Content uploaded by Laurie Mook
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laurie Mook on May 19, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Social Accounting for Nonprofits
Abstract and Figures
After giving an overview of the development of social account- ing, this article presents two models of social accounting for nonprofits: the community social return on investment model and the expanded value-added statement. The discussion focuses on the process for establishing a comparative market value for nonmarket social outputs. The authors discuss these models and the comparative market value in relation to social accounting, an academic field that has evolved as part of a critique of finan- cial accounting, especially its failure to analyze the impact of the organization on society and the natural environment. For the most part, scholars have not related social accounting to non- profits. This article attempts to draw nonprofits into the field of social accounting. Both models address the social impact of non- profits by including social inputs and outputs that accounting statements normally exclude.
Figures - uploaded by Laurie Mook
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Laurie Mook
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Concerning social impact measurement, a comprehensive review of the literature indicates two historical trends: one addressing social accounting and audit, and the other on social impact assessment [23]. Social accounting and audit is defined as "a systematic analysis of the effects of an organization on its communities of interest or stakeholders" [24], p. 309 and has become a commonly used label for what has been named, among others, corporate social reporting or social responsibility accounting [25]. Essentially, it includes reporting on an organization's social activities, environmental impact, interactions with the employees, the community, customers and other stakeholders and, possibly, their consequences [26]. ...
The commitment to generating a blended value is increasingly spreading in the business sector. At the forefront of this movement, impact ventures are organizations born to produce value for the society, i.e. social impact, while engaging in commercial activities to sustain their operations. On the other end, we have observed an increased emphasis on more responsible, sustainable practices that traditional for-profit businesses have been called to establish. Accounting for and reporting on social impact has become increasingly of interest to a range of institutions and sectors, with the result that many competing methodologies, approaches, guidelines and standards have been introduced. The chapter performs a comprehensive review of existing approaches for impact measurement and management implemented by socially-oriented ventures (both not for profit organizations and for-profit businesses) focusing on both methodological, governance and operational barriers and enabling factors of the practices. Then, it drafts a framework which helps any ventures to structure a process and methodology to measure its blended performance. The research not only contributes to the scant literature on impact entrepreneurship but impact ventures might offer a compelling laboratory to disentangle the obstacles posed by the combined achievement of financial and social objectives and how organizations might address these challenges.
... The number of people supported by the project or number of innovations generated by the project does not answer the question about the real contribution to the development of local communities, increasing local prosperity and having security in life. On the other hand, Richmond, Mook, and Quarter (2003) suggested social accounting, but for many organizations it was still difficult to evaluate their work through a true quantitative approach. Finally, the New Economics Foundation presented a social ratio, called social return on investment (SROI) based on the return on investment in business analysis (Clifford, List, Theobald, 2010). ...
The aim of this chapter is to summarize the theoretical knowledge from the field of social entrepreneurship and the creation of social innovation and highlight the impact EU funds have on the development of social innovation in selected regions of the Czech Republic. The authors assumed that there could be a positive link between the amount of financial support and the number of created social innovations within the chosen EU programmes. Classification of created social innovation according to type, creator, priority axis in relation to beneficiary etc. came under other objectives. Social innovations are created as a positive externality from other social projects. Finally, recommendation for sustainable support evaluation is provided.
... Any variable that cannot be readily given an attributed value is simply omitted from the equation. Perhaps more seriously, the use of SROI and similar monetised evaluation frameworks reduces organisational performance to financial values at the expense of the human and mission-based values of the service provided (Zappalà and Lyons 2009; Arvidson 2009; Mook, Richmond and Quarter 2003; Ebrahim and Rangan 2010). ...
This paper constructs a theoretical model of social impact as it applies to civil society organisations. It does so by drawing on the recent literature on the topic as well as recently completed empirical studies. First, the relationship between impact and evaluation is examined. This is followed by an exploration of the capitals, notably social, human, and cultural capital and their interrelationships, as a theoretical base for the explication of social impact. A formal model of social impact is then identified together with a set of basic principles that may be said to define social impact. Finally the implications of the model are discussed for social policy and organisational management.
... The reasons for non-practice are unclear, though it is notable that human resource factors including the lack of professional, full-time board members, are often critical issues for many SEs (Spear et al., 2007). Despite this, accountability remains a prime indicator of good governance in NPOs, and support organisations in the UK SE sector adopt a "soft-touch" approach to better accountability standards (Quarter and Richmond, 2001;Richmond et al., 2003;Molyneaux, 2004). While accountability is central to legitimate governance, for some Social Firms it is perhaps less important than more pressing, overriding aims that assert a different type of accountability (for example, financing new projects, obtaining new grant funding streams to better serve primary beneficiaries). ...
Third sector organisations, including social enterprises (SEs), are facing significant challenges. Primarily, this is because they are often engaged in contracting with the public sector and many are dependent on grant funding streams at risk of being cut during turbulent economic times. In the United Kingdom, these conditions are embellished by contemporary political discourse that further integrates the future of the Third sector with the changing provision of services by the welfare state (Cabinet Office 2008). SEs are going to play a particularly active role in the implementation of emergent public policy. Within this context, this paper presents the findings of a small-scale study of Social Firms, a type of SE. In particular, the paper presents an analysis of attitudes towards one of the key organisational functions, namely governance. The key research question this study aims to resolve is: how do Board and non-Board member attitudes to governance issues vary? Since a level of change in orientation is anticipated of UK SEs, it is timely to survey some of the internal perspectives to such changes. Drawing on the main definitional themes commonly used in social enterprise research, the study outlines four key propositions relating to the expected features of SE governance. Key internal tensions between Board and non-Board members are revealed over issues such as legitimacy, accountability, democracy and enterprise-focus. Notably, the number and type of staff, and the presence of a social audit, also pose significant tensions to the governance of Social Firms. Mindful of the difficulties associated with generalising across SE types, the implications position the UK SE sector between the entrepreneurial model common in the USA and the traditional social model prevalent in mainland Europe. The paper enhances SE governance theory by addressing the accepted tenets of SE in light of the attitudes of people managing the organisation. By highlighting how governance legitimacy is led less by social benefit and accountability, we begin to understand the challenges facing Board members in integrating their workforce more closely with core, social and entrepreneurial, values.
... The reasons for non-practice are unclear, though it is notable that human resource factors including the lack of professional, full-time board members, are often critical issues for many SEs (Spear et al., 2007). Despite this, accountability remains a prime indicator of good governance in NPOs, and support organisations in the UK SE sector adopt a "soft-touch" approach to better accountability standards (Quarter and Richmond, 2001;Richmond et al., 2003;Molyneaux, 2004). While accountability is central to legitimate governance, for some Social Firms it is perhaps less important than more pressing, overriding aims that assert a different type of accountability (for example, financing new projects, obtaining new grant funding streams to better serve primary beneficiaries). ...
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline the findings of a quantitative study of Social Firms between 2006 and 2007. In doing so, it examines the challenges that boards and managers in these organisations face. Design/methodology/approach – In order to test propositions developed from a review of the social enterprise (SE) governance literature, the paper adopts a quantitative, survey-based approach. The survey compared attitudes to governance issues among managers and board members in the UK-based Social Firms. Findings – Statistical analysis of the findings highlighted some key outcomes, particularly regarding legitimacy, accountability and stakeholder inclusion of Social Firms Boards. Furthermore, the paper identifies divisions between managers and board members regarding the enterprise-orientation of Social Firms. Research limitations/implications – The research adds to current sector debates concerning SE identity, especially related to the effectiveness of governance systems, the erosion of underpinning social values and the adoption of a keener enterprise focus. While the research signals key variables such as legitimacy, accountability and democracy, much larger, qualitative-based studies are required that capture the voices of more SE boards. Practical implications – The key practical outcome from this small-scale study is the difficulty faced by SE practitioners in managing the governance process. There are many forces pulling the SE sector (political, economic and not to mention social) and these undoubtedly have an impact at the grassroots level. Social implications – Having drawn conclusions on the key areas of significant difference between internal actors in Social Firms, it is vital not to forget that organisational governance does affect social beneficiaries. In the case of Social Firms, social beneficiaries are also bound together within the fabric of the organisation, forming part of the workforce as well as benefitting from access to employment. This presents problems for SE management, especially when diverging attitudes detract from, rather than enhance, social benefit. Originality/value – The paper presents some new empirical support for many of the governance challenges facing SE practitioners in the UK. The paper contributes to knowledge by providing support for the debates concerning SE governance, identity and legitimacy.
