Reporting tools for social enterprises: between impact measurement and stakeholder needs
Abstract
Most people within the third sector and beyond would endorse the view that social economy organisations should report on what they do and how they work for the common good, and we, as a society, should require such reporting. There are several studies and research on the role of reporting for social enterprises hoping to communicate financial information and social impact. However, the gap that emerged from the literature is that the principles of transparency and accountability are defined, but there is a lack of determination of a key element that can put order and respond to the need of stakeholders in the best possible way. The author believes that a good reporting tool that is representative and that above all is understandable even to non-professional users only works if it can give an effective group representation if it puts the first place: the need. The author employs the methodology of the case study where data are collected by multiple means through qualitative research techniques such as interviews, and document analysis for acquiring a full understanding. The finding reveals that the focus on the need of stakeholders increases accountability, transparency, and stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders would be able to better understand the strong values of good governance, leadership, performance, and social impact that the company possesses. Through the research project conducted so far has been possible to demonstrate that in social enterprises to have an effective measurement of impact must use all possible tools to know and describe the company and the ecosystem that surrounds it and this is possible through timely reporting that it returns clear information for all.
References
Adams, C. (2000). Ethical reporting: Past and Future. Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management Accountants, 78, 48–50.
Al-Khasawneh, A. L., & Futa, S. M. (2012). The impact of leadership styles used by the academic staff in the Jordanian public universities on modifying students’ behavior: A field study in the northern ldots. ldots Journal of Business and Management. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/20543/14736
Alshammari, A., Almutairi, N. N., & Thuwaini, S. F. (2015). Ethical leadership: The effect on employees. ldots Business and Management. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/43586
Alter, K. (2004). Social Enterprise Typology: The Four Lenses Strategic Framework. Virtue Ventures LLC.
Andrews, R., & van de Walle, S. (2013). New Public Management and Citizens’ Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency, Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness. Public Management Review, 15(5), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725757
Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S. S. (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement (1 edition). Routledge.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 69–97.
Awotundun, D. A., Kehinde, J. S., & Somoye, R. O. C. (2011). Corporate governance and stakeholders interest: A case of Nigerian banks. International Journal of Business and Management. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/12506/8848
Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653.
Badia, F., Dicuonzo, G., Petruzzelli, S., & Dell’Atti, V. (2018). Integrated reporting in action: Mobilizing intellectual capital to improve management and governance practices. Journal of Management and Governance, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9420-1
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.
Bezzi, C. (2001). Valutazione partecipata nei servizi. Prospettive Sociali e Sanitarie, 6.
Biancone, P., & Secinaro, S. (2015). Popular financial reporting: Un nuovo strumento di rendicontazione per le municipalità. Giappichelli. https://iris.unito.it/handle/2318/1557120#.WqkBkejOXIU
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2016). The Popular Financial Reporting: Focus on Stakeholders—The first European Experience. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(11), 115. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n11p115
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2017a). L’informazione consolidata e gli indicatori Bes: Strumenti per una rendicontazione più accessibile ai cittadini. L’esperienza Italiana del Popular Financial. Rivista Italiana Di Ragioneria e Di Economia Aziendale, 339 – 354.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2017b). The Popular Financial Reporting and Gender Accountability, the Integrated Approach in Municipalities and Public Bodies. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 7, 1–11.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018a). Communication and data processing in local public group: Transparency and accountability. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT, 13(10), 20–37.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018b). POPULAR FINANCIAL REPORTING, A NEW INFORMATION TOOL FOR SOCIAL COOPERATIVES. Franco Angeli. https://iris.unito.it/handle/2318/1701273#.XUBdGugzbIU
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018c). The Popular Financial Reporting as tool to measure social impact. 14th Interdisciplinary Conference On Intangibles And Intellectual Capital Value Creation, Integrated Reporting And Governance, Munich.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018d, September 13). Popular Financial Reporting, a new information tool for social cooperatives. CONVEGNO NAZIONALE SIDREA 2018 - Università degli studi di Verona, Verona.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019a). The Popular Financial Reporting between Theory and Evidence.
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019b). La misurazione dell’impatto sociale nelle organizzazioni ibride. XIII.
Bicciato, F. (2010). Finanza etica e impresa sociale. Società editrice il Mulino, Spa.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Borzaga, C. (2002). Sull’impresa sociale. ISSAN Working Papers, 19.
Borzaga, C., & Santuari, A. (2003). New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship. The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, 31–59.
Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2004). Dalla cooperazione mutualistica alla cooperazione sociale: Una prospettiva internazionale. IMPRESA SOCIALE, 44–56.
Brescia, V. (2019). The popular financial reporting: New accounting tool for Italian municipalities. Franco Angeli.
