
































4486-Article Text-14460-2-9-20200703


 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

1 

Reporting tools for social enterprises: between 
impact measurement and stakeholder needs 

Daniel Iannaci 

Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy 
 
E-mail: daniel.iannaci@unito.it 
 
Received: 11/05/2020 
Revised: 12/06/2020 
Accepted for publication: 17/06/2020 
Published: 20/07/2020 

 

Abstract 

Most people within the third sector and beyond would endorse the view that social economy organisations should report on 
what they do and how they work for the common good, and we, as a society, should require such reporting. 

 
There are several studies and research on the role of reporting for social enterprises hoping to communicate financial 

information and social impact. However, the gap that emerged from the literature is that the principles of transparency and 
accountability are defined, but there is a lack of determination of a key element that can put order and respond to the need of 
stakeholders in the best possible way. 

 
The author believes that a good reporting tool that is representative and that above all is understandable even to non-

professional users only works if it can give an effective group representation if it puts the first place: the need. 
 
The author employs the methodology of the case study where data are collected by multiple means through qualitative 

research techniques such as interviews, and document analysis for acquiring a full understanding. 
 
The finding reveals that the focus on the need of stakeholders increase accountability, transparency, and stakeholder 

engagement. Stakeholders would be able to better understand the strong values of good governance, leadership, performance, 
and social impact that the company possesses. 

 
Through the research project conducted so far has been possible to demonstrate that in social enterprises to have an effective 

measurement of impact must use all possible tools to know and describe the company and the ecosystem that surrounds it and 
this is possible through timely reporting that it returns clear information for all. 

 

Keywords: Reporting tools, social enterprises, social impact, impact measurement, stakeholder needs, accounting 

 

 
 

 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

2 

1. Introduction 

Pearce (2009) explain that most people within the third sector and beyond would endorse the view that ‘social economy 
organisations should report on what they do and how they work for the common good, and we, as society, should require such 
reporting’ (Pearce, 2009). On a practical level, however, the basis of such reporting is perhaps less immediately obvious. The 
best-known approaches to social reporting, including AA1000 and the GRI guidelines, may appear excessively complex, costly 
and better suited to large corporate settings, rather than smaller values-based enterprises. 

The business landscape currently existing in the entrepreneurial ecosystem in accordance with the literature defines a certain 
category of companies that can be the main players in the area of impact economy are the: social enterprises (SEs) (Bicciato, 
2010; Borzaga, 2002; Borzaga & Tortia, 2004; Calò et al., 2018; Farmer et al., 2012). 

The social enterprises have within their social object the characteristics that ethical finance seeks and above all they are the 
best structured companies of the whole panorama of the third sector (Zamagni, 2013). 

The response to the need for comprehensible and effective reporting, introduced at an entrepreneurial level, is increasingly 
moving towards social enterprises that are currently considered in the scientific landscape hybrid organizations, business 
models aimed at maintaining the social mission along with business (Billis, 2010; Grossi & Thomasson, 2015; Haigh & 
Hoffman, 2012). Social enterprises make the social a strategic asset to regenerate resources of different nature: human, through 
the development of new knowledge and new skills; economic, through the possibility of aggregating a variety of types of 
sources precisely by virtue of the hybrid nature of the organization; physical, that is, linked to the process of transformation of 
spaces in places, where relationality becomes the key ingredient for the success of the process (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2012; 
Kleynjans & Hudon, 2016; Smith & Phillips, 2016). The economic evaluation of the social impact of hybrid organizations 
becomes, therefore, crucial in the knowledge economy (Meneguzzo, 2005; Zamagni et al., 2015) and the debate focuses on the 
instruments of impact measurement (Calderini et al., 2007). Hybrid organizations are located in an intermediate section at the 
intersection of public, profit and non-profit (Billis, 2010; Grossi et al., 2015; Secinaro et al., 2019; Thomasson, 2009). 

Reporting and communication for these realities becomes fundamental. In order to define the field of innovation and identify 
the social value that is returned to the ecosystem of the territory, it is important and helpful to define the business model as a 
tool that can facilitate (or not) the spread of innovation in the system. The value inherent in an innovation remains latent until 
it is put on the market or otherwise explicit and this can only happen through the use of a business model (Chesbrough & 
Rosenbloom, 2002). 

Certainly, the accounting system is an important point within a company that can bring out information about good 
governance. Governance involves a set of relationships between stakeholders and the distribution of rights and responsibilities 
between these different stakeholders (Awotundun et al., 2011; Fernández-Fernández, 1999; Freeman, 2010; Freeman et al., 
2010; Mair et al., 2015; Vining & Weimer, 2016). 

As a result of good governance, the values that are passed on to stakeholders are experience and reliability, as the leaders of 
professional organizations in the field of ethics and compliance have a responsibility to feed the next generation of 
entrepreneurs. Leadership skills increase the effectiveness of management and also tend to promote ethics (Adams, 2000; 
Alshammari et al., 2015; Carroll, 1996; Friedman, 2014; Vining & Weimer, 2016). 

The discovery reveals that with the SE's best reporting practices within the well-functioning ecosystem it is possible to create 
new social projects. Having accountability as a connecting feature with stakeholders gives you the credibility you need to create 
social impact through new projects. The benefit is perceived directly by the users of the service and indirectly by all the other 
stakeholders linked to the territory in which the impact activity is carried out (Adams, 2000; Alshammari et al., 2015; Biancone 
et al., 2018b; Carroll, 1996; Kirk et al., 1986; Lehner & Nicholls, 2014; Skelcher & Smith, 2017; Wainwright & Manville, 
2017). 

There are several studies and research on the role of reporting for social enterprises hoping to communicate financial 
information and social impact. However, the gap that emerged from the literature is that the principles of transparency and 
accountability are defined, but there is a lack of determination of a key element that can put order and respond to the need of 
stakeholders in the best possible way. Therefore, the research aims to define and highlight one or more key factors and answer 
the research question "define the key factors that a social enterprise should have in order to obtain a reporting tool oriented to 
the communication of financial data and social impact and determine which factors stakeholders would like to know in order 
to be heard included". 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

3 

The document is structured as follows: the second section illustrates the literary review, the third section the research 
methodology, the fourth section the context of the case study, the fifth section provides the presentation of the results and finally 
the sixth section concludes. 

 

2. Literature Review 

2.1. Reporting tools 

The consolidated financial statements provide the information necessary to verify the degree to which the objectives for the 
entire aggregate have been achieved, with particular reference to the composition of the sources and the composition of the 
investments (Fornaciari, 2017; Pisoni et al., 2007). This context makes it possible to know the financial structure of the group, 
the degree of financial autonomy and the level of indebtedness, the participation or composition of the group, the total cost of 
the same, the structural composition of costs, especially those that constitute the most significant elements of production. The 
Consolidated Financial Statements provide information and knowledge of the different composition of revenues. In addition, 
this document provides an analysis of the relationship between the income to be taxed and the capacity of the parent company. 
Revenues generated by the exchange with subsidiaries, with the possibility of forecasting consolidated business units. This 
information allows the possibility of formulating more optimised programmes to identify the use of resources. National and 
international accounting standards converge with the aim of providing information from the consolidated group: accessible, 
comprehensible and transparent (Ecchia & Zarri, 2005). Especially in the context of a corporate group, where several companies 
can be merged by nature and destination (profit and non-profit companies), it can intervene in support of Popular Financial 
Reporting, a consolidated economic and financial reporting tool that integrates financial, economic, equity, quantitative and 
qualitative information of the Consolidated Group with a simple language that can also be understood by non-professionals, 
therefore addressed to all citizens and stakeholders (Biancone et al., 2016, 2017b). The most widespread instrument in the 
municipalities and in the Anglo-American States has been applied for the first time in Italy with the realization of the Popular 
Budget of the Municipal Group of the City of Turin. The instrument in its first definition represented all aspects of the public 
group. Subsequent projects focus on the prevailing needs of the main stakeholder, the citizen, differentiating also the group's 
attention to gender needs (Biancone et al., 2017b).  

The tool adapts well to the needs of the group through the representation of financial and non-financial aspects. Since the 
accessibility of information by stakeholders is the key point of the POP Reporting, the company works with them year after 
year to redefine the content to adapt to what are the requests and priorities for information. Moreover, given the difficulty of 
reading the results with respect to the financial and non-financial contents related to the level of education, the tool is able to 
respond to the needs of workers but also to those of investors considering the possible gap and scope related to education 
(Biancone et al., 2017a). The connotation and vision of the whole group allows a true representation of the real and trendy 
situation, giving the possibility to orient the planning by aligning the needs of the workers, and the objectives of the service 
contracts that social cooperatives often stipulate for the achievement of common public interests with local or regional 
authorities aimed at the satisfaction of the community. The definition of guidelines and suggestions to ensure transparency and 
ease of reading of data (Hermann, 2011) responds well to the needs of the declaration of non-financial information, without the 
need to further adapt these accounting standards and guidelines in the context of financial representation. In order to better 
explain the section, the author has produced Table 1 below. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

4 

Table 1. Scheme for comparison between types of financial statements 

Report Economic-financial Social Sustainability Integrated Popular Financial 
Reporting 

Focus 
• Economic 
• Financial 
• Asset 

Focus 
temporale 

Past (final balance) 
Future (budget or 
programmatic budget) 

Past with orientation 
to the future 

• Past 
• Present 
• Future 

Main subjects 

-Workers (politicians, 
professionals, 
auditors, researchers)  
-Funders    
-Central 
Administration  
-Media Specialist 

-Citizens  
-Local Companies  
-Mass Media  
-Human Resources  
-Non-Profit 
organizations 

-Interested 
public -All stakeholders  

-All stakeholders with 
the focus of content 
according to the needs 
of the main 
stakeholders 

Commitment 
level Compulsory drafting Voluntary implementation 

Approach Compliance Based on principles 

Function Communicative • Communicative 
• Strategic 

Report with 
economic and 
financial 
statements 

Complementary 

Incorporation of: 
• Economic and 
financial 
statements 
• Sustainability 
Report 
• Corporate 
governance 
Information 
• Possible focus 
on intangible 
capital 
 

Incorporation of: 
• Consolidated 
economic and 
financial statements 
• Sustainability Report 
• Information on 
corporate governance 
with approach to 
gender need 
• Non-Financial 
Group information 
• Focus on intangible 
capital 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

 
The study shows that some social reporting tools (Integrated and Pop Reporting) can give a correct perception and analysis 

of the service of public interest. 
Through a study, it was observed that the effective use of Intellectual Capital (IC) by managers and the introduction of 

Integrated Reporting is able to facilitate the introduction of changes in the processes of management and measurement of the 
CI from the point of view of value creation (Badia et al., 2018; Biancone et al., 2018a). In particular, it has been demonstrated 
that Popular Financial Reporting can be adopted with a view to greater transparency, accountability and sharing of results with 
stakeholders, responding to requests for information (Biancone et al., 2018c, 2018d, 2019b). Consolidated financial statements 
of a non-financial nature represent a useful tool for representing some important elements for the valuation of investments and 
the absorption of resources that are often not valued in the financial statements. There is no evidence or valuation of what 
human capital is, a resource on which companies have been investing more in the last twenty years. The Social Enterprise sees 
among its main stakeholders not only users and public bodies with whom it shares objectives to meet needs, but also investors 
and producers of services at the same time. The representation of the intangible needs a greater sensitivity to which the 
accounting principles and guidelines have not yet been able to respond. In the case study (Biancone et al., 2018c), it is 
highlighted that the values linked to the employment of disadvantaged human resources not present in the consolidated financial 
statements of the group do not find an economic expression, but present a real added value with consequent cessation of costs 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

5 

(which would not have been to use the subjects involved). Business models and value reporting are the starting points for 
defining non-financial elements based on group values. A total representation can be given through the adoption of Popular 
Financial Reporting which, thanks to the intrinsic characteristics of the tool, already meets the needs of group representation in 
a perspective of integrated sustainability, considering many aspects including representation through infographics and a scale 
of priorities related to gender, environment and various priority stakeholders. The elements of KPIs allow for easy reading and 
comparison. The simple language of reaching everyone without distinction is a key element of the elements that must be present 
especially in those companies where investors are often the same disadvantaged members. Popular Financial Reporting is a 
voluntary tool but can respond in a single document to information needs (Yusuf et al., 2013). The need for transparency and 
responsibility in a period of reduction of available resources is met by Popular Financial Reporting, which is also justified in 
purely legislative terms by the need to have an easy reading of non-financial results to attract new investors and explain to them 
the strategic structure and intrinsic value of the company (Yusuf & Jordan, 2015). 

 

2.2. Social enterprises 

A social enterprise (SE) is an undertaking with a social or environmental mission as its primary goal, with profit having a 
lower rank and value than the success, effectiveness and impact of the mission itself. SEs usually start projects or a business in 
areas which are of public importance, areas where governments and their public policies have been inadequate and where 
markets/industries operate only with short-term gain or profit as their aim (Dart, 2004; Mauksch et al., 2017; Steiner & Teasdale, 
2016). 

