Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 1
ISSN: 1837-5391; http://utsescholarship.lib.uts.edu.au/epress/journals/index.php/mcs
CCS Journal is published under the auspices of UTSePress, Sydney, Australia

A Theoretical Model of Social Impact

Jenny Onyx1

University of Technology, Sydney

Abstract
This paper constructs a theoretical model of social impact as it applies to civil society organisations. It does so
by drawing on the social ontology defined by practice theory. This approach begins with what is understood
within current organisational practices. It then assesses a practice approach against the recent literature on
impact and evaluation. This is followed by an exploration of the capitals, notably social, human and cultural
capital and their interrelationships, as a theoretical base for the explication of social impact. A formal model of
social impact is finally identified together with a set of basic propositions that may collectively be said to define
social impact. Finally the implications of the model are discussed for social policy and organisational
management.
.

Defining the scope of the paper

While much is talked about concerning social impact, and policy papers stress its importance,

there is in fact considerable confusion about what it is, and how it relates to wider issues of

community cohesion and wellbeing. This paper attempts to structure a theoretical model of

social impact, to construct a conceptual frame which may then be useful in determining not

only what it is, but how it might then be measured within a community context.

This paper focuses specifically on grassroots, community-based nonprofits such as sporting

clubs, service organisations, youth organisations, church-based clubs, community arts

organisations. The question that needs answering is ‘what is the social impact of these

organisations on their local community, and on civil society more broadly’? The question

goes beyond any particular program or project of the organisation in question, but is

concerned with the impact of the whole organisation.

The paper takes a radically different starting point from that normally adopted for considering

social impact. The initial starting point is a reflection on my observations of a wide set of

1 I acknowledge the contribution to this project of all members of the research team: Melissa Edwards, Simon
Darcy, Paul Bullen, Hazel Maxwell

2 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

community practices over many years. In doing so, I draw on practice theory. As identified

by Schatzki, practice theory draws on a different social ontology, in which ‘the social is a

field of embodied, materially interwoven practices’ (2001, p. 12). Practices are conceived as

‘embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared

practical understanding’ (2001, p. 11). They are thus collective activities which are not

determined either by the individual working alone, nor by the social structures within which

they are located, but rather by the social interaction of agents seeking meaning and common

purposes within these constraints. Again, following Schatzki, a theory refers to a general and

abstract account of a field of practices. As applied to this case, I therefore attempt to develop

a general account of a field of practice relating to the social impact of the arrays of human

activity located within community-based organisations. While this project draws on various

aspects of the existing literature, it is not specifically derived from the literature, but rests

strongly on empirical observations, both from formally constituted research and from

personal observations and discussions. However the intent is to develop a conceptual model

that goes beyond any specific empirical case and that may provide a more general template

for future research.

The practical impetus to this project is the need, commonly expressed by policy makers and

managers, to understand what kind of social impact the organisation has in society at large

and for its specific constituencies. It is important to know whether the organisation as a whole

is making a difference to the social life of the community, and, if so, what kind of difference.

Sometimes it is important to know what kind of economic impact the organisation is making.

However, more often what is required is an understanding of the social contribution made by

civil society organisations. Social impact is: illusive, partly because it does not lend itself

readily to a monetary analysis; qualitative rather than quantitative; long term rather than short

term; diffuse and multi layered rather than specific and focused; and probably means

different things in different contexts.

Therefore, a prior step in the measurement of social impact is the development of a useful

conceptual framework, one that permits a clear identification of the crucial components of

social impact within community-based civil society organisations. It should then be possible

to construct more formal and reliable measures of social impact.

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 3

This paper therefore begins by presenting the core aspects of a proposed conceptual model as

drawn from an understanding of prevailing practices within civil society organisations. The

paper then goes on to explore the concept of social impact as variously used in the literature.

In particular, two literatures are deemed relevant, though neither could be seen as sufficient in

accounting for social impact. The first is the conventional literature on evaluation and impact.

The second is the emerging literature on social capital within community-based organisations.

The paper concludes with a series of propositions which may then be the basis of future

empirical work.

An outline of the model

It is possible to begin by positing a number of basic principles of social impact, as drawn

from my understanding of the current practices of community-based organisations. For

purposes of illustration, the example of the Rural Fire Service (RFS) in NSW will be used.

