Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Impact Measurement as a Dynamic Process: A Study in a French Non-profit Organization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Materiality and Managerial Techniques

Part of the book series: Technology, Work and Globalization ((TWG))

  • 739 Accesses

Abstract

Social impact measurement has become an increasingly important topic in the non-profit sector. In order to achieve this goal, new management tools have been designed and implemented by Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs). This chapter proposes a dynamic analysis of two social impact measurement processes implemented in a large NPO. We show that processes alternate steps of closing phases and opening phases, the former reducing the evaluation spectrum and the latter broadening the spectrum of evaluation. We argue that closing phases are a response to external demands for simplification, while opening phases meet internal forces for maintaining complexity. We then conclude that social impact measurement is in search of a balance between these two contradictory demands which plays a critical role in the design of the measurement tool itself.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2006). Creative philanthropy: Toward a new philanthropy for the twenty-first century. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, M. A. (2003). Requestioning, reimagining, and retooling philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 635–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barraket, J., & Yousefpour, N. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y., & Ramalho, N. (2006). Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. (1983). Une technologie invisible? L’impact des instruments de gestion sur l’évolution des systèmes humains. Paris: Ecole Polytechnique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, M. J. (2004). Vers une évaluation multidimensionnelle et négociée de l’économie sociale. RECMA: Revue Internationale de l’ Economie Sociale, 292, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos, L., Andion, C., Serva, M., Rossetto, A., & Assumpção, J. (2011). Performance evaluation in non-governmental organizations (NGOs): An analysis of evaluation models and their applications in Brazil. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carman, J. G., & Fredericks, K. A. (2008). Nonprofits and evaluation: Empirical evidence from the field. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(119), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemin, C., & Gilbert, P. (2010). L’évaluation de la performance, analyseur de la gouvernance associative. Politiques et Management Public, 27(1), 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiapello, È., & Gilbert, P. (2013). Sociologie des outils de gestion: introduction à l’analyse sociale de l’instrumentation de gestion. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiapello, E., & Gilbert, P. (2016). L’agence des outils de gestion. In F.-X. de Vaujany, A. Hussenot, & J.-F. Chanlat (Eds.), Théorie des Organisations: nouveaux tournants. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley—Center for Responsible Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. J., Vansant, J., Stewart, L., & Adrian, J. (1995). Performance measurement: Lessons learned for development management. World Development, 23(8), 1303–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordery, C. J., & Sinclair, R. (2013). Measuring performance in the third sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3–4), 196–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E., Ramus, T., & Andreaus, M. (2011). Accountability as a managerial tool in non-profit organizations: Evidence from Italian CSVs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 470–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, A. (2012). La recherche-intervention, cadre général pour la recherche en management? In A. David, A. Hatchuel, & R. Laufer (Eds.), Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion : éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management. Paris: Presses des Mines.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vaujany, F.-X. (2006). Pour une théorie de l’appropriation des outils de gestion : vers un dépassement de l’opposition conception-usage. Management & Avenir, 9(3), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Materiality and space: Organizations, artefacts and practices. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability Myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper No. 10-099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). Non-governmental organisations: Performance and accountability beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Intgrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 36.

    Article  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 

  • Frumkin, P. (2003). Inside venture philanthropy. Society, 40(4), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises a cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A. (1994). Les savoirs de l’intervention en entreprise. Entreprise et Histoire, 7, 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1992). L’expert et le système: gestion des savoirs et métamorphose des acteurs dans l’entreprise industrielle. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D. (1992). Nonprofit organization effectiveness: At what, for whom, according to whom? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 411–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M., & Summers, V. D. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in non-profit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 154–166). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S. N. (2005). What does it mean to say that philanthropy is “effective”? The philanthropists’ new clothes. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149(2), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire, C. (2013). Le processus de construction d’un outil de contrôle de gestion inter-organisationnel: le cas de l’expérimentation d’un outil de pilotage de la performance dans le secteur médico-social. Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, École doctorale Augustin Cournot, Université de Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (Vol. 27, pp. 171–202). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacIndoe, H., & Barman, E. (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits exploring a multidimensional measure. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 716–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moisdon, J.-C. (1997). Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion: les instruments de gestion à l’épreuve des organisations. Paris: Seli Arslan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mook, L. (2013). Accounting for social value. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moxham, C. (2013). Measuring up: Examining the potential for voluntary sector performance measurement to improve public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2009). “We do good things, don’t we?”: “Blended Value Accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 801–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. (2011). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riveline, C. (1991). Un point de vue d’ingénieur sur la gestion des organisations. Gérer et Comprendre, 25, 50–62.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stievenart, E., & Pache, A.-C. (2014). Evaluer l’impact social d’une entreprise sociale : points de repère. RECMA, Revue Internationale de L’Economie Sociale, 331, 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teglborg, A. C., Gilbert, P., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2015). The management device in the blind spot to resistance to change. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 98(4), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright, S. (2002). Measuring impact: A guide to resources. London: National Council for Voluntary Organizations.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. i3 CRG, Ecole Polytechnique CNRS Université Paris Saclay, Palaiseau, France

    Julien Kleszczowski

  2. ISG International Business School, Paris, France

    Julien Kleszczowski

  3. Sorbonne Graduate Business School, Paris Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Nathalie Raulet-Croset

Authors
  1. Julien Kleszczowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathalie Raulet-Croset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London University, London, United Kingdom

    Nathalie Mitev

  2. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

    Anna Morgan-Thomas

  3. ESSEC Business School, Paris, France

    Philippe Lorino

  4. Paris Dauphine University, Paris, France

    Francois-Xavier de Vaujany

  5. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Yesh Nama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kleszczowski, J., Raulet-Croset, N. (2018). Social Impact Measurement as a Dynamic Process: A Study in a French Non-profit Organization. In: Mitev, N., Morgan-Thomas, A., Lorino, P., de Vaujany, FX., Nama, Y. (eds) Materiality and Managerial Techniques . Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66101-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation