





































 

83 

 
 

 

 

 

https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 

 

ISSN 2184-6995 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 

International License. 

 

  

 

 

 

Social impact measurement in Cyprus and other European countries 
 

Eleni Zenonos  

 

Published online: May 2022 
 

To cite this article:  

Zenonos, E. (2022). Social impact measurement in Cyprus and other European countries. Discern: 

International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 83-94. 

 

 

  



 

84 

Social impact measurement in Cyprus and other European countries  

 
Eleni Zenonos a  

 
aCenter for Social Innovation, Nicosia 1010, Cyprus. Eleni.Zenonos@csicy.com 

 

Abstract 

Although non-profit and other organisations related to social issues in Europe have increased, there is 

currently a gap when it comes to measuring their performance and social impact. This can cause mistrust 

and may have negative implications on their efficiency and sustainability. As part of the Erasmus+ project 

Social Impact Measurement for Civil Society Organizations (SIM4CSOs), which aims to create a common 

methodology and approach civil society organisations can apply to measure their social impact (in the form 

of a methodological manual and online resources), a survey and focus groups were conducted with 

representatives of civil organisations, corporate social responsibility departments and policymakers to 

identify existing skill gaps and training needs. The research took place in Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, 

Norway and Portugal. The results showed that social change practitioners, whether they work for non-

profit organisations or the private sector, are keenly aware of the benefits of impact measurement. 

However, they expressed a need for buy-in and participation from organisational management, as well  

as identifying the main stakeholders who benefit from their activities. Additionally, many organisations 

indicated a lack of resources (financial and technical) to carry out a full-impact measurement process and 

evaluation. Finally, there was a clear need to consider the skill levels of practitioners, which varied. 

Therefore, most organisations suggested that the methodology developed should be practical, adaptable 

and non-time-consuming and that any platform used should be accessible and easy to use. 

 

Keywords: Social impact measurement, Civil society organisations 

 

Introduction 

The Social Impact Measurement for Civil Society Organisations (SIM4CSOs) is an Erasmus+ funded 

programme which aims to empower non-profit and other civil society organisations by creating a set  

of tools and methodologies they can use to assess their social impact. The programme is led by Higher 

Incubator Giving Growth and Sustainability from Greece, a non-profit organisation that aims  

to reinforce non-profit organisations through educational and supportive programmes. The other 

consortium members are NOVA Institute, which is part of Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway, the 

Center for Social Innovation in Cyprus, ACT Group from Croatia, CESIE in Italy, INOVA+ in Portugal and 

MIDOT in Israel. All participating organisations have experience in social research and social science,  

and their collective knowledge and experience have been instrumental to the success of this project. 

 

The aims of the SIM4CSOs project are:  

 

“…to improve the effectiveness of the Third Sector, increase the fundraising possibilities of civil 

society organisations (CSOs), enhance the overall sector and the protection of the reputation of 

CSOs from bad practice cases, create synergies with organisations active in the social field and  

equip adult staff members with strategic planning of their professional development.”  

(SIM4CSOs Consortium, 2022) 

 



 

85 

As part of the project, several best practices concerning social impact measurement were collected from 

each partner country. Furthermore, to explore and assess the state of the art of social impact measurement 

of CSOs in each partner country, desk and field research was conducted, including a survey and focus 

groups. In this paper, the results of the research in Cyprus and the SIM4CSOs partner countries will be 

presented as well as contextual information about Cyprus and brief information about the other countries. 

 

Current state of art in Cyprus 

There are currently 6,300 registered associations, although most of them are inactive, which gives a false 

impression of the size of civil society in Cyprus, 330 registered non-profit organisations, more than  

400 charity foundations (Office of the Commissioner for Volunteering and NGOs et al., 2019) and about  

190 social enterprises (Isaias, 2019) which operate in a range of areas – from the environment, gender, 

education and culture to disabilities and health. Nevertheless, reports and studies indicate that organised 

civil society in Cyprus still has weak foundations for a variety of reasons, including limited participation. 

 

In July 2017, progressive amendments to the Law on Associations, Foundations and Clubs to improve the 

regulation of CSOs in Cyprus were approved by the Parliament, but there are still obstacles to overcome. 

For example, the legislation does not have specific provisions for the legal sources of income or property 

for any type of NGO, nor does it set any prerequisites regulating their immediate involvement in financial 

operations, which hinders the need for transparency. 

