The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

MIP
34,1
Perspectives on social
impact measurement and
non-profit organisations
80 Michael Jay Polonsky
Received 27 November 2014
School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University,
Revised 1 March 2015 Melbourne, Australia
Accepted 2 April 2015
Stacy Landreth Grau
Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University,
Fort Worth, Texas, USA, and
Sharyn McDonald
School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University,
Burwood, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Acknowledgement of the social impact created by organisations has become an
increasingly frequent discussion among practitioners. The importance of such value creation cannot be
understated, yet in an increasingly competitive funding environment, the need to articulate “true”
value is paramount. The purpose of this paper is to examine how Australian and US managers of
non-profit organisations (NPOs) and foundations view the measurement of the social impact of NPOs.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper includes 19 in-depth interviews of non-profit
professionals in the USA and Australia. Respondents included non-profit managers, foundation
managers and consultants in both countries.
Findings – The in-depth interviews found that in both countries respondents generally agreed that
objective measures of impact are desirable, but recognised the difficulties in developing objective
assessment frameworks enabling comparisons across the non-profit sector. These difficulties, as well
as the implications for developing assessments of social value for NPOs, are discussed. This paper
demonstrates that there is an opportunity to reposition reporting expectations. The NPO sector can
pool together and build on each other’s strengths and market their outcomes as a collective entity.
A sector-wide approach provides potential for much needed within-sector mentoring and will showcase
the rich and varied outcomes generated by NPOs.
Originality/value – This research compares viewpoints in two Western countries, thus offering at
least an exploratory examination of social impact assessment from an international perspective.
Additionally, this research shows commonalities in terms of what is valued and what is most difficult
for non-profits when determining social impact.
Keywords Non-profit, In-depth interviews, Social value, Social impact assessment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Market orientation (i.e. the generation of, dissemination of and response to environmental
market intelligence across the organisation) is an important concept that improves the
performance of for-profit and non-profit companies (Hong and Cho, 2012; Shoham et al.,
2006). Non-profit organisations (NPOs), therefore, need to understand the environment
Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 34 No. 1, 2016
pp. 80-98 The authors would like to thank the Arthur W. Page Center’s Legacy Scholar Grant at The
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
Pennsylvania State University for funding for this research. The Legacy Scholar Grant
DOI 10.1108/MIP-11-2014-0221 programme provided funding for data collection and analysis.
and attract resources in order to attain their objectives (Lovelock and Weinberg, 1984). Non-profit
This can involve attracting additional funds through donors (individuals, governmental, organisations
corporate or philanthropic sources) and delivering more social programmes. Thus, NPOs
need to understand the benefits they deliver to donors (Vázquez et al., 2002) and those in
need (Nicholls, 2007).
While NPOs do not like to consider themselves to be competing against each other
for funds, they do need to ensure that they communicate the benefits they provide in 81
order to remain attractive to current and future donors (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014).
As such, it is imperative that NPOs understand how their donors assess the targeted
organisation’s social value (i.e. the non-monetary benefits to wellbeing across stakeholders
such as beneficiaries, society, donors, etc.) (Cunningham and Ricks, 2004).
Social value may be assessed differently by categories of donors and these segments
vary in size globally. For example, according to the Australian Productivity
Commission (2010), in 2006-2007 33 per cent of non-profit sector funding came from
government sources and 9.4 per cent from philanthropy (individuals, business and
foundations), with 49.6 per cent being self-generated and 7.7 per cent from “other”
sources. By contrast, in 2013 in the USA, individuals represented 72 per cent of
donations, corporations represented 5 per cent, bequests from estates were 8 per cent
and foundations represented 15 per cent of giving (Giving USA, 2014).
There are then also variations in donation sources across non-profit sectors. For
example, in Australia 25 per cent of funding for environmental groups comes from
philanthropy, but hospitals (as distinct to health issues) raise an insignificant amount
through philanthropy. In the USA, giving to religious organisations represents 31 per cent
of donations compared with 16 per cent to education, 12 per cent to human services
and 10 per cent to health organisations (Giving USA, 2014). Given the decreasing
governmental support to NPOs over time (Froelich, 1999), it is thus essential that NPOs
across countries understand the motivations of alternative funders, including the type of
information funders expect to receive from NPOs.
It is unclear how these alternative types of donors actually assess an NPO’s social
value (MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Nicholls, 2007), making it difficult for NPOs to
appropriately communicate the value they deliver (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014). In this
research, we use the terms social impact and social value interchangeably, where social
impact is defined as the total impact that an NPO has on all its stakeholders (Dillenburg
et al., 2003; Polonsky and Grau, 2011). Indeed, researchers have argued that social impact
is an unclear “social construction” with no agreed definition, resulting in discretion about
how it is assessed (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014; Gibbon and Dey, 2011; Lautermann, 2013;
MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Polonsky and Grau, 2008, 2011). Past research has usually
examined specific types of social impact assessment (Olszak Management Consulting,
2004), such as social accounting (Richmond et al., 2003), without exploring the underlying
question of how donors and NPOs believe social value should be measured.
This research seeks to address this gap by asking those in the USA and Australia
reporting social value (i.e. NPO managers) and those assessing social value
(i.e. foundation donors and NPO consultants) how they believe social impact should
be assessed as well as identifying complexities associated with such reporting.
Understanding these parties’ views will allow NPOs to better assess their activities,
enabling nuanced strategy targeting specific funders. This research also identifies
opportunities and barriers for assessing social impact.
As will be described later in the paper, these two countries actively use NPO’s for the
delivery of a diverse range of social services and thus are appropriate for undertaking
MIP comparisons. Additionally, it may be possible to assess the social value of other types
34,1 of activities, such as volunteering or non-monetary donation activities (such as in-kind
donations), but these are outside the scope of this paper.

