Impact measurement is an ‘entrepreneurial process’ that gives organisations power and influence, says research from the Third Sector Research Centre.

The process of impact measurement, like all research, involves discretion and judgement over what is measured and how.

This allows some organisations to take back control in what is often seen as an imposed activity.

But it also makes it important for those who make decisions based on impact reports to understand how they are constructed.

The research looked at what motivated organisations to measure their impact and how this affected their decisions.

Meeting the expectations of funders and commissioners is the most powerful motivation for organisations to measure impact.

Measurement is often prescribed by funders, and can be seen as a way for them to exert control over an organisation.

But organisations are also motivated by the need to build relationships, to compete for resources and to create an organisational brand and professional image.

Any social impact measurement involves decisions that give organisations ‘room to manoeuvre’, said the Third Sector Research Centre.

They must decide what indicators to use, which stakeholders to consult, what data is collected and how.

They can choose who carries out an evaluation as well as what findings are released.

Decisions about how and what to measure are also controlled by practical and resource limitations as measuring impact can be expensive, said the research.

Variations in the approaches to evaluations can raise questions about the legitimacy of findings.

Organisations are tackling this though developing processes of external ‘social auditing’ and encouraging greater transparency in how social impact measurements are carried out.

Fergus Lyon from TSRC said: "Measuring impact can been seen as an entrepreneurial process. Organisations are crafting how they present social value to influence others, while ensuring that the approaches used do not raise suspicion of inflated measures.

"All impact measurement has potential for bias due to the discretion of those carrying it out. This can be minimised through transparent procedures and systems of external validation. We also need to educate those who read and use the results of evaluations to understand how social impact reporting is constructed."

Share Story: