Differences in the impact assessment of social initiatives carried out by private firms and civil society organizations: evidence from Ibero-America
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare assessment practices for highly visible social initiatives implemented by civil society organizations (CSOs) and businesses in Latin America and Spain. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a secondary analysis of field-based case studies that focused on four dimensions of assessments carried out by companies and CSOs to determine the impact of their social initiatives. The four aspects studied were: definition of the initiative's mission and goals; creation of value for stakeholders; quality of managerial practices deployed in the social initiative; and degree of alignment of mission and strategy. Ad hoc scales were developed and two raters evaluated the cases based on these dimensions. Findings – CSOs made a greater effort than businesses to assess their initiatives, as reflected in the four performance assessment scores. Research limitations/implications – The main limitations were the limited scope of information available for the analysis – a drawback when using secondary data – and the particular characteristics of the initiatives in this convenience sample. Practical implications – Businesses implementing initiatives with expected social impacts as part of their CSR efforts should not rule out the possibility of outsourcing management and assessment of those initiatives to CSOs. Originality/value – The paper sheds light on the relative strengths of CSOs compared with companies with regard to managing and assessing social initiatives. The finding is somewhat unexpected, given the culture of management effectiveness that permeates the business sector. The authors conclude that further study is required to identify the reasons for higher CSO performance and suggest some venues for such studies.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 6 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com |
|Order Information:|| Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK|
Web: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/srj.htm Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:srjpps:v:6:y:2010:i:3:p:374-385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Katie Frudd)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.