Digitalización, monitorización y evaluación del impacto de la Economía Social. Análisis en el Tercer Sector de Acción Social españolel caso de Juntos por el Empleo

  1. Valcárcel Dueñas, Mercedes 2
  2. Solórzano García, Marta 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Córdoba
    info

    Universidad de Córdoba

    Córdoba, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05yc77b46

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
CIRIEC - España. Revista de economía pública, social y cooperativa

ISSN: 0213-8093

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 95

Páginas: 143-159

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.7203/CIRIEC-E.95.13128 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: CIRIEC - España. Revista de economía pública, social y cooperativa

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Durante los últimos años se han elaborado numerosos estudios sobre la necesidad de que las entidades del Tercer Sector de Acción Social (TSAS) desarrollen habilidades para comunicar y demostrar sus resultados y la eficiencia en el desempeño de su actividad. En este proceso, la monitorización y la evaluación se convierten en actividades claves para hacer partícipes a los distintos grupos de interés del impacto por ellas generado. Junto a esto, la sociedad ha vivido una evolución digital que ha generado cambios profundos en todos los ámbitos, grupos e individuos.Partiendo de un análisis realizado desde la teoría institucional y la teoría de la dependencia de recursos para poner en valor la importancia que adquiere este proceso dentro del contexto de los requerimientos de los financiadores y de los grupos de interés en general, planteamos la necesidad de identificar las nuevas herramientas digitales y formas de trabajo con las mismas que pueden apoyar la realización de la evaluación en las entidades del TSAS y que ésta sea de utilidad para el cumplimiento de la misión y los objetivos de las organizaciones. Analizamos el caso de Juntos por el Empleo, iniciativa promovida por la Fundacion Accenture junto a varias organizaciones sociales, empresas y administraciones públicas, cómo práctica de interés en la implementación de nuevas herramientas digitales que han facilitado el trabajo compartido de gestión y evaluación de sus proyectos sociales. El enfoque de impacto colectivo se descubre como una nueva forma, colaborativa y estructurada, necesaria para abordar los problemas a los que se enfrenta el TSAS.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ACCENTURE (2018): Impacto generado por juntos por el empleo. Disponible en: https://juntosporelempleo.cclearning.accenture.com/documents/10228/0/Impacto+Juntos+por+el+Empleo/23bfe31e73a3-4eab-9fdc-1f5615c1456a
  • ARVIDSON, M. & LYON, F. (2014): “Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: compliance, resistance, and promotion”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 869-886.
  • BEBBINGTON, J., BROWN, J. & FRAME, B. (2007): “Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models”, Ecological Economics, 61 (2-3), 224-236.
  • BIES, A.L. (2010): “Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057-1086.
  • COOPER, S.M. & OWEN, D.L. (2007): “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 649-667.
  • COSTA, E. & PESCI, C. (2016): “Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(1), 99-124.
  • CRESPY, C.T. & MILLER, V.V. (2011): “Sustainability Reporting: A Comparative Study of NGOs and MNCs”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 275-284.
  • DHANANI, A. & CONNOLLY, C. (2012): “Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140-1169.
  • DIMAGGIO, P.J. & POWELL, W.W. (1983): “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
  • EBRAHIM, A. & RANGAN, V.K. (2014): “What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance”, California Management Review, 56(3), 118-141.
  • EBRAHIM, A. & WEISBAND, E. (2007): Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • EBRAHIM, A. (2003): “Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs”, World Development, 31(5), 813-829.
  • EBRAHIM, A. (2005): “Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56-87.
  • ECKERD, A. & MOULTON, S. (2011): “Heterogeneous roles and heterogeneous practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of nonprofit performance evaluations”, American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 98-117.
  • EDWARDS, M. & HULME D. (1995): Non-Governmental Organizations-Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet, Earthscan: London
  • EHNERT, I., PARSA, S., ROPER, I., WAGNER, M. & MULLER-CAMEN, M. (2016): “Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88-108.
  • EISENHARDT, K.M. (1989): “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532-550.
  • FROELICH, K.A. (1999): “Diversification of Revenue Strategies: Evolving Resource Dependence in Nonprofit Organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246-268.
  • GÁLVEZ RODRÍGUEZ, M., CABA PÉREZ, M. & LÓPEZ GODOY, M. (2012): “Responsabilidad social y transparencia on-line de las ONG: análisis del caso español”, CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 74, 207-238.
  • GANDÍA, J.L. (2011): “Internet disclosure by nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence of nongovernmental organizations for development in Spain”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (1), 57-58.
  • GIBELMAN, M. & GELMAN, S.R. (2004): “A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355-381.
  • GOMES, C. (2009): “Computational sustainability: computational methods for a sustainable environment, economy, and society”, The Bridge, 39(4): 5-13
  • HART, T.R. (2002): “EPhilanthropy: Using the internet to build support”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 353-360.
  • HELBING, D. (2012): “The futurICT knowledge accelerator towards a more resilient and sustainable future”. In: Ball, P. (Ed), Why society is a complex matter, Springer, Berlin.
  • HIGGINS, C., STUBBS, W. & MILNE, M. (2018): “Is sustainability reporting becoming institutionalised? The role of an issues-based field”, Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 309-326.
  • JENSEN, O.A. & SEELE, P. (2013): “An analysis of sovereign wealth and pension funds' ethical investment guidelines and their commitment thereto”, SEELE, 3(3), 264-282.
  • KANIA, J. & KRAMER, M. (2011): “Collective impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41.
  • KNEBEL, S. & SEELE, P. (2015): “Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ non-financial reports and implications for credibility and standardization”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 196-212.
  • KOLK, A. (2004): “A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and significance”, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51-64.
  • LOCK, I. & SEELE, P. (2016): “The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186-200.
  • MAAS, K., SCHALTEGGER, S. & CRUTZEN, N. (2016): “Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 237248.
  • MEYER, J.W. & ROWAN, B. (1977): “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
  • MILNE, M.J., TREGIDGA, H.M. & WALTON, S. (2009): “Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 12111257.
  • MOXHAM, C. (2010): “Help or hindrance? Examining the role of performance measurement in UK nonprofit organizations”, Public Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 342-354.
  • NGUYEN, L., SZKUDLAREK, B. & SEYMOUR, R.G. (2015): “Social impact measurement in social enterprises: An interdependence perspective”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32, 224-237.
  • NICHOLLS, A. (2010): “The functions of performance measurement in social entrepreneurship: control, planning and accountability”. In: K. Hockerts, J. Mair & J. Robinson (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship, Palgrave MacMillan: New York.
  • PFEFFER, J. & SALANCIK, G.R. (1978): The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
  • POWER, M. (1999): The audit society: rituals of verifications, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
  • SAXTON, G. D. & GUO, C. (2011): “Accountability Online: Understanding the Web-based Accountability Practices of Nonprofit Organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (2), 270-295.
  • SCHOLTE, J.A. (2004): “Civil society and democratically accountable global governance”, Government and Opposition, 39(2): 211-233.
  • SCOTT, R. (1987): “The adolescence of institutional theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493511.
  • SEELE, P. (2016): “Envisioning the digital sustainability panopticon: a thought experiment of how big data may help advancing sustainability in the digital age”, Sustainability Science, 11(5), 845-854.
  • SINCLAIR, P. & WALTON, J. (2003): “Environmental reporting within the forest and paper industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 326-337.
  • SUCHMAN, M.C. (1995): “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches”, The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571.
  • VACCARO, A. & MADSEN, P. (2009): “Corporate dynamic transparency: The new ICT-driven ethics?”, Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 113.
  • VERBRUGGEN, S., CHRISTIAENS, J. & MILIS, K. (2011): “Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards?”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5-32.
  • VIGNEAU, L., HUMPHREYS, M. & MOON, J. (2015): “How do firms comply with international sustainability standards? Processes and consequences of adopting the global reporting initiative”, Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 469-486.
  • YIN, R.K. (1984): Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Applied social research Methods Series, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
  • ZUCKER, L. (1987): “Institutional theories of organization”, Annual review of sociology, 13, 443-464.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet