17. Social impact measurement in social enterprises. An interdependence perspective

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration
32: 224–237 (2015)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1359

Social impact measurement in social enterprises:
An interdependence perspective
Linh Nguyen*
The University of Sydney Business School and Vietnam National
University, Hanoi – University of Economics and Business

Betina Szkudlarek

Richard G. Seymour

The University of Sydney Business School

The University of Sydney Business School

Abstract
In response to recent calls for a better understanding of the
connection between social enterprises and their environments,
we focus on the influence of funding relationships on social
impact measurement in social enterprises in Vietnam. We utilize resource dependence theory and take a multiple case study
approach to explore the issue. The findings suggest that in order to understand and explain the social impact measurement
behaviours of social enterprises and funding organizations, it
is critical to understand the interdependence of the parties
rather than focus on the technical issue of measurement alone.
The paper contributes to the relatively scant but burgeoning
theoretical foundations of the social impact measurement and
social entrepreneurship domains. Copyright © 2015 ASAC.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Résumé
En réponse aux récents appels pour une meilleure compréhension du lien entre les entreprises sociales et leurs
environnements, cet article s’intéresse surtout à l’influence que
les relations de financement ont sur le mesure de l’impact social
au sein des entreprises basées au Vietnam. Il s’appuie sur la
théorie de la dépendance des ressources et sur l’étude de cas
multiples. Les résultats révèlent que pour pouvoir comprendre
et expliquer les comportements liés à la mesure de l’impact
social des entreprises sociales et des organismes de financement,
il est crucial de prendre en compte l’interdépendance des parties
au lieu de se focaliser uniquement sur l’aspect technique de la
mesure. L’article contribue aux fondements théoriques
relativement jeunes, mais prometteurs, de la mesure de l’impact
social et aux domaines de l’entrepreneuriat social. Copyright ©
2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: social impact measurement, social entrepreneurship, interdependence, resource dependence theory,
Vietnam

Mots-clés : mesure de l’impact social, entrepreneuriat
social, interdépendance, théorie de la dépendance des
ressources, Vietnam

Social entrepreneurship is considered “a catalyst for
social transformation” that can resolve the complex economic,
social, and environmental problems of today’s world (Alvord,
Brown, & Letts, 2004, p. 262). Social enterprises (SEs) are
considered hybrid organizations (Battilana & Lee, 2014) that

prioritize the creation and distribution of social, cultural,

and/or natural value (Seymour, 2012) by using business as
vehicles to sustain their value generation (Mair & Martí,
2006). With a significant contribution to both economic
growth and societal wellbeing, SEs have grown dramatically
across the globe in dimension, profile, and dynamism.
As the majority of SEs work in resource constrained environments (Di Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010), they are
typically seeking to improve accountability and performance
to access important resources to sustain their activities.
SE performance and impact measurement seeks to understand and assess financial and social returns from operations.
Although economic indicators are crucial for evaluating the
sustainable growth of an SE, nonpecuniary impact metrics
are arguably more important to ensure the organization meets
its mission. Unfortunately, these nonfinancial measures can
be difficult to articulate given multiple stakeholders and

We would like to thank the editor and guest editor, three anonymous reviewers of CJAS for their review and feedback on an earlier version of this
manuscript. We would also thank the Vietnamese social entrepreneurs and
other informants for their time, great support and participation in this study.
*Please address correspondence to: Linh Nguyen, The University of Sydney
Business School, Economics & Business Building H69, NSW, Darlington,
New South Wales, 2006, Australia. Email:
Correction added on 20 June 2016, after first online publication on 14 December
2015: An affiliation has been added to Linh Nguyen

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

224

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

accountability relationships (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern,
2006; Dees, 2007; Paton, 2003).
Social impact measurement refers to the process of
defining, monitoring, and employing measures to demonstrate benefits created for the target beneficiaries and communities through evidence of social outcomes and/or impacts
(McLoughlin et al., 2009). The measurement of social impact
assists SEs in establishing their legitimacy and accountability
(Nicholls, 2009); learning and improving their efficiency
(Dees, 2007; Paton, 2003); and supporting funders in evaluating their investments (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010). Some
practitioners and researchers propose standardized and
formal approaches to measure social impact such as Social
Return on Investment (SROI), Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS), Social Accounting and Auditing
(SAA), Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Balanced Scorecards
(Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; Nicholls, 2009). However, commonly accepted metrics are yet to be recognized and not all
academics and practitioners support these standardized
frameworks. Others argue the ultimate goal of measuring
social impact is to understand how the social interventions
could meet or satisfy the human needs of social wellbeing
(Kroeger & Weber, 2014) such as healthcare, education,
happiness, equality, and social integration (Hsieh, 2003).
Social impact measurement is thus concerned with perceptual
judgements of social wellbeing (Diener & Suh, 1997)
received by the communities in need, or a self-reflexive

evaluation to achieve social mission (Nicholls, 2009).
In addition to concerns regarding technical measurement
issues, there has been a growing interest among scholars in
understanding how social impact measurement is shaped by
funding relationships in SE’s setting. This interest arises because researchers have noted that social impact measurement
is socially constructed (Nicholls, 2008; Paton, 2003) as
“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 points
of view” (Paton, 2003, p. 45) or because researchers have
noted that “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). These relationships have been shown to be critical, especially if SEs are to achieve their goals. Social entrepreneurs
“develop a large network of strong supporters and an ability
to communicate the impact of the venture’s work to leverage
resources outside organizational boundaries” (Austin et al.,
2006, p. 12). The relationships between SEs and stakeholders
are considered a kind of resource exchange, manifested as the
trade-off between stakeholders’ capital and social impact
generated by SEs (Smith & Stevens, 2010).
Despite increasing scholarly attention paid to social
impact measurement and the funding relationship setting,
there remain a number of limitations in the current literature.
Firstly, while scholars use a different theoretical lens to
explore social impact measurement, many studies (such as

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ebrahim, 2002, 2005; Moxham, 2009; Thomson, 2010) are

guided by the asymmetric dependence approach. These
works tend to overlook the other side of the funding relationships: symmetric dependence. We argue that the symmetric
relation deserves further investigation in the context of SE
as funding relationships can be mediated by mutual understanding, reciprocity, collaboration, trust, and emotional
bond for the common goal (to create societal wellbeing for
the community rather than themselves; Dees, 2007). The
symmetric and asymmetric aspects of resource dependence
view will later be discussed in more detail.
Secondly, current social impact measurement literature
tends to focus on part of the measurement process instead
of on integrated aspects of the process. The extent to which
a funding relationship influences the social impact measurement process has been rarely studied in a single study.
Thirdly, most of the empirical studies on measuring
social impact have concentrated on the United Kingdom,
America, and European countries. Social impact measurement is underresearched in the context of developing
economies and Asia.
In response to the above gaps in extant literature, we
aim to address the following question: How is social impact
measurement influenced by social enterprises’ relationships
with resource providers? To answer this question, we first
concentrate on introducing a more nuanced understanding
of resource dependence theory (Gulati & Sytch, 2007;
Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003) to explore the effects of funding
relationships on the social impact measurement activity.
Second, we re-emphasize the importance of including
context in order to understand phenomena (Cappelli &
Sherer, 1991) and organizational behaviour (Johns, 2006)
towards social impact measurement. We recognize that
impact measurement cannot be understood separately from
its environment, just as the actors who engage with, or are

concerned about, SEs and their performance (Mair & Martí,
2006; Paton, 2003) cannot be separated from their involvement. Third, we focus on SEs in Vietnam, a particularly
underresearched setting in which the resource constrained
environment and absence of robust impact measurement
mechanisms have been seen as enormous hurdles for the development and growth of SEs (BC, CIEM, & CSIP, 2012).
Vietnam is an especially appropriate country in which to
conduct the study, as the challenges facing Vietnamese
SEs are not dissimilar to those facing SEs anywhere.
This paper is organized as follows: we first review the
theoretical approaches employed in the extant literature.
We propose to explore social impact measurement in
funding relationships through a resource dependence lens.
We then present an explanation of the methodology and
method, which is followed by a description of three case
studies, data collection, and analysis. We then present the
findings and conclude with some broader theoretical and
applied implications of the study as well as areas for further
research.

225

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

exchange mechanism that ensures goal alignment and

enhanced performance (Carman, 2010; Mitchell, 2014).
Regarding social impact measurement, funders contribute
to the on-going enhancement of the SEs’ activities and
development of meaningful data (Mitchell, 2014) rather than
creating pressures or burdens on the organizations. Resource
allocation is considered to be made on the basis of good
intentions and philanthropic concerns of social organizations
(Benjamin, 2010). Impact assessment and reports, therefore,
are seen as tools to develop trust and strengthen long-term
relationships between parties (Van Slyke, 2006). As a result,
social impact measurement requirements are considered
more pragmatic in stewardship relations.

Social Impact Measurement and Funding Relationships:
A Review
Engaging with various resource providers make SEs
aware of the multiple and heterogeneous expectations of
returns generated from resource allocation (Ebrahim,
Battilana, & Mair, 2014). Different behaviours could result
from diverging or even conflicting expectations of measurement (Austin et al., 2006; Paton, 2003) as well as from the
nature of funding relationships. These influences include:
motivations for measuring social impact (Carman, 2010;
Mitchell, 2014); levels of compliance with social impact
measurement mandates (Eckerd & Moulton, 2011;
Moxham, 2010; Thomson, 2010); resources spent on measurement activities (Smith & Stevens, 2010); expectations
about and the choice of the social impact measurement
approach (Benjamin, 2010; Smith & Stevens, 2010); and
perceptions of the importance of formal impact measurement
(Carman, 2009; Smith & Stevens, 2010). We have grouped
extant studies exploring social impact measurement

and funding relationships into three theoretical categories:
(i) agency and stewardship; (ii) structural embeddedness,
and (iii) resource dependence. The following section will
briefly introduce and review each of these theories.

Structural Embeddedeness
A second stream of scholarship takes a structural
embeddedeness perspective. The structural embeddedness
lens draws upon both social network and organizational
theories, and suggests that the quality and structure of social
relationships formulate actors’ behaviours and decisions
(Rowley, 1997) by “creating unique opportunities and
access to those opportunities” (Uzzi, 1996, p. 675). According to Smith and Stevens (2010), the extent of structural
embeddedness between SEs and their funders will impact
the perceived importance of formal impact measurement,
strategic choice of measurement approaches, and resources
spent on evaluative activities. They assume two kinds of
structural embeddedness shape actions relating to social
impact measurement: arms’ length tie and embedded tie.
An arm’s length tie refers to the funding relationship in
which funders do not have frequent interaction with, or are
geographically far from SEs (Smith & Stevens, 2010). An
embedded tie is considered a funding relationship in which
funders and SEs are both geographically close and have frequent interaction with each other (Smith & Stevens, 2010).
Arm’s length ties are indicated by relationships based on
rule and authority whereas embedded ties are relationships
characterized by trust and reciprocity between funders and
SEs (Smith & Stevens, 2010). If the funders and SEs engage
in an arm’s length tie, formal social impact measurement
will be perceived as important for investment decision, and

the funder is likely to request the SE to utilize such a
sophisticated and complex measurement framework (such
as SROI) to ensure accountability and transparency (Smith
& Stevens, 2010). In contrast, formal metrics are considered
less critical for resource allocation decisions in embedded
ties: the SE is not expected to utilize complex assessment
tools because actors have built trust upon their frequent
interactions (Smith & Stevens, 2010). Although Smith and
Stevens (2010) have provided significant theoretical perspectives regarding the association between embeddedness
and social impact measurement activities, these theoretical
relationships have not been empirically explored. Despite
their call to further research the relationship between

Agency and Stewardship
Agency theory describes relationships between one
party (the principal) and another (the agent) in which parties
have some targeted purpose but have dissimilar or even
conflicting interests (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). The
principal-agent relationship is characterized as asymmetric
and with delegated authority in which agents usually take
action to meet the principals’ expectations and targets
(Benjamin, 2010). Applying the theory to our phenomenon
suggests that SEs will evaluate impact mainly to satisfy the
requirements of funders rather than any organizational need
(Ebrahim, 2003b). Since the principals (funders) and agents
(SEs) usually have diverging, or even conflicting aims
(Carman, 2010), the motivations for impact measurement
can be considered symbolic and formative (Ebrahim,
2003b). As a result, social organizations may sometimes
overstate their abilities to funders in order to receive funding

(Carman, 2010).
Contrasting agency theory, a stewardship lens refers to
the relationship between parties in which the principals
and agents are seen to share mutual goals and interests
(Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003) with relationships considered more symmetric. Applying this theory in our domain,
the stewardship lens can be used to describe collaboration
between SEs and funders that share common interests,
motivations, aims, and that usually work together to solve
problems and generate impact to communities (Carman,
2010; Van Slyke, 2006). Evaluating and reporting impact
and outcome will typically be conducted on the basis of an

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

226

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

embeddedness and social impact measurement, extant studies remain silent on this question.

in which social enterprises are accountable to resource
providers. As a result, social impact measurement is
typically something enforced by funders, with funders’
assigned mandates (Ebrahim, 2003a) rather than SEs internally developing anything (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012).

This may be why, despite being active in developing their
own measures, SEs tend to use certain measurement
approaches determined by resource providers (Ebrahim,
2005; Nicholls, 2010).

Resource Dependence
The third stream of literature we review investigates social impact measurement through the resource dependence
lens. The resource dependence perspective explores, at its
heart, the behaviours of organizations and individuals undertaking resource exchanges (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). Interdependence is a key concept in resource dependence theory,
and is applied whenever one actor does not entirely control
all of the conditions necessary for the achievement of an
action or for obtaining the outcome desired from the action”
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, p. 40). To clarify this perspective,
we looked back to Emerson (1962), who differentiated two
distinct dimensions of interdependence: asymmetric dependence and symmetric dependence (also referred to as joint
or mutual dependence). Asymmetric dependence can be
characterized as the differential power existing between
two actors (Emerson, 1962) in which the stronger party will
have benefits and dependence advantages in contrast to the
dependence disadvantages of the weaker party (Blau,
1964; Kim, Hoskisson, & Wan, 2004). Applying this to
our domain, major resource providers providing substantial
resources for the development of the organizations are
theorized to have the authority to impact organizations’
decisions and activities (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). In
contrast to the above, symmetric relationships represent
embeddedeness logics that are based on reciprocity and
mutual understanding between actors (Casciaro & Piskorski,
2005; Gulati & Sytch, 2007; Newbert & Tornikoski, 2013).
The symmetric tie is also characterized as 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; Villanueva, Van de Ven, & Sapienza,
2012). These close interactions often lead to deep and rich ties
that go beyond formal liability among actors (Zaheer &
Venkatraman, 1995). As a result, actors are theorized to easily
set common goals and share mutual expectations for joint success and sustainable relationships (McNamara et al., 2015;
Zaheer & Venkatraman, 1995).
In the context of social entrepreneurship, the need to
secure and leverage resources creates numerous external
pressures from resource providers. Furthermore, SEs are
likely to perceive the consequences of these tensions in
the tasks and reporting of impact measurement (Nicholls,
2010). Surprisingly, asymmetric power relationships dominate social impact measurement literature. Scholars consider
the key driver of social impact measurement is resource
acquisition (Moxham, 2010; Nicholls, 2010) with funders
considered more influential to SEs than other stakeholders
(Arvidson & Lyon, 2014). Social impact measurement is
an “accountability upwards” mechanism (Ebrahim, 2003a)

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Synthesizing the Literatures
Our review of extant literature indicates that despite being labelled differently (agency and stewardship, structured
embeddedness, and resource dependence), these theories
share similarity in two dimensions: asymmetry (characterized by power imbalance and relationships based on rules,
control, and authority) and symmetry (characterized by
shared goals and relationships based on reciprocity, trust,
and collaboration). We summarize the key insights from

our review in Table 1.
From this review, we propose to employ a resource
dependence perspective to understand multiple aspects of
social impact measurement in funding relationships. We
propose that this perspective will explain the asymmetric
and symmetric dependence dimensions more explicitly than
other theories applied to this domain. We will now investigate these themes in the context of social enterprise in
Vietnam.

Method
Research Design
In order to understand the socially constructed nature of
social impact measurement, we applied a multiple case study
strategy to seek a detailed description and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in its naturalistic context
(Stake, 1995). While there are different ways to conduct case
studies, this research follows Stake’s approach and focuses
on particularization and understanding of actors’ subjective
experiences rather than generalization and explanation in
the pattern of testable hypothesis that are advocated by more
positivistic approaches (such as Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009).
We adopted an interpretive paradigm and explored “the
ephemeral, the indefinite and the irregular” phenomenon
(Law, 2004, p. 4), allowing penetration into “the complex
world of lived experience from the point of view of those
who live it” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). Our research aspired
to bring both “theoretical insight” and “rich thematic descriptions” of social impact measurement from perspectives of
social entrepreneurs, resource providers, and other actors in
the sector (Starks & Trinidad, 2007).

227

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 1
Theories Studying Social Impact Measurement in Funding Relationships
Funding relationships &
social impact
measurement

Funding relationship
Symmetric
Reciprocity, shared goals & trust
based, collaboration

Asymmetric
Power imbalance, rule-based, control,
delegated authority

Stewardship:

Agency:

• Social impact measurement requirements
are pragmatic aiming to enhance social mission

and efficiency. SEs and funders share common
interests, motivations, and aims. Actors tend to
work together to solve problems and to
generate impact to communities.
(Benjamin, 2010; Carman, 2010; Mitchell, 2014;
Van Slyke, 2006)

• Social impact evaluation is symbolic and formative.
Social impact measurement is mainly to satisfy
the requirements of funders (for resource access)
rather than the organizational needs.

Embeddedness influences:
2) The strategic choices of
measurement approach
3) Resources spent for
measurement activities
4) Perceived importance of
formal measures

Embedded tie:
• SEs are not required to use a complex
measurement approach.
• SEs do not have to use much resources
for measurement activities.
• Formal impact measurement is not highly
emphasized.
(Smith & Stevens, 2010)

Arm’s length tie:

• SEs are required to use complex measurement
approaches such as SROI.
• SEs have to use much resources for measurement
activities.
• Formal impact measurement is highly emphasized.
(Smith & Stevens, 2010)

Resource dependence
influences:
5) The compliance of SEs
towards funders’
measurement mandates

Symmetric:

Asymmetric:

• Social impact measurement in symmetric
relation is under researched

• Measuring social impact for “accountability upwards.”
• SEs comply with funders’ measurement mandates to
access resources.
(Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Ebrahim, 2003a; Eckerd &
Moulton, 2011; Moxham, 2010; Thomson, 2010).

Agency and stewardship
influence:
1) Motivations for
measuring social impact

measurement process (key activities, engaged stakeholders,
motivations and challenges of measuring social impact,
etc.) as well as the funding relationship (history of the
relationship, the level of interactions, the nature of the
relationship, etc.). The vast majority of interviews were
conducted in Vietnamese, and these were later translated
into English. Where appropriate, we also used other data
and materials such as books, reports, newspaper articles,
websites, internal documents, observations, and informal
discussions. These multiple data sources not only contribute
to the detailed description of the case and enrich the comparisons, they also clarify informants’ responses and reduce
misinterpretations (Stake, 2006). The three cases represent
a diversity of missions and businesses in the SE sector with
case characteristics detailed in Table 2.
As illustrated in Table 2, our three cases were (a)
TRAINING SE - a social venture combining hospitality
training activities and restaurant business to help street youth
escape poverty and vulnerability; (b) LEARNING SE - a
social venture integrating art education for disadvantaged

Data Collection and Description of Selected Cases
The SEs and informants were selected based on a mix of
purposeful and snowball sampling techniques (Patton, 1990).
This combined strategy enabled us to find “good examples
for study, good interview subjects” (Patton, 1990, p. 182).
Aligning with the purpose of extending theory, the selection
of SEs was informed by the potential learning of cases (Stake,
1994). We selected cases based on three criteria: (i) the
organizations were known for their high impact on the

community; (ii) the SEs had a certain success in mobilizing
external resources to enhance their overall performance; and
(iii) the organizations perceived the importance of social
impact measurement and were engaged in its measurement.
Over 2012 and 2013, we conducted semistructured
interviews with social entrepreneurs, resource providers,
and other stakeholders involved (directly and indirectly) in
the SE. Twenty interviews were conducted face to face,
ranging in length from 30 to 90 minutes. Interviewees were
asked open-ended questions about the social impact

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(Benjamin, 2010; Carman, 2010; Ebrahim, 2003b)

228

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 2
Key Characteristics of Cases
Case

WOMEN

EMPOWERMENT SE

TRAINING SE

LEARNING SE

Business
Employees

1999
Transforming the unemployable youth with
low self-esteem to confident, empowered,
young hospitality professionals, entrepreneurs,
and mentors via a holistic vocational training
program
Restaurants, hospitality
30 permanent and hundreds of volunteers

Beneficiaries

Street, underprivileged youth

2006
Providing opportunities for
disadvantaged children to play,
learn, and create while
generating income to improve
their life quality
Lifestyle souvenirs, gifts
10 permanent, 10 volunteers

currently (have trained and
worked with over 100 volunteers
from 2006-2013)
Disadvantaged children

Resource providers

Institutional and individual donors,
corporations, volunteers, international
organizations

Impact investor, intermediary
NGOs (international and local),
volunteers

Social impact
measurement
approach

Self-developed monitoring and evaluation
system Reporting requested by the donors

Interviewees

Founder (2 interviews); Donor 1; Donor 2;
Employees (Human Resource Executive,
Marketing Executive, Training Executive,
Social Welfare Executive, Restaurant
Manager); Consultant

Internal measurement approach,
investor’s impact measurement,
intermediary’s process reporting
mechanism
Founder (2 interviews)
Investor- Regional Manager
Investor- Consultant
Consultant
Volunteer

Year of establishment
Social mission

Handicrafts
3 permanent
Dozens of volunteers

Disadvantaged women
in the protected marine
areas
Intermediary, local
authority, NGOs
(international and
local), volunteers
SROI, monitoring
and evaluation
system requested by the
donors
Founder (2 interviews)
Donor

Intermediary
Local government
Consultant

“orienting framework” to assist theoretical engagement and
data interpretations (Lopez & Willis, 2004). This interactive
approach enabled us to develop new theoretical concepts while
advancing current concepts in order to link what really
happens in practice to theories (Berglund, 2007). We now
present core themes resulting from the analytical process of
the study in the results section.

children and a souvenir business helping children learn, play,
and enhance their low living circumstances; (c) WOMEN
EMPOWERMENT SE - an organization that helps empower
poor women in marine protected areas by providing vocational training and business advice for handicrafts.
Data Analysis
Recognizing the complicated and massive nature of qualitative data, our data analysis followed an on-going and interactive procedure (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We used NVivo
10 software to support our data management, coding, and
analysis (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013; Saldaña, 2012). An initial
framework for analysis was developed from broad themes and
categories based on the primary coding process deriving from
the perspectives and experiences of participants toward social
impact measurement. We began with a thorough analysis of
one case and then transferred the process to the other two cases
(Stake, 2006). During this process, we worked back and forth
between data and analysis of cases as well as between data and
existing literature (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch,
2011). We used resource dependence perspective as an

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2011
Empowering women
living in and around
marine protected areas

Results
The case analysis shows that social impact measurement can be formed along two dimensions of funding relationships: the symmetric and asymmetric tie. The former is
characterized by shared goals and relationships based on
reciprocity, trust, and collaboration, while the latter is predominantly featured with power imbalance and relationships
based on regulation, control, and authority. From our data,
the primary characteristics of symmetric and asymmetric
funding relationships together with representative quotes
are summarized in Table 3.
It is important to acknowledge that Table 3 represents
two extreme poles of the continuum, and that certain traits

229

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 3
Interdependence between Resource Providers and Social Enterprises

Symmetric
Complete trust; long-term
relationship

Frequent & close
interaction; long history of
relationship;
enjoyable
relationships

Reciprocity; appreciation;
trustworthiness; shared
value

Close; good relationship;
Open & frank with each
other

Quotes for symmetric tie

Asymmetric

TRAINING SE & Donor 1
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.
(Donor 1-Traing SE)
TRAINING SE & Donor 2

I became involved with the SE eight years
ago… At the moment, one of the
enterprise’s trainees lives in my house.
So I interact with [TRAINING SE] every
bloody day (laugh). I interact with other
people from [TRAINING SE], probably
monthly…I enjoy my interactions from
trainees to CEO. The relationship
[with TRAINING SE] is very close.
(Donor 2-TRAINING SE)
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE &
Intermediary
The SE also makes contributions to our
activities. They link us to their network and
resources that might be beneficial for our
activities or other SEs in our network. In
general, the relationship is very close and
natural. 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)
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE & Donor
We have developed a close and good
relationship with the founder of WOMEN
EMPOWERMENT SE. 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. We are very
frank to each other. (Donor - WOMEN

EMPOWERMENT SE)

of each relationship were present across all cases. We discuss
dimensions in which the nature of the funding relationship
influences social impact measurement in distinctive ways.

Delegated
authority;
Top down
relationship

TRAINING SE & other funders
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)
LEARNING SE & Investor
We told [the SE] that you have to submit
this information… so that’s the way we
work. That’s not particularly collaborative.
(Consultant, Investor- LEARNING SE)

Imbalance
power; Meet
funder’s
requirements

WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE & other

funders
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)

Pressure,
uneasy

LEARNING SE & Intermediary
Once my husband had an uneasy talk
with the Intermediary when they
asked us to develop the measurement
system. “How? We told you that we
were willing to learn how to do and
we need assistance for this area…
And it seems that they even want an
impact report than ourselves… And
it then becomes a pressure for us.
(Founder-LEARNING SE )

demonstrating transparency, accountability, and legitimacy
to investors to access resources since without impact,
evidence and reporting funders do not see the value created
for communities (Consultant, Investor-LEARNING SE;
Founder & Consultant-WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE;
Founder-TRAINING SE); and (ii) learning about and improving organizational performance to determine whether

they should continue or alter their current strategy to achieve
their missions (Founders of TRAINING SE; LEARNING SE;
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE). While the motivations of

Motivations for Measuring Social Impact
It is clear that many informants identified SEs’ interdependence with resource providers as a key reason for
measuring impact. Participants indicated many motivations
for measuring impact, with the primary drivers being: (i)

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Imbalance
power

Quotes for asymmetric tie

230

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

impact measurement for resource mobilization and learning
existed in all cases, our data indicate that in asymmetric
relationships, social enterprises measure social impact mainly
to access resource and satisfy resource providers while in

symmetric relationships, social enterprises measure social
impact for their learning purpose. For example, FounderTRAINING SE contended that when his enterprise was
in its infancy and asymmetrically dependent on funders’
resources, the organization measured social impact in a
manner imposed by funders. When the organization was more
developed and the funding relationship more symmetric, the
enterprise changed and measured impact for the purposes of
internal learning and organizational improvement. The
Founder-TRAINING SE stated:

impact measurement, compliance was limited if the measurement approach was perceived as too complicated, labourious,
or disconnected from SE’s social mission. At the same time,
while the investor still emphasized the critical nature of impact measurement, the expectations were more flexible and
relevant to the SE’s context. In time, the investor gradually
recognized that:
SEs should spend time to create social impact rather than
measure it… or trying to figure out how to measure it.
(Investor, Consultant- TRAINING SE)

Measurement Expectations and Choice of Measurement
Approach

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.

Case analysis suggests that resource providers in a
symmetric dependence relation tended to accept incomplete

and imperfect measures because they sympathized with the
SEs’ contention that measuring social impact or outcome
is “challenging because there is no common or consistent
measurement tool” (Intermediary-WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE). This is despite knowing several impact
measurement frameworks available. As a result, resource
providers tended to not require comprehensive, quantitative
impact measurement, neither, did they ask SEs to apply
international standard measurement frameworks such as
SROI (Intermediary-WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE).
Instead, social impact was evaluated in a simple, qualitative,
and informal manner. Participant SEs justified the expectations and choice of such simple, informal, and imperfect
measurement approaches with the symmetric funding tie
featured by the “close,” “reciprocal,” and “trust based”
relationships with resource providers. Donor1-TRAINING
SE shared their experience:

Compliance with Resource Providers’ Impact
Measurement Mandates
Our cases also suggest that when parties are embedded
in relationships characterized by symmetric dependence,
resource providers are unlikely to mandate impact measurement from SEs. To reach consensus in measurement, both
parties are expected to be open-minded and willing to
discuss, negotiate, and adjust during the process. The
implementation approach appeared to be characterized as a
bottom-up (SEs towards the investor) relationship. For
example, Founder-WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE stated
that their reports were designed by the enterprise and that
the intermediary only asked them simple questions on
outputs (for instance, the number of women they trained).
Surprisingly, this was not expected to occur in an asymmetric dependence tie: social impact measurement was

authorized by resource providers. The implementation
approach seemed to be more top-down: oriented from
resource holders towards SEs. The SEs were likely to
comply with the resource provider’s requirement because
social impact measurement is “mandatory” rather than
“collaborative” (Investor, Consultant - LEARNING SE).
However, data showed funding relationships to be dynamic and changing over time, resulting in the level of compliance with resource providers’ social impact measurement
mandates changing. For example, in LEARNING SE Case,
initially, the investor and the SE relationship could be
categorized as one of asymmetric dependence. This could
be seen in SE’s compliance with the imposed impact measurement approaches despite SE’s perception of inadequacy in
measurement activities. However, over time, the funding relationship evolved and became more collaborative and symmetric. While the SE still recognized the importance of social

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Alternatively, in an asymmetric tie, funders looked for
comprehensive, objective, and intensive social impact data
with SEs expected to measure impact in a formal,
detailed, professional, standardized, and extensive manner.

This was considered to assist the investor in building
accountability with the SE and showed confident in their
investment decision. As illustrated in LEARNING SE Case:
the Investor used IRIS framework to evaluate social impact
that LEARNING SE created along two axes: growth and
depth. For growth they examined the number that the SE

231

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

reached, either directly or indirectly, and the investor evaluated the impact from an individual to a system perspective.
For the individual perspective, they evaluated whether
disadvantaged people would have a better life, including
indicators such as: income, material wellbeing, physical
wellbeing, and social wellbeing. From a system perspective,
the funder evaluated whether the investment made a systematic change (Regional manager, Investor-LEARNING
SE). Despite agreeing that the measurement approach
assigned by the investor was “very professional and very
good to track,” understanding the organization’s performance was found to be “too complicated” by the FounderLEARNING SE.