The epistemological justification for this approach also lies within practice theory, or at least

the phenomenological branch of that theory. I seek to uncover those principles of action that

organise this field of activity both temporally and spatially. As articulated by Schatzki, these

arrays of human activity are centrally organised around shared practical understanding. They

are socially constructed with a shared meaning around what people within a community

organisation do collectively, and around what they say about what they do. It also follows,

that as a social researcher engaged in some kind of ethno-methodology, I am also engaged in

the intersubjective construction of meaning. I have done so through a reflexive and recursive

interrogation of both informal, incidental observation such as that pertaining to the RFS, but

also many thousands of conversations with community participants over many years. That

process of reflexive interrogation has then led to several major research projects involving

community-based organisation in Australia and around the world, again with recursive

analysis of the results within teams of researchers (Onyx, Kenny and Brown 2011; Onyx and

Leonard 2011; Edwards, Onyx, Maxwell and Darcy 2012). This process was at all times

informed by a general interrogation of potentially relevant literature. However, the

articulation of what I believe to be the central principles of action within this field is

ultimately my own synthesis and goes beyond any single empirical analysis or research

project. Some of the core organising principles of this developing field of knowledge can be

articulated as follows:

4 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

(a) Social impact refers to wider social effects beyond the immediate program objectives of an

organisation and beyond any short term effects.

(b) It refers to effects on the wider community of the organisation as a whole over an extended

time period, and includes intended and unintended or spillover effects.

disintegration) and levels of wellbeing within the community (Productivity Commission

2010).

Social impact begins at the immediate and local level. It ultimately depends on the creation of

a warm and welcoming culture within the local organisation such that new members feel

valued and ‘part of the family’. During the recent bush fires in Sydney [October 2013], the

media was interested in why so many volunteers were willing to face danger and discomfort

to battle the fires. Many volunteers responded that in joining the Rural Fire Service, they felt

valued and supported, as part of a wider family. An international survey of many thousands

of members of community organisations found that one of the key reasons for joining an

organisation was its welcoming culture (Onyx, Kenny, and Brown, 2011). A recently

completed analysis of surf life-saving organisations found the same thing (Edwards et al.

2012; Onyx et al. 2012).

To the extent that new members of an organisation feel welcomed and valued, they are likely

to develop shared values and a commitment to the purpose of the organisation and to other

members of the organisation. In particular they are likely to develop a sense of reciprocity,

which is of giving as well as receiving the benefits that the organisation provides. To the

extent that the particular organisation is embedded within a local community, then the

individual members as well as the organisation as a whole will develop a commitment to

supporting the whole community. This commitment may be recognised as a strong sense of

citizenship.

Through the activities of the organisation, the members develop a variety of new skills. These

new skills include those specific to the organisational mission, such as fire fighting. But they

will also include more intangible skills such as leadership, team work, perhaps personal

development skills like time management. Members will also develop new networks which

provide a wider source of information, knowledge and advice. New skills and knowledge will

be both received and shared with others.

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 5

Finally, to the extent that all the above is achieved through organisational practices, then

there will be a wider contribution into the surrounding community. In the case of RFS, the

contribution is tangible as lives and property is saved. But it also serves to knit the wider

community together, especially during times of stress. The recent fires gave many examples

of the whole community coming together to assist the fire fighters with food and drink, to

acknowledge the fire fighters’ achievements, to celebrate the communities’ survival. The

local fire service is invariably invited to be part of any community celebration, including for

example a ‘Santa Truck’ at Christmas.

Social impact refers both to the impact as experienced and provided by individuals, but also

that of the organisation as an organisation, independently of any single member. The strength

and sustainability of the social impact of an organisation will depend in part on the extent to

which it is embedded within the host community, at both individual and organisational level.

This, in part also depends on the reputation accrued to the organisation and its members.

Again the RFS provides a good illustration of this. In the Blue Mountains, every small

community includes a bush fire brigade, and local residents regularly contribute time and

resources to its maintenance. Collectively, the RFS has enormous prestige, with its members

celebrated as local heroes and formally acknowledged in periodic parades and civic

receptions.

Social impact is thus seen as a complex, developmental process, one that is important for

both the individual and the organisation. Much of it concerns the development and enactment

of social relationships, both for the overt intention of achieving the organisation’s mission,

but more importantly for the development and enactment of community for itself. Many of

the individual and organisational benefits arise from this more subtle level of social

enactment. This view is quite different from that normally provided within the literature on

evaluation. It is to that literature that I now turn.

Evaluation and impact

Impact is often confused with evaluation. While evaluation has become a growing industry,

there remains much confusion concerning exactly what evaluation does or should measure,

and how these measures relate to impact, if at all. For example, an empirical study of some

6 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

178 community organisations in New York State, found that evaluation activities were very

limited. While almost all organisations reported some form of regular evaluation, this was

mostly in the form of accountability to funders and Directors, and was perceived as a form of

accountability or quality control rather than actual evaluation. Very few organisations

adopted any form of systematic social impact measurement tool such as “Logic models”

(17%) or “balanced scorecard” (3%) (Carman 2007).

Similarly, a study of 237 nonprofits in Chicago found that while the majority of organisations

could identify outcomes, including long term outcomes that they expected to achieve, only

about half had any means of assessing these (Thomson 2010).

The logic model of evaluation for an organisation and its programs provides one way of

distinguishing between evaluation of short term outputs or outcomes from more far reaching

impact. Within the logic model of evaluation, a distinction is made between the different

levels of evaluation as indicated in Figure 1 below (Arvidson 2009; Ebrahim and Rangan

2010; Maas and Liket 2011; Productivity Commission 2010).

Figure 1
The logic model of evaluation

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

What goes
in,
resources

What happens,
program
implementation

specific,
immediate
and
countable
products of
the program

benefits of the
program as
identified in the
program
objectives

Sustained, significant
change in effects in the
wider environment
beyond the immediate
boundaries

According to the logic model of evaluation, there are several distinct stages of the process of

the organisations programs, and therefore of the evaluation of these programs. Inputs refer to

the resources provided for the program, both material and human. Activities refer to the

implementation of the program. Outputs are specific, immediate and countable products of

the program while Outcomes refer to the benefits of the program for the intended

beneficiaries, as identified in the program objectives. These are sometimes expressed in terms

of a hierarchy of outcomes moving from more specific to more general. Impacts within the

logic model relate to all changes in the wider environment, the community at large, that

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 7

occur as a result of the program whether intended or unintended, positive or negative, short

term and long term. Impacts usually refer to effects beyond the immediate boundaries of the

organisation and its programs (Zappalà and Lyons 2009; Arvidson 2009).

Most evaluations are concerned with second generation level evaluation (Guba and Lincoln,

1986), that is, measuring performance against program objectives, without consideration of

the wider ramifications of the program. The majority of evaluations are limited to measures

of outputs and lower order outcomes (Thomson 2010; Ebrahim and Rangan 2010). They

focus on specific programs and not the organisation as a whole. These evaluations are

evidence-based attempts to assess outcomes against intended objectives of the program,

without any concerns for examining the wider implications of these, even where the wider

impact is the ultimate goal of the program in question.

Applying these ideas to the proposed model of social impact, the definition of social impact

provided within the logic model is consistent and appropriate, that is we are concerned with

understanding sustained, significant change in effects in the wider environment beyond the

immediate boundaries of the organisation’s programmes. However as used within program

logic, impact is normally regarded as an extension of the formal objectives of the

organisation’s program, and is thus limited to the same parameters of objective outcomes. So

for RFS, impact measures would be limited to the wider extent of lives and property saved,

and perhaps to wider effects on the economy and on bush regeneration. The broader

intangible social effects on members and the community are rarely considered. They are what

may be termed “spill-over” effects (Productivity Commission 2010). These are effects that

may be unintended, and are not specified in the statement of organisational objectives. They

are effects that are produced outside the planned intervention, either directly or indirectly as a

result of the intervention. In accounting terms they are externalities, and as such not measured.

They may however be very important in terms of wider impact of organisational activities on

the wider community, with potential positive and negative wider implications.

