为什么农村社区不愿意采用标准版本的SROI?

IF 2.1 Q2 ECONOMICS
Fuminobu Mizutani
{"title":"为什么农村社区不愿意采用标准版本的SROI?","authors":"Fuminobu Mizutani","doi":"10.14254/2071-789x.2023/16-3/7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an evaluation method that is often useful in assessing Not for Profit organizations (NFP). Its standard version has been widely adopted in the United Kingdom. However, there is a reluctance among East Asian rural communities to adopt standard SROI evaluation methods, even though they have been adopted for some NFPs in urban centers in the region in the past. NFPs in rural communities cannot bear the cost of sending representatives to meetings where drafts of potential regulations are discussed. However, the introduction of regulations for evaluating NFPs without representatives from rural communities could lead to the exclusion of pertinent voices key to the discussion. There are several reasons why the hands-on approach currently utilized by SROI evaluation methods appears unsuitable for rural communities. These communities are already aware of their aging populations and they have obligations to the welfare of their members that fall outside the scope of SROI. In addition to this, the main argument why rural communities are reluctant to adopt SROI methods is that it does not bring much benefit to these communities. However, discussing evaluation methods for NFPs could serve as a bridge with stakeholders in rural communities. Paradoxically, a nonstandard version of SROI that is calculated by those outside of NFPs may be a more suitable method for rural communities.","PeriodicalId":51663,"journal":{"name":"Economics & Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are rural communities reluctant to adopt the standard version of SROI?\",\"authors\":\"Fuminobu Mizutani\",\"doi\":\"10.14254/2071-789x.2023/16-3/7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an evaluation method that is often useful in assessing Not for Profit organizations (NFP). Its standard version has been widely adopted in the United Kingdom. However, there is a reluctance among East Asian rural communities to adopt standard SROI evaluation methods, even though they have been adopted for some NFPs in urban centers in the region in the past. NFPs in rural communities cannot bear the cost of sending representatives to meetings where drafts of potential regulations are discussed. However, the introduction of regulations for evaluating NFPs without representatives from rural communities could lead to the exclusion of pertinent voices key to the discussion. There are several reasons why the hands-on approach currently utilized by SROI evaluation methods appears unsuitable for rural communities. These communities are already aware of their aging populations and they have obligations to the welfare of their members that fall outside the scope of SROI. In addition to this, the main argument why rural communities are reluctant to adopt SROI methods is that it does not bring much benefit to these communities. However, discussing evaluation methods for NFPs could serve as a bridge with stakeholders in rural communities. Paradoxically, a nonstandard version of SROI that is calculated by those outside of NFPs may be a more suitable method for rural communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics & Sociology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics & Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2023/16-3/7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics & Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2023/16-3/7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会投资回报率(SROI)是一种评估非营利性组织(NFP)的方法。它的标准版本在英国被广泛采用。然而,东亚农村社区不愿意采用标准的SROI评估方法,尽管过去该地区城市中心的一些NFPs采用了这些方法。农村社区的NFPs无法承担派代表参加讨论潜在法规草案的会议的费用。然而,在没有农村社区代表的情况下,引入评估国家福利计划的规定可能会导致对讨论至关重要的相关声音被排除在外。SROI评估方法目前采用的实际操作方法似乎不适合农村社区,有几个原因。这些社区已经意识到他们的人口老龄化,他们对其成员的福利负有义务,这超出了SROI的范围。除此之外,农村社区不愿意采用SROI方法的主要原因是它没有给这些社区带来太多的好处。然而,讨论NFPs的评估方法可以作为与农村社区利益相关者的桥梁。矛盾的是,由NFPs之外的人计算的非标准版本的SROI可能更适合农村社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why are rural communities reluctant to adopt the standard version of SROI?
Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an evaluation method that is often useful in assessing Not for Profit organizations (NFP). Its standard version has been widely adopted in the United Kingdom. However, there is a reluctance among East Asian rural communities to adopt standard SROI evaluation methods, even though they have been adopted for some NFPs in urban centers in the region in the past. NFPs in rural communities cannot bear the cost of sending representatives to meetings where drafts of potential regulations are discussed. However, the introduction of regulations for evaluating NFPs without representatives from rural communities could lead to the exclusion of pertinent voices key to the discussion. There are several reasons why the hands-on approach currently utilized by SROI evaluation methods appears unsuitable for rural communities. These communities are already aware of their aging populations and they have obligations to the welfare of their members that fall outside the scope of SROI. In addition to this, the main argument why rural communities are reluctant to adopt SROI methods is that it does not bring much benefit to these communities. However, discussing evaluation methods for NFPs could serve as a bridge with stakeholders in rural communities. Paradoxically, a nonstandard version of SROI that is calculated by those outside of NFPs may be a more suitable method for rural communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Economics and Sociology (ISSN 2306-3459 Online, ISSN 2071-789X Print) is a quarterly international academic open access journal published by Centre of Sociological Research in co-operation with University of Szczecin (Poland), Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania), Dubcek University of Trencín, Faculty of Social and Economic Relations, (Slovak Republic) and University of Entrepreneurship and Law, (Czech Republic). The general topical framework of our publication include (but is not limited to): advancing socio-economic analysis of societies and economies, institutions and organizations, social groups, networks and relationships.[...] We welcome articles written by professional scholars and practitioners in: economic studies and philosophy of economics, political sciences and political economy, research in history of economics and sociological phenomena, sociology and gender studies, economic and social issues of education, socio-economic and institutional issues in environmental management, business administration and management of SMEs, state governance and socio-economic implications, economic and sociological development of the NGO sector, cultural sociology, urban and rural sociology and demography, migration studies, international issues in business risk and state security, economics of welfare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信