The relationship between business and community is becoming increasingly important, especially with the current blurring of the boundaries between profit and not-for-profit sectors, and the growing number of hybrid organizations such as social enterprises. For these organizations, the assessment of social impact plays a strategic role in helping them understand to what extent their social mission has been accomplished. As a result of increasing interest in the practice of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), many models have been developed, but a system to classify them is still lacking, and so the overall picture remains rather fragmentary if not confusing. In this research, a hierarchical cluster analysis was developed based on a sample of 76 SIA models to group them in macro-categories and help social entrepreneurs choose the model that is best suited to the needs of their organization.
AlexanderJ.BrudneyJ. L.YangK. (2010). Introduction to the symposium: Accountability and performance measurement: The evolving role of nonprofits in the hollow state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 565-570.
2.
AustinJ.GutierrezR.OgliastriE.ReficcoE. (2006). Effective management of social enterprises: Lessons from businesses and civil society organizations in Iberoamerica. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BagnoliL.MegaliC. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 149-165.
4.
BoydB.HenningN.ReynaE.WangD. E.WelchM. D. (2009). Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
5.
BurdgeR. J. (2003). Benefiting from the practice of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21, 225-229.
Council for Social Development. (2010). Social impact assessment (Report of a research project on social impact assessment of R&R policies and packages in India). New Delhi, India: Author.
8.
DartR. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 411-424.
EbrahimA. S.RanganV. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper, (10-099), 10-099. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-099.pdf
11.
EmersonJ. (2003). The blended value preposition: Integrating social and financial return. California Management Review, 45(4), 35-51.
12.
EmersonJ.WachowicsJ.ChunS. (2000). Social return on investment: Exploring aspects of value creation in the non-profit sector. San Francisco, CA: The Roberts Foundation.
13.
EstevesA. M. (2011). Enhancing the benefits of projects through local procurement. In VanclayF.EstevesA. M. (Eds.), New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances (pp. 234-250). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
14.
EstevesA. M.FranksD.VanclayF. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 34-42.
HarrisM. (2012). Nonprofits and business toward a subfield of nonprofit studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 892-902.
17.
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. (1994). Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment, 12, 107-152.
18.
LatanéB. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356.
19.
Le BerM.BansalP.BranzeiO. (2010, May22-25). Managing the tensions between social and economic value in hybrid organizations. Conference proceedings of Administrative Science Association of Canada—2010 Enterprising Our World, Sustainable Business in Action, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
20.
LiketK. C.MaasK. (2013). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0899764013510064
21.
MaasK.LiketK. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In BurrittR.SchalteggerS.BennettM.PohjolaT.CsutoraM. (Eds.), Environmental management accounting and supply chain management, eco-efficiency in industry and science (Vol. 27, pp. 171-202) Delft, The Netherlands: Springer.
22.
MacIndoeH.BarmanE. (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits exploring a multidimensional measure. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 716-738.
23.
MairJ.BattilanaJ.CardenasJ. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353-373.
24.
MitchellG. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 324-345.
25.
NichollsA. (2005, April). Measuring impact in social entrepreneurship: New accountabilities to stakeholders and investors?ERSC Seminar, Local Government Research Unit, London.
26.
NichollsA. (2009). We do good things, don’t we? Blended value accounting in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 755-769.
ReismanJ.GiennapA. (2004). Theory of change: A practical tool for action, results and learning. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Organizational Research Services, Erasmus University. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-theoryofchange-2004.pdf
31.
RichmondB. J.MookL.QuarterJ. (2003). Social accounting for nonprofits: Two models. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13, 308-324.
RowanM. (2009). Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27, 185-191.
34.
RuttmanR. (2012). New ways to invest for social and environmental impact. In RuttmanR.ElmerP.FlemingG.HemrikaL. (Eds.), Investing for impact: How social entrepreneurship is redefining the meaning of return (pp. 4-9). Zurich, Switzerland: Credit Suisse Research. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/schwabfound/Investing_for_Impact.pdf