Literature review
Recently, researchers have explored performance measurement within the non-profit
82 sector (LeRoux and Wright, 2010; Zimmermann and Stevens, 2006). Pressure on NPOs
to quantify their performance comes from many sources. For example, in the UK, the
government assesses “third sector” performance (Connolly and Hyndman, 2004). In the
USA, donors and other stakeholders look for more effective NPOs to support (Bradach
et al., 2010. In Australia, governmental bodies report, having difficulty in assessing the
performance of NPOs (Flack and Ryan, 2005). In all cases, the pressure to measure NPO
performance is often donor-led (Dhanani and Connelly, 2012; Kaplan and Grossman,
2010; MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Sillanpää, 2013; Thomson, 2010). These
performance measurements serve two main purposes for NPOs: first, to provide
evidence regarding value (Sillanpää, 2013) and second, to benchmark performance,
thus enabling improvements to programmes and services (Cordery and Sinclair, 2013).
Thomson (2010) explored several studies dealing with NPO performance
measurement and noted that the “size and diversity of the non-profit sector; the
complexity of the performance measurement environment; and the questions raised by,
and methodological constraints of, the extant research necessitate further study of
non-profit performance measurement” (p. 612). His research and that of others
(i.e. Gibbon and Dey, 2011; MacIndoe and Barman, 2013) have identified that an
increasing number of NPOs are attempting to assess their outcomes, but there is a need
for more comprehensive assessment (Thomson, 2010). Indeed, most NPOs focus on
outputs and not outcomes, and thus face many challenges when attempting to measure
social performance (Bartual Sanfeliu et al., 2013).
Several factors impact on the use of performance measurement such as an NPO’s
access to the time, money and expertise required for these assessments (Campbell,
2002; Carman, 2009; Thomson, 2010). Lyon and Arvidson (2011) found resistance from
employees of the NPO to measuring performance, especially when measures are
perceived to be externally imposed or when funders do not fund performance
measurement within grants. NPOs also do not have the systems or knowledge
necessary to collect the information needed for assessing performance. Other
challenges include identifying appropriate outcomes, indicators and assessments as
there are multiple financial and non-financial metrics for any one outcome (Bartual
Sanfeliu et al., 2013; Hendricks et al., 2008). Additionally, an NPO’s activities are not
simply linked to short-term goals, but are also designed to have a long-term impact,
which can be difficult to assess (Campbell, 2002; Carman, 2007). For example, literacy
programmes increase education attainment, leading to lower instances of poverty for
the participants and future generations (Blunch and Pörtner, 2011). Linking short-term
performance measures with long-term social value is challenging. Lastly, NPOs may
undertake measures of easily assessable outcomes rather than tracking what is most
important, but more difficult to measure.
Measuring the social value of NPOs is receiving increased academic examination
(e.g. Cordery and Sinclair, 2013; MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Sillanpää, 2013;
Thomson, 2010), with the non-profit and foundation sectors also researching this issue.
For example, The Rockefeller Foundation (2003), The Roberts foundation (Lingane and
Olsen, 2004) and The Forbs fund (Olszak Management Consulting, 2004) have all
commissioned reports to assess the evaluation of social performance. Within this Non-profit
literature, NPO evaluation measures such as the Roberts enterprise social return on organisations
investment approach (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014; Arvidson et al., 2013; Gibbon and
Dey, 2011; Lingane and Olsen, 2004), social accounting (Quarter and Richmond, 2001;
Richmond et al., 2003), cost/benefit analysis (Layard and Glaister, 1994) and the public
value scorecard (Moore, 2003) have all been applied. Polonsky and Grau (2008)
suggested these could be categorised into four different approaches proposed in the 83
literature: operating efficiency; achievement of organisational objectives; return on
investment; and social outcomes.
Operational efficiency focuses on how much money is allocated to the operation of
the organisation, which identifies the percentage used for social objectives. In some
countries, legislated performance standards must be achieved (i.e. NPOs must not
spend more than X per cent on fundraising; Lee, 2003). Although NPO and for-profit
efficiency are similar, unfortunately efficiency measures do not consider social
performance in terms of organisational objectives. Further, there are limited alternative
efficiency measures promoted by third party evaluators (e.g. Charity Navigator;
Guidestar USA), which seek to expand beyond operational efficiency.
Goal-or objective-based assessments focus on whether the NPO’s social goals are
achieved (Hall et al., 2003). However, this measure does not assess the relative social value
of an NPO. For example, an NPO whose goal was to increase literacy by 10 per cent
and was successful would be viewed more positively than an NPO seeking to reduce
illiteracy by 50 per cent, but only achieving a half of its target (i.e. 25 per cent).
Return on investment and social accounting are where NPOs seek to place a dollar
value on social activities (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014; Arvidson et al., 2013; Dillenburg
et al., 2003; Gibbon and Dey, 2011; Lingane and Olsen, 2004). One UK social accounting
approach includes a seven-step process: involve stakeholders, understand needed
changes, value the things that matter, only include what is material, do not over-claim,
be transparent and verify the results (Arvidson et al., 2013). The process involves
mapping impacts by defining outcomes and then attributing financial values to these.
The social return on investment (SROI) approach is similar and is based on financial
proxies for social good (Arvidson et al., 2013; Gibbon and Dey, 2011), but how one
assigns financial value to “social” activities is debatable (Lautermann, 2013).
The final approach previously identified in the literature is social outcomes, where
NPOs focus on improvements in social activities (Sillanpää, 2013). Such measures are
highly subjective given NPOs’ various social goals and thus there is limited
comparability across issues (e.g. literacy compared with obesity or domestic violence).
Even setting up some “standard” for comparing social value within a specific issue
would be complex.
In reviewing these four approaches, Polonsky and Grau (2008) suggested that no
one approach captures all aspects of social value, rather multiple multifaceted
measures are needed, a view supported in the NPO literature (Bartual Sanfeliu et al.,
2013; MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Thomson, 2010).
The semi-structured interviews untaken in this research explore how
Australian and US NPO managers, foundation managers and NPO consultants view
the measurement and assessment of social value. Respondents are foundation and
non-profit managers since they must address this issue when allocating and seeking
funding and NPO consultants were included as they facilitate matching funders and
NPOs, and thus provide advice to both parties on evaluation. Individual donors were
not included because they engage in charitable activities for a host of reasons, many of
MIP which may be unrelated to social impact (Sargeant, 1999), and therefore do not
34,1 necessarily make the same types of evaluations between alternative NPOs. We
assessed the USA and Australia because of similarities between the two countries’ NPO
structure (Dolnicar and Lazarevski, 2009). We also used these two countries because
they have similar “players” – non-profit decision makers including executive directors,
communication professionals and fundraising professionals; third party consultants
84 who specialise their work with non-profits and also a variety of different funder types
including private and community foundations.
The research will examine two broad research questions:
RQ1. Do the three groups (non-profits, funders and NPO consultants) have similar
views about issues regarding the complexity and appropriateness of
alternative measures of social value?
Having such an outcome would suggest that there may be more opportunity to develop
some agreed approach to assess this:
RQ2. Are the views of respondents similar across the two countries, given the
similar economic and social pressures being faced within the two countries?
If this is true, it suggests that global agreement on NPO social value assessments may
be possible, whereas disagreements suggest that nationally focused measures are
required, impeding global standardisation.

Methodology
After receiving ethics clearance, an information sheet and consent form was sent to
potential participants. Interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol and
lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Interviews were recorded with the participants’
permission and audio files were transcribed to enable the thematic analysis of the
discussions.
One key respondent was sourced in each organisation, who dealt with seeking or
allocating philanthropic funding. In Australia, participants were contacted from
publically available information on the internet. In the USA, participants were found by
using a snowballing convenience sample procedure. Australian participants
represented five NPOs, four foundations and two NPO consultants (i.e. 11 Australian
respondents in total) of who three were male. In the USA, five NPO managers, one NPO
consultant and two foundation managers were interviewed (i.e. eight US respondents),
of who two were male. The 19 respondents across countries reflected a cross-section of
NPOs and social issues (see Table I), which were matched across countries to ensure
respondents dealt with similar social impact issues.
The literature-based semi-structured interview questions asked participants’ views
on first, how they define and measure the social value of charities; second, how
effectively existing approaches deal with issues; third, what issues should be included;
fourth, what metrics (qualitative and quantitative) should be used for criteria; and fifth,
who should be responsible for evaluating these?

Coding data
NVivo software was used to store, sort and code data. The Australian data were coded
and key themes emerged. This process was then repeated for the US transcripts and
the resulting views are summarised in Table II. An iterative data coding process was
undertaken to identify primary and secondary themes within the data (Spiggle, 1994),
 Non-profit
organisations

85

Table I.
Participant
Notes: Consultant (C) ; Foundations (F) ; organisations
Non-profit organisations (N) . A, Australian participant; (one respondent
U, USA participant; C, consultant; F, foundation; N, NPO per organisation)

focusing on the research objectives. If new themes or codes arose, all transcripts
were re-coded to reflect them (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003). The entire data set was
cross-checked where new themes or variations emerged. The initial coding was
undertaken by one of the researchers and then cross-validated by another, ensuring the
appropriate determination of themes across the data.

Results
The initial analysis of the data identified five core themes related to social value: shared
responsibility; building capacity; measurement; tools; and capturing data and setting
benchmarks. All themes contained several sub-themes (see Table II). Each core theme is
discussed below and supported using illustrative quotes across roles and countries.

Core Theme 1: shared responsibility

Shared responsibility is the collaborative effort between organisations. There are two
sub-themes related to shared responsibility: the importance of sharing information
including best practice; and the importance of partnering with similar organisations.
The core idea assumes that no single organisation has sole responsibility for
providing a solution for a societal problem and therefore a collective organisational
effort is required.
 86
34,1
MIP

Table II.

sub-themes
Core themes and
Notes: Consultant (C) ; Foundations (F) ; Non-profit organisations (N)
The first sub-theme “communication with likeminded organisations” is where NPOs Non-profit
share problems, ideas and solutions with members of the non-profit, private and public organisations
sectors. In total, 13 of the 19 respondents identified this issue and felt that sharing best
practices was highly efficient for creating a shared impact. An Australian consultant
felt this was important because NPOs are generally founded on the condition that they
share best practice outcomes and models with other NPOs. A representative from a US
foundation spoke of “shared best practice” by suggesting that this was related to “the 87
social capital market and the need for it to operate more rationally to provide funding to
the groups that perform best” (UF2).
Seventeen respondents identified the second sub-theme related to the importance of
sharing data and information. For example, one Australian NPO manager spoke of the
communication that they undertake within and between sectors; most discussions
focused on partnering, sharing publicly available data, sharing organisational
objectives and the need for shared measurement (AN1). Another Australian NPO
manager confirmed that shared measurement needed improvement, whereby “pulling
our data together” could demonstrate the impact the cause sector was having (AN2).
One US foundation manager also discussed the importance of this, highlighting a need
for pooled data collection: “[…] to have clusters of likeminded funders to develop
common metrics to be used across their projects […]” (UF2). Two Australian
foundation managers confirmed the value and importance of shared dialogue across
the sector, which facilitates a supportive environment (AF1) and provides “varying
perspectives” and objective opinions (AF2).
Generally, respondents felt that sharing information would enhance the likelihood of
creating and measuring NPOs’ social impacts. One Australian foundation manager (AF1)
suggested that social impact/social value is enhanced through NPO collaboration.
“Creating partnerships with other NPOs” resulted in an opportunity to strengthen and
build programmes. Partnerships, where organisations work together on an issue in order
to achieve the social objective, were endorsed by the majority of respondents.
Partnerships were described as “more multifaceted and deeper, and longer lasting, and
there’s more engagement” (AC1) that may vary in sophistication but can bring a host of
organisational benefits through this form of relationship (AC2, AN1). One Australian
foundation manager favoured this approach, saying, “There is definitely more power and
more impact if you can work together on those things, you know, because each does have
unique skills, and brings different things to the table” (AF2).
Partnership arrangements are important when trying to achieve longer term
objectives. One Australian foundation manager highlighted that “40% of our funding
actually goes out through long-term established partnership arrangements” (AF4).
Managers of Australian NPOs discussed the win/win outcomes that arise from
partnerships (AN1), highlighting the value of leveraging resources across
organisations to create social value: “If everyone was pushing in the same direction,
it might become a bit easier” (AN3).

Core Theme 2: building capacity

This described the importance of building resources and sustainable NPOs to enable
them to meet their long-term objectives. Four sub-themes were identified: funding
difficulties; the ability to create organisational sustainability; grant seeking resources;
and intensifying social issues.
Three Australian respondents identified “funding difficulties,” which they related to
NPOs having insufficient resources or knowledge on how to apply for funding while
MIP addressing competing stakeholders’ needs. For example, one Australian NPO manager
34,1 explained, “Obviously you have no option but to respond to what funders ask you for
[…] the stuff that they ask for meets political needs, but not necessarily the needs of the
client or programmes” (AN2). Funding difficulties also arose in regards to measurement
data, as funding is generally insufficient to cover data capture and analysis: “[…] If
someone was to cost that in, then we’d be uncompetitive and we’d never get the
88 tenders” (AN2). Additionally, even if NPOs capture social value data, they do not have
the expertise to analyse these data. Unfortunately, existing staff do not have
comprehensive skills in data analysis to provide “meaningful feedback” (AN2).
Ten organisations identified sustainability issues. For example, three foundations
sought to tackle NPO capacity issues and had a long-term vision to improve NPOs’ core
skills. The creation of sustainable NPOs was identified as the second sub-theme.
Providing grant funding for “operating costs” is not a “sustainable approach” (AF2).
This particular foundation took a more innovative approach to developing sustainable
NPO capacity:
[…] we invited people to apply and come and participate in this three-month programme, that
comprised a series of workshops and mentoring peer-to-peer, and then doing some exercises
like business planning and those kinds of things (AF2).
One US NPO manager discussed strategies available to help NPOs bridge their
knowledge gap, suggesting NPOs are provided with a “for-profit one-page business
plan that will help non-profits figure out how to do their business plan” (UN7).
Building NPO sustainability is closely associated with the third sub-theme of
developing “grant seeking resources”, which was identified by twelve respondents.
A US consultant commented that many NPOs “don’t know how to write a grant. Most
of them get so wrapped up because they’re passionate and they love what they do”
(UC1).This reinforces the outmoded view that if NPOs are doing “good”, then they must
be effective, which is losing traction with funders. One Australian NPO manager (AN2)
noted that this “would never be accepted” in the corporate world and NPOs need “a
massive cultural change”.
The lack of capacity was complicated when NPOs prioritised resources towards the
intensifying social issues, representing the fourth sub-theme of addressing pressing
“social problems” (MacIndoe and Barman, 2013) and was identified by three
respondents. Yet, NPOs do not have the resources to address a problem’s root cause
and thus “the list [of social issues] never seems to go down” (AN5).
Overall, this core theme questioned an NPO’s capacity to evaluate, measure or
integrate the measurement of social value into grant applications while remaining
sustainable and competitive.

Core Theme 3: measurement

There were four sub-themes under the third theme “measurement”: the role of inputs,
outputs, outcomes and impact/value; difficulties of measurement; quantitative and
qualitative measurement; and long-term benefits. First, there was some debate about
the role of inputs, outputs and outcomes, with several interviewees focusing on a
programme’s inputs, although all respondents identified inputs, outputs and outcomes
as an important issue. A US consultant described inputs to include administrative
costs, programme costs and staffing costs (UC1). Such overheads should be factored
into the evaluation of programme costs but are sometimes overlooked when measuring
performance (UC2).
 Outputs and outcomes (used interchangeably by respondents), as performance Non-profit
measures, were considered to be much easier to assess. These generally described a organisations
measurable change in performance or service delivery, such as the number of people an
organisation had helped or the number of trees volunteers had planted. However, some
respondents made a clear distinction between outputs and outcomes, identifying
outcomes as harder to measure, especially when they are less quantitatively focused.
For example, one Australian foundation manager suggested that “people get very 89
caught up in measuring outputs […] but […] they don’t necessarily demonstrate the
impact or outcomes for the community” (AF1). Relatedly, there was concern about
measuring intangible outcomes associated with social value and the difficulties that
can result in those “persistent problems” being ignored because they are perceived “as
too difficult or too hard” (AF1).
The second sub-theme described difficulties with measurement, which was an issue
for eighteen of the respondents. The measurement issue was also related to NPOs’
reluctance to report on failure. One foundation manager identified that it was important
for NPOs to be honest, allowing funders to identify unsuccessful strategies and thus
seek out alternative initiatives to support, which is different to “punishing” the
unsuccessful NPO (AF1). A number of specific examples of measurement difficulties
were provided by another Australian foundation manager, noting “how do you
measure the change that has occurred in someone’s thinking” or measuring a “sense of
community”? Adding, “[…] those intangibles are hard to measure, but nonetheless they
are part of what you hope to achieve, the outcome of your investment” (AF2). This
measurement difficulty was confirmed by most NPOs in both countries with the
complexity of measurement bound by “many confounding factors” (AN1).
The third sub-theme concerned the design of measurement systems and whether
these should focus on quantitative or qualitative measures, was raised by 15
respondents. Two options include integrating measurement into the design stage of the
initiative (primarily quantitative) or developing a “narrative as a measure” where
storytelling is used to describe social value supplemented by limited quantitative data.
Building measurement into a programme’s design allows the NPO and funder to track
the rate of progress and success. A recommendation from one foundation manager was
to clearly outline expectations “from the beginning” with responsibilities for tracking and
communicating outputs to define future NPO and funder directions (AF2).
One important measurement issue was the inclusion of financial measures, with
some respondents identifying this as important for NPOs to demonstrate their return
on investment. Financial measures included things such as evaluating the cost per
“client” served. One US foundation manager commented that “[…] every dollar spent
on childcare ends up saving between $5 to $7 in overall societal costs in remedial
education, juvenile delinquency, etc. So we can say every dollar we invest there, if you
multiply it by five, that’s our social impact” (UF3).
Qualitative measures such as narratives or stories were also considered to be
important by several respondents (AN1, AN4, AF2, UC1). Narratives were considered
valuable particularly where tangible quantitative data were unavailable or where
“impact can be longer-term” (AN4). One foundation manager stated “[…] the narrative
is a big part of that, so they’re quite keen on people actually getting a better
understanding of social return on investment, and not just seeing it as the end figure of
the dollar” (AF2).
Narratives allow NPOs to directly link programmes to outcomes, where direct links
are problematic in some sectors. One Australian NPO manager explained this dilemma
MIP by saying that there are “a lot of groups active in the whole prevention area. [As such,]
34,1 it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to tease out the effects of any one charity,
or even charities or NGOs generally, in terms of that impact” (AN1).
However, there were caveats to using the narrative approach. One US consultant
stated it was used as a way of helping investors understand how money would be used
rather than to describe and justify outcomes:
90 Show me what that’s going to do for X person and then I can get it. But if you can’t do that,
then I don’t get it and I don’t want to play. So, outcomes, good evaluations, fairly clear,
well-defined path of money (UC1).
The last sub-theme was the importance of moving towards assessing long-term
benefits and was raised by thirteen respondents. However, this too posed difficulties for
many NPOs, in particular:
[…] how do you find a balance between just counting numbers, and a real measurement that
actually can demonstrate whether you’ve accomplished at least some basic goals in what
you’re doing, while potentially […] improving outcomes? (AF1).
Some NPOs and funding bodies are linking long-term measures to social impact, with
one Australian foundation manager identifying that there was a very conscious shift
towards investment in longer term programmes (AF2). Another US NPO manager
highlighted the value of the effect on a person’s life (social value) rather than a
quantitative value stating how many people were involved in a programme (UN7).
However, difficulties arise when attributing social outcomes as a direct result of a
single NPO programme (UN4).

Core Theme 4: tools

Tools to measure social value was the fourth theme identified, with four sub-themes: the lack
of a common system; reporting measures; external audit; and SROI. All eight respondents
who raised this as an issue, identified that there is no universally accepted tool used within
the sector to assess social value, but they claimed that such a tool would be valuable:
I think that there is a need for some tools, and some consistent ways of being able to verify
and compare different things […] I think it is important, it’s a space where there’s a lot of
different organisations all doing similar things, and it would be great to be able to line similar
things up. (AF2)
However, respondents also recognised the difficulty of building a common, standardised
system across the NPO sector:
Different shapes, different sizes, different capacity to actually undertake this work, some are
staffed; some are not, all different types of issues. But I think one of the roles that
philanthropy should be playing is that of a leverage agent and to do that and to be that we
need to know what we’re actually able to bring to the table. If there was anything, it would be
a standardised set of data or things that we should be collecting as a sector (AF3).
In total, 16 respondents raised concerns in regards to the third sub-theme report
measures. Some NPOs publish annual reports (AF1), which can combine narrative
storytelling complemented by “some of the metrics around that social impact and
reporting” (AF2) or provide evaluations and “short-term outputs and outcomes” (AF3).
Within the sector, there are no “mechanisms or resources in place to then look at the
longer-term impacts” (AF3).
 NPOs discussed the range of reporting issues, with one noting that small projects Non-profit
would not warrant “statistically valid data” to assess performance, whereas larger organisations
projects could provide “statistically valid data on what changes you made […] to
people” (AN1).
It was generally accepted that “measurement by the beneficiary”, i.e. those being
helped, would assess the service provider: “Measurement has to be able to be determined
by the beneficiary because they know what’s being achieved on the ground” (AF4). 91
However, this might raise questions on the validity of such assessments.
Some NPOs unfortunately do not measure a programme’s impact at all. One
example, provided by an Australian foundation manager, was an NPO that provided
no evidence of its social impact to justify its need for continued support and simply
stated, “We’ve been running this programme for ten years, it’s a great programme,
everybody loves it” (AF1). It was suggested by the US consultant that the change in
reporting expectations created “absolute fear, anger [and] stubborn resistance from
NPOs […]. They had never been asked to be accountable before and they weren’t about
to now” (UC1).
In total, 12 of the respondents identified the third sub-theme “external audits”, which
would allow an independent third party to verify the outcomes and impact, was the third
sub-theme. As one Australian consultant suggested, “It should be handled by a third
party […] it should be somebody who has experience in evaluating, and who is objective”
(AC1). Audits should also adhere to a specific evaluation methodology that requires
NPOs provide supportive documentation and allow external verification (AC2).
Although NPOs felt that external evaluation would be difficult, they discussed the
importance of transparency and did not object to the idea of external audits. US NPO
managers extensively discussed their current use of external auditors and the
importance of these in programme assessment (UN4), yet they noted these services
were costly (UN5).
The final sub-component focused on SROI and was identified by ten respondents,
mostly from Australia. The benefits were described as allowing a consistent evaluation
approach (AC2), where SROI helps NPOs “tell their story about the work and how they
measure the value and the impact of their work in a language that […] businesspeople
can […] understand and relate to” (AF1). SROI also incorporates a narrative and thus it
is not purely numbers-driven, with the narrative being important to demonstrate NPO
value creation (AF2).
While many managers mentioned SROI, it was not always discussed positively.
Concerns were raised in regards to a lack of knowledge and awareness of SROI by
NPOs in addition to the costs associated to undertaking SROI, especially for smaller
NPOs (AC1, AF2). SROI is dependent on the quality of information collected (AN3) and
thus poor NPO data are problematic, although one NPO manager also identified that
SROI could be valuable.