Perceived Importance of Formal Social Impact
Measurement
The cases reveal that when parties are involved in the

symmetric tie, formal social impact indicators and reporting
are not perceived to be critical to the resource provider’s
investment decision. Instead, the investment decision was
mainly based on trust, informal judgements built upon
actors’ interactions, and whether resource providers saw
appropriate resources available in the SEs. The future
engagement with a resource provider was seen to depend
upon trust, shared values, reciprocity, and common vision
that go beyond the contractual agreement of the funding
schemes (Founder, Donor & Intermediary-WOMEN
EMPOWERMENT SE; Founder, Donor 1, and Donor
2-TRAINING SE). As an example, an informant reflected:

Resources Spent on Social Impact Measurement
Data revealed that resources spent on impact measurement are modest when parties engage in a joint dependence
tie. It appears that investors prefer SEs to spend resources
generating impact to reach common goals rather than on
the impact measurement itself, as illustrated by the
Founder-EMPOWERMENT SE:

After they finish the program, social entrepreneurs become
our alumni and we continue to connect them to partners,
network, and resources that could support their activities.
(Intermediary- WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE)

In contrast to the symmetric relationship, the data
indicated that when SEs and resource providers can be considered to be in an asymmetric dependence tie, social impact
measurement was perceived as a critical factor to resource
provider’s decision. As an example, in LEARNING SE
Case: before the investor decided to invest, “social impact

assessment was an important step of the due diligence
process” (Consultant, Investor-LEARNING SE). Before
the contract was signed, the investor and LEARNING SE
agreed on a number of metrics that they would track with
the social impact assessment report perceived as “so important” for the investor (Consultant, Investor-LEARNING
SE). Future collaboration and resource allocation into SEs
in asymmetric relationships could be long- or short-term,
depending significantly on how SEs perform and how they
formally demonstrate their impact. Illustrating this, the
resource provider stated:

Some donors are not concerned much about the impact
measurement, they actually do not require us to do the
formal measurement.

SEs did not expect to spend significant resources on
impact measurement activities. Resources appear prioritized to achieve mutual objectives—creating social impact
for the communities rather than for costly measurement
activities:
Donors already believe in us … and are always very
supportive and help us to achieve our objectives.
(Founder-WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SE)

Significantly, when SEs and resource providers are
embedded in an asymmetric dependence relationship the
resources spent on impact measurement activities appear
relatively greater. For example, in LEARNING SE, the investor required the organization to: report on different indicators
each month; identify the current situation and plan for the
next period every quarter; and submit a midyear report every
June and review the portfolio every year end. Both the

investor and SE agreed that these measurement and reporting
activities require a lot of work and that even if the enterprise
can make a strong, detailed report as requested by the investor, they ignore many other business activities (FounderLEARNING SE). This requirement illustrates how funders
believed SEs need to formally and explicitly provide evidence
of their visible impact to persuade funders. For example, an
informant stated:

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. (Regional Manager,
Investor -LEARNING SE)

In sum, the findings suggest that the relationships
between resource providers and SEs in selected cases can
be characterized as a symmetric or an asymmetric dependence tie. These two dimensions of the relationship
influence social impact measurement in several aspects, as
depicted in Table 4.
Table 4 presents the results of an integrated data coding
and analysis strategy. The themes that emerged from both
literature and empirical data are conceptually interrelated.

If SEs want to get more, they’ve got to do more.
(Regional manager, Investor-LEARNING SE)

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

232

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 4
Funding Relationships and Social Impact Measurement
Funding relationship
Symmetric

Impact measurement
Motivations for measuring
social impact
Compliance with resource
providers’ measurement
mandates

Asymmetric

Learning & improvement
Low
Parties are open to discuss social impact
measurement options

Expectation & choice of
social impact measurement

approach
Resources spent on social
impact measurement
Perceived importance of
formal impact measurement

Imperfect, partial
Informal, subjective, simple, unrefined, qualitative
Modest
Not very critical to resource providers’ decision
making Investment decision & further engagement
are based on:
• Trust built upon actors’ transactions
• “Shared values” and “reciprocity” vision that go
beyond the contractual agreement of the funding
schemes

The table provides an overview of how social impact
measurement is constructed in practice.

Critical to resource provider’s
decision making Investment decision &
further engagement are based on:
• How SEs perform
• How they demonstrate their impact
formally

is, to satisfy the requirements rather than the organizational
needs (Benjamin, 2010; Carman, 2010; Ebrahim, 2003b).
As illustrated in our cases, when social enterprises and

resource providers are involved in symmetric relationships,
the purpose of social impact measurement appears to assist
social enterprises improve performance so that the parties
can achieve their common objective: to create social impact
for people in need. In contrast, in asymmetric relationships,
social enterprises appear to evaluate social impact mainly
to satisfy resource providers’ requirements.
Previous studies illustrate that resource dependence of
SEs leads to accountability upwards, and a high level of
SEs’ conformity towards funders’ measurement mandates
(Ebrahim, 2003a; Eckerd & Moulton, 2011; Moxham,
2010; Thomson, 2010). While the asymmetric tie is also
evidenced in studied cases, our data extends the research
by showing that SEs do not strictly comply with funders’
mandates in all circumstances. In fact, in symmetric relations, parties tend to engage in downwards accountability
and a low level of SEs’ conformity towards funders’ mandates.
Notably, the paper provides empirical support for the
conceptual study of Smith and Stevens (2010) regarding
measurement expectations, choices of measurement approach, and resources spent on measurement activities that
are absent in extant literature. The findings illustrate that in
relationships categorized as symmetric based on trust, social
impact measurement is accepted as offering a partial and
imperfect outcome and that is associated with an informal,
subjective, simple, unrefined, and qualitative measurement
approaches. In contrast, in asymmetric relations that are

Discussion
Summary
In this study, we explored how funding relationships
influence social impact measurement in the context of

Vietnamese social entrepreneurship. Our analysis confirms
that social impact measurement is socially constructed and
significantly shaped by the nature as well as the dynamics
of the relationships between SEs and their resource providers
in multiple dimensions, including: motivations for measuring
social impact, compliance with resource providers’ impact
measurement mandates, measurement expectations and
choice of measurement approach, resources spent on social
impact measurement, and perceived importance of formal social impact measurement. These results add evidence to the
growing literature on social impact measurement and highlight the significance of funding relationships in perceptions
and behaviours of SEs and resource providers over time.
Regarding motivations for measuring social impact, our
findings enhance the existing scholarly research that suggests that parties in the social sector aspire to measure social
impact (i) for pragmatic purposes in reciprocal relationships
—that is, to achieve SE’s social mission and enhance its
efficiency (Carman, 2010; Mitchell, 2014)—and (ii) for
symbolic and formative purposes in asymmetric ties—that

