4 presentation thuy linh nguyen

1. SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES:
AN INTERDEPENDENCE PERSPECTIVE
NGUYEN THUY LINH
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI – UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY BUSINESS SCHOOL
(ENTREPRENEURSHIP & INNOVATION PROGRAM)
Nguyen L, Szkudlarek B and Seymour RG 2015 'Social Impact Measurement in
Social Enterprises: An Interdependence Perspective', Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, vol.32:4, pp. 224-37

2. What do You See in this Picture?

3. What are Leaders in the Social Sector Thinking?
Jed Emerson
Blended Value
It is true that “you can’t mange what you can’t
measure” yet also true that “not everything that counts
can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
counts”.
The goal now is not to have one accepted
measurement tool embraced by all. It will never happen
due to the diversity of visions and missions that drive
the work of philanthropy
Indicators vary from one project to another, even the
same project undertaken in different contexts will
need to adapt measurement indicators accordingly.
As we hear repeatedly “one size does not fit all” Pamela Hartigan
Skoll Centre for
Social
Entrepreneurship
Doug Bauer
The Clark
Foundation

4. What is Social Impact Measurement?
Social impact measurement (S.I.M) refers to the
process of defining, monitoring, and employing
measures to demonstrate benefits created to the target
beneficiaries and communities through evidence of
social outcomes and/or impacts (Jim, et al., 2009).

5. Internal
environment
External environment
Learning &
improvement
Resources
Accountability &
Transparency
Why Social Impact Measurement?
Resource
providers
Beneficiaries,
community
Public
Employees
5
SOCIAL IMPACT
MEASUREMENT
Mission
Legitimacy
Marketing

6. 6
One Approach ?
INFORMAL APPROACHES …..

7. Voices of the field
BUT
People share NO common and consistent language, understanding
about measurement metrics and tools among stakeholders
Many people
 TALK about it
 RECOGNIZE its importance
 SEEK to understand it
 DEVELOP measurement tools

8. S.I.M - A socially constructed phenomenon?
 “Measures are not the means of estimating some
underlying reality; rather they construct and imbue with
authority the notions of performance associated with a
particular point of view” (Paton, 2003, p.45)
 “Success or failure can only be determined by
contextualizing performance data in terms of a network
of stakeholder expectations and perceptions” (Nicholls,
2008,p. 38)
 S.I.M could neither be understood separately from actors
who engage with or are concerned about social
enterprises nor being placed in a context (Ebrahim, 2003; Paton,
2003)

9. Research Question
How is social impact measurement
shaped by social enterprises’
relationships with resource providers?
Resources
Social Impact Measurement
Resource
provider
Social
enterprise
Beneficiaries,
communities
Social impact

10. Theoretical Lens: Resource Dependence
 Power imbalance existing
between two actors (Emerson, 1962)
 The stronger party will have
benefits and dependence
advantages over the weaker
party (Blau, 1964; Kim, Hoskisson, &
Wan, 2004)
 Reciprocity and mutual
understanding between actors
(Gulati & Sytch, 2007; Newbert &
Tornikoski, 2013).
 A committed and cohesive
partnership that is based on
frequent interactions to develop
sustainable and beneficial
collaborations between parties
(McNamara, Pazzaglia, & Sonpar, 2015;
Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011)
Asymmetric Dependence Symmetric Dependence
Behaviours of organizations and individuals undertaking resource exchanges
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003)

11. Research Strategy & Methodology
 Philosophical paradigm: Interpretivism
 Research Strategy: Multiple case study design
 Case Study context: Three social enterprises in Vietnam
 Data Collection:
 Primary data: 20 Semi - structured interviews with social
entrepreneurs, donors, investors, intermediaries,
government, volunteers, employees. Primary data collected
between 2012-2013
 Secondary data: websites, reports, internal documents
 Data analysis: inductive approach based on open coding
(DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011); Miles & Huberman (1994); Saldaña (2012)

