مطالعه تطبیقی ابزارهای ارزیابی اثرات اجتماعی درپژوهش‏های اجتماعی

محورهای موضوعی : مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی ایران

سارا حاجی علیانی ¹ (دانشجوی دکتری ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران)
فرحناز رستمی ² (دانشیار، گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران)
مصطفی احمدوند ³ (استاد، گروه مدیریت توسعه روستایی، دانشکده‌ی کشاورزی، دانشگاه یاسوج، یاسوج، ایران.)
علی اصغر میرک زاده ⁴ (دانشیار، گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران.)
حسین آزادی ⁵ (استادیار، گروه آگرو - بیوتکنولوژی، دانشگاه لیژ، ژامبلو، بلژیک.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1402/05/25 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/07/26 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/08/01

کلید واژه: ارزیابی, اثرات اجتماعی, مقایسه تطبیقی, الگوی جرج بردی,

چکیده مقاله :

نظر به اینکه ارزیابی اثرات اجتماعی به عنوان پیش نیازهای اجتماعی برای حل مشکلات و ناکارآمدی های اجتماعی و حتی از مهمترین بخش های شروع برای رشد اقتصادی است و فرصت هایی را برای کاربرد بنیادی مبانی توسعه ی پایدار فراهم می کند. از این رو لزوم توجه به بعد اجتماعی و تمرکز بر ارزیابی این بعد به منظور فراهم آوردن یک نتیجه گیری کلی از اثرات اجتماعی اقدامات و برنامه های توسعه ی پایدار را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد. با این حال بررسی ادبیات نشان می‌دهد که مطالعات کمی در زمینه ی توصیف و تفسیر روش های ارزیابی اثرات اجتماعی با وجود اهمیت و جذابیت ارزیابی این بعد در اقدامات توسعه ی پایدار وجود دارد. علیرغم در دسترس بودن معیارها برای اندازه‌گیری اثرات اجتماعی، انتخاب ابزارهایی که مطابق با نیازهای دقیق محققان حوزه علوم اجتماعی باشد، کاری بس دشوار است. به منظور پرداختن به این چالش، هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر ارائه یک تحلیل جامع از ابزارهای متداول و پرکاربرد اندازه گیری اثرات اجتماعی در پروژه های اجتماعی است که با استفاده از مروری سیستماتیک بر ادبیات موضوع صورت گرفته است. از این نظر، در این مطالعه از الگوی جرج زی ال بردی به عنوان یکی از مهمترین روش های استاندارد برای مقایسه تطبیقی این ابزارها در قالب چهار مرحله توصیف، تفسیر، همجواری و مقایسه بهره گیری شده است. نتایج نشان می دهد که همیشه بهترین یک روش وجود ندارد و هر روش به طور قطع روش های دیگر را منتفی نمی کند. از سویی دیگر هر روش بهتر از روش دیگر نمی باشد و انتخاب بهترین روش به عواملی مانند حوزه پژوهش، موضوع تحقیق، طراحی تحقیق، انتخاب روش های مناسب و متناسب، بازبینی در انتخاب های انجام شده، بررسی مجدد سؤال ها، ماهیت مساله و سایر عوامل زمینه ای دارد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

 Considering that social impact assessment is a social prerequisite for solving social problems andinefficiencies, and even one of the most important starting points for economic growth, and providesopportunities for fundamental application of the foundations of sustainable development. Therefore, it isnecessary to pay attention to the social dimension and focus on assessing this dimension in order to provide ageneral conclusion of the social impacts of sustainable development measures and programmes. However,literature studies show that there are few studies on the description and interpretation of social impactassessment methods despite the importance and attractiveness of assessing this dimension in sustainabledevelopment measures. Despite the availability of metrics to measure social impact, it is difficult to choose toolsthat meet the exact needs of social science researchers. In order to address this challenge, the main goal of thecurrent research is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the common and widely used tools for measuringsocial effects in social projects, which has been done using a systematic review of the subject literature. Fromthis point of view, in this study, the model of George Z. L. Brady has been used as one of the most importantstandard methods for the comparative comparison of these tools in the form of four stages of description,interpretation, juxtaposition and comparison. The results show that there is not always one best method andeach method definitely does not rule out other methods. On the other hand, each method is not better thananother method, and the choice of the best method depends on factors such as the research field, research topic,research design, choosing suitable and appropriate methods, reviewing the choices made, re-examining thequestions, the nature of the problem, and others. There are underlying factors. 

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Agyekum EO, Fortuin KP. & Harst E. (2016). Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessment of Bamboo Bicycle Frames Made in Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production [online] 1–12. available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652616320571.


2. -Alomoto. W, Niñerola. A & Pié. L. (2022). Social Impact Assessment: A Systematic Review of Literature.journal of Social Indicators Research. Vol.161:225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02809-1.


3. -Antoie, R. (2010). Social Impact Assessment Models. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 29E/2010 pp. 22-29


4. Banke-Thomas, A., Madaj, B. & Broek, N. (2019), “Social return on investment of emergency obstetric care training in Kenya”, BMJ Global Health, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. e001167.42


5. Cordes J. J. (2017). Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: Promises, implementation, and limitations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 98–104.


6. Corvo L, Pastore L, Mastrodascio M. & Cepiku D. (2022). The social return on investment model: a systematic literature review. Meditari Account Res30:49–86. doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1307.


7. Crisan-Mitra, C., & Szilagyi, E. (2017), “Social return on investment. The case of Miko Imre College for Advances Studies”, Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society. Proceedings, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 58-62.


8. -Dunmade I, Udo M, Akintayo T, Oyedepo S,& Imhade P. (2018). Life cycle Impact Assessment of an Engineering Project Management Process – a SLCA Approach. Journal of sustainability. 17- 31.


9. -Dunmade I. (2019). Social Lifecycle Impact Assessment of Informal Petroleum Products Retailing in Nigeria. Procedia Manufacturing . www.sciencedirect.com. 35:459–464.


10. Du, Kai dan Wu, Shing-Jen. (2016). The Credibility of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports and The Role of Assurance: Evidence from Alternative Setting. SSRN Electronic Jounal.


11. Farag, M., Marín, J., Hinks,J., Zúñiga, N., & Kaninda, S.(2018). Implementing social audit in 20 steps. Journal of Transparency International. 1-28. http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep20594.6.


12. -Feinstein J., Lightfoot S., & Young S. (2021). Realising and rebuilding resilience – A Social Return on Investment evaluation of the Wellsprings Women’s Support Program. Retrieved May 2021, from https://socialvalueuk.org/report/realising-and-rebuilding-resilience-a-social-return-on-investment-evaluation-of-the-wellsprings-womens-support-program/


13. -Fujiwara D. (2016). The Seven Principle Problems of SROI. simerica LTD. simetrica.co.uk. 1-18.


14. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Organisational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Front Psychol 7.


15. Gosselin V, Boccanfuso D. & Laberge S. (2020) .Social return on investment (SROI) method to evaluate physical activity and sport interventions: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity17:26. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00931-w.


16. Gugerty, M. K., Karlan, D. (2018), Ten Reasons Not to Measure Impact—and What to Do Instead, Stanford Social Innovation Review, available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ten_reasons_not_to_measure_impact_and_what_to_do_instead.


17. Hackett C, Jung Y, & Mulvale G. (2017) Pine River Institute: Social Return on Investment for a Residental Treatment Programme. Canada: McMaster University. Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/555e3952e4b025563eb1c538/t/595252a5d482e9a9a8d855c2/1498567338303/2017+SROI+small.pdf


18. R. & Bohnet-Joschko. S. (2023). The Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability: Review of an Evolving Research Field. Journal of Sustainabilit. Vo.l 15. 3248. pp 1-22. doi.org/10.3390/su15043248


19. Fazely, M. (2016). Evaluating the social effects of policies, programs and projects, TISA publications, second edition, 1-315.


20. Juan, H., & Heras-Rosas, C. d. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management: Towards Sustainable Business Organizations. MDPI.


21. Jørgensen A. (2012). Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299.


22. -Jørgensen A, Herrmann IT. & Bjørn A. (2013). Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(8):1440–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


23. Kadel, R., Stielke, A., Ashton, K., Masters, R. & Dyakova, D. (2022). Social Return on Investment (SROI) of mental health related interventions—A scoping review. Public Mental Health. Volume 10. 9.Sec. Public https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.965148


24. S. & Akenroye. T. (2020). Evaluation of social impact measurement tools and techniques: asystematicreview oftheliterature. Journal of Social Enterprise. pp 381- 401. DOI: 10.1108/SEJ-05-2020-0027


25. -Kumar S. (2017). Social Return on Investment (SROI): An Innovative Approach to Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation in the SDG Era. PhD Online Program Disease Prevention & Global Health University of Southern California. Global Health & Innovation Conference.