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 9–22.
Calderini, M., Chiodo, V., & Michelucci, F. V. (2018). Growing Social Impact Finance: Implications for the Public Sector. In Positive Impact Investing (pp. 27–38). Springer.
Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.007
Calò, F., Teasdale, S., Donaldson, C., Roy, M. J., & Baglioni, S. (2018). Collaborator or competitor: Assessing the evidence supporting the role of social enterprise in health and social care. Public Management Review, 20(12), 1790–1814.
Campbell, D. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(31), 67–77.
Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and Society-Ethics and Stakeholder Management. South-Western Publishing Co.
Castello, S., & Lévêque, C. M. (2016). La Theory of change come impact-model: Diffusione e utilizzo a livello nazionale e internazionale. Philanthropy Insights, 4. Fondazione Lang Italia. http://en.fondazionelangitalia.it/ wp- content/uploads/2016/03/Philanthropy-Insights-n_4.pdf
Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., Norman, W., & Foundation, Y. (2012). Social Innovation Overview. Part One: Defining Social Innovation.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
Civera, C., De Colle, S., & Casalegno, C. (2019). Stakeholder engagement through empowerment: The case of coffee farmers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 156–174.
Clark, C., & Rosenzweig, W. (2004). Double bottom line project report. University of California, Berkeley.
Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures.
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.
Corvo, L., & Pastore, L. (2018). La costellazione del valore: Approcci collaborativi oltre Porter. Colloquio scientifico sull’impresa sociale, Innovazione dei framework interpretativi e teorici(XII).
Curtis, T., Herbst, J., & Gumkovska, M. (2010). The social economy of trust: Social entrepreneurship experiences in Poland. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(3), 194–209.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140–1169.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.
Ecchia, G., & Zarri, L. (2005). Capitale sociale e accountability: Il ruolo del bilancio di missione nella governance delle organizzazioni non-profit. http://www.academia.edu/download/34192803/n.3.pdf
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2014). Non-governmental organisations-performance and accountability: Beyond the magic bullet. Routledge.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Farmer, J., Hill, C., & Muñoz, S.-A. (2012). Community co-production: Social enterprise in remote and rural communities. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fernández-Fernández, J.-L. (1999). Ethics and the Board of Directors in Spain: The Olivencia Code of Good Governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(3), 233–247.
Fornaciari, L. (2017). Gruppi aziendali e bilancio consolidato in Italia. G Giappichelli Editore. https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=BSw6DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&dq=•%09Fornaciari,+L.+(2017).+Grup pi+aziendali+e+bilancio+consolidato+in+Italia+(V ol.+6).+G+Giappichelli+Editore&ots=1OVufNA8_F&sig=PlKm2HTjQU go5036xAnS5iqXfpA
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.
Friedman, S. (2014). The hidden tastemakers: Comedy scouts as cultural brokers at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Poetics, 44, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.04.002
Garrow, E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2012). Managing conflicting institutional logics: Social service versus market. In Social
Enterprises (pp. 121–143). Springer.
Goldoff, A. C. (2000). Decision-making in organizations: The new paradigm. International Journal of Public Administration, 23(11), 2017–2044. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690008525535
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K. (2002). Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 107–118.
Grossi, G., & Thomasson, A. (2015). Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: The case of Copenhagen Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314548151
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational
Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.
Hartmann, S. (2019). Citizen relationship management for civic participation: How smart cities use 311 to involve citizens. Public Administration and Information Technology, 34, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89474-4_4
Hermann, K. R. (2011). Creating an Excellent Popular Financial Report. Government Finance Review, 27.5, 41–44.
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.
How, S.-M., Lee, C. G., & Brown, D. M. (2019). Shareholder Theory Versus Stakeholder Theory in Explaining Financial Soundness. International Advances in Economic Research, 25(1), 133–135.
Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA). Available Online: Http://Ec. Europa. Eu/Bepa/Pdf/Publications_pdf/Social_innovation. Pdf.
Jiang, W., Wang, A. X., Zhou, K. Z., & Zhang, C. (2019). Stakeholder Relationship Capability and Firm Innovation: A Contingent Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15.
Kail, A., & Lumley, T. (2012). Theory of change: The beginning of making a difference. New Philanthropy Capital.
Kirk, J., Miller, M. L., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research (Vol. 1). Sage.
Kleynjans, L., & Hudon, M. (2016). A Study of Codes of Ethics for Mexican Microfinance Institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2434-y
Lan, Z., & Hal, G. R. (1992). Goals, Rules, and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence on Frequent Assertions About Differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037111
Lehner, O. M., & Nicholls, A. (2014). Social finance and crowdfunding for social enterprises: A public–private case study providing legitimacy and leverage. Venture Capital, 16(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.925305
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248–266.
Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739.
Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110–122.
Marradi, A. (1992). Concetti e metodo pre la ricerca sociale. La Giuntina.
Mauksch, S., Dey, P., Rowe, M., & Teasdale, S. (2017). Ethnographies of social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0019
Meneguzzo, M. (2005). Creazione di valore e sviluppo del capitale sociale. Rivista Italiana Di Ragioneria e Di Economia Aziendale.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105
Montesi, F., Greco, C., Montesi, F., & Seganti, S. (2017). INNOVA - Guida pratica per il Terzo Settore. Human Foundation.
Najam, A. (2002). Financing sustainable development: Crises of legitimacy. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 153– 160.
Nguyen, L., Szkudlarek, B., & Seymour, R. G. (2015). Social impact measurement in social enterprises: An interdependence perspective. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 32(4), 224– 237.
Norman, D. J. (2014). From shouting to counting: Civil society and good governance reform in Cambodia. The Pacific Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2014.882393
Owen, D., & Swift, T. (2001). Introduction social accounting, reporting and auditing: Beyond the rhetoric? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 4–8.
Owen, D., Swift, T., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98.
Pearce, J. (2009). Social economy: Engaging as a third system. The Social Economy: International Perspectives on Economic Solidarity, London: Zed Books Ltd, 22–33.
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.
Pestoff, V. (2014). Hybridity, coproduction, and third sector social services in Europe. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1412–1424.
Pisoni, P., Biancone, P., Busso, D., & Cisi, M. (2007). Il bilancio consolidato IAS/IFRS. A. Giuffrè Editore. https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=Ym_DEZ_LdHwC&oi=fnd&pg=P A8&dq=•%09Pisoni,+P .,+Biancone,+P .,+Bu sso,+D.,+%26+Cisi,+M.+(2007).+Il+bilancio+consolidato+IAS.+Ifrs,+Giuffrè,+Milano&ots=pmPCRDudI5&sig=Yw- MqrjQUiodk755M3IdrB2s0xI#v=onepage&q&f=false
Presenza, A., Micera, R., Splendiani, S., & Chiappa, G. D. (2014). Stakeholder e-involvement and participatory tourism planning: Analysis of an Italian case study. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 5(3), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2014.065320
Rehn, A. (2008). Pop (Culture) Goes the Organization: On Highbrow, Lowbrow and Hybrids in Studying Popular Culture Within Organization Studies. Organization, 15(5), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508408093652
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.
Rousseau, J.-J. (2015). Il contratto sociale. Edizioni Mondadori.
Sangle, S. (2010). Critical success factors for corporate social responsibility: A public sector perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(4), 205–214.
Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2017). New development: Performance promises and pitfalls in hybrid organizations—five challenges for managers and researchers. Public Money & Management, 37(6), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1344023
Smith, S. R., & Phillips, S. D. (2016). The changing and challenging environment of nonprofit human services: Implications for governance and program implementation. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7, 63–76.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stanton, T. H. (2004). When Government Isn’t Exactly Government. Jonathan G. S. Koppell. 2003. The Politics of Quasi- Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 254 pp. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 435–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh027
Steiner, A., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The playground of the rich? Growing social business in the 21st century. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2015-0036
Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65–85.
Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business relationships. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.
Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2016). The challenges of fractionalized property rights in public-private hybrid organizations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Regulation & Governance, 10(2), 161–178.
Waddock, S. A. (2002). Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value-added. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Boston, MA.
Wainwright, T., & Manville, G. (2017). Financialization and the third sector: Innovation in social housing bond markets. Environment and Planning A, 49(4), 819–838.
Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 93–115.
Windsor, D. (2002). Stakeholder responsibilities: Lessons for managers. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 19–36.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge, 3(1), 97–114.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
Zamagni, S. (2013). Territorio, istituzioni, crescita: La ripresa d’interesse nella ricerca economica. Fratesi U., Pellegrini G.(a Cura Di), Territorio, Istituzioni, Crescita. Scienze Regionali e Sviluppo Del Paese, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 39–56.
Zamagni, S., Venturi, P., & Rago, S. (2015). Valutare l’impatto sociale. La questione della misurazione nelle imprese sociali. Rivista Impresa Sociale. http://www.rivistaimpresasociale.it/rivista/item/141-misurazione-impatto-sociale.html
EJSICE has been approved for inclusion in DOAJ. The DOAJ listing of the journal is available at 
EJSICE is a member of 
EJSICE is indexed by 
EJSICE is listed in the ANVUR (Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes) as a scientific journal in both AREA 13 - Economic and statistical sciences and AREA 14 - Political and social sciences. 