Core Theme 5: capturing data and setting benchmarks

The fifth core theme related to capturing data and setting benchmarks, which included
a variety of data and variety of audiences; and difficulty of standardisation, even
within cause sectors. In total, 13 respondents identified the fact that the
appropriateness of qualitative and/or quantitative data varies across social issues
and alternative funding body requirements. Many of the evaluative questions relate to
justifying how funds were spent in the previous financial year and what future
requirements exist (UN7).
MIP NPOs may need to collect a diverse set of metrics given that projects often report
34,1 performance to multiple funding organisations. One NPO manager suggested that
using similar frameworks would allow “better data” to understand the real impact of
programmes within a sector (AN2).
The identification and collection of data need to be clear and transparent.
An Australian NPO manager suggested that “foundations that are investing need to
92 actually be clear around what they’re investing for, what they want out of it, what
they’re purchasing if they’re government in terms of buying” (AN3). Governmental
bodies may want more reporting given their support is tax revenue, designed to
generate social welfare. Standards should, however, not “focus on the lowest common
denominator” (UN6).
Second, the same thirteen respondents also had a view that standardised
approaches did not cater for variations within or across sectors. However, most
respondents identified that systematic processes could create efficiencies within the
NPO sector. Thus, a “degree of consistency would allow organisations to see how
they’re tracking against others in their sector […]” (AC2), providing “a benchmark
judgement for the judgements and assumptions” (AN3).
However, there are difficulties in creating standardised criteria and benchmarks:
“You can begin to segregate and compare like organisations with one another to see
their social impact outcomes; [however,] the groups that are most efficient may in fact
be the ones working with the easiest population to reach” (UF2). Thus, it may be
possible to develop sets of criteria that could be applied within given domains or “to
have clusters of likeminded funders to develop common metrics to be used across their
projects” (UF2).
Developing standards was also seen to potentially limit innovation: “When you look
at creating standards, are you forcing people towards meeting the minimum and
discouraging them from aspiring to the highest possible achievement” (UN6). However,
this fear may be exaggerated, as setting performance standards has not negatively
impacted on commercial sector innovation.

Summary of findings
The participants representing Australia and the US identified several core themes that
highlighted the complexities found in measuring social value. Table III summarises the
five core themes which were common to both countries.

Discussion
The issue of measuring NPO social impact has been increasingly debated and
researched. There seems to be general agreement about the challenges of measurement
for NPOs, although less universal acceptance of the importance of measurement to
funders. This research examined the opinions of NPO funders, NPO managers and
NPO consultants. The goal was to address two research questions: first, to examine the
three groups’ (non-profits, funders and NPO consultants) views about issues regarding
the complexity and appropriateness of alternative measures of social value and second,
to assess whether differences exist across these respondents in two countries.
The results of this study identify that there is general agreement across NPOs,
funders and NPO consultants regarding issues that affect social value assessment.
In both the USA and Australia, five core themes were uncovered along with several
sub-themes related to each one. The core themes included the importance of shared
Core theme Summary of key findings
Non-profit
organisations
Shared responsibility Shared responsibility is the collaborative effort between organisations.
The core idea assumes that no single organisation has sole
responsibility for providing a solution for a societal problem and
therefore a collective organisational effort is required
Building capacity Building capacity describes the importance of building resources and
sustainable NPOs to enable them to meet their long-term objectives 93
Measurement Measurement takes account of what can be measure in a quantitative
manner vs a qualitative approach, the value of outputs and outcomes
and the longer term effects or impact that can be assigned
Tools Tools represent the range of measures and reporting tools available to
NPOs but also addresses the absence of a common system
Capturing data and setting While standardisation of data collection and reporting would assist in
benchmarks creating benchmarks and demonstrating progress, there is variability Table III.
across NPOs, the types of data they can collect and the expectations Summary
of their audiences of key findings

responsibility among entities within a cause sector; the importance of building capacity
for NPOs so that they sustainably achieve their missions; the importance and
challenges of measurement, including costs and expertise; the lack of a cohesive set of
tools to undertake social impact assessments; and the challenges of capturing data and
setting benchmarks.
While there was general agreement on these themes between NPOs, funders and
NPO consultants, one theme (“building capacity”) identified differing views.
Foundation managers and consultants felt that while there was a level of
sophistication to some NPOs, others lacked the capacity to undertake evaluations.
While NPOs did not dispute this, Australian NPOs placed more emphasis on the
difficulties in obtaining funding to meet ever-expanding social needs and this did not
cover social value evaluations. NPOs in Australia and the USA both felt there was a
need to improve grant writing and sourcing funding.
Respondents across the three groups in both countries recognised the importance of
assessing and reporting on an NPO’s social impact. However, the nature and quality of
reporting outcomes were seen as problematic. The results unfortunately do not shed
any light on the overall measures that should be used to assess an NPO’s social value.
One clear implication is, however, that discussions need to occur across funders, NPOs
and consultants to specify appropriate social value measures. Funders also need to
include financial support within “grants” to cover social value assessment. This may
result in NPOs needing to measure and report on alternative social impact measures to
multiple funding bodies (Nikolova, 2015). Any streamlining of these processes will
ensure that NPOs are not spending all of their time and resources measuring and
reporting results, rather than focusing on doing social good.
Respondents were aware of the various reporting measures available and most
agreed that some social issues could not be articulated by using quantitative
assessments alone. Across the three groups of respondents, they identified several
barriers including a lack of funding, a lack of expertise, unavailability of data and not
having a common framework or set of measures. These make social value
measurement equally challenging across countries. While there is merit in using
quantitative and qualitative evaluations, there does seem to be an emphasis on tangible
MIP (i.e. quantitative) results, with quantitative measures (such as SROI) evaluated more
34,1 favourably by funders, which may be problematic for some NPOs. Respondents agreed
that too much emphasis on measurement could distract NPOs from their core missions,
especially if they do not have the skills necessary to evaluate social value outcomes.

Implications
94 It seems that it may be better for a single cause sector to collaborate on defining
important inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact variables and determining what data
should be collected – both qualitative and quantitative – in order to evaluate social
value. Such collaborations will allow organisations working in this domain to better
address the targeted social issue as well as improve funding for these programmes.
In order to maximise transparency and impartiality, one potential solution is that social
impact could be assessed by independent third parties, allowing these evaluation
organisations to develop specialised skills in this area and spread this expertise across
NPOs and funding bodies. There could be some resistance to a commercial third party
entity (or a government-sponsored entity) by NPOs, if it was seen to be more focused on
profits or targeted non-social objectives (such as improving efficiency, which may not
mean improving social value). However, assessment organisations could be established
as non-profit entities, which would allow them to focus on the NPO sector’s needs.
If social value is to be assessed, it clearly requires broad agreement in regards to
what is assessed and which appropriate metrics should be used. Such developments
will require more consultation among funding organisations and NPOs. Given the
global agreement by respondents, it may be that such metrics could be developed
internationally rather than having organisations in individual countries develop
specific methodologies or measures. However, there may be some difficulty in reaching
consensus as to the importance of specific components of measures, given the differing
motivations of NPO funders (MacIndoe and Barman, 2013; Thomson, 2010). Perhaps a
subset of the metrics from the current third party evaluators could be used as a starting
point, adding measures to those used and eliminating those that are agreed to be
problematic.
The diversity of NPO social missions and outcomes may mean that there is limited
ability to develop “objective” comparisons across sectors and even within sectors, and
thus social measures may need to vary. However, there could be agreed key
performance indices for specific cause sectors (e.g. food banks, medical research),
allowing stakeholders to compare information within a cause sector. Indeed, this
consolidated approach would potentially focus on the degree to which targeted goals
are achieved, which may not allow for more nuanced assessments of social impact.
Any consolidated approach potentially risks becoming an assessment of the most
basic outcomes (i.e. lowest common denominator), as these may be more easily
measured, rather than the most impactful outcomes. As Albert Einstein is reported to
have said, “Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts
can be counted”.
Achieving social outcomes effectively is indeed important, but it would be
detrimental if NPOs were to become driven by superficial or generic social value
measures, especially in an era where more innovative forms of NPOs are arising to
address social issues (Lautermann, 2013). A recommendation that has arisen from the
data proposes a holistic view of societal value be created, allowing organisations to
report using narratives and statistics that demonstrate their success. This provides an
opportunity to capitalise on the long-term value creation within a sector, thereby
enabling the best representation of social value outcomes. Although NPOs are Non-profit
positioned in a competitive marketplace, this research demonstrates that they place organisations
value on collaboration, particularly sharing success, failures and helping the industry
move forward, which can be leveraged to address social issues innovatively.
Limitations accompanying this research include a limited sample of managers and a
comparison that only occurs between two countries. While participants were able to
determine several key issues, these insights did not lead to a prescribed solution. 95
Future research could examine a single cause sector and help identify key outputs and
outcomes from various stakeholder perspectives. This could serve as a catalyst for
collaboration on a broader scale and serve as an opportunity to break down any fears
from key stakeholders about accountability. Future research could identify the degree
to which alternative reporting activities of non-profits impact on their success within
funding sectors, as well as whether funders who are more explicit in metrics achieve
more successful outcomes and/or relationships with NPOs. Further research can and
should investigate how donors can take information on social impact/value and
determine how that information affects their donor and volunteer behaviour.
For example, there have been many attempts to quantify the value of volunteering
to society, but these have tended to focus on the dollar value rather than the broader
social impact (e.g. Ironmonger, 2006). Equally important would be research as to
how different types of funder respond to alternative types of information, which
may further support the idea that different types of funders seek varying types
of information.

References
Arvidson, M. and Lyon, F. (2014), “Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations:
compliance, resistance and promotion”, Voluntas: International Society for Third Sector
Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 869-886.
Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S. and Moro, D. (2013), “Valuing the social? The nature and
controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI)”, Voluntary Sector Review
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Auerbach, C.F. and Silverstein, L.B. (2003), Qualitative data: An Introduction to Coding and
Analysis, NYU Press, New York, NY.
Australian Productivity Commission (2010), “Contribution of the not-for-profit sector”, research
report, Canberra.
Bartual Sanfeliu, C., Cervelló Royo, R. and Moya Clemente, I. (2013), “Measuring performance of
social and non-profit microfinance institutions (MFIs): an application of multicriterion
methodology”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 57 Nos 7-8, pp. 1671-1678.
Blunch, N.H. and Pörtner, C.C. (2011), “Literacy, skills, and welfare: effects of participation in adult
literacy programs”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 17-66.
Bradach, P., Harrison, K. and Robert, N. (2010), Impact Reporting in the UK Charity Sector,
Charity Finance Directors Group and Cass Business School, London.
Campbell, D. (2002), “Outcomes assessment and the paradox of non-profit accountability”,
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, No. 12, pp. 243-259.
Carman, J. (2007), “Evaluation practice among community based organizations: research into
reality”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 60-75.
Carman, J. (2009), “Nonprofits, funders and evaluation: empirical evidence from the field”,
in Carman, J.G. and Fredericks, K.A. (Eds), Nonprofits and Evaluation: New Directions for
Evaluation, Vol. 119, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 51-71.
MIP Connolly, C. and Hyndman, N. (2004), “Performance reporting: a comparative study of British and
Irish charities”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 127-154.
34,1
Cordery, C. and Sinclair, R. (2013), “Measuring performance in the third sector”, Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-18.
Cunningham, K. and Ricks, M. (2004), “Why measure: non-profits use metrics to show that they
are efficient. But what if donors don’t care?”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer,
96 pp. 44-51.
Dhanani, A. and Connelly, C. (2012), “Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities
and public discourse”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 1140-1169.
Dillenburg, S., Greene, T. and Erekson, H. (2003), “Approaching socially responsible investment
with a comprehensive ratings scheme: total social impact”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 167-178.
Dolnicar, S. and Lazarevski, K. (2009), “Marketing in non-profit organizations: an international
perspective”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 275-291.
Flack, T. and Ryan, C. (2005), “Financial reporting by Australian nonprofit organisations:
dilemmas posed by government funders”, Australian Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 69-77.
Froelich, K.A. (1999), “Diversification of revenue strategies: evolving resource dependence
in nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 246-268.
Gibbon, J. and Dey, C. (2011), “Developments in social impact measurement in the third sector:
scaling up or dumbing down?”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Giving USA (2014), “Highlights”, available at: www.givingusareports.com (accessed June 2014).
Hall, M.H., Phellips, S.D., Meillat, C. and Pickering, D. (2003), Assessing Performance: Evaluation
Practices and Perspectives in Canada’s Voluntary Vector, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy
and the Centre for Voluntary Sector Research and Development, Ontario.
Hendricks, M., Plantz, M.C. and Pritchard, K.J. (2008), “Measuring outcomes of United Way
funded programs: expectations and reality”, in Carman, J.G. and Fredericks, K.A. (Eds),
Nonprofits and Evaluation: New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 119, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 13-35.
Hong, J.H. and Cho, D.H. (2012), “The effects of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation
and social networks on the social performance of non-profit organizations”, in Kim, T.H.,
Mohammed, S., Ramos, C., Abawajy, J., Kang, B.-H. and Slezak, D. (Eds), Computer
Applications for Web, Human Computer Interaction, Signal and Image Processing, and
Pattern Recognition, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 240-248.
Ironmonger, D. (2006), The economic Value of Volunteering in Queensland, Department of
Communities, Queensland.
Kaplan, R.S. and Grossman, A.S. (2010), “The emerging capital markets for nonprofits”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 10, pp. 110-118.
Lautermann, C. (2013), “The ambiguities of (social) value creation: towards an extended
understanding of entrepreneurial value creation for society”, Social Enterprise Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 184-202.
Layard, R. and Glaister, S. (1994), Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, S. (2003), “The regulation of fundraising: in search of the ‘public good’ or an intractable
problem of vested interest”, International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 307-316.
LeRoux, K. and Wright, N. (2010), “Does performance measurement improve decision making? Non-profit
Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies”, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 571-587.
organisations
Lingane, A. and Olsen, S. (2004), “Guidelines for social return on investment”, California
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 116-135.
Lovelock, C.H. and Weinberg, C.B. (1984), Marketing for Public and Nonprofit Managers, Wiley,
New York, NY. 97
Lyon, F. and Arvidson, M. (2011), “Social impact measurement as an entrepreneurial process”,
Third Sector Research Centre, Birmingham, available at: www.tsrc.ac.uk/linkclick.aspx?
fileticket¼Etz5o0ewsw0%3D&tabloid¼853 (accessed December 2013).
MacIndoe, H. and Barman, E. (2013), “How organizational stakeholders shape performance
measurement in nonprofits exploring a multidimensional measure”, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 716-738.
Moore, M. (2003), “The public value scorecard: a rejoinder and an alternative to ‘strategic
performance measurement and management in non-profit organizations’ by Robert
Kaplan”, Working Paper No. 18, The Hauser Center for Non-profit Organizations, The
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Nicholls, J. (2007), “Why measuring and communicating social value can help social enterprise
become more competitive”, Office of the Third Sector, Cabinet Office, London, available at:
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector/measuring_
communicating_social_value.pdf
Nikolova, M. (2015), “Government funding of private voluntary organizations: is there a
crowding-out effect”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 487-509.
Olszak Management Consulting (2004), Assessing Social Return on Investment for Social
Enterprises in the Pittsburgh Region, The Forms Fund and Tropman Research Fund,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Polonsky, M.J. and Grau, S.L. (2008), “Evaluating the social impact of non-profit organizations:
a conceptual foundation”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 130-140.
Polonsky, M.J. and Grau, S.L. (2011), “Assessing the social impact of nonprofits – four alternative
approaches”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Quarter, J. and Richmond, B.J. (2001), “Accounting for social value in non-profits and for-profits”,
Non-profit Management & Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Richmond, B.J., Mook, L. and Quarter, J. (2003), “Social accounting for non-profits: two models”,
Non-profit Management & Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 308-323.
Sargeant, A. (1999), “Charitable giving: towards a model of donor behaviour”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 215-238.
Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Schwabsky, N. (2006), “Market orientations
in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: a meta-analysis of their relationships with
organizational performance”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 453-476.
Sillanpää, V. (2013), “Measuring the impacts of welfare service innovations”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 474-489.
Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 491-503.
The Rockefeller Foundation (2003), Social Impact Assessment: A Discussion Among Grantmakers,
The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, NY.
MIP Thomson, D. (2010), “Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in nonprofit
performance measurement”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4,
34,1 pp. 611-629.
Vázquez, R., Álvarez, L.I. and Santos, M.L. (2002), “Market orientation and social services in
private non-profit organizations”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 9‐10,
pp. 1022-1046.
98 Zimmermann, J. and Stevens, B. (2006), “The use of performance measurement in South Carolina
nonprofits”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-327.

About the authors

Michael Jay Polonsky is an Alfred Deakin Professor within the Department of Marketing at the
Deakin University in Melbourne Australia. His main research interest is on social environmental,
ethical and non-profit issues in marketing. Professor Michael Jay Polonsky is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Dr Stacy Landreth Grau is a Professor of Marketing Practice at the Neeley School of Business
at the Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. Her research interests include cause
related marketing, corporate social responsibility initiatives, source effects in advertising, and
social impact assessment for non-profit organisations.
Dr Sharyn McDonald is a Lecturer in the School of Communication & Creative Arts at the
Deakin University in Melbourne Australia. Her main research interests are social and
environmental partnerships, non-profit/business collaboration and corporate social
responsibility.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]