26. -Kumar, G., & Prasuna, J.G. (2016). Social audit: current need in public health care sector. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health Kumar G et al. Int J Community Med Public Health. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20151543. 11-16.


27. Kühnen, M. & Hahn, R. (2018). Systemic social performance measurement: Systematic literature review and explanations on the academic status quo from a product life-cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 690–705. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2018. 08. 201


28. Laing, C.M. & Moules, N.J. (2017), “Social return on investment: a new approach to understanding and advocating for value in healthcare”, JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 47. 12, pp. 623-628.


29. Li, W., Guo, J., Yuan, J., Liu, H.J. & Edwards, D.J. (2022). Exploring the Key Indicators of Social Impact Assessment for Sponge City PPPs: A Sustainable Development Perspective. Jornal of MDPI staysneutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in publishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. Vol (12), 1329. Pp1-19. doi.org/10.3390/ 12091329


30. Mancini, L., & Sala, S. (2018). Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy, 57, 98–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resou rpol. 2018. 02. 002.


31. Makarenko I, Kravchenko O, Ovcharova N, Zemliak N and Makarenko S (2020). Standarization of companies’ sustainability reporting audit Agricultural and Resource Economics 6 (2) p 1-78.


32. E. & Stevenson, N. (2018). SROI: Evaluative Analysis: Recovery College East Peer Education Programme (PEP). England: Angelia Ruskin University. Available online at: https://www.cpft.nhs.uk/Documents/Andrea%20G/SROI%20Report%20from%20Anglia%20Ruskin%20University%202018.pdf


33. Marcello Falcone, A. & Imbert, E. (2018). Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective. Jornal of sustainability.pp 147-159. doi: 10.3390/su10041031.


34. R (2023). «Social audit as an essential control lever for human resources management », Revue du contrôle, de la comptabilité et de l’audit « Volume 7: numéro 1» pp: 258 -269.


35. Merino, M. (2020), “The social return on investment of a new approach to heart failure in the Spanish National Health System”, ESC Heart Failure, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 131-138.


36. -McGrath R. & Stevens K. (2019). Forecasting the social return on investment associated with children's participation in circus-arts training on their mental health and well-being. Int J Sociol Leisure. 2:163–93. doi: 10.1007/s41978-019-00036-0


37. -Naeem Shahid M. (2107). Developing and Applying a Social Life Cycle Assessment Framework to Assess the Social Sustainability of Cheese Supply Chains in the UK. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the University’s requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.1-240.


38. Nazarova, K., Mysiuk, V., Gordopolov,V., Koval V., Danilevičienė I. (2020). Preventional audit: Implementation of sox control to prevent fraud Verslas Teor. Prakt. 21. Pp. 293–301.


39. Oikonomou, I., Yin, C., & Zhao, L. (2017). Investment Horizon and Corporate Social Performance:The Virtuous Circle of Long-Term Institutional Ownership and Responsible Firm Conduct .


40. Paterson-Young, C., Hazenberg, R. &Bajwa-Patel, M. (2019), “Social impact measurement and youth justice”, The Social Impactof Custody on Young People in the Criminal Justice System, Palgrave Macmillan,Cham.


41. Rahim, M., Chinthana Kuruppu, S., Tarikul Islam, M. (2022). Social auditing in the supply chain: business legitimization strategy rather than a change agent. Social auditing in the supply chain. Meditari Accountancy Research. Emerald Publishing Limited 2049-372X. pp 1-29. DOI 10.1108/MEDAR-06-2021-1322


42. Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58717 727718


43. Rostamnezhad M, Thaheem MJ. 2022. Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy. Journal of Sustainability. Vol. 14, 5279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095279


44. Rubavel, M. (2020). Social Audit. Conference: Session on Social Audit. DOI:13140/RG.2.2.10007.39844.


45. Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L. & Revéret JP. (2018) A literature review of type I SLCA – making the logic 717. underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23: 432-444. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-718 1067-z


46. Santoso B. & Aprillianto B. (2019). The need and readiness analysis of social audit implementation in Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Pendidikan. Vol. 8. No. 1 .35-46.