12. 12
Description of Cases
Case
Description
TRAINING SE LEARNING SE WOMEN EMPOWERMENT
SE
Year of
establishment
1999 2006 2011
Social mission
Transforming the unemployable
youth with low self-esteem to
confident, empowered, young
hospitality professionals,
entrepreneurs, and mentors via a
holistic vocational training
program
Providing opportunities for
disadvantaged children to play,
learn, and create while
generating income to improve
their life quality
Empowering poor women
living in and around marine
protected areas
Business Restaurants, hospitality Lifestyle Souvenirs, gifts Handicrafts
Employees (by
2013)
30 permanent and hundreds of
volunteers
10 permanent, hundreds of100
volunteers
3 permanent; Dozens
of volunteers
Resource
providers
Institutional and individual donors,
corporations, volunteers,
international
organizations
Impact investor, intermediaries,
NGOs (international and local),
volunteers
Intermediaries, local
authority, NGOs
(international and local),
volunteers
Social impact
measurement
Self-developed monitoring and
evaluation system
Reporting requested by the donors
Internal measurement approach,
investor’s impact measurement
(IRIS),
Other resource providers’ process
reporting mechanisms
SROI,
Monitoring and evaluation
system requested by the
donors

13. Key Findings
 S.I.M can be formed along two dimensions of funding relationships
 The interdependence between SEs and resource providers is dynamic
rather than static and can change over time, leading to different
behaviours toward S.I.M
Social Impact Measurement
• Motivations for S.I.M
• Compliance with resource
providers’ S.I.M mandates
• Expectation & Choice of S.I.M
approaches
• Resources spent on S.I.M
• Perceived importance of formal
S.I.M
Symmetric Tie
• shared goals
• reciprocity,
• trust, and
collaboration
Asymmetric Tie
• power
imbalance
• regulation
based,
• control, and
• authority

14. Interdependence between
Resource Providers & Social Enterprises
Symmetric Quotes for symmetric tie Asymmetric Quotes for asymmetric tie
Complete
trust; long-
term
relationship
We have complete trust between the two…We
take a lasting relationship… There has been a lot
of trust. Trust has been established and because
of that, my support to the enterprise is very easy.
(Resource Provider A -TRAINING SE)
Imbalance
power
Because you have the funding so you have to
please the donors… A lot of donors have a lot of
options. We’re competing for a very small pocket
of money. Everyone competes. Donors have
choices. (Founder-TRAINING SE)
Frequent &
close
interaction;
long history of
relationship;
enjoyable
relationships
I became involved with the SE 8 years ago… At
the moment, one of the enterprise’s trainees lives
in my house. So I interact with them every bloody
day. I interact with other people from [the SE],
probably monthly…I enjoy my interactions from
trainees to CEO. The relationship is very close.
(Resource Provider B-TRAINING SE)
Delegated
authority;
Top down
relationship
We told [the SE] that you have to submit this
information… so that’s the way we work. That’s not
particularly collaborative.
(Investor - LEARNING SE)
Reciprocity;
appreciation;
trustworthiness
; shared
value
The SE also makes contributions to our activities…
Actually, we both appreciate each other. We see
their value. And they may see us as a trustworthy
organization that they could share with their
vision and challenges they face. (Intermediary-
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE)
Imbalance
power; Meet
funder’s
requirements
Some are keen on showing impact via SROI
framework, others apply [a] different
measurement approach. So for each potential
funder, we need to think how we demonstrate
these impact[s] to meet their
requirements. (Consultant-WOMEN
EMPOWERMENT SE)
Close; good
relationship;
Open & frank
with each
other
We have developed a close and good
relationship with the founder. We are very open
to each other. We speak what we think and we
discuss frankly on any issues that we may face
during the working process. (Resource Provider M
– WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE)
Pressure,
uneasiness
Once my husband had an uneasy talk with the
resource provider when they asked us to develop
the measurement system. And it seems that they
even want an impact report than ourselves… And
it then becomes a pressure for us.
(Founder-LEARNING SE )

15. Funding Relationships & S.I.M
Social Impact
Measurement
(S.I.M)
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
Motivations for
S.I.M
Learning & improvement Accessing resource & satisfying resource
providers
Compliance with
resource providers’
S.I.M mandates
Low
Parties are open to discuss S.I.M options
High
SEs tend to strictly comply with resource
providers’ S.I.M mandates
Expectation &
Choice of S.I.M
approaches
Imperfect, partial
Informal, subjective, simple, unrefined,
qualitative
Holistic, intensive
Formal, standardized, complicated, wide &
deep, detailed, professional
Resources spent on
S.I.M
Modest Large
Perceived
importance of
formal S.I.M
 Not very critical to resource providers’
decision.
 Investment decision & further engagement
are based on:
• Trust built upon actors’ transactions •
How SEs perform
• “Shared values” and “reciprocity”
vision that go beyond the contractual
agreement of the funding schemes
 Critical to resource provider’s decision .
 Investment decision & further engagement are
based on:
• How SEs perform
• How they demonstrate their impact
formally

16. Motivations for S.I.M
Motivations
for S.I.M
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
Learning & improvement, mutual understanding Accessing resource & satisfying resource
providers
Quotes The priority for us now is to have [those]
measurement policies and systems in place for
internal use, rather than go[ing] with the
request of the donors. I think that part is
very important for the growth and the
sustainability of the organisation (Founder –
TRAINING SE)
Different funders have different approaches to
social impact evaluation. For example, [funder
A] applies an SROI framework to measure
impact ... However, [funder B], looks at financial
indicators, balance cash flow, feasibility of our
business plan alongside with impact measures;
[Funder C] is concerned with cost effectiveness
of the enterprise and environmental impact ...
Some are keen on measuring impact via an
SROI framework, others apply different
evaluation approaches. So for each potential
funder, we need to understand what they
expect. We need to think how we demonstrate
these impacts to meet their requirements (
Employee –WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE ).

17. Compliance with Resource Providers’
S.I.M mandates
Compliance
with resource
providers’
S.I.M
mandates
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
Low
Parties are open to discuss S.I.M options
High
SEs tend to strictly comply with resource providers’
S.I.M mandates
Quotes We had a chat to them to see whether they
wanted... That is our process. That is where we
have a discussion and that is a mutual
decision (Resource Provider A – TRAINING
SE).
When we made the investment, this is part of our
standard reporting that we require from all our
organisations and when we made the investment
we agreed, here is the matrix you will need to
report on every quarter. And after that we agree
— what they’re going to do to get it done... The
enterprise we invest in is required to fill in ... so
important for us, definitely very important for us.
Social impact evaluation is ‘mandatory’ rather
than ‘collaborative’ (Resource Provider C –
LEARNING SE)

18. Expectation & Choice of S.I.M approaches
Expectation
& Choice of
S.I.M
Approaches
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
Imperfect, partial
Informal, subjective, simple, unrefined,
qualitative
Holistic, intensive
Formal, standardized, complicated, wide & deep,
detailed, professional
Quotes In terms of impact measurement, I guess, it’s
quite simple to go into it. We spoke to a
couple of people, it sounds good… We do not
follow any metrics. We’ve got people on the
ground there. I guess in terms of speaking to
them about the enterprise that forms part of
our impact measurement. But it’s kind of
informal. We support [the enterprise] since
their inception 12 years ago and they have
600-700 graduates currently. That’s the key
metric we use. We have complete trust
between the two (Resource Provider A –
TRAINING SE)
We have a standard reporting system worldwide,
adopting the IRIS standardized measures... To
evaluate social impact, we look at the width and the
depth of activities. For the growth, we look at the
number of beneficiaries that we reach, either directly
or indirectly… For growth, the enterprise is required
to examine the number of people in need that the
social enterprise has engaged, either directly or
indirectly. For depth, the enterprise is expected to
demonstrate the impact from an individual to a system
perspective. For the individual perspective, the social
venture has to evidence whether the people in need
would have a better life including indicators such as
more income, material wellbeing, physical wellbeing
and social wellbeing. From a system perspective, the
enterprise needs to demonstrate whether the
investment has made a systematic change (Resource
Provider C –LEARNING SE).