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Accessing resource & satisfying resource
providers
High
SEs tend to strictly comply with
resource providers’ measurement
mandates
Holistic, intensive
Formal, standardized, complicated,
wide & deep, detailed, professional
Large

233

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

associated with regulation, social impact measurement is
expected to be holistic and intensive, which is linked with
the choice of standardized, wide and deep, detailed, professional, and complicated measurement approaches. The
funders typically believe this intensive process enables them
to better understand the SEs and hold them accountable for
the investment received. The implications are that social
impact measurement requires limited resources for measurement activities in symmetric relationships that are based on
trust and enormous resources in asymmetric dependencies
that are based on rules (Smith & Stevens, 2010).
Additionally, prior research recognizes that formal data
are critical for resource allocation in relationships characterized by upward accountability or rule-based ties (Benjamin,
2010; Smith & Stevens, 2010), but are not important in relationships based on trust, reciprocity, and mutual sharing
(Carman, 2009; Smith & Stevens, 2010). Our data provide
further insights to strengthen these assertions. Impact
measurement is not perceived as important in situations of
symmetric ties where investment decision and further
engagements are not based on formal impact data and
reporting but mainly on trust. The same can be said when
the shared values go beyond the contractual agreements

between parties. On the contrary, social impact measurement
is perceived as critical in asymmetric ties such that investment
decisions and further support are dependent on how SEs
perform as well as how they formally demonstrate
their impact.
Last but not least, the interdependences are shown to be
dynamic and to affect social impact measurement perceptions and behaviours of SEs and resource providers over
time. This finding illuminates and further strengthens
prior studies that have emphasized the need to adjust
organizational strategies to respond to changing interdependencies in the social entrepreneurship sector (McNamara
et al., 2015; Vestrum & Rasmussen, 2013).

funding relationships, extant literature has been dominated
by an asymmetric perspective (Benjamin, 2010; Campbell,
2002; Ebrahim, 2005; Moxham, 2009; Thomson, 2010).
Significantly, our findings show that while both symmetry
and asymmetry exist, symmetric relationships are actually
quite prevalent in our cases. These findings further support
recent research recognizing a variety of funding relationships in a social entrepreneurship setting and show how they
are mediated by mutual understanding, reciprocity, collaboration, trust, and emotional bond (Carman, 2009; Cutt &
Murray, 2000; Smith & Stevens, 2010) to reach the
common goal: creating societal wellbeing for the community
(Dees, 2007).
Second, the study illustrates that the interdependence
between SEs and resource providers is dynamic rather than
static and can change over time, leading to different
behaviours toward social impact measurement (note particularly the cases of TRAINING SE and LEARNING SE). The
findings further indicate that although the asymmetric relationship may exist between SE and resource providers, the
pressures and power used in this setting are less direct,
obvious, and severe than some of the traditional assumptions

on power imbalance (Cook, 1977; Kim et al., 2004; Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978). The intrinsic purposes of a seeminglyasymmetric relation in social impact measurement, if any,
are to assist SEs to enhance efficiency and create sustainable
as well as scalable impact for the disadvantaged communities rather than maximizing the benefits for resource holders
themselves. Such a discovery is both critical and exciting
because it challenges the common view of resource dependence in which the stronger party will have benefits and
advantages at the expense of the weaker party (Blau, 1964;
Kim et al., 2004; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003).
Overall, our study complements and expands previous
findings in the social entrepreneurship domain by bringing
new insights to what we understand about the social dimension of social impact measurement in the multifaceted
interdependence between SEs and resource providers. As a
result, this study can be positioned in the context of recent
work that has taken a nuanced view of the resource dependence approach. This is an especially crucial area that has
been largely underresearched in the extant social entrepreneurship literature.

Contributions to Scholarship
Our in-depth study aimed to explore the influences of
funding relationships on behaviours toward social impact
measurement in social entrepreneurship setting. By addressing the research question, the paper contributes to the literature exploring the responses of SEs and resource providers
toward social impact measurement (such as Benjamin,
2010; Carman, 2010; Eckerd & Moulton, 2011; Mitchell,
2014; Moxham, 2010; Smith & Stevens, 2010; Thomson,
2010) and to the literature focusing on interdependence
between stakeholders (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Gulati
& Sytch, 2007; McNamara et al., 2015; Newbert &
Tornikoski, 2013; Vestrum & Rasmussen, 2013).
First, previous research emphasized the role funding relationships play in shaping behaviours toward social impact
measurement. While these studies explicitly or implicitly
refer to the symmetric and asymmetric dimensions of

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Applied Implications
The findings demonstrate that interdependent relationships shape behaviours towards social impact measurement
and sometimes may create pressures or inefficiency for
SEs. For example, SEs in asymmetric relations may strictly
comply with resource providers’ frameworks despite recognition of their inappropriateness. Although social impact
measurement is seen as important for SEs to ensure their accountability and transparency to access resources (Nicholls,
2009), it should not be implemented as a tool to control

234

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

resource holders or considered an additional burden that
requires more resources in the resource constrained
environment of SEs. This research suggests that resource
providers and SEs can manage these behaviours by actively
monitoring the asymmetric dependence and developing
more symmetric ties. This is important because symmetric
relationships by definition enhance mutual understanding,
trust, and commitment for joint actions; facilitate favourable
conditions to mobilize resource (Newbert & Tornikoski,

2013; Vestrum & Rasmussen, 2013; Villanueva et al., 2012);
and create sustainable impact (McNamara et al., 2015). These
relationships can be advanced by SEs’ increased informal
interactions with resource providers as well as adoption of
different soft power tactics recommended by McNamara
et al. (2015). These tactics may include developing moral
and emotional connections with resource providers; creating
and nurturing appeals of shared objectives and mutual benefits; and developing proper negotiation skills in interacting
with resource providers (McNamara et al., 2015).
Furthermore, SEs could be innovative and develop their
own measurement frameworks to demonstrate the social
impact that matches their objectives and contexts since there
is no common standard or agreed optimal approaches to
social impact measurement. The findings suggest that SEs
consider what to measure and how to measure in order to
balance organizational objectives, resources available, and
stakeholders’ satisfaction. This will in turn enhance our
understanding of how social impact measurement is part of
organizational strategy (Arvidson & Lyon, 2014) and not
just a means to resist and comply with resource providers’
demands (Levay & Waks, 2009).

developing economies, we believe that more understanding
of the dynamics that occur during the social impact measurement is needed.
JEL Classification: I30

References
Alvord, S.H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory
study. The Jounal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3),
260–282.

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), 869–886.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and
commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid
organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. The
Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with
NVivo. London: Sage Publications.
British Council, Central Institute of Economic Management and
Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion (2012). Social enterprise in Vietnam: Concept, context and policies. Hanoi,
Vietnam: BC, CIEM, & CSIP.
Benjamin, L. (2010). Funders as principals. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 20(4), 383–403.
Berglund. (2007). Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience. In H. Neergaard, Ulhøi, J.P. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (pp. 75–93).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:
Wiley.
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of
nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243–259.
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P.D. (1991). The missing role of context in
OB-the need for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 55–110.
Carman, J.G. (2009). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation accountability in action. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 374–390.
Carman, J.G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong
with this theory of change? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M.J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual
dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(2), 167–199.
Cook, K.S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. The Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 62–82.

Cutt, J., & Murray, V. (2000). Accountability and effectiveness
evaluation in nonprofit organizations. London: Routledge.
DeCuir-Gunby, J.T., Marshall, P.L., & McCulloch, A.W. (2011).
Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview

Limitations and Future Research Directions
We note the strength of this study is also a limitation in
that we can only draw theoretical and not statistical generalizations. Although we contribute to the social entrepreneurship, organization, and management literatures, we are
aware that more work is essential to extend our findings
and explore them in different contexts.
Our paper concentrates on social enterprises in Vietnam.
We suggest further research could explore the influence of
other types of funding relationships on social impact
measurement in more diverse cases and contexts where SEs
have different histories and resource constraints.
Our study attempts to advance the growing scholarly
dialogue on social entrepreneurship while reemphasizing
the long-established and important management theory of
resource dependence. Future scholarly work in either of
these spheres could take into account this critical interplay
in which resource dependence approach enables examination of the dynamic and social construction of an important
emerging phenomenon in SEs: social impact measurement.
As SEs are widely considered to be an important
engine for sustainable development in both developed and

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

235

Can J Adm Sci

32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Levay, C., & Waks, C. (2009). Professions and the pursuit of transparency in healthcare: two cases of soft autonomy. Organization Studies, 30(5), 509–527.
Lopez, K.A., & Willis, D.G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive
phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge.
Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A
source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of
World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodagar, B., Khan, M.M., Harris, J.
D., Arnaudo, G. et al. (2009). A strategic approach to social
impact measurement of social enterprises: the SIMPLE
methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 154–178.
McNamara, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Sonpar, K. (2015). Large-scale
events as catalysts for creating mutual dependence between
social ventures and resource providers. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1–31.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Mitchell, G.E. (2014). Why will we ever learn? Measurement and
Evaluation in International Development NGOs. Public
Performance & Management Review, 37(4), 605–631.
Moxham, C. (2009). Performance measurement: Examining the
applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit
organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(7), 740–763.

Moxham, C. (2010). Help or hindrance? Examining the role of performance measurement in UK nonprofit organizations. Public
Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 342–354.
Newbert, S.L., & Tornikoski, E.T. (2013). Resource acquisition
in the emergence phase: Considering the effects of
embeddedness and resource dependence. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 37(2), 249–280.
Nicholls, A. (2008). Capturing the performance of the socially
entrepreneurial organization: an organizational legitimacy approach. In J. Robinson, J. Mair & K. Hockerts (Eds.), International perspective on social entrepreneurship (pp. 27–63).
United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nicholls, A. (2009). ’We do good things, don’t we?’: ’Blended
Value Accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 755–769.
Nicholls, A. (2010). The functions of performance measurement in
social entrepreneurship: control, planning and accountability.
In K. Hockerts, J. Mair, J. Robinson (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp. 241–272). New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path
through the forest: a meta-review of interorganizational
relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136.
Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises.
London: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
California: Sage Publications.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of
organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper and Row.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (2003). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford:
Stanford Business Books.

data: an example from a professional development research

project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155.
Dees, J.G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society,
44(3), 24–31.
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit
accountability: UK charities and public discourse. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140–1169.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: theorizing social value creation in social enterprises.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, Social, and Subjective Indicators. Social Indicators
Research, 40(1/2), 189–216.
Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information
in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 84–114.
Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in practice: mechanisms for
NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.
Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual
perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
34(1), 56–87.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: mission drift and accountability challenges in
hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
34(2014), 81–100.
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V.K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit
impact: a contingency framework for measuring social performance. (Report). Havard Business School, Harvard: 1–53.
Eckerd, A., & Moulton, S. (2011). Heterogeneous roles and heterogeneous practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of
nonprofit performance evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 98–117.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study
research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American

Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint
dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of
embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1),
32–69.
Hsieh, C.-M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61(2), 227–240.
Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm:
Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.
Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Kim, H., Hoskisson, R.E., & Wan, W.P. (2004). Power dependence,
diversification strategy, and performance in keiretsu member
firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 613–636.
Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual
framework for comparing social value creation. Academy of
Management Review, 39(4), 513.
Law, J. (2004). After method: mess in social science research.
London: Routledge.

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

236

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)


SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

NGUYEN ET AL.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management
Review, 28(3), 397–415.
Thomson, D.E. (2010). Exploring the role of funders’ performance
reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 611–629.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness
for the economic performance of organizations: The network
effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.
van Slyke, D.M. (2006). Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to
Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service
Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.
Vestrum, I., & Rasmussen, E. (2013). How community ventures
mobilise resources: Developing resource dependence and
embeddedness. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 19(3), 283–302.
Villanueva, J., Van de Ven, A.H., & Sapienza, H.J. (2012).
Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of
Business Venturing, 27(1), 19–30.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an
interorganizational strategy: an empirical test of the role of
trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal,
16(5), 373–392.

Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory
of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review,

22(4), 887–910.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
London: Sage Publications.
Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to
human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118–138). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
Seymour, R. G. (2012). Handbook of research methods on social
entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Smith, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and embeddedness on the
measurement and scaling of social value. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 22(6), 575–598.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage
Publications.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Starks, H., & Trinidad, S.B. (2007). Choose your method: A
comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and
grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10),
1372–1380.

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

237

Can J Adm Sci
32(4), 224–237(2015)