More recently there have been attempts to develop a framework of evaluation that can be

used across the sector, that provides a clear and consistent approach and that can potentially

measure effects beyond the immediate outputs (Maas and Liket 2011). Of these, the Social

Return On Investment (SROI) is gaining considerable attention in the UK and Australia. It is

essentially a monetising exercise, identifying a dollar value for each nominated activity or

8 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

event to put in the ratio equation of investment against return. This leaves open the question

of identifying the key variables to include in the equation, and the appropriate dollar value to

impute to each variable. Any variable that cannot be readily given an attributed value is

simply omitted from the equation. Perhaps more seriously, the use of SROI and similar

monetised evaluation frameworks reduces organisational performance to financial values at

the expense of the human and mission-based values of the service provided (Zappalà and

Lyons 2009; Arvidson 2009; Mook, Richmond and Quarter 2003; Ebrahim and Rangan

2010).

A second problem with techniques such as SROI lies with the identification of causality.

Sustained significant social change, such as increased community wellbeing, is complex and

likely to be the result of multiple and unrelated causal factors and influences. While the

actions of the organisation may contribute to these benefits, it is impossible to establish how

much of these benefits would have happened anyway, from other causes, for example

changing economic circumstances that reduce poverty quite apart from the action of the

organisation. There are good reasons for this; the further removed the effect is from the

intervention, the harder it is to obtain reliable measures and the greater the likelihood that the

effect will be produced by a number of other factors, outside the control of the organisation.

While evaluation methods are useful in measuring the outcomes of specific programs, they do

not address wider effects beyond program objectives. Most importantly, they are invariably

limited to formal and ‘objective’ measures of material events. They are not concerned with

such immaterial practices as a welcoming organisational culture, the development of broader

citizenship values, or a commitment to supporting the wider community. Thus while these

formal accountability measures may be a useful form of evaluation at one level, they go

nowhere near an assessment of the deeper value and therefore wider social impact of the

organisation as a whole.

Social Capital and impact

A more useful literature for assessing the intangible contribution of community

organisational practices concerns the use of the concept of social capital. The literature on

social capital does not attempt to specifically address issues of impact except at the broadest

macro level. Nonetheless there are potentially a number of important insights arising from it.

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 9

Social capital is an essential ingredient in community cohesion and well-being. Studies

indicate that regions and groups measuring high in social capital also have a variety of

positive outcomes, beyond economic advantage, such as improved health and well-being,

reduced levels of crime and better educational outcomes (Putnam 2000; Halpern 2005; Onyx

and Bullen 2000).

Social capital was defined by Putnam (1993, p. 167) as ‘those features of social organization,

such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating

coordinated actions’. For him, and others following this approach, social capital is a basic

resource that is used to maintain and enhance community cohesion and collective action in

promoting community-wide civic health. In other words it focuses on the productive aspect of

social capital when people are able to work cooperatively and collaboratively.

Bourdieu on the other hand defined the social capital as ‘the sum of the resources, actual or

virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of

more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu

and Wacquant 1992, p. 119). For Bourdieu, social capital was a core strategy in the struggle

for dominance within a social field. His focus was not on collaborative action but on the

struggle for power and wealth, and in particular the strategies adopted by elite groups to

maintain their relative advantage.

Other scholars have adopted a middle ground, that is acknowledging the capacity of social

capital to be both a productive resource, but also a strategy used by marginal groups in their

struggle for economic survival and human rights (Woolcock and Narayan 2001; Halpern

2005; Onyx, Edwards and Bullen 2007).

Despite these different approaches, there is a growing consensus that social capital must be

defined in terms of networks that are durable and mutual with norms and sanctions to enforce

their interactions. There is also agreement that social capital is a complex multilayered

concept with several components, though scholars disagree as to which other elements are

core and which peripheral to its definition. In particular one point of discussion concerns the

centrality of trust. For some it is critical (Fukuyama 1995; Putnam 1993; Schneider 2009), for

others simply a fortunate side effect (Portes 1998; Woolcock 2001; Schuller 2001). Other

scholars have emphasised different core elements of social capital, elements such as

10 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

reciprocity (Putnam 1993) and social agency (Leonard and Onyx 2004). Agency refers to the

capacity to take the initiative, to be proactive.