Social enterprises are drivers of economic and social inclusion for the territories in which they operate. The phenomenon 
influences company extensions (Goldoff, 2000; Rehn, 2008). The fate of companies is linked to that of their territory (Zamagni, 
2013). 

Since the 1980s, non-profit organizations have slowly begun to incorporate hybridity, only occasionally questioning their 
public or private identity (Billis, 2010; Bryson & Roering, 1987; Grimsey & Lewis, 2002; Lan & Hal, 1992; Perry & Rainey, 
1988; Stanton, 2004). 

There are factors, such as good governance, market leadership, that give the necessary confidence to funders from the 
moment they seek funds but are also the key factors that allow a social enterprise to be included among the main actors of social 
innovation (Alshammari et al., 2015; Ayob et al., 2016; Caulier-Grice et al., 2012; Fernández-Fernández, 1999; Hubert, 2010; 
Smith & Phillips, 2016). 

As Alter (2004) argues, SE occupy a single space within the economy and can be positioned between profit and non-profit. 
Borzaga and Santuari (2003) argue that compared to profit organisations, social enterprises attach considerable importance to 
the social purpose.  

Normally, the creation of economic value has a predominant position within the objectives of profit organizations over the 
social and environmental ones, which are often used to achieve the former. 

Instead, for SEs the main objective is to maximize the creation of social and environmental value and historically these are 
achieved through the right mix of social and financial performance.  

Profit and SE are distinguished by the fact that the latter in terms of economic sustainability must give strong guarantees of 
being achieved through market-oriented activities. On the contrary, the former, as Austin argues (2000), focus only on some 
social results without the objective of competing on the market with profit-oriented companies and financing their activities 
largely (but not only) through donations and public contributions. Another very important distinction is given by Borzaga and 
Santuari (2003), which claim that ES design and sell a product or service, creating synergies between the financial and social 
objectives. 

The role of these types of companies is fundamental for the creation of social innovation of the ecosystem and enter with 
force to contribute to the current definition of Impact economy given by Calderini (2018). 

 
 
 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

6 

2.3. Social impact measurement 

When, in this research, reference is made to the social the reference is to life within the community, the ecosystem. The 
scientific disciplines that study the subject are sociology, economics and anthropology (Calderini et al., 2018; Marradi, 1992; 
Rousseau, 2015; Zamagni et al., 2015).  

As will often be used, the concept of social is accompanied by a tendency to improve the living conditions of less well-off 
citizens, to achieve greater equalization between the various components of a society. 

Hybrid organisations are promoters of social innovation, generating widespread well-being and sustainable improvements 
in the living conditions of the community. It is precisely the community, thanks to the increasingly accessible communication 
technologies, that becomes not only the recipient of social innovation, but also the co-generator of innovative processes (Corvo 
& Pastore, 2018).  

When social enterprises and resource providers are involved in symmetric relationships, the purpose of measuring social 
impact seems to help social enterprises to improve their performance so that the parties can achieve their common goal of 
creating social impact for those in need (Zamagni et al., 2015). 

A fundamental element of the evaluation process is attention to the effects generated by the action, including positive and 
negative effects, direct and indirect, expected and unanticipated (Bezzi, 2001). 

Evaluation should not be confused with monitoring, for which there are similarities and points of contact. In the first case, 
what has been achieved is analysed, verifying the validity of the results achieved; in the second case, the aim is to verify the 
progression with respect to the intervention planning, in order to identify any deviations (Montesi et al., 2017). 

Through the explanation of the chain of value creation, Clark et al. (2004), as it can see in Figure 1, deepens the concept of 
"social" outcome, as the value purified of what would have happened regardless of the intervention of social impact. 

 
Figure 1. Impact Value Chain 

 
Source: (Clark & Rosenzweig, 2004) 
 

The impact assessment is based on counterfactual analysis, i.e. it questions the occurrence of a change not only with respect 
to the "before compared to after", but also to the "with respect to without" a certain involvement (Clark & Rosenzweig, 2004). 

There are projects where the "before vs. after" is sufficient to determine the impact generated, for example when no other 
factor is likely to have caused observable effects on the change generated: the reduction of time spent on drawing water from 
the installation of hydraulic pumps. In other cases, however, the cause-effect link is not so obvious and linear, requiring 
therefore an analysis that compares the "with respect to without" the intervention (Clark & Rosenzweig, 2004). 

There may be various reasons for measuring the impact, for example: (i) demonstrate transparency, accountability and 
legitimacy to investors to access resources because without impact, evidence and reporting, lenders do not see the value created 
for communities; and (ii) know and improve organisational performance to determine whether they should continue or change 
their current strategy to achieve their missions (Nguyen et al., 2015). 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

7 

As illustrated by Nguyen et al. (2015), when social enterprises and resource providers are involved in symmetric 
relationships, the purpose of measuring social impact seems to help social enterprises improve performance so that parties can 
achieve their common goal: to create social impact for people in need. 

The budget tells us everything, the need is to know how to analyse it. Spreading the data through a Pop language is the 
challenge, starting from the needs up to the relapse on the territory (Biancone et al., 2018c, 2018d; Biancone & Secinaro, 2015; 
Brescia, 2019). 
 

2.4. Stakeholder theory 

Originally the relationship between the stakeholder and the company was conceived following a "hub and spoke" approach, 
later models of interactive relationships were developed, in which the management and the interested parties agree on a 
management approach oriented towards transparency and responsibility (Andriof et al., 2002; Freudenreich et al., 2019; Jiang 
et al., 2019). 

Stakeholder theory scholars have sought to classify relational models between companies and stakeholders by taking a path 
of gradual growth in stakeholder engagement that includes the following steps (Svendsen, 1998; Waddock, 2002): stakeholder 
mapping (Clarkson, 1995); stakeholder management (Carroll, 1996; Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Mitchell et 
al., 1997; Sangle, 2010); stakeholder engagement (SE) (Andriof et al., 2002; Windsor, 2002). 

 
Table 2. Stakeholder involvement steps 
 

STEPS 
STAKEHOLDER 
MAPPING 

Identify its stakeholders if possible to distinguish between primary (which determines the very survival of 
the company) and secondary (which affects or is affected by the company but does not affect its 
sustainability) (Clarkson, 1995) 

STAKEHOLDER 
MANAGEMENT 

Manage the expectations of stakeholders and the social and economic issues they support, balancing positions 
(Clarkson, 1995; Hillman & Keim, 2001) 

STAKEHOLDER 
ENGAGEMENT 

Involving its stakeholders in decision-making processes, involving them in company management, sharing 
information, dialoguing and creating a model of mutual responsibility (Manetti, 2011) 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

The stakeholder management model in corporate social activities (including social reporting) can be used by the company 
as a tool to negotiate its relationship with stakeholders (Roberts, 1992; Ullmann, 1985); suggesting that companies are interested 
in stakeholders because of the perceived benefit in terms of improved financial performance and that managerial relations with 
stakeholders are based on regulatory, moral commitments rather than on the desire to use these stakeholders exclusively to 
maximise the definition of stakeholders' profits defining a two-way relationship between the organisation and its stakeholders 
(Berman et al., 1999; Freeman, 1984). 

Starting from the stakeholder theory, a conceptual structure for corporate social activity was defined by testing the ability to 
explain social reporting activity, finding stakeholder power, strategic posture and economic performance significantly 
correlated levels of social diffusion and the model were tested to ascertain a critical assessment of contemporary developments 
(Berman et al., 1999; Freeman, 1984; Freeman & Gilbert, 1988; Owen et al., 2000; Roberts, 1992; Ullmann, 1985). 

It is important to get feedback from stakeholders on social and ethical performance. 
Therefore, companies currently use the notion of "stakeholder engagement" as a means of legitimisation instead of a means 

to extend corporate accountability and transparency (Civera et al., 2019; Owen & Swift, 2001; Strand & Freeman, 2015). This 
assertion can be supported by the fact that, as has been revealed above in this section, stakeholders are not identified in a clear 
and systematic way to involve them in the reporting process, the issues to be addressed are decided unilaterally and feedback 
from stakeholders is not included in the decision-making process (Freudenreich et al., 2019; How et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 
2019). 

Stakeholder theory has been widely used, both explicitly and implicitly, in non-profit research (NFPO) exploring 
accountability and transparency (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Ebrahim, 2003; Edwards & Hulme, 2014; Najam, 2002). The 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

8 

stakeholder theory was born as a theory of organizational behaviour related to for-profit organizations (Freeman, 1984), with 
stakeholders initially defined as "any group or individual who can influence or is influenced by the achievement of the 
organization's goals". It was argued that engagement with stakeholders, including giving and receiving information, would help 
organizations achieve their goals and gain a competitive advantage (Andrews & van de Walle, 2013). 

In addition to shareholders, there are many other interest groups that can influence or be influenced by the behaviour of the 
company such as employees, customers, suppliers, government and the general public (Freeman, 1984). 
 

2.5. The Research Model 

In the social impact assessment, as Clark et al. (2004) has previously highlighted by a definition of the impact value chain 
in order to better understand the factors that determine value creation. 

An intrinsic factor that emerged in the literature analysed on Reporting tools, Social enterprises, Social impact measurement, 
Stakeholder theory is that to create stakeholder participation it is important that upstream there is a company with good 
governance, leadership, aimed at survival in the market through performance and orientation to social impact. This information 
is not important if it is not transmitted in the correct way through the correct reporting tool to increase the perception and 
consequently the involvement (Al-Khasawneh & Futa, 2012; Biancone et al., 2018b; Fernández-Fernández, 1999; Freeman, 
2010; Strand & Freeman, 2015). 

A good reporting tool must put the need of stakeholders first and through the principles of transparency and accountability 
communicate its corporate history to have the expected results that the ecosystem needs and try to promote ethics (Adams, 
2000; Alshammari et al., 2015; Biancone et al., 2018a; Carroll, 1996; Ebrahim, 2003; Pestoff, 2014; Vining & Weimer, 2016). 

The discovery reveals that with best reporting practices for SEs, it is about shaping the level of information about the various 
types of stakeholders, both professional and non-professional, so that the supply and demand for information meet (Biancone 
et al., 2019b; Biancone & Secinaro, 2015). 

With the aim of answering the research question "define the key factors that a social enterprise should have in order to obtain 
a reporting tool oriented to the communication of financial data and social impact and determine which factors stakeholders 
would like to know in order to be heard included". 

The researcher believes that: a good reporting tool that is representative and that above all is understandable even to non-
professional users only works if it can give an effective group representation if it puts the first place: the need. 

After a thorough analysis of the literature review, the study proposes that putting the need for a reporting tool first would 
increase accountability, transparency and stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders would be able to better understand the strong 
values of good governance, leadership, performance and social impact that the company possesses. 

Figure 2 builds the reference model proposed by the authors. To adopt a reporting tool and meet the needs of stakeholders, 
a social enterprise must have the four key factors listed above. Through this guarantee and the most representative reporting 
tool they can have the involvement of stakeholders and increase the objective perception of them to create collaboration in new 
activities aimed at improving the ecosystem. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

9 

 
 
 
Figure 2. Model to satisfy stakeholder needs 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

3. Research Methodology 

This research employs a case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). The case-study approach is suitable for 
investigating why or how phenomena occurred and the relationships among these phenomena (Yin, 2014). Through case study, 
one may better understand a novel phenomenon and concept (Eisenhardt, 1989). In line with the purpose of this article, the 
methodology was adopted by preparing a longitudinal and explanatory case study (Yin, 1981, 2017). 

The case study highlights some relevant aspects and possible approaches of the elements of the model. The methods for 
collecting information use qualitative techniques and include interviews with managers and employees, analysis of internal 
documentation, observation of the reality and truthfulness of the data declared with a reworking of some data that ensure the 
validity and reliability of the information.  

The primary data were collected directly by one of the authors who for years has been carrying out research within the social 
enterprise, the secondary data were provided through a semi-structured interview to managers and employees. The validity is 
guaranteed by the triangulation of different resources with evidence of the key information collected. The evidence collected 
is guaranteed by a double check on the information through differentiated sources. Research allows to record a phenomenon in 
a real environment, where the boundaries between the context and the phenomenon tend to be blurred (Stake, 1995). 

Leadership 

Performance 

Social Impact 

Social 
enterprise 

R
ep

or
tin

g 

Good governance 
Trasparency 

Accountability 

Stakeholder 
involvement 

Perception  

NEED 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

10 

The literature allows to confirm and combine the information collected (Yin, 2017). The transparency, the approach and the 
repeatability of the analysis and the method allow its reliability (Leonard-Barton, 1990). 

Therefore the researchers believe that the case study defined by Yin (2017) is the best way to answer the research question 
"define the key factors that a social enterprise should have in order to obtain a reporting tool oriented to the communication of 
financial data and social impact and determine which factors stakeholders would like to know in order to be heard included”. 

The research reflected its theoretical framework presented in Figure 2, which consists of eight elements: accounting, good 
governance, reliability and experience, market leadership, security and compliance, technology and innovation, performance 
and stakeholder engagement; in the interviews conducted and in the semi-structured questions, also ensuring external validity 
(Campbell, 1986). Company and interviewees names and position are kept anonymous for privacy reasons , then they were 
transcribed and then encoded independently (Curtis et al., 2010). However, researchers could mention that the surveyed 
members included the: CEO, CFO, and the participants who benefited from services. 

 

3.1. Interviews outline 

With the aim of answering the research questions, the research was organized to cover the topics needed to have the elements 
to proceed with the study. Additional exploratory questions were considered to deepen the understanding of the answer, rather 
than closing a discussion and moving on to the next question. 

It was considered important to organise the questions by addressing the necessary issues from all points of view, from the 
most specific to the most general.  

The topic of reporting was addressed by trying to understand which information was considered understandable and which 
was not. Also, to understand if social issues were considered important and if the information was more transparent if this 
would increase participation. 

It was necessary to have information on the reaction of the members trying to understand if the group believed in the social 
enterprise and if they fully understand the identity in which they work if it had increased the sense of belonging. Since the tool 
would also be consulted by the users of the services, it was important to understand whether a better form of communication 
had changed the forms of behaviour. Through a more discursive approach another topic that created interest was to understand 
if there were any obstacles to achieving the objective by trying to understand how it influenced the company. 

3.2. Case Study – Context 

The Social Enterprise in question puts the creation of employment for its members, who are among the types of people 
defined in the social context as "fragile" through the collection of waste, first. The company has historically focused on activities 
with characteristics aimed at simplifying work to promote the qualified workforce, to allow workers to keep pace with the 
market, monitoring the results, solid assumptions to ensure the economic independence of people, always placing employment 
and social repercussions of the territory of intervention at the center of their choices. The services related to waste range from 
paper collection to bulky waste, asbestos removal, collection and disposal of RAEE and plastic and glass reception and social 
housing service. 

The information was collected through interviews with members, staff, through the company's website and citizens who use 
the service. In addition, the financial report of the last five years has been analysed to support accountability. About 
accountability supported by financial statement data, it was possible to understand that the company is solid and stable from an 
economic point of view. Revenues from service activities can be kept constant by always recording important profits reinvested 
in new activities. The company recorded a significant improvement in the EBITDA, ROS, ROA, ROA and ROE indices and 
confirmed the company's solidity, as can be seen from the interviews that will be analysed in the section. 

4. Presentation of Results 

This section summarizes the results of the case, showing the outputs of the respondents and the connections that emerged 
between the strengths of the social enterprise. 

The interviews made and the comments received confirmed the theory that literature has led to deepen (Curtis et al., 2010).  



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

11 

Respondents confirmed that the strengths of the company that has shown on several occasions has had the best results on 
the trust aspect. 

Thirty years of experience and business leadership has shown that governance is solid and, above all, it is flexible to any 
unexpected event in the market, since thanks to their expertise they are able to adapt and shape business with the market, 
confirming the concepts of Al-Khasawneh and Futa (2012) and Alshammari et al. (2015). 

The concept of good governance as treated by Fernández-Fernández (1999) and Norman (2014) is confirmed by saying that 
the governance structure is solid and has good internal management of responsibilities. The members of the company are aware 
of this because, in addition to seeing it from the numbers, they perceive the internal and external organisational strength. 

It was therefore possible to link to the literature that the search for daily innovation is a key factor within the studied 
organization. This factor is perceived and above all demonstrated. It was interesting to understand the differences in perception 
of social enterprise because there were opinions of strong trust from within. The externals were divided between those who 
knew the company and therefore appreciating the work of inclusion and those who used only the city service which are often 
linked by a prejudice of the category as studied by Andrews and van de Walle (2013). 

When it was explained that the social mission is to put the worker in first place and the great work is aimed at the welfare of 
members was shown to be the gap in the lack of that type of information as stated by Freeman (2010).  

This type of perception prevailed over financial, non-financial and above all social impact data. Those who knew the subject 
had a better perception, the non-experts did not have the full picture sometimes clouded by prejudice, as mentioned before, 
which did not even lead to deepen confirming what was said by Adams (2000) and Biancone et al. (2018d) about participation 
thanks to good reporting. 

For those who did not have clear concepts of social impact and therefore what was done for the ecosystem by the social 
enterprise underwent a change of attitude and a propensity to cooperate to participate in improving through their contribution 
by informing themselves of the ways approaching the concepts of Adams (2000) and Alshammari et al., (2015) about the 
cornerstones of ethical finance. 

As in the studies of Biancone et al. (2017b, 2018d, 2019b) the idea of a group is strong and defines a point in favour of 
defining a good accounting policy in order to give the perception of being responsible and transparent. Governance is aware 
that everyone has the right and the desire to know more about the company, both internally and externally, as confirmed by the 
studies of Freeman (2010), Carroll (1996) and Biancone et al. (2016). 

As highlighted in the literature, mapping stakeholders increases the range of action of information and therefore becomes an 
effective reporting tool. in fact, valuable information has emerged that professional users believe is enough to existing 
accounting tools as they are able to read them and deepen through other analysis of information not in evidence. Non-
professional users, on the other hand, considered the existing tools difficult to understand and unrepresentative. Clearly dictated 
by the incorrect channel of information. A user-friendly language is preferred and can be enhanced by innovative social media 
tools. Consequently, it emerged that the use of social media was always present, confirming the theory of Biancone et al. 
(2018a) in which citizen participation increases with the use of computer tools. In their studies they show that the factor that 
determines a participation of families is the simple connection to the Internet because it has been shown that this element is 
enough to create in users an active participation in the digital world. Therefore, an interesting starting point was the request to 
adapt "information in pills" that have accustomed to receiving social media. 

The territory is having a propensity to social orientation and social impact and therefore a good reporting tool can help to 
increase the propensity to social innovation of the ecosystem. 

Summarizing the key factors that emerged from the literature and confirmed by the interviews, the company that was the 
subject of the case study confirmed the theoretical framework. Good governance, leadership, performance and social impact 
are the information that stakeholders perceive as a translation of responsibility and transparency of the social enterprise, creating 
in them an increase in positive perception and consequently in active participation. Figure 3 summarizes the concepts in this 
section. 

 
 

 
 
 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

12 

Figure 3. simplification of results 
 

 
Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

5. Discussion and conclusion 

5.1. Contributions to the literature  

In order to develop a sustainable approach to international growth, social enterprises must continue to learn from experience 
and adapt during their internationalization and connect all stakeholders with innovative reporting tools. As presented above, 
this process is the subject of this study.  

In this work, it defines the key factors that a social enterprise should have in order to obtain a reporting tool oriented to 
communicate financial data and social impact and determine which factors stakeholders would want to know in order to be 
heard included. 

In this way, it meets the need for transparency and accountability used for public authorities (Hartmann, 2019; Presenza et 
al., 2014) and the way they inform subsequent internationalisation practices (Biancone et al., 2019a; Owen et al., 2000).  

 
The results contextualize and extend the conceptual work by suggesting that social enterprises rely on their dynamic capacity 

to learn from their experiences and to adapt their practices in the process of solidifying good governance and leadership to 
generate performance and social impact and make the model replicable and scalable. 

 
It is found that this type of structure is able to perceive and manage the "need" of stakeholders and efforts would be in vain 

if they could not be linked to the company. A good reporting tool as presented in the literature can guide the right theory of 
change (Castello & Lévêque, 2016; Kail & Lumley, 2012). By responding to needs and communicating in the right way, the 
company generates transparency and accountability in its stakeholders by triggering a proactive form of these stakeholders 
who, through their participation, are able to improve the structure of the social enterprise which in turn manages the whole 
process described [Figure 2].  Therefore, having such key factors, however difficult to achieve, provides an initial basis for 
subsequent adaptation to the process. In this sense, the results add a nuance to the vision that structured reporting brings with 
it positive strategic effects for the company that uses it and for all stakeholders generating an evolution of all (Calò et al., 2018; 
Owen et al., 2000; Zamagni et al., 2015). 

In essence, the transition from one phase of development of key factors to the next does not happen by default. Instead, the 
study must take an active role in monitoring the management process aimed at selecting the appropriate human capital, engaging 
in continuous reflection, critical evaluation, adaptation of criteria for its requirements, adaptation of good practices. This 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

13 

selection is also fundamental in the choice of the reporting tool that creates a mechanism of trust in all readers (professional 
and non-professional) (Biancone et al., 2019a, 2019b). 

5.2. Implications for managers  

The results demonstrate that the benefits of a good company structure linked to an excellent reporting tool are not necessarily 
automatic and may require dedicated effort and procedures. Based on the preliminary evidence of the study and if supported 
by further research, social enterprise decision-makers can improve the effects of their actions internally and externally, even 
when reflection on good practice is not perceived as urgent. The results suggest that these micro-processes can be supported by 
an entrepreneurial attitude that allows business managers to regularly take stock of the situation and to be ready to act quickly, 
being aware of the financial and non-financial data of their company, especially in a language that is certainly accessible. Too 
often smaller companies that launch themselves on the market do not have the time and resources to make these assessments 
and this can lead to inefficiencies that last longer than necessary, resulting in waste of resources and poor returns, as well as 
reducing opportunities for learning and adapting practices.  

 
In the specific context, good reporting practices consist in using human capital with increasingly specific combinations of 

skills and know-how. The manager must select the human capital for the implementation of these activities, otherwise he or 
she will have to provide external professionals for the implementation. 

5.3. Limitations and future research  

The demonstrated scenario has a strong illustrative and exploratory potential and the phases that the study identifies can be 
adapted to other contexts (Welch, 2012). The same applies to the transfer of context-specific notions of good governance, 
leadership, performance, social impact and especially reporting requirements. There may also be other companies that have 
similar characteristics to our context, but have different business models and industry regulations, so these results should be 
transferred to these contexts with caution.  

The purpose of our exploratory study is to provide insights that other scholars can draw on and explore further in the theory 
development process. Therefore, this study invite scholars to investigate the transferability of our insights and provide several 
promising avenues for future research. First of all, the resercher ask ourselves whether the starting point from stakeholder needs 
and through a good reporting tool can generate in them transparency and accountability can be applied to all non-profit but also 
profit contexts, since the current literature provides us with further distinctions in this category: for impact and without 
impact(Calderini et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2004; Meneguzzo, 2005). 

Secondly, the results strongly suggest that the effectiveness of reporting increases the speed of stakeholder engagement with 
the company. 

 
Third, to arrive at more general conclusions, the 2030 goals that the world is running towards seem to be set by large 

institutions and public bodies. Social enterprises, which are the engine of social impact, can certainly contribute to this and 
trying to provide a dashboard of the SDGs business format can help generate global development from the local.  

I would welcome further empirical studies that investigate the impact of good reporting tools on the global goals that 
humanity must now aim for (Biancone et al., 2018a; Welch, 2012). 

In conclusion, with the aim of answering the question “define the key factors that a social enterprise should have in order to 
obtain a reporting tool oriented to the communication of financial data and social impact and determine which factors 
stakeholders would like to know in order to be heard included”, the research confirm that a good reporting tool that is 
representative and that above all is understandable even to non-professional users only works if it is able to give an effective 
group representation if it puts the first place: the need. This condition increase accountability, transparency and stakeholder 
engagement. Stakeholders would be able to better understand the strong values of good governance, leadership, performance 
and social impact that the company possesses. 

In order to define the field of innovation and identify the social value of the company, which is returned to the ecosystem of 
the territory, it is important and helpful to define the business model as a tool that can facilitate (or not) the spread of innovation 
in the system. The value inherent in an innovation remains latent until it is put on the market or otherwise explicit and this can 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

14 

only happen through the use of a business model (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Through the research project conducted 
so far has been possible to demonstrate that in social enterprises to have an effective measurement of impact must use all 
possible tools to know and describe the company and the ecosystem that surrounds it and this is possible through timely 
reporting that it returns clear information for all.  We must not forget that a tool such as Popular Financial Reporting is also 
aimed at non-experts, generating responsibility, transparency and social impact. Stakeholders, therefore, will need increasingly 
advanced tools because the economic evaluation of the social impact becomes crucial in the knowledge economy. 
 
 

References 

Adams, C. (2000). Ethical reporting: Past and Future. Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management 
Accountants, 78, 48–50. 

Al-Khasawneh, A. L., & Futa, S. M. (2012). The impact of leadership styles used by the academic staff in the Jordanian 
public universities on modifying students’ behavior: A field study in the northern \ldots. \ldots Journal of Business and 
Management. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/20543/14736 

Alshammari, A., Almutairi, N. N., & Thuwaini, S. F. (2015). Ethical leadership: The effect on employees. \ldots Business 
and Management. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/43586 

Alter, K. (2004). Social Enterprise Typology: The Four Lenses Strategic Framework. Virtue Ventures LLC. 
Andrews, R., & van de Walle, S. (2013). New Public Management and Citizens’ Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency, 

Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness. Public Management Review, 15(5), 762–783. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725757 

Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S. S. (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and 
Engagement (1 edition). Routledge. 

Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 
29(1_suppl), 69–97. 

Awotundun, D. A., Kehinde, J. S., & Somoye, R. O. C. (2011). Corporate governance and stakeholders interest: A case of 
Nigerian banks. International Journal of Business and Management. 
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/12506/8848 

Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested 
concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653. 

Badia, F., Dicuonzo, G., Petruzzelli, S., & Dell’Atti, V. (2018). Integrated reporting in action: Mobilizing intellectual capital 
to improve management and governance practices. Journal of Management and Governance, 1–22. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9420-1 

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship 
between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506. 

Bezzi, C. (2001). Valutazione partecipata nei servizi. Prospettive Sociali e Sanitarie, 6. 
Biancone, P., & Secinaro, S. (2015). Popular financial reporting: Un nuovo strumento di rendicontazione per le municipalità. 

Giappichelli. https://iris.unito.it/handle/2318/1557120#.WqkBkejOXIU 
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2016). The Popular Financial Reporting: Focus on Stakeholders—The first 

European Experience. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(11), 115. 
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n11p115 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2017a). L’informazione consolidata e gli indicatori Bes: Strumenti per una 
rendicontazione più accessibile ai cittadini. L’esperienza Italiana del Popular Financial. Rivista Italiana Di Ragioneria e Di 
Economia Aziendale, 339 – 354. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2017b). The Popular Financial Reporting and Gender Accountability, the 
Integrated Approach in Municipalities and Public Bodies. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 7, 1–11. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018a). Communication and data processing in local public group: 
Transparency and accountability. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT, 13(10), 20–37. 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

15 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018b). POPULAR FINANCIAL REPORTING, A NEW 
INFORMATION TOOL FOR SOCIAL COOPERATIVES. Franco Angeli. 
https://iris.unito.it/handle/2318/1701273#.XUBdGugzbIU 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018c). The Popular Financial Reporting as tool to measure social 
impact. 14th Interdisciplinary Conference On Intangibles And Intellectual Capital Value Creation, Integrated Reporting And 
Governance, Munich. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2018d, September 13). Popular Financial Reporting, a new 
information tool for social cooperatives. CONVEGNO NAZIONALE SIDREA 2018 - Università degli studi di Verona, 
Verona. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019a). The Popular Financial Reporting between Theory and 
Evidence. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019b). La misurazione dell’impatto sociale nelle organizzazioni 
ibride. XIII. 

Bicciato, F. (2010). Finanza etica e impresa sociale. Società editrice il Mulino, Spa. 
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Macmillan 

International Higher Education. 
Borzaga, C. (2002). Sull’impresa sociale. ISSAN Working Papers, 19. 
Borzaga, C., & Santuari, A. (2003). New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship. 

The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, 31–59. 
Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2004). Dalla cooperazione mutualistica alla cooperazione sociale: Una prospettiva internazionale. 

IMPRESA SOCIALE, 44–56. 
Brescia, V. (2019). The popular financial reporting: New accounting tool for Italian municipalities. Franco Angeli. 
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the 

American Planning Association, 53(1), 9–22. 
Calderini, M., Chiodo, V., & Michelucci, F. V. (2018). Growing Social Impact Finance: Implications for the Public Sector. 

In Positive Impact Investing (pp. 27–38). Springer. 
Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and 

impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303–319. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.007 

Calò, F., Teasdale, S., Donaldson, C., Roy, M. J., & Baglioni, S. (2018). Collaborator or competitor: Assessing the evidence 
supporting the role of social enterprise in health and social care. Public Management Review, 20(12), 1790–1814. 

Campbell, D. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program 
Evaluation, 1986(31), 67–77. 

Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and Society-Ethics and Stakeholder Management. South-Western Publishing Co. 
Castello, S., & Lévêque, C. M. (2016). La Theory of change come impact-model: Diffusione e utilizzo a livello nazionale e 

internazionale. Philanthropy Insights, 4. Fondazione Lang Italia. http://en.fondazionelangitalia.it/ wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Philanthropy-Insights-n_4.pdf 

Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., Norman, W., & Foundation, Y. (2012). Social Innovation Overview. Part One: 
Defining Social Innovation. 

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence 
from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. 

Civera, C., De Colle, S., & Casalegno, C. (2019). Stakeholder engagement through empowerment: The case of coffee 
farmers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 156–174. 

Clark, C., & Rosenzweig, W. (2004). Double bottom line project report. University of California, Berkeley. 
Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in 

double bottom line ventures. 
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of 

Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

16 

Corvo, L., & Pastore, L. (2018). La costellazione del valore: Approcci collaborativi oltre Porter. Colloquio scientifico 
sull’impresa sociale, Innovazione dei framework interpretativi e teorici(XII). 

Curtis, T., Herbst, J., & Gumkovska, M. (2010). The social economy of trust: Social entrepreneurship experiences in Poland. 
Social Enterprise Journal, 6(3), 194–209. 

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424. 
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse. 

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140–1169. 
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. 

Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. 
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. 
Ecchia, G., & Zarri, L. (2005). Capitale sociale e accountability: Il ruolo del bilancio di missione nella governance delle 

organizzazioni non-profit. http://www.academia.edu/download/34192803/n.3.pdf 
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2014). Non-governmental organisations-performance and accountability: Beyond the magic 

bullet. Routledge. 
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. 
Farmer, J., Hill, C., & Muñoz, S.-A. (2012). Community co-production: Social enterprise in remote and rural communities. 

Edward Elgar Publishing. 
Fernández-Fernández, J.-L. (1999). Ethics and the Board of Directors in Spain: The Olivencia Code of Good Governance. 

Journal of Business Ethics, 22(3), 233–247. 
Fornaciari, L. (2017). Gruppi aziendali e bilancio consolidato in Italia. G Giappichelli Editore. 

https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=BSw6DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&dq=•%09Fornaciari,+L.+(2017).+Grup
pi+aziendali+e+bilancio+consolidato+in+Italia+(Vol.+6).+G+Giappichelli+Editore&ots=1OVufNA8_F&sig=PlKm2HTjQU
go5036xAnS5iqXfpA 

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman. 
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press. 
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. 

Cambridge University Press. 
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: 

Value Creation for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. 
Friedman, S. (2014). The hidden tastemakers: Comedy scouts as cultural brokers at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Poetics, 

44, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.04.002 
Garrow, E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2012). Managing conflicting institutional logics: Social service versus market. In Social 

Enterprises (pp. 121–143). Springer. 
Goldoff, A. C. (2000). Decision-making in organizations: The new paradigm. International Journal of Public Administration, 

23(11), 2017–2044. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690008525535 
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K. (2002). Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. 

International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 107–118. 
Grossi, G., & Thomasson, A. (2015). Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: The case of Copenhagen 

Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314548151 
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational 

Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134. 
Hartmann, S. (2019). Citizen relationship management for civic participation: How smart cities use 311 to involve citizens. 

Public Administration and Information Technology, 34, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89474-4_4 
Hermann, K. R. (2011). Creating an Excellent Popular Financial Report. Government Finance Review, 27.5, 41–44. 
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom 

line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139. 
How, S.-M., Lee, C. G., & Brown, D. M. (2019). Shareholder Theory Versus Stakeholder Theory in Explaining Financial 

Soundness. International Advances in Economic Research, 25(1), 133–135. 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

17 

Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Bureau of European 
Policy Advisors (BEPA). Available Online: Http://Ec. Europa. Eu/Bepa/Pdf/Publications_pdf/Social_innovation. Pdf. 

Jiang, W., Wang, A. X., Zhou, K. Z., & Zhang, C. (2019). Stakeholder Relationship Capability and Firm Innovation: A 
Contingent Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15. 

Kail, A., & Lumley, T. (2012). Theory of change: The beginning of making a difference. New Philanthropy Capital. 
Kirk, J., Miller, M. L., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research (Vol. 1). Sage. 
Kleynjans, L., & Hudon, M. (2016). A Study of Codes of Ethics for Mexican Microfinance Institutions. Journal of Business 

Ethics, 134(3), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2434-y 
Lan, Z., & Hal, G. R. (1992). Goals, Rules, and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence 

on Frequent Assertions About Differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037111 

Lehner, O. M., & Nicholls, A. (2014). Social finance and crowdfunding for social enterprises: A public–private case study 
providing legitimacy and leverage. Venture Capital, 16(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.925305 

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated 
multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248–266. 

Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. 
Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739. 

Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. 
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110–122. 

Marradi, A. (1992). Concetti e metodo pre la ricerca sociale. La Giuntina. 
Mauksch, S., Dey, P., Rowe, M., & Teasdale, S. (2017). Ethnographies of social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0019 
Meneguzzo, M. (2005). Creazione di valore e sviluppo del capitale sociale. Rivista Italiana Di Ragioneria e Di Economia 

Aziendale. 
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the 

principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105 

Montesi, F., Greco, C., Montesi, F., & Seganti, S. (2017). INNOVA - Guida pratica per il Terzo Settore. Human Foundation. 
Najam, A. (2002). Financing sustainable development: Crises of legitimacy. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 153–

160. 
Nguyen, L., Szkudlarek, B., & Seymour, R. G. (2015). Social impact measurement in social enterprises: An interdependence 

perspective. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 32(4), 224–
237. 

Norman, D. J. (2014). From shouting to counting: Civil society and good governance reform in Cambodia. The Pacific 
Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2014.882393 

Owen, D., & Swift, T. (2001). Introduction social accounting, reporting and auditing: Beyond the rhetoric? Business Ethics: 
A European Review, 10(1), 4–8. 

Owen, D., Swift, T., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or 
the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98. 

Pearce, J. (2009). Social economy: Engaging as a third system. The Social Economy: International Perspectives on Economic 
Solidarity, London: Zed Books Ltd, 22–33. 

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. 
Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201. 

Pestoff, V. (2014). Hybridity, coproduction, and third sector social services in Europe. American Behavioral Scientist, 
58(11), 1412–1424. 

Pisoni, P., Biancone, P., Busso, D., & Cisi, M. (2007). Il bilancio consolidato IAS/IFRS. A. Giuffrè Editore. 
https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=Ym_DEZ_LdHwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA8&dq=•%09Pisoni,+P.,+Biancone,+P.,+Bu
sso,+D.,+%26+Cisi,+M.+(2007).+Il+bilancio+consolidato+IAS.+Ifrs,+Giuffrè,+Milano&ots=pmPCRDudI5&sig=Yw-
MqrjQUiodk755M3IdrB2s0xI#v=onepage&q&f=false 



  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/4486 Published by University of Turin) EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License  http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index  

18 

Presenza, A., Micera, R., Splendiani, S., & Chiappa, G. D. (2014). Stakeholder e-involvement and participatory tourism 
planning: Analysis of an Italian case study. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 5(3), 311–328. 
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2014.065320 

Rehn, A. (2008). Pop (Culture) Goes the Organization: On Highbrow, Lowbrow and Hybrids in Studying Popular Culture 
Within Organization Studies. Organization, 15(5), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508408093652 

Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. 
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612. 

Rousseau, J.-J. (2015). Il contratto sociale. Edizioni Mondadori. 
Sangle, S. (2010). Critical success factors for corporate social responsibility: A public sector perspective. Corporate Social 

Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(4), 205–214. 
Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2017). New development: Performance promises and pitfalls in hybrid organizations—five 

challenges for managers and researchers. Public Money & Management, 37(6), 425–430. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1344023 

Smith, S. R., & Phillips, S. D. (2016). The changing and challenging environment of nonprofit human services: Implications 
for governance and program implementation. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7, 63–76. 

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. 
Stanton, T. H. (2004). When Government Isn’t Exactly Government. Jonathan G. S. Koppell. 2003. The Politics of Quasi-

Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 
Press. 254 pp. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 435–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh027 

Steiner, A., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The playground of the rich? Growing social business in the 21st century. Social Enterprise 
Journal, 12(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2015-0036 

Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder 
engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65–85. 

Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business relationships. Berrett-Koehler 
Publishers. 

Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, 
social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557. 

Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2016). The challenges of fractionalized property rights in public-private hybrid organizations: 
The good, the bad, and the ugly. Regulation & Governance, 10(2), 161–178. 

Waddock, S. A. (2002). Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value-added. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Boston, MA. 
Wainwright, T., & Manville, G. (2017). Financialization and the third sector: Innovation in social housing bond markets. 

Environment and Planning A, 49(4), 819–838. 
Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in 

the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 93–115. 
Windsor, D. (2002). Stakeholder responsibilities: Lessons for managers. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 19–36. 
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge, 3(1), 97–114. 
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. 
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. 
Zamagni, S. (2013). Territorio, istituzioni, crescita: La ripresa d’interesse nella ricerca economica. Fratesi U., Pellegrini G.(a 

Cura Di), Territorio, Istituzioni, Crescita. Scienze Regionali e Sviluppo Del Paese, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 39–56. 
Zamagni, S., Venturi, P., & Rago, S. (2015). Valutare l’impatto sociale. La questione della misurazione nelle imprese sociali. 

Rivista Impresa Sociale. http://www.rivistaimpresasociale.it/rivista/item/141-misurazione-impatto-sociale.html 
 


