Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Psychosocial Measure of Social Added Value in Non-profit and Voluntary Organizations: Findings from a Study in the South of Italy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inspired by the relational framework (Bassi, in: Franz, Hochgerner, Howaldt (eds) Challenge social innovation, Springer, Berlin, pp 325–350, 2012; Donati in Ital J Sociol Educ 5(1):19–35, 2013) and designed to integrate psychological and sociological aspects, a measure of social added value (SAV) was developed and validated. A study was conducted in the South of Italy on a sample of non-profit and voluntary organization members (N = 394) to examine the statistical validity and psychometric properties of the SAV scale. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a third-order factor model, saturated by two second-order variables (internal and external relational goods) and eight first-order variables (sense of organizational community, quality of internal relations, influence, social responsibility towards members of the organization, users and stakeholders, organizational identification, and quality of external relations) obtained good satisfactory fit indexes. Additional analyses revealed that shared member values were positively associated with SAV and that there were differences among organizations according to their legal forms and the organizational roles available. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Voluntary organizations rely on occasional or regular volunteers for their activities and may or may not include paid staff. Social cooperatives are based on a mutual type of economic activity. These social enterprises are not aimed at maximizing profit but at meeting the needs of members. Foundations are private non-profit organizations using their assets for purposes of utility and social solidarity. Associations for social advancement can be formally approved or maintain an informal structure and are established to carry out activities of social utility in favour of members or third parties. Cultural associations are private non-profit organizations using their resources for cultural and educational purposes. Finally, NPOs for social development can include voluntary associations, but also cooperatives and foundations. They benefit from low-tax-entry and are subject to strict tax and administrative control.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Boardman, M. C., & McNeely, C. L. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 785–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K. (2000). Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach. Civil Society Working Paper Series, 1. London, UK: Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • Arvidson, M. (2009). Impact and evaluation in the UK third sector: reviewing literature and exploring ideas. In Third Sector Research Centre, working paper 27. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/documents/tsrc/working-papers/working-paper-27.pdf. Accessed 5 January 2017.

  • Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 869–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P. (2009). Creating social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(2), 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassi, A. (2011). Il valore aggiunto sociale del terzo settore [The added social value of the third-sector]. Verona, IT: QuiEdit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassi, A. (2012). How to measure the intangibles? Towards a system of indicators (SAVE) for the measurement of the performance of social enterprises. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge social innovation (pp. 325–350). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. (2002). Voluntary sector added value: A discussion paper. London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, N. M., & Nowell, B. (2014). Psychological sense of community: A new construct for the field of management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, N. M., & Nowell, B. (2017). Testing a theory of sense of community and community responsibility in organizations: An empirical assessment of predictive capacity on employee wellbeing and organizational citizenship. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(2), 210–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, E. (1993). Voluntary organizations as development organizations: Theorizing the problem of efficiency and accountability. Development and Change, 24(2), 269–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M. (2007). “Balance”: The development of a social enterprise business performance analysis tool. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christens, B. D., & Lin, C. S. (2014). Influences of community and organizational participation, social support, and sense of community on psychological empowerment: Income as moderator. Family and Consumer Sciences, 42(3), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colozzi, I. (2011). L’urgenza di misurare i beni intangibili: proposte per un percorso [The urgency to measure intangible goods: Proposals for a road map]. Sociologia e Politiche Sociale, 14(1), 183–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aprile, G., & Talò, C. (2014). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility as a psychosocial construct: A new multidimensional scale. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(3), 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, A. S., & Porter, C. (2012). Making sense of social value creation: Three organizational case studies. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 14(3), 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. (2013). The added value of social relations. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(1), 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. (2014). Social capital and the added value of social relations. International Review of Sociology, 24(2), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EESC (European Economic and Social Committee). (2007). The social economy in the European Union. Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/publications-other-work/publications/social-economy-european-union-1.

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21th century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament—Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy. (2016). Social economy. Available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578969/IPOL_STU(2016)578969_EN.pdf.