Most discussions of social capital distinguish between ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital

(Woolcock and Narayan 2001; Putnam 2000). Bonding social capital is usually characterised

as having dense, multi-functional ties and strong but localised trust. It is essential for a sense

of personal identity, support and belonging. However, to the extent that it creates narrow,

intolerant communities, it can be oppressive even to those who otherwise benefit. Bridging is

more complex. Bridging, as the name implies, is about reaching beyond these immediate

networks of family and friends. Bridging is important for personal and community

development (Woolcott and Narayan 2001). Bridging can be used in at least three different

ways: to cross demographic divides, notably ethnic divides; to bridge structural holes

between networks; and to access information and resources outside the community in

question. However as Schneider (2009) and others (eg Leonard and Onyx 2004) have argued,

bridging is not simply a matter of weak or transient ties, but of more formal ties which also

require the development of trust over time. Evidence is increasingly making clear that both

bonding and bridging are essential resources for individual and collective wellbeing (Putnam

2000; Leonard and Onyx 2004; Edwards and Onyx 2007; Schneider 2009).

As applied to the proposed model of social impact, social capital is consistent with practice

theory. Social capital in all its forms clearly refers to consistent and coherent embodied and

materially mediated arrays of human activity that are centrally organised around shared

practical understanding of their meaning (Schatzki 2001). Both bonding social capital and

bridging are relevant and important. Bonding concerns the development of close, mutually

supportive social relations within the organisation, and thus provides the basis for the

development of members’ commitment to the organisation. Bridging suggests the benefits

gained from the development of networks beyond the individual’s initial set of family and

friends, first within the organisation, then beyond it.

The interaction of the capitals

One of the most significant contributions of Bourdieu was his broader sociological analysis

of the role of capital. He argues that there are a number of different capitals, all of which are

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 11

linked and under some circumstances can be converted into other forms of capital. For

example he argues:

Capital can present itself in three fundamental guises: as economic capital, which is
immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the
form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions,
into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of educational
qualifications; and as social capital made up of social obligations (connections) which
is convertible in certain conditions, into economic capital (Bourdieu 1986, p242).

Bourdieu later added the concept of ‘symbolic capital’ which alludes to the power of prestige

or reputation when economic or cultural capital is recognised and acknowledged by others.

He also defines cultural capital as having several subspecies, notably embodied cultural

capital, objectified cultural capital and institutionalised cultural capital. Embodied cultural

capital refers to long-lasting personal dispositions such as ethnicity, religion, family

background, linguistic codes. Objectified cultural capital refers to the value and power of

cultural products. Institutional cultural capital refers mainly to educational qualifications as

formally recognised (Bourdieu 1986).

The importance of cultural capital in the creation of social impact has been highlighted within

another discipline, that of social psychology, by Latané and his colleagues. They define

culture as ‘the entire set of socially transmitted beliefs, values and practices that characterize

a given society at a given time’ (Latané 1996, p. 13). He proposes a dynamic theory of social

impact to account for how coherent cultural patterns emerge out of a self-organising complex

system of individual networks.

Bourdieu in his analysis privileges economic capital as the primary source of wealth and

power; other capitals are primarily useful in so far as they may be ultimately convertible into

economic capital. However other scholars are more interested in the interdependencies

between capitals for their own sake. Of particular relevance here is the link between social

capital and human capital. Human capital resembles Bourdieu’s institutional cultural capital

and is defined by the OECD for example as encompassing skills, competences and

qualifications (Schuller 2007). Schuller argues that the value of social capital depends in

large measure on its linkage to other capitals, especially human capital, just as human capital

requires access to social capital in order to actualise its potential. Both are important ends in

themselves but each is enhanced by the presence of the other capital.

12 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

While the literature on social capital does not address the issue of social impact directly, it

has direct relevance to the model here proposed. The implication of this discussion is that

social impact must be conceptually linked to the generation of social capital, but it is likely to

be more than that. In formal terms, social impact will refer to the generation of increased (or

decreased) levels of social, cultural and human capital within the constituent communities in

which an organisation operates. The generation of these capitals, as emphasised by Bourdieu

and others, is seen as an ongoing process within the communities in question, one dependent

on the complex set of relationships. That is, we are not examining an extant “stock” of capital,

but an ongoing process of generation.