... For example, the former can be achieved through inclusive and democratic Board election practice (Brown, 2002). The latter through professionalisation and monitoring (Borzaga and Solari, 2001;Bryson et al., 2001;Richmond et al., 2003). ...
This paper aims to set out the current theoretical landscape of social enterprise governance. It considers the two theories of governance currently advocated in the social enterprise literature - stakeholder and stewardship theories. Furthermore, it asserts the utility of neoinstitutional theory in analysis of social enterprise governance. The methodology employed was critical review and application of the prevailing governance theory in a social enterprise context. The prevailing institutional theory offers a great deal in explaining the governance dynamic in these organisations. The influence that values, symbols and cultural norms have upon organisation structure are not fully encompassed in social enterprise governance theory. Rather, it has been adapted and diluted to fit different explanations of governance, such as stakeholder and stewardship theory. Institutional theory offers an alternative lens with which to analyse social enterprise governance. This paper advocates institutional analysis of governance as an alternative method of mapping social enterprise governance, testing existing concepts such as isomorphism within the third sector, and new conceptual research. The paper consolidates the governance theory currently attributed to social enterprise governance, and puts forward an alternative theory that considers the influence of institutional pressures upon governance arrangements. It adds to the governance literature by suggesting a deeper analysis of institutional factors upon governance structure. It also adds to the growing literature that focuses on the governance of social enterprise as a distinct form of organisation in the third sector.
span>A contabilidade ambiental é uma vertente da ciência contábil que tem como função fornecer informações, através de relatórios, aos usuários, internos e externos, sobre as mutações patrimoniais sofridas pelas atividades de impactos ambientais exercidas pela empresa. Baseado nisso, com base na pesquisa bibliográfica, o artigo descreve os instrumentos contábeis importantes na divulgação dos impactos ambientais, demonstrando, assim o papel da contabilidade para evidenciação da responsabilidade social e ambiental das empresas. Foi possível concluir que a contabilidade ambiental tem um papel fundamental na divulgação de informações de natureza ambiental e social das organizações, e para isso faz uso das peças contábeis que compõem os demonstrativos, auxiliando-os na sua tomada de decisão organizacional.</span
In a principal-agent relationship the principal monitors and evaluates the agents. One of the ways in which the public exercises these oversight functions over the nonprofit as an agent of public policy is to control critical aspects of its financing. This is done partly by requiring that the nonprofit demonstrate a high level of public financial support. The theory here is that the lack of public financial support may be an indicator of lack of public interest or perceived value of what the organization is doing.
There is a need for an accounting paradigm that properly illustrates the value that nonprofits generate. Much of that value comes from volunteer contributions, which are significant but for the most part are not included in financial accounting statements, even though our research indicates that they account for almost a third of the value added by these organizations. This article reports the results of two studies related to measuring volunteer value in the accounting of nonprofits and then draws some policy implications from the research. The first study, a survey of 156 nonprofits in Canada, found that although about one-third of the sample kept records of volunteer hours, only 3 percent included a value for them in their accounting statements. The second study, of nonprofit accountants, found that they did not feel that financial accounting statements properly represented the contribution of their organizations. A series of policy recommendations are presented, including suggestions for revising the regulations of accounting bodies for imputing volunteer value and creating accounting statements that better represent the contribution of nonprofits.
A non-profit accountability framework is developed from the broader academic literature, both within non-profit studies and beyond. The framework includes a comprehensive set of stakeholders that non-profits need to be accountable to, as well as resources to be accountable for. These stakeholders and resources are then contrasted on a matrix.
Sommaire : Un cadre d'imputabilité pour le secteur à but non lucratif est élaboréà partir de la documentation. Le cadre inclut un ensemble exhaustif de parties prenantes auxquelles le secteur à but non lucratif doit rendre des comptes, ainsi que des ressources pour lesquelles il est imputable. Ces parties prenantes et les ressources sont alors mises en contraste sur un tableau.