 

Based on the most recent assessment of civil society nationally (CIVICUS, 2011):  

 

“Accountability and transparency rates of CSOs need to be encouraged and enhanced, particularly 

for the ones receiving public funding. This will help to create a culture of openness and transparency 

and will help to counter abuses and corruption in the long run.” 

 

This highlights the importance of measuring social impact, which can enhance accountability and 

transparency of CSOs. 

 

Current state of the art in other European countries 

Based on the comprehensive report published by the SIM4CSOs consortium (2021), research conducted in 

partner countries, namely Greece, Portugal, Croatia, Norway, Italy and Poland, only a few had established 

policies or regulations in place regarding the definition of national standards for impact measurement.  

In Italy, social impact measurement became more relevant with the reform of the Third Sector (Law 106, 

2016), in which social impact measurement was introduced and presented as a “key element for the legal 

recognition of social enterprises”. 

 

Despite the lack of formal governmental guidance and official regulations regarding social impact 

measurement in most partner countries, it is evident that the situation has started changing, as CSOs, social 

enterprises and even private companies, including their corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments, 

from all partner countries have indicated that they realised the importance of social impact measurement 

and identified several external and internal drivers which further stress the crucial role social impact 

measurement plays in their sector. 

 

Methodology 

To explore and assess the state of the art of social impact measurement of CSOs in Cyprus, first, several 

best practices were collected from each partner country, which consisted of examples of organisations  



 

86 

or projects which successfully implemented social impact measurement. Second, a survey developed by  

the SIM4CSOs consortium and set up on Google forms was sent to over 160 non-governmental non-profit 

organisations, social enterprises and corporate responsibility departments in Cyprus in February 2021.  

A total of 32 organisations from Cyprus responded to the survey (215 responses came from the other 

consortium countries, 247 responses in total). 

 

Finally, to further explore the topic of social impact measurement and the training needs related to it by 

civil society representatives, two focus groups were conducted in each partner country. The participants 

were recruited through email contact or had already expressed interest to take part in the focus groups via 

the survey. Twelve participants took part in the Cyprus focus groups, from a variety of non-governmental 

organisations in Cyprus, CSR departments and policymakers. 

 

Cyprus research results 

Demographics 

Most survey respondents 78% (25) worked for non-profit organisations but participants from other types  

of organisations also took part, including a private company (1), higher education institutions (2), a public 

organisation dealing with social issues (1), a company limited by guarantee (1), a grassroots initiative (1) 

and an informal network (1).  

 

The respondents worked in a variety of areas: youth development (7), arts, culture and humanities (5), 

environmental and animal (3), environmental, climate and social justice (1), educational institutions (3), 

health and human services (1), intercommunal communication (1), hospitals and care (1), community 

capacity (1), business incubator (1), gender issues and human rights research (1), gender and women’s 

rights inequality (1), accounting (1), advocacy for civic space (1), business network (1), sustainable 

development goals (1), social care (1) and economics and public policy (1). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Type of organisation the respondents worked for. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

87 

 

 

In addition, most participants had more than three years of experience in the non-profit sector (22, 69%) 

and only one had less than one year of experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Years of work experience in the non-profit sector. 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Years of experience in the non-profit sector. 

 

The main funding channels for most of the organisations were EU funds (9), government grants  

(8), corporate donations (4) and individual donations (3). Other sources of funding reported were  

a combination of the ones mentioned (1), membership fees (1) and sales of products (1). Three (3) 

organisations reported they received no funding. 

 

 
Figure 3: Main funding channel of organisations. 

 

Regarding the focus groups, 12 representatives of NGOs, policymakers and CSR departments in Cyprus took 

part. Most participants were 40–50 years old (5) and had a Master's degree (9/12). The rest were 20–30 (3), 

30–40 (2) and 50–60 (2) years old. Also, two participants had a BA and one had a PhD. 

 

Measuring social impact 

When asked how measuring social impact could help their organisations, 8 participants stated that it could 

help improve their current processes and their organisation in general (e.g. “It is an important element of 

understanding the role and importance of our activities. This allows us to better understand how to improve 

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

28%

69%

3%

1-3 years

Above 3 years

Less than 1 year



 

88 

our activities in a way that will hopefully achieve the desired impact”). In addition, 6 participants believed 

that measuring their social impact could assist in their planning and strategy (e.g. “It will help with 

formulating future activities based on the impact, feedback and needs of our target group.”) 