19. Resources spent on S.I.M
Resources
spent on S.I.M
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
Modest Large
Quotes In terms of impact evaluation, I guess, it is quite
simple to go into it. We spoke to a couple of
people, it sounds good ... We do not follow any
metrics. We have got people on the ground
there. But it is kind of informal. We support [the
enterprise] since their inception 12 years ago
and they have 600–700 graduates currently.
That is the key metric we use. We have complete
trust between the two (Resource Provider A –
TRAINING SE)
The reports to [intermediary A] are very simple. I
wrote what we did and how the fund was used in
a simple format. I’m happy with the report that
they required as it’s simple, easy to do and I do
not have to spend too much time on it (Founder,
LEARNING SE)
Every month, we ask the organizations to report
on different indicators. And on quarterly basis, we
have a call with organizations and try to identify
the current situation and plan for the next quarter.
In the end of June, we have a mid-year report,
And in the end of the year, we have the portfolio
review.... It requires a lot of work. (Resource
Provider C – LEARNING SE)
I feel if I can make a good, detailed report as
requested by [Resource Provider C], I have to
ignore many other business activities for a period
(Founder – LEARNING SE)

20. Perceived Importance of Formal S.I.M
Perceived
Importance of
Formal S.I.M
Funding relationship
Symmetric Asymmetric
 Not very critical to resource providers’
decision.
 Investment decision & further engagement are
based on:
• Trust built upon actors’ transactions •
How SEs perform
• “Shared values” and “reciprocity”
vision that go beyond the contractual
agreement of the funding schemes
 Critical to resource provider’s decision .
 Investment decision & further engagement are
based on:
• How SEs perform
• How they demonstrate their impact
formally
Quotes Reporting is part of the system. It is nice to
receive the report from Hospitality SE and
emails from trainees but it is not essential
(Resource Provider B – TRAINING SE)
If you want to get additional funding, you need
[to] have a quite good accounting and a quite
good social impact measurement system. If you
have these in place, then more funding will come.
If you do not have anything in place… it is really
difficult to get additional funds… it’s like [the]
chicken and egg…If SEs want to get more,
they’ve got to do more. (Resource Provider C-
LEARNING SE)

21. Asymmetric Symmetric
S.I.M
Complicated, standardised,
mandatory, resource intensive
S.I.M
Simple, collaborative, less
resource intensive
Social impact evaluation is ‘mandatory’ rather than
‘collaborative’ … social impact assessment is an
important step of the due diligence process…
We have a standard reporting system worldwide,
adopting the IRIS standardised measures... To evaluate
social impact, we look at the width and the depth of
activities.... It requires a lot of work. If you want to get
additional funding, you need [to] have a quite good
accounting and a quite good social impact measurement
system. If SEs want to get more, they’ve got to do more
(Resource Provider C – LEARNING SE).
SEs should spend time to create social impact rather
than to measure it ... or trying to figure out how to
measure it. I think doing any kind of deeper impact
evaluation study is not a priority at this stage ... We
do not want to burden them with doing things like
reporting and studies which are not very practical and
feasible for them. So we stick to simple measure,...
kind of... outputs really, like how many children
attending our classes, how many classes have been run,
how many volunteers are trained or worked with the SE
( Resource Provider C – LEARNING SE).
The Dynamics of
Funding Relationships & S.I.M

22. Conclusions
 The need to understand the interdependence of the
parties rather than focus on the technical issue of
measurement alone
 A new ‘moral’ system: Power does not always belong
to the resource holders
 The need to understand of the intrinsic purposes of a
seemingly asymmetric relation in S.I.M
 The dynamics of interdependences between SEs and
resource providers

23. Implications
 Asymmetric dependence may create pressures or inefficiency for SEs regarding
S.I.M
 Stakeholders can manage behaviours to enhance mutual understanding, trust, and
commitment for joint actions; facilitate favourable conditions to mobilize resource
and create sustainable impact.
 S.I.M should not be a tool to control of resource holders or an additional burden
for SEs
 SEs should consider what to measure and how to measure in order to balance
organizational objectives, resources available, and stakeholders’ satisfaction.
 SEs could be innovative in S.I.M to demonstrate the social impact that matches their
objectives and contexts since there is no common standard or agreed optimal
approaches to S.I.M or “one size does not fit all”
 S.I.M should be part of organizational strategy (Arvidson & Lyon, 2014) and not just a
means to resist and comply with resource providers’ demands (Levay & Waks, 2009).

24. Q&A
Thank You