Blending practice worlds: Impact assessment as a transdisciplinary practice

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12230
• Date: 01 October 2019
• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Jarrod Ormiston

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:423–440.    

|

 423

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer

1 | INTRODUCTION

In recent years, t here has been grow ing criticism of so cial value

creating act ivities that fai l, and/or fail to measure , their impact

(Kania & Krame r, 2011). Social enterpri ses, nonprofit s, and founda‐

tions are under in creasing press ure to demonstr ate the outcomes

and impact of th eir activitie s (Boateng, Aka mavi, & Ndoro, 2016;

Ebrahim & Rang an, 2014). The literature e xhibits incon sistent ter‐

minology aro und the focus (e.g. , impact, per formance, ou tcomes),

the domains (e.g., social, environmental), and the activities (e.g.,

accounting, assessment, measurement, evaluation, appraisal) of im‐

pact assessm ent. This has resu lted in the followi ng wide range of

terms describing what is essentially the same phenomenon: impact

assessment (van Tulder, Seitanidi, Crane, & Brammer, 2015), im‐

pact measurement (Maas & Liket, 2011), outcome measurement

(Buckmaster, 1999), perf ormance appraisal (Townley, 1997), perfo r‐

mance evaluatio n (Govindarajan, 1984), perform ance measurement

(Maas & Liket, 2011; MacInd oe & Barman, 2013), social accounting

(Laufer, 2003; Ra mus & Vaccaro, 2017), soci al and environmen tal

reporting (Kaspersen & Johansen, 2016), social impact measure‐

ment (Arvi dson & Lyon, 2014), social per formance (An dré, Cho, &

Laine, 2018), and, t riple bottom line repor ting (Tullberg, 2012). This

paper adopts the broader term “impact assessment” to encompass

the diversit y of terms, foci, domains, and rela ted activities. “Impac t

assessment ” is the process of und erstandin g, measuring, a nd re‐

porting the a nticipated or actual contr ibution of actions focused o n

Received:29May2018 

|

  Revised:12Oc tober2018 

|

  Accepted:8Marc h2019

DOI:10.1111/beer.12230

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Blending practice worlds: Impact assessment as a

transdisciplinary practice

Jarrod Ormiston

This is an open ac cess article und er the terms of the Crea tive Commons Attr ibution‐NonCo mmercial‐NoDer ivs License, which p ermits use and dis tribution in

any medium, pr ovided the origina l work is properly cit ed, the use is non‐com mercial and no modi fications or adap tations are made.

© 2019 The Authors B usiness Ethics: A Eur opean Review Publis hed by John Wiley & Son s Ltd

School of Busi ness and

Economics, Maastricht Centre for

Entrepreneurship, Maastricht University,

Maastricht, Netherlands

Correspondence

JarrodOrmi ston,Schoolo fBusiness

and Economic s, Maastricht Cen tre for

Entrepreneurship, Maastricht University,

Tongersestra at 53, Maastricht 6211LM,

Netherlands.

Email: j.ormiston@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Abstract

Organisations with explicit social missionssu chas social enterprises, impact inves‐

tors, nonprofit s, and foundations are under increas ing pressure to illustrate their im‐

pact on the social p roblems they claim to be addressing. Thes e trends have resulted

in an increasing sophis tication of attempts to me asure and report social im pact across

sectors. Des pite the emerging literature on i mpact assessment, ther e is little research

on how the growing emphasi s on, and drive for, impact assessment is exper ienced in

everyday organisational activities. This paper draws on practice theory to under‐

stand the purp oses of impact asses sment and how it influence s, and is enacted in ,

everyday organisat ional activities. A multiple cas e design studies the purpose of im‐

pact assessment through qualitative interviews with over 90 practitioners within the

Australian and Uni ted Kingdom impact investment eco systems. The findings sugge st

that impact assessment should be understood as a transdisciplinary practice evolving

from, and blendin g together with, multiple prac tice worlds such as strategy, account‐

ing, marketing, and o rganisational lea rning. The main contri butions of the paper ar e

the development of the co ncept of impact assessment as a transd isciplinary practice

and an empirical un derstanding of how impact assess ment links to, and blends with,

diverse practice worlds.

424 

|

     ORMISTON

tackling per sistent social problems (Ebra him & Rangan, 2014; Jäger

& Rothe, 2013). This incl udes: activi ties, tools, an d frameworks fo r

thinking abou t impact; methods for data g athering and analysis; ar‐

tefacts suc h as reports , data sets, mo dels, and forms of e vidence;

and standar ds which aim to delive r common approac hes to impact

assessment across similar sectors.

Despite the grow ing scholarly interes t in impact assessment , the

literature app ears confused ab out the purpose of i mpact assessm ent.

Studies on the pur pose of impact asse ssment have generally fo cused

on its importance for accountability and enhancing impact (Ebrahim

& Rangan, 2014; Jepso n, 2005; Molecke & Pi nske, 2017; Nicholls,

2010a). This corresp onds to the two main s ides of the movement

promoting impa ct assessment : the top‐down pro motion of perfo r‐

mance measurement which focuses heavily on ac countabilit y, par‐

ticularly in the context of funding relationships (Grimes, 2010); and

the bottom‐up a pproach to perfor mance management which focuses

on stakeholder engagement and the strategic use of impact assess‐

ment practi ces to enhance impa ct (Nicholls, 20 09). Beyond thes e

foci, many acad emics and prac titioners have c onsidered the ot her

potential benef its of impact a ssessment for ac tivities ran ging from

organisational learning, marketing, employee motivation, engag‐

ing stakehold ers, to gaining l egitimacy (Jä ger & Rothe, 2013; Liket,

Rey‐Garcia, & Maas , 2014). Whilst some s tudies have explo red the

linkages between these multiple purposes for impact assessment

(e.g., Campbe ll, Lambright , & Bronstein, 2 012; Mouchamps, 2014;

Saj, 2013), only limite d studies have consi dered the wide ga mut of

potential benef its of impact assess ment (Lecy, Schmitz, & Swed lund,

2012; Mayhew, 2012). Followin g calls from Mayhe w (2012) and

Lecy, Schmitz, and Swedlund (2012), this research aims to cross‐dis‐

ciplinary divides to understand the purpose of impact assessment by

empiricall y exploring how impact as sessment is enacted in eve ryday

organisational activities.

Practice the ory offers a potential lens t o better understand the

purpose of impa ct assessment t hrough examini ng the practi cal re‐

sponses of socia l actors in ever yday organisati onal life (Mietti nen,

Samra‐Freder icks, & Yanow, 2009; Nicol ini, 2012). Pract ice theory

argues that ever yday situated ac tions produce t he social world

(Feldma n&Orlikow ski,2011).Pr actice theori ststhe rebysee ktoex‐

plain organis ational phenom ena by zooming in on ac tivities, wor k,

and perform ance (Nicolini, 20 09, 2012). Practice th eory is con‐

cerned with the e veryday activ ities of organis ations and indiv idu‐

als (Schatzki , 2001), that is, “wh at people do ever yday to get their

work done” (Miet tinen, Samra‐Frederick s, & Yanow, 2009, p. 1312).

Whitting ton (2011) claims that prac tice theor y offers rich th eo‐

retical and methodological resources to reach across disciplinary

fields in the sa me way as economic s or complex adapt ive systems

theory, as it focus es on everyday activities , rather than focusing on

propertie s or outputs. Through a pra ctice lens, phenomena suc h as

strategy, account ing, marketing, leadersh ip, and impact assessment

are not considere d properties of an organisat ion, but instead social

practices t hat involve the engag ed activitie s of people and thin gs

(Sandberg & Dal l’Alba, 2009). Unde rstanding impact asses sment as

practice th ereby allows us to st ay close to everyday p ractice and

understa nd its purpose through app reciating relations betwe en im‐

pact assessm ent and other practice wor lds (Jarzabkowski & Kapla n,

2015; Moisander & Ste nfors, 2009).

The emerging f ield of impact inve stment provide s an ideal site

to understa nd the purpose of i mpact assessm ent given its exp licit

focus on measur able social returns (Nichol ls, 2010b). Impact invest‐

ment has emerged a s a new form of investment ac tivity that focuses

explicitly on re alising measurable v alue for society (soci al, economic,

cultural, and environmental) as well as delivering financial returns

for investors (Cet indamar & Ozkazanc‐Pa n, 2017;H öchstädter &

Scheck, 2015). Co mmon impact ass essment appro aches utilised

within impac t investment incl ude: logic model s, cost–benefit anal‐

ysis,Soc ialReturn onInves tment(SRO I),andt heImpac tRepor ting

and Investment St andards (IRIS) (Antadze & Wes tley, 2012; Epstein

& Yuthus, 2017; Jäger & Rothe, 2013). In par ticular, the paper draws

on a multiple cas e study of impact assessment p ractices within the

Australian an d United Kingdom i mpact investm ent ecosystems .

Qualitative in terviews with ove r 90 practiti oners across th e two

ecosystems sh ed light on the purpose of im pact assessment pr actice

through unpac king its use in everyday or ganisational life.

The findings e xpose diverse inter pretations of the pur pose of im‐

pact assessm ent, highlighting that a cross the two impac t investment

ecosystems, i mpact assessment is per ceived and enacted as a tra ns‐

disciplinar y practice invol ving element s of accountabilit y, strategy,

organisational learning, marketing, human resource management,

operations, a nd technolog y practice. T he analysis sugge sts that as

a transdisciplinary practice, impact assessment should be under‐

stood as evolving f rom, and blend ing together with , multiple pra c‐

tice worlds.

The paper makes important contributions to research on im‐

pact assessm ent, practice theory, and i mpact investment. First , the

findings highlight the transdisciplinary nature of impact assessment,

showing how impac t assessment se rves multipl e purposes such a s

strategising, accounting, marketing, and organisational learning.

Second, the pa per provides an empirical u nderstanding of how new

practice wor lds such impact a ssessment can e merge and evolve

from existing p ractice world s. Finally, through f ocusing on impac t

assessment in th e field of impact inves tment, the finding s expand on

growing conversa tions in an emerging re alm of academic inqu iry that

defines its elf through its focus on im pact.

2 | LITERATURE RE VIEW: THE MU LTIPLE

PURPOSES OF IMPACT A SSESSMENT

PRACT ICE

There has been a p roliferation of ap proaches to imp act assess‐

ment in recent years, with multiple competing tools and resulting

reporting m echanisms being develope d to account for social impact

(Austin, Steve nson, & Wei‐Skillern, 2006; Ebra him & Rangan, 2010;

Mulgan, 2011). Despite t he growing number of too ls and approaches

to measure impac t, practi tioners and ac ademics alike ap pear con‐

fused around the purpose of impact assessment, with numerous