 

Other ways in which measuring social impact could help their organisations that were mentioned were 

assessing their efficiency (5 responses, e.g. “It can help us make sure we are creating the change that the 

community needs”), securing funding (4 responses, e.g. “To secure more funding, more collaboration with 

other CSOs, better public awareness of our work”), proving their effectiveness (2 responses, e.g. “…People 

respond/understand better when you present your impact instead of anything else…”) and raising 

awareness (2 responses, e.g. “Promote the identity and values of the organisation. Raise brand 

awareness”). 

 

Furthermore, 41% (13) of the respondents reported that they measured their impact, with most measuring 

both qualitative and quantitative data (92%, 12) and one participant only measuring quantitative data. 

 
Figure 4: Percentage of organisations measuring their social impact. 

 

The reasons the participants measured their impact were to improve the services they provide (10), due to 

internal process requirements (7), donor requirements (5) and to reach more people (1). Regarding the 

methods used to measure their impact, most used records/files (9), questionnaires (7) and interviews (6), 

followed by focus groups (4) and a combination of social media, emails and face-to-face conversations (1). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Reasons for measuring social impact. 

 



 

89 

Just over half (53%, 7) of the respondents used a logical model for these measures. The logical models used 

varied. Some of the models mentioned were based on the organisation’s inputs, activities, outputs and 

outcomes, their goals (1), the organisation’s rules (1) and according to European criteria (1). Of those who 

did not use a logical model, the main reason was lack of knowledge (1), lack of structured activities (1) and 

use of a theory (Theory of Change) similar to a logic model. 

 

In addition, 10 of the 13 organisations that measure their social impact had defined success metrics. Some 

of those metrics were the satisfaction of employees and volunteers, financial income, quality of services- 

activities provided and/or implemented, participation in activities, an annual target set by their Council, the 

organisation’s projects and day-to-day actions, annual improvement, achievement of goals of projects and 

specific targets set and measured by the organisation. Of those not using defined success metrics, the 

reason was lack of data. 

 

Regarding the frequency of social impact reporting, most participants (5/13) report about  

it annually, every six months (2/13) or after each activity/project (2). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Frequency of social impact reporting. 

 

The organisations that did not measure their impact reported that it was due to a lack of human resources  

(11/19), lack of financial resources (10/19), lack of time (10/19) and lack of knowledge (9/19). 

 

Figure 7: Reasons for not measuring social impact. 



 

90 

The most common reasons they reported they would like to start measuring their impact were to be able 

to improve their services (16, 84%) and due to internal process requirements (6, 32%) or donor 

requirements (2, 11%). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Reasons organisations would like to start measuring their impact. 

 

Obstacles in measuring impact 

The main obstacles to measuring impact that the participants responded with were lack of human 

resources (19, 59%), lack of an established system (17, 53%), lack of trained personnel (13, 41%), lack  

of know-how (12, 37%) and difficulty accessing data (11, 34%). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9: Obstacles in measuring social impact. 

 

When asked how many hours a month they could allocate to measuring social impact, most participants 

stated that they could dedicate up to 5 hours (14, 44%), followed by up to 10 hours (8, 25%) and up to 20 

hours (3, 9%). In terms of the amount of money they could give, most stated that they could spend up to 

100 euros (10, 31%), followed by up to 500 euros (5, 16%) and up to 1000 euros (2, 6%). Seven participants 

said they had no funds available to allocate for measuring their social impact. 

 

Eighteen respondents claimed that they would also like to measure other aspects of their work,  

e.g. indirect impact on society in general (3 respondents), not just the immediate target group, people’s 

opinions/general public opinions (3 participants), comparing their impact with their stakeholders versus 

people who do not take part in the organisation’s programmes, the impact of scientific and cultural events 

and the impact of CSR actions. 



 

91 

Most respondents (27) agreed (agree and mostly agree combined) that social impact measurement 

influences donors’ decisions. They also agreed (25) that social impact measurement is an advantage for 

large-scale organisations and that in the long term these can lead to better, more informed decisions and 

become a management tool for the organisation (29). Most participants also agreed that (29) social impact 

is more than numbers and that it has a long-term impact on the organisation (22). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10: The number of hours organisations could allocate to social impact measurement. 

 

Skills analysis  

Most participants (combined scores of 3 and 4) felt confident in their ability to apply questionnaire 

research techniques to a target audience (23), present the results on the monitoring plan (22), compile  

a report with the results of the monitoring plan (21) and successfully research target audiences (20), but 

felt less confident in their ability to set/define key performance indicators (KPIs) (17), measure those 

indicators (16), apply focus group and interview techniques (16), design a monitoring plan (14), and apply 

social return on investment (SROI) methodology (5). 

Finally, in terms of their training needs, most respondents reported that they need training in applying SROI 

methodology (26), applying focus groups research techniques (24), interview research techniques (23), 

questionnaire research techniques for a target audience (20), successfully reaching target audiences (24), 

setting/defining KPIs (23), measuring those KPIs (24), designing a monitoring plan to measure KPIs (26), 

compiling a report on the monitoring plan (23) and presenting the results of that monitoring plan (21). 

 

Focus groups 

The groups were asked about their experience in social impact measurement (if any), its importance for 

them, challenges they might face in implementing such methodology, what a good methodological tool 

would look like and what training or other needs they may have related to this area. 

 

All the participants agreed that measuring social impact was of high importance for them, but most 

participants either did not measure social impact or measured it occasionally with no specific methodology. 

The CSR representatives and the Commissioner of Volunteering in Cyprus emphasised how vital it is for 

NGOs to be transparent and be able to measure and report their social impact, as funders will trust them 

more and will be more willing to donate. 

 

3%3%3%3%
3%

25%

3%
10%

44%

3%

2 hours per month

can't estimate it

depends

See answer above.

Surely more than 20 but do
not know how many
up to 10 hours

Up to 2 hours

up to 20 hours



 

92 

In terms of the main difficulties faced in measuring social impact, most respondents replied, similarly to the 

survey, that lack of time, money and professional staff were the main reasons. Furthermore, for  

a tool to work for them, it must be easy to use, user-friendly, with minimal resources needed and should  

be adaptable to their organisational needs. All the participants agreed that some form of training will be 

necessary for them to be able to use such a methodological tool. 

 

Results in other European countries 

The results of the research conducted in the other partner countries were strikingly like the Cyprus results 

for both the survey and the focus groups. 

 

Conclusions 

Social change practitioners in Cyprus and the other consortium countries are aware of the benefits  

of impact measurement, the fact that it provides organisational infrastructure and is a way to attract and 

communicate with funders etc., but they also recognise the lack of impact measurement and the need for  

a more methodological approach. 

 

It is also obvious that buy-in and participation from organisational management are crucial to the 

implementation of social impact measurement. However, there was some ambiguity about how the 

organisations should measure social impact. There was also a strong desire for professional support 

concerning the methods and skills necessary to conduct impact measurement. Considering basic skills 

levels and limited resources, most, if not all, organisations suggested that the methods developed should 

be practical, adaptable, not time-consuming and that any platform should be accessible and easy to use. 

 

Next steps 

The next stage of the project is the development of a methodological manual and an online platform that 

will supply information and resources to CSOs about impact measurement. 

 

Based on the conclusions above: 

 “…this tool would be developed to help practitioners of all skill levels achieve a common baseline. 

Specifically, it would provide guidance on how to create a logic model, identify impact KPIs, and 

develop a logic-driven measurement plan which includes clear steps and phases. More advanced 

content might include links to measurement tools specific to certain target groups and intervention 

types. It might also link up with national and regional indicators and longitudinal data and would 

help organizations understand how to incorporate country or region-level data into their impact 

assessments” (SIM4CSOs consortium, 2022) 

 

Find out more about this project and the tool that will soon be developed on our website 

www.measuringimpact.eu 

 

References 

CIVICUS (2011). The Assessment of Civil Society in Cyprus. A Map for The Future-2011. CIVICUS 

https://tinyurl.com/2p9cav4f 

 

Isaias, G. (2019). Social Enterprises and their Ecosystems in Europe. Country report: Cyprus. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. https://tinyurl.com/4furvfpx 

 

https://measuringimpact.eu/
https://tinyurl.com/2p9cav4f
https://tinyurl.com/4furvfpx


 

93 

Office of the Commissioner for Volunteering and NGOs, Expert Council for the Legislation on Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGO) of the Conference of International NGOs of the Council of Europe,  

NGO Initiative Group (2019). The organized Civil Society in Cyprus. Press and Information Office. 

 

SIM4CSOS Consortium (2021). Comprehensive Report. Best Practices and Needs Regarding Social Impact 

Measurement in CSOs. SIM4CSOS consortium. 

https://measuringimpact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SIM4CSOs-IO1-Comprehensive-report_EN.pdf 

 

SIM4CSOs Consortium (2022). The Contributions of The Project. SIM4CSOs consortium. 

https://measuringimpact.eu/ 

 

https://measuringimpact.eu/

