IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/sampjp/sampj-12-2014-0092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Ericka Costa
  • Caterina Pesci

Abstract

Purpose - – This paper aims to discuss the notion of social impact of social impact measurement in social enterprises by supporting the multiple-constituency theory as a contribution to this under-theorised issue. Moreover, the paper proposes the stakeholder-based approach as the most appropriate solution for selection among metrics related to the growing number of social impact measurements. Design/methodology/approach - – The paper proposes a review of social impact measurement studies by considering contributions from both academia and practitioners, while providing a reassessment and conceptualisation of this issue in terms of the multiple-constituency theory. Findings - – The paper criticises the “golden standard approach” to social impact measurement according to which social enterprises have to find one standardised metric capable of determining an organisation’s real impact. The golden standard approach promotes a more “political view” of social enterprises, according to which multiple stakeholders set performance standards based on their viewpoints regarding the measurement’s purposes. Research limitations/implications - – The paper responds to the urgent call to define a theoretical framework that might guide social impact measurement, seeking to avoid the current lack of order and transparency in existing practices that could serve as a vehicle for camouflaging corporate social un-sustainability. Originality/value - – The multiple-constituency approach should discourage organisations from opportunistically selecting a social impact measurement with the sole purpose of proving a higher impact, as, within the proposed new perspective, social impact metrics are no longer managed independently by the social enterprises themselves. Instead, these metrics are defined and constructed with the stakeholders. As a result, social enterprises’ manipulative intentions should diminish.

Suggested Citation

  • Ericka Costa & Caterina Pesci, 2016. "Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(1), pages 99-124, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-12-2014-0092
    DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2014-0092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2014-0092/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/SAMPJ-12-2014-0092/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/SAMPJ-12-2014-0092?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. Laura Berardi & Laurie Mook, 2023. "New digital technologies for social impact assessment: Considerations for Italian social economy organizations," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2 Suppl.), pages 109-132.
    2. Leonardo Boni & Laura Toschi & Riccardo Fini, 2021. "Investors’ Aspirations toward Social Impact: A Portfolio-Based Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Fatma Koroglu, 2023. "Social Impact & Project Performance Measurement Methods and Challenges in Practice: A Study on Women Empowerment NGOs," GATR Journals jber232, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    4. Natasha Layton & Natasha Brusco & Tammy Gardner & Libby Callaway, 2021. "Co-Design of Social Impact Domains with the Huntington’s Disease Community," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Mercedes Luque‐Vílchez & José A. Gómez‐Limón & M. Dolores Guerrero‐Baena & Pablo Rodríguez‐Gutiérrez, 2023. "Deconstructing corporate environmental, social, and governance performance: Heterogeneous stakeholder preferences in the food industry," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 1845-1860, June.

    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:sampjp:sampj-12-2014-0092. 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.