  • Flynn, P., & Hodgkinson, V. A. (Eds.). (2001). Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, E., & Marks, N. (2010). Sense of community as a protective factor against long-term psychological effects of childhood violence. Social Services Review, 84(1), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gülaçti, F. (2010). The effect of perceived social support on subjective well-being. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3844–3849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of community in community organizations: Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of community psychology, 27(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B. S., Jamieson, R. D., & Martin, J. F. (2010). Income, sense of community and subjective well-being: Combining economic and psychological variables. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(4), 612–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, B., Oh, S., & Sivadas, E. (2013). Beyond relationship quality: Examining relationship management effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (2000). Measuring the performance of voluntary organizations. Public Management Review, 2(1), 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 513–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lautermann, C. (2013). The ambiguities of (social) value creation: Towards an extended understanding of entrepreneurial value creation for society. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Nowell, B. (2015). A framework for assessing the performance of nonprofit organizations. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean, & W. M. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events, and depression (pp. 17–30). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R. L. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (pp. 171–202). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, W. S. W., Cheung, R. Y. M., & Law, L. S. C. (2009). Sense of community in Hong Kong: Relations with community-level characteristics and residents’ well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44(1–2), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuti, A., & Bosco, A. (2012). Organizational identification: A contribution to the validation of the psychometric features of two measures. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 39(4), 881–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. L., & Faerman, S. R. (2003). Making good board choices: A competing values approach. Nonprofit Quarterly, 10, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mook, L., Richmond, B. J., & Quarter, J. (2003). Integrated social accounting for nonprofits: A case from Canada. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(3), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., Hughey, J., Armstead, T. L., Schneider, J. E., & Sheffer, M. A. (2008). Community organizations and sense of community: Further development in theory and measurement. Journal of community psychology, 36(6), 798–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organization (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 223–234). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J., Jones, D., & Irvine, J. (2005). Appreciating impact: Evaluating small voluntary organizations in the United Kingdom. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16(2), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhill, J. C., & Williamson, D. (2001). Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumaker, S. A., & Brownell, A. (1984). Towards a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., & Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 561–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., Hoque, S. F., & Czaban, L. (2015). A reconceptualisation of social value creation as social constraint alleviation. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(3/4), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(3), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, R., Brueckner, M., Wise, G., & Marika, B. (2016). Australian indigenous social enterprise: Measuring performance. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 10(4), 397–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub, A., Koopman, M., & van Mossel, H. J. (2010). Systems approach and performance measurement by social enterprises. Facilities, 28(5/6), 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2005). Explaining nonprofit organization: The social value approach. Journal of Cooperative Studies, 38(2), 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Terri Mannarini, Cosimo Talò & Emanuela Ingusci

  2. LATTANZIO Learning S.r.l., Milan, Italy

    Gianvito D’Aprile

Authors
  1. Terri Mannarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cosimo Talò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianvito D’Aprile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emanuela Ingusci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terri Mannarini.

Appendix

Appendix

SAVS items.

Sense of organizational community

(Organization name) helps me to be a part of other groups in this city

Because of (organization name), I am connected to other groups in this city

(Organization name) gets overlooked in this city (R)

(Organization name) gets very little done in this community (R)

(City name) is a good place for me to live

I would really live in a different town; (city name) is just not the place for me (R)

Quality of internal relations

The people in my organization are comforting for me

I find in them the solidarity and moral support that I need

I can share problems, doubts, uncertainties with them

The people in my organization help me when I have to make a decision

I can count on them when I am in trouble

I feel they are close to me

I can share the joys and satisfactions with them

These people are interested in me

Relations with other people in my organization are good

I like spending time with the people of my organization

I am satisfied with my role within the organization

The role I play in my organization gratifies me

I feel that my work is acknowledged by others

Influence on the organization

[People in this organization have a say in decisions concerning]

The election/nomination of the chairman/manager

The composition of the board

The fundamental organization strategies

The organizational functioning

Corporate social responsibility towards members

I believe that our organization provides equal opportunities to all its employees

Our organization’s policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers

The management of our organization is primarily concerned with employees’ needs and wants

Our organization implements flexible policies to provide a good work and life balance for its employees

Our organization supports employees who want to acquire additional education

Identification with the organization

When someone criticizes (name of organization), it feels like a personal insult

I am very interested in what others think about (name of organization)

When I talk about this organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they”

This organization’s successes are my successes

When someone praises this organization, it feels like a personal compliment

Corporate social responsibility towards users/institutions

Our organization respects users’ rights beyond the legal requirements

Users’ satisfaction is highly important for our organization

Our organization tries to help the government in solving social problems

Corporate social responsibility towards social and non-social stakeholders

Our organization participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment

Our organization implements special programmes to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment

Our organization targets sustainable growth, which considers future generations

Our organization cooperates with its competitors in social responsibility projects

Our organization contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society

Quality of external relations

We try to maintain a good relationship with [partner name]

We maintain a cooperative relationship with [partner name]

We are flexible in changing agreement with [partner name] in case they have any difficulty

Our benefit from the relationship with [partner name] is proportional to our mutual cooperation with them

We share costs and benefits from the relationship fairly with [partner name]

We are generally satisfied with the relationship with [partner name]

We feel that [partner name] is a good organization to do business with

We are satisfied with the support and service received from [partner name]

[Partner name] helps us do our business (R)

It is beneficial for us to deal with [partner name] (R)

  1. (R) = reversed item

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannarini, T., Talò, C., D’Aprile, G. et al. A Psychosocial Measure of Social Added Value in Non-profit and Voluntary Organizations: Findings from a Study in the South of Italy. Voluntas 29, 1315–1329 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00061-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00061-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation