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 lock_openAcceso abierto editor

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

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