration Decisions about Financing with Social Criteria. A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:10:y:2013:i:3/4:p:234-258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.