The individual vs the organisation

A recurring debate within the literature is the extent to which social capital adheres to the

organisation or to the network. Putman sees social capital as a collective resource, located in

the social networks which are potentially open to all. Bourdieu was concerned with the

advantages individuals gain from social capital resources, but he nonetheless recognised that

social capital was generated within durable social networks. More recently, some economists

have attempted to identify social capital as an individual possession, to be accumulated and

used like any other form of capital, regardless of what other people may do (Glaeser,

Laibson, & Sacerdote 2002). I would argue that, by definition, social capital adheres to the

connections between people that are a quality of the social rather than the individual.

However, as Putnam (2000) and others have noted, the individual may access the resources

available in the collective, and may do so to their personal advantage. For example,

individuals in organisations are able to use their networks to gain new employment

opportunities. But, to the extent that the individual continues to draw from the collective

social capital resource without contributing to it, that resource will ultimately be drained of

its dynamic renewal. This raises the problem of the “free rider”. As Ostrom explains:

Whenever one person cannot be excluded from the benefits that others provide, each
person is motivated not to contribute to the joint effort, but to free-ride on the efforts
of others. If all participants choose to free-ride, the collective benefit will not be
produced. (1990, p. 6)

If social capital resides in the social connections between people, then logically, the best

measure of it also requires measures of the collective. In fact most attempts to measure social

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 13

capital make use of individual, survey type instruments (eg Onyx and Bullen, 2000) in which

individual scores are aggregated to provide a picture of the larger collective.

As a consequence of this approach, there has been little effort to apply social capital to the

organisation as a whole, that is, to the organisation separate from the individuals who make it

up. Schneider on the other hand defines organisational social capital as ‘established, trust-

based networks among organisations or communities supporting a particular non-profit, that

an organisation can use to further its goals’ (2009, p. 644). She provides considerable

evidence of the role of organisational social capital which is independent of the people

involved and which is based on that organisation’s history and reputation. So, even as key

individuals move on, the organisation can continue to draw on its organisational networks as

important resources. Just as with individual networks, the organisational network ties are

reciprocal, enforceable and durable. Schneider further makes use of Bourdieu’s concept of

cultural capital to explain how subcultural differences within and between organisations help

to define social capital networks. Thus, organisations are likely to form social capital

networks with those other organisations within the same field which have one or more core

values or cultural attributes in common. Resources are more likely to be shared and

collaborative action developed between alliances within this organisational network.

In terms of social impact, the implications are clear. Social impact, like social capital, occurs

at both the individual and the organisational level. The two are related but not synonymous.

Any analysis of social impact must therefore consider both the impacts for the individuals

concerned and also the independent effects of the organisation.

The Proposed Model of Social Impact

It is now possible to return to the proposed new conceptual model of social impact, drawing

on both the literature and observed practices of community-based organisations, this time

identifying in formal terms a number of testable propositions. It is suggested that the social

impact of an organisation can be defined by the collective result of these propositions. The

propositions provide a synthesis of insights from the literature and from both formal and

informal empirical observations of community action and discourse, without being

specifically derivative from any of these. At this stage it is premature to attempt further

14 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

explication of the likely causal links between and within these principles. That is a task for

future research.

Proposition One: The generation of social impact is an ongoing process within the

communities in question, one dependent on a complex set of relationships and practices. It

includes importantly the development of core values and networks.

Proposition Two: Social impact is not an all or none affair, but involves several distinct

aspects or phases which are causally related. Social impact begins with the organisation itself,

and the extent to which the organisation provides a welcoming climate for individual

members and thus the extent to which those members feel included, with a sense of personal

belonging ( Onyx et al. 2011; Edwards et al. 2012). Bonding social capital is a necessary

precondition for the generation of further effects (Edwards and Onyx 2007). To the extent

that this occurs, then wider impacts become possible, extending out from the immediate local

organisation into the wider community, in a manner not dissimilar to the ripple effect of a

stone dropped in still water.

Proposition Three: An important aspect to the generation of social impact is the development

of social and citizenship values developed by members as a direct consequence of the

organisational practices. These values will vary, but are likely to include a sense of

community and the importance of community service. This may reflect what Latané

described as the emergence of cultural capital (Latané 1996).

Proposition Four: Organisational practices enable the development of personal skills and

knowledge (human capital), and the development of wider social networks, both within and

beyond the organisation (bridging social capital). There is an interdependent development of

both social and human capital (Schuller 2007).

Proposition Five: A wider contribution to the local community in which the organisation is

embedded occurs as a direct consequence of organisational practices. This may involve the

creation of broader networks and volunteer action outside the immediate organisation. In part

this wider contribution occurs as a result of active networks within the community involving

the organisation and its members. Much depends on the wider reputation that the organisation

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 15

has within the community, as developed over time (Onyx and Leonard 2011). Bourdieu’s

symbolic capital plays an important part.

Proposition Six: Impact occurs BOTH at the level of the individual member AND at the level

of the organisation. Impact depends both on the culture of the local organisation, as Schneider

(2009) suggests, but also on the response of the individual members. The networks that are

formed relate to organisational networks as well as individual networks. Contributions to the

wider community are made by the organisation as an organisation as well as by individual

members. What the organisation espouses as an organisation can have a direct and separate

effect on other outcomes, quite distinct from that of the individual members. In other words

organisational policy counts, but not completely.

Proposition Seven: To the extent that the organisation is embedded within the local

community (and probably ONLY to the extent that it is so embedded) then the social impact

will continue to strengthen, and indeed may reverberate back into the organisation, thus

strengthening its internal impact in an iterative fashion. That is, to the extent that the

organisation is able to contribute to a stronger community, then the community will support

and strengthen the organisation. As suggested from some sport development projects

organisational practices will only provide wider, long term impact to the extent that the

communities in question take ownership of them (Schulenkorf, Thomson and Schlenker

2011).

Discussion of Implications of the Model

The model of social impact here developed makes it clear that social impact is a complex,

developmental process, one that is important for both the individual and the organisation. The

implications are important for policy makers and organisational management alike.

This conceptual model does not in itself provide a measure of social impact, but it does

provide the necessary basis for formulating appropriate qualitative and quantitative measures

of social impact. Indeed the application of the specific propositions to a single large

community-based organisation, Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), would suggest that such

an application for the measurement of social impact is entirely possible and relevant

(Edwards et al. 2012; Onyx et al. 2012).

16 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

The organisations as well as government funding bodies need to know what the social impact

(positive and negative) of the organisation is within its host community. This is not a question

of faith or conjecture. Nor is it a question of the adequacy of any specific program. It is a

question of what difference the organisation makes as a whole, over time, within the local

community. But then, how can we know? To answer that question, requires comprehensive

measurement tools. But the measurement is only useful to the extent that it is able to capture

the essence of the social impact in its complexity. The measure must be about the measure of

all capitals involved, especially the social, cultural, human....and only indirectly relevant is

the economic capital. The conceptual model presented here potentially provides the basis for

the development of such measures.

Governments at State and Commonwealth level have come to accept the vital role played by

organisations of civil society in providing essential services to the community, but also in

developing wider social cohesion and basic democratic engagement of its citizens. Ultimately,

of course, the implications of social impact and its measurement are profoundly important for

our intellectual and practical understanding of the nature of social impact, its role in

maintaining a healthy, cohesive society, and the continued role of civil society.

References

Arvidson, M. 2009, Impact and evaluation in the UK third sector: reviewing literature and
exploring ideas, Third Sector Research Centre, working paper 27, Universities of
Birmingham and Southampton.

Bourdieu, P. 1986, ‘The forms of capital’, in J Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, New York, pp.241-258.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. 1992, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

Carman, J. 2007, ‘Evaluation practice among community-based organisations: Research into
the reality’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 60-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214006296245

Ebrahim, A. and Rangan, K. 2010, ‘The limits of nonprofit impact: a contingency framework
for measuring social performance’, Harvard Business School Working Paper 10-099.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1611810

Edwards, M. and Onyx, J. 2007, ‘Social capital and sustainability in a community under
threat’, The Local Environment, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 17-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830601098206

Edwards, M., Onyx, J., Maxwell, H. and Darcy, S. 2012, ‘Meso level social impact:
Meaningful indicators of community contribution, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: an
Interdisciplinary Journal, vol.4, no.3, pp.18-37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214006296245
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1611810
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830601098206

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014 17

Fukyama, F. 1995, Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Penguin, London.
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. 2002, ‘An economic approach to social capital’,

Economic Journal, vol. 112, no. 483, pp. F437-F458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-
0297.00078

Guba E. and Lincoln Y. 1986, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Halpern, D. 2005, Social Capital, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Latané, B.1996, ‘Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication’, Journal

of Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 13-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1996.tb01501.x

Leonard, R. and Onyx, J. 2003, ‘Networking through loose and strong ties: An Australian
qualitative study’, Voluntas, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 189-204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023900111271

Leonard, R. and Onyx, J. 2004, Spinning Straw into Gold: Social Capital in Practice, Janus,
London.

Maas, K and Liket, K 2011, ‘Social impact measurement: Classification of methods’, in R
Burritt et al. (eds). Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain
Managment, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, vol. 27, pp. 171-202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1390-1_8

Mook, L, Richmond, B., and Quarter, J 2003, ‘Integrating social accounting for nonprofits; a
case from Canada’, Voluntas, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 283-297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025614619742

National Compact 2010, Vision Purpose and Principles,
http://www.nationalcompact.gov.au/resources/vision-purpose-and-principles accessed
16th May, 2010.

Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. 2000, 'Measuring social capital in five communities', Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 36 no. 1, pp. 23-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886300361002

Onyx, J., Edwards, M., and Bullen, P. 2007, ‘The intersection of social capital and power: An
application to rural communities’, Rural Society, (special issue) vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 215-
230. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.17.3.215

Onyx, J., Edwards, M., Maxwell, H., Darcy, S., Bullen, P., and Sherker, S. 2012, ‘Measuring
social impact, paper presented at International Society for Third-Sector Research
International Conference, Siena.

Onyx, J., Kenny, S. and Brown, K. 2011, ‘Active citizenship: An empirical investigation’,
Social Policy and Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.55-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746411000406

Onyx, J., and Leonard, R. 2011, ‘Complex systems leadership in emergent community
projects’, Community Development Journal, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 493-510.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsq041

Portes, A. 1998, ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual
Review of Sociology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-24.

Productivity Commission 2010, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Research Report,
Canberra.

Putnam, R., Leonardi, R and Nanetti, R. 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Putnam, R. 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon
and Schuster, New York.

Schatzki, T. 2001, ‘Introduction: Practice theory’, in Schatzki, T., Cetina, K. & Savigny, E.
(eds) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00078
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00078
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023900111271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1390-1_8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025614619742
http://www.nationalcompact.gov.au/resources/vision-purpose-and-principles
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886300361002
http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.17.3.215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746411000406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsq041

18 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 2014

Schneider, J 2009, ‘Organizational social capital and nonprofits’, Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 643-662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333956

Schulenkorf, N., Thomson, A. and Schlenker, K. 2011, ‘Intercommunity sports events:
vehicles and catalysts for social capital in divided societies’, Event Management, vol. 15,
no. 2, pp. 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599511X13082349958316

Schuller, T. 2001, ‘The complimentary roles of human and social capital’, Canadian Journal
of Policy Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 18-24.

Schuller, T. 2007, ‘Reflections on the use of social capital’, Review of Social Economy, vol
LXV, no. 1, pp. 11-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346760601132162

Thomson, D. 2010, ‘Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in
nonprofit performance measurement’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 39,
no. 4, pp. 611-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764009360575

Woolcock, M. 2001, ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes’, Development Research Group, The World Bank, and Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.

Woolcock, M. 2001, ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes’, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11-17.

Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. 2000, Social capital: Implications for development theory,
research and policy’, World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 225-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

Zappalà, G., and Lyons, M. 2009, Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the third
sector: an overview, CSI Background Paper No. 5, Centre for Social Impact, University
of New South Wales.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333956
http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599511X13082349958316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346760601132162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764009360575
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

A Theoretical Model of Social Impact
Defining the scope of the paper
An outline of the model
Evaluation and impact
Social Capital and impact
The interaction of the capitals
The individual vs the organisation
The Proposed Model of Social Impact
Discussion of Implications of the Model
References