47. Sari, N. & Wijaya, M.(2013). Analysis on the society indicator of corporate social responsibility (CSR) of ptantam. Jornal of binus business review Vol. 4 No. 2 .pp 697-704.


48. Sarvaiya, H., Eweje, G. & Arrowsmith, J. (2016). The Roles of HRM in CSR: Strategic Partnership or OperationalSupport? Journal of Business Ethics


49. Sekaki, Y., Saidi, Y. & Zaam., H. (2021). Corporate social performance: Key Performance Indicators Performance sociale des entreprises: Indicateurs clés de performance. Journal of Revue du Contrôle de la Comptabilité et de l’Audit. Volume 5: 1. Pp 166-180.


50. Shang Z., Wang M, Su Du, Liu Q. & Zhu SH. (2018). Ontology based social life cycle assessment for product development. journals.sagepub.com/home/ade. Vol. 10(11) 1–17. DOI:10.1177/1687814018812277.


51. Siebert A., Bezama A., Okeefeo S. & Thran, D. (2017). Social life cycle assessment indices and indicator to moitor the social amplication of wood-based products. Journal of cleaner production, 1-11.


52. Sinha, R. , Sajja, S. (2020). Social Audit of Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) Grants: Case Study of Jharkhand. Centre for Social Audit National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Ministry of Rural Development Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500030. Pp 1-82.


53. Social Audit Network (2018). Brief History of Social Accounting and Audit. Retrieved from http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/getting-started/brief-history-social-accounting-and-audit/on 15.03.


54. Santoso, B., Aprilliant0, B. (2019). The needs and readiness analysis pf social audit implementation in indonesia. ASSETS Jurnal Akuntansi dan Pendidikan Vol. 8 No. 1.pp: 35 – 46


55. Sysoieva, I., Pozniakovska, N., Mikluha, O., Pukas, A., Roleders, V. (2023). Social audit as a tool of civil society aimed at ensuring the sustainability. OP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1126 (2023) 012031. Pp 1-9.doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1126/1/012031.


56. Terwindt, C. and Armstrong, A. (2019), “Oversight and accountability in the social auditing industry: the role of social compliance initiatives”, International Labour Review, Vol. 158 No. 2, pp. 245-272


57. Tighsazzadeh, M.N.(2017). Identifying the Influential Factors on Social Impact Assessment of Reconstruction Projects in Historic Site - A Case Study on Jameh Mosque Street, Yazd, Iran. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. Volume 2, 6. Pp 86-92.


58. The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.(1994). Guidelines and Principles For Social Impact Assessment. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service. 1-32.


59. Traverso, M., Peiter, C. C., Alvarado, L. M. (2019). Social Life Cycle Assessment of Niobium. Jornal of sustainability.


60. -Valdivia IH, Ferrari AM, Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. (2020). Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of sustainability. Vol (12), 6211;1-25. doi:10.3390/su12156211


61. -Valdivia S, & Ugaya CML. (2014). Social Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. [online]: 263-277. Available from <DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-72211_19.


62. -Vanclay F, (2003).SIA Principles. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. [online] 21 (1):5–11. Retreived from <http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.


63. -Vanclay F. (2019). Reflections on Social Impact Assessment in the 21st century.journal of impact assessment and project appraisal https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517. 1685807. 1-6.


64. Vaezzadeh, S., Nghady, A., Ayasy, A.(2014). The components of social sustainability in Iran's development programs, Iranian Journal of Social Development Studies, 7(2), 45-59


65. -Vishwakarma V. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility (A Literature Review). International Journal of Management. vol. 7, no. 1. 36–42


66. Wang, C., Guo, H., Lin, SH. (2020). The Influencing Factors of Social Audit Quality: A Literature Review. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Fifth International Conference on Economic and Business Management. V (159). Pp 359.363. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.


67. -Weidema BP. (2006). The integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (1):89-96.


68. -Whelan G, Holden, H. & Bockler, J. (2016).. A Social Return on Investment Evaluation of the St Helens Creative Alternatives Arts on Prescription Programme. England: Creative Alternatives Available online at: http://iccliverpool.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Creative-Alternatives-evaluation-report-2016.pdf


69. White, L. (2018), A Cook ’s tour: towards a framework for measuring the social impact of social purpose organisations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 268 No. 3, pp.784-797.


70. Yates B. T., Marra M. (2017). Social return on investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment? Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 136–144.