STAKEHOLDER CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

A CASE STUDY OF A THIRD SECTOR ORGANISATION IN WALES

Christine Caroline Esposito

A submission presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

University of South Wales/Prifysgol De Cymru for the degree of Doctor of

Business Administration

March 2018

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for their support over the past six years

that I have been studying for my DBA at the University of South Wales;

To my director of studies Professor Catherine Farrell and my supervisor Professor

Jennifer Law for their direction, knowledge and patience which kept me motivated

through some difficult times. To my husband Philip, without his support of my

lifelong ambition this would not have been possible. Thanks to my children Sarah

and Oliver, my adopted daughter Lauren, and my bright, intelligent and witty

granddaughter Georgia. They sometimes thought that they had been orphaned. To

my mother, father, sisters and their families, I know they are so proud. To all the

consultants, volunteers, staff and board members of the South West Wales Charity

(SWWales Charity), without whose co-operation this research would have been

impossible. I will conclude by thanking all those who backed my study in my

personal/work/student life and, of course, to all my friends for our continued

friendship.

Every single minute that each and every one of you supported me on my DBA

journey means far more to me than you will ever know. I am forever in your debt,

mille grazie.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract Page vii

Chapter One – The Theoretical and Practical Context for Doctoral Research Page

1.0 Introduction. 11.1 The Third Sector. 71.2 Organisational Context. 101.3 Stakeholder Theory. 161.4 Structure of the Thesis. 211.5 Conclusion. 25

2.0

Chapter Two – A Review of Literature that is Associated with Stakeholder Contributions and Benefits Introduction.

Page 26

2.1 A Review of the Literature. 302.2 Organisational Improvement and Performance: Accreditations

and Corporate Social Responsibility. 392.3 Non-profit Studies: Traditional Volunteering and its Impact. 532.4

2.5

Human Resource Management: Valuing and Measuring Paid Employees’ Contributions.Accounting For and Measuring Contributions.

66 77

2.6 The Incomplete Picture from the literature and the Recognition that All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions and its Benefits are not Measured. 84

2.72.82.92.10

2.112.12

2.132.14

Measuring the Contribution of all Stakeholders.Measuring Tangible Inputs and Outcomes.Measuring Intangible Inputs and Outcomes.The Threefold Benefit that All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions bring to Organisations, Communities and the Volunteers Themselves.Organisational Benefits and Competitive Advantage.Enhanced Services in the Community as a Benefit of All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions.Wellbeing as a Return on Individual Stakeholder Contributions.Conclusion.

88 90104

117119

123126133

Chapter Three - The Methodological Framework and Methods for Data Collection

iii

Page3.0 Introduction. 1373.1 Research Philosophy. 1383.2 Ontology, Epistemology and Research Paradigms. 1403.3 Pragmatism. 1453.4 Research Design. 1473.5 Case Studies. 1493.6 Ethics. 1513.7 Introducing the Chosen Tools for Data Collection and the

Timescales. 1543.8 The Follow-up Interviews. 1683.9 A Summary of the Timescales for Data Collection. 1703.10 Methods for Presenting the Data. 1713.11 Conclusion. 17

Chapter Four – Presentation of the Findings from the Case Study

Page

4.0 Introduction. 1794.1 The Data from the Responses from the Consultants. 1804.2 The Data from the Responses of the Traditional Volunteers. 1974.3 The Data from the Responses of the Paid Employees. 2134.4 The Data from the Responses of the Board Members. 2454.54.6

A Review of Organisational Documentation.A Summary of all the Findings.

264267

4.7 Conclusion. 274

Chapter Five – Analysing, Interpreting and Reflecting on Findings Page

5.0 Introduction. 2755.1 Review of Findings. 2755.2

5.35.4

5.55.6

The Threefold Benefit that All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions bring to the Organisation, the Community as well as back to the Volunteers Themselves. Enhanced Services for Community Participation.Wellbeing as a Return on Individual Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions.Capturing All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions – ASVCB.Conclusion.

283292

295

302309

Chapter Six –ConclusionPage

6.0 Introduction. 3116.1 Findings. 3156.2 The Contribution of this Thesis to Theory and Practice. 3206.3 The Limitations of this Study. 3246.46.5

Future Research.Conclusion.

328330

iv

Bibliography Page viii

List of FiguresPage

Figure 1 Mendelow’s ‘Power/Level of Interest’ Matrix. 17Figure 2Figure 3

Equal Power/Level of Interest Model as the result of ASVCB.The ASVCB Augmentation Model.

281308

List of TablesPage

Table 2.1

Table 4.1

A Summary of what the Literature Does Measure and what it Does Not Measure.The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Consultants.

130190

Table 4.2 The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed by the Consultants. 192

Table 4.3 The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Consultants. 196Table 4.4 The Initial Thematic Map as advocated by Braun and Clarke,

(2006 p.99) for the Consultants. 196Table 4.5 The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Traditional

Volunteers. 208Table 4.6 The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed

by the Traditional Volunteers. 210Table 4.7 The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Traditional

Volunteers. 212Table 4.8 The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke,

(2006 p.99) for the Traditional volunteers. 213Table 4.9 The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Paid Employees. 235Table 4.10 The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed

by the Paid Employees. 237Table 4.11 The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Paid Employees. 243Table 4.12 The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke,

(2006 p.99) for the Paid Employees. 244Table 4.13 The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Board Members. 256Table 4.14 The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed

by the Board Members. 258Table 4.15

Table 4.16

Table 4.17

Table 4.18

Table 4.19

The Themes from the Follow-up Interviews for the Board members.The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for the Board members.A Content Analysis of the Data from The SWWales Charity’s Organisational Reports.A Summary of all the Intangible Data Contributed by all Stakeholder Categories.The Tangible Quantitative Contribution of the Voluntary Time Contributed by all Stakeholder Categories.

263

264

263

268

269

v

Table 4.20

Table 5.1

The Developed Thematic Map for the Intangible and Tangible Data for all the Stakeholder Categories from Braun and Clarke, (2006, p. 100).The Annual Voluntary Contribution of all Stakeholders to The SWWales Charity (The Final Thematic Map as described in Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.101).

271

279

Appendix 1Appendix 2Appendix 3Appendix 4Appendix 5Appendix 6Appendix 7Appendix 8

Appendices Page Suggested Questions for the Pilot Questionnaire. xxxi Pilot Questionnaire. xxxvCovering Letter to all Stakeholders. xlviiiConsultant Questionnaire. lTraditional Volunteer Questionnaire. lvPaid Employee Questionnaire. lxiiiBoard Member Questionnaire. lxxFollow-up Interview Questions. lxxviii

vi

Abstract

In this thesis, I aim to identify all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and the

benefits it brings to a South West Wales charitable organisation, the local

community and to the contributing individuals. There is a large body of research that

is concerned with the contributions of traditional volunteers and there are many

examples of how traditional volunteering benefits society through a variety of

approaches in the literature examined. However, I found that not all stakeholders, or

their voluntary contributions and its benefits, are currently being measured in one

all-encompassing model and it was therefore found to be an under-researched area.

This thesis focuses on the four categories of stakeholders of consultants, traditional

volunteers, paid employees and board members. In order to establish if all

stakeholders voluntarily contribute, and whether there were any benefits of this

activity, a pragmatic research approach by means of a case study is adopted. The

research includes mixed methods and uses the research tools of questionnaires,

interviews and the scrutiny of organisational documentation. The analysis refers to

the period between January and December 2014. As there was found to be a

significant amount of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and benefits,

(ASVCB) to the SWWales Charity, this thesis concludes with a new all-

encompassing model which is used to show their annual contribution and highlights

the augmentation that it brings. There is a recommendation for future research as the

new model shows that all categories of the SWWales Charity’s stakeholders

vii

contribute a significant amount of time and effort, which benefits the organisation,

the community and themselves. The impact of ASVCB is positive and significant in

a period where much of the reform in public services is focused on co-producing

services with stakeholders in all sectors, and this is my contribution to knowledge.

viii

Chapter One

Introduction

1.0 Introduction

This thesis is concerned with identifying, and reporting on the benefits of the

voluntary contributions made by all stakeholders of a third sector charitable

organisation. Contributions may be both tangible and intangible. Tangible

contributions include time and money whereas intangible contributions include

goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment or

innovation. The beneficiaries of any voluntary contributions may include the

organisation, the community or the individual stakeholders themselves. The

stakeholders who it examines cover the range of stakeholder categories according to

Freeman, (1984, 2004) and are consultants, traditional volunteers, paid employees

and board members. It aims,

to identify and report on the benefits of the tangible and intangible voluntary

contributions made by all stakeholders of a third sector organisation – a case

study of a SWWales charity.

This chapter sets the scene for the research by first introducing the theoretical

framework of stakeholding as advocated by Mendelow, (1991) and Freeman, (1984,

2004). For example, Freeman, (2004, p. 42) defined stakeholders as, “those groups

who are vital to the survival and success of the corporation” while O’Donnel et al,

1

(2014) describe the positive effects of volunteering on the health of traditional

volunteers, who are one of the stakeholder categories examined in this research.

Traditional volunteers are people who give their time for free to organisations and

this is supported by Putnam, (1995), Haldane, (2014). Banks, (2016), the Chief

Executive of Greater London Volunteering, for example, has argued that,

if we looked beyond just the wage costs of the staff we would need to replace

those volunteers, and considered the wider economic value of the

contribution of volunteers, we would need to get our hands on £625 million,

in Merton alone, to achieve the same impact in our community. (Banks,

2016, p.1).

Banks, (2016) also estimates that it would also cost £156m to replace board

members. As well as the voluntary contributions to the third sector, there are also

contributions to private organisations such as the voluntary contributions made to

small firms, “during financially difficult times” as described by Danes et al, (2009

p.211). Volunteering can also be associated with nonprofit boards forming

relationships with local authorities for the delivery of effective public services, as

described by Liddle, (2003) and Cornforth, (2012). These are some of the benefits of

the voluntary contributions of stakeholders that are currently reported on, but Liddle,

(2003, p.34) agrees that softer indicators such as aspirations, feel-good factors and

community spirit are more difficult to measure.

However, it is argued that none of these voluntary contributions, or its benefits, is

being reported on effectively. Indeed, there are other stakeholders throughout

2

organisations that regularly voluntarily contribute to organisational sustainability and

whose contributions are not currently required to be accounted for by an

organisation’s regulators. It is usually the contributions of traditional volunteers

which are well documented and seen as important to The Welsh Council for

Voluntary Action’s (WCVA’s) Voluntary Sector Almanac, (2011), Taylor, (2011)

Drucker, (2012), the WCVA, (2012), and Gregg and Marazzi, (2012), who agree that

traditional volunteering contributes to the benefit of organisational success.

However, other categories of stakeholders are less frequently reported on. There is

some reporting on the importance of voluntary board members and organisations

cannot legally do without them to ensure good governance according to Liddle,

(2003) and Cornforth, (2012, 2015). The practice context for this research indicates

that all stakeholders, including consultants and paid employees volunteer their time,

free of charge, but there is currently no way of reporting on it, or its benefits, in its

entirety by organisations.

In practice, the context for this research is that author has been employed by the

SWWales Charity for fifteen years and has been a traditional volunteer in the third

sector for many years. The notion that all of stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to

an organisation are not being fully accounted for has been of great interest. This

research looks to find a way of both identifying whether all stakeholder voluntary

contributions exist, as well as providing organisations with a model that could easily

report on it and its benefits it if it does. Each stakeholder category is associated with

the SWWales Charity in a variety of different ways such as by helping to achieve

quality marks to comply with contracts. However, it is suggested that to date only

traditional volunteering has been identified in the organisation’s annual reports. Even

3

then their altruistic activity may only have appeared as a cost through such headings

as travel expenses or subsistence. This thesis seeks to explain the notion of all

stakeholders’ voluntarily contributions to an organisation. It also seeks to report on

any outcomes, or benefits that it brings.

In order to undertake the research, a number of approaches from the literature on the

various stakeholder categories are examined to identify if any voluntary

contributions are measured. There is a vast amount of literature around the voluntary

contributions’ of stakeholders and their potential benefits that were identified for this

research. These are drawn from different fields such as accounting and human

resource management. Often the different literatures focus on specific groups of

stakeholders and identify the advantages of their involvement.

For the purposes of the literature review, the approaches of Corporate Social

Responsibility, (CSR) and Quality Marks, (IIP), which are mostly associated with

consultants are analysed because they are the stakeholder category that usually takes

the lead on them to enable organisational improvements. While the literature on

Social Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback

on Volunteering and The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA), are

literatures that focus on traditional volunteers. They are non-profit studies that report

on volunteering and its benefits. However, the literatures on Human Capital, Virtual

Human Resource Development, (VHRD), The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees

and Human Resource Accounting, (HRA), focus on paid employees. These studies

are part of the literature on Human Resource Management and value and measure

employee contributions and the resulting benefits. The associated literature around

4

accounting related to board members are of Return on Capital Employed, (ROCE),

Return on Talent, (ROT) and Social Value. These are accounting approaches that are

concerned with measuring contributions of time and money and its benefits. All of

the approaches examined in the literature review can be attributed to at least one of

the four stakeholder categories.

Having established that a number of approaches from the literature are associated

with each stakeholder category, the literature can be examined to identify if any of

the approaches measure any voluntary stakeholder contributions or its benefits. A

comprehensive literature review is the first stage of this research, and subsequently

both primary and secondary data will be collected from all stakeholders of the

SWWales Charity. This is to establish of any of them voluntarily contribute their

time to the organisation and, if so, whether it or its benefits are being reported on. If

found it could show competitive advantage of these benefits over other organisations

that may not have as many voluntary contributions. Recording all of the

organisation’s voluntary contributions, not just the financial bottom line, may enable

the organisation’s performance to be fully reported on as Drucker, (2012, p.1)

advocated that, “business usually defines performance too narrowly – as the financial

bottom line”.

This statement is fundamental to this thesis as only, ‘the financial bottom line’ is

currently required by the regulators. This is a potential business limitation for the

author as a practitioner, as well as the organisation and the community. The

organisation has always reported fully to its regulators, such as the Charities

Commission, Companies House, and all other stakeholders however, the formal

5

reports only acknowledge the existence of its traditional volunteers. Any

acknowledgement of them is only in the form of their costs, such as travel expenses

and there is no formal way of reporting any of their contributions, or its benefits,

apart from a few photographs and anecdotes from public events. It is suggested that

there is no current reporting of any voluntary activity of any of the stakeholder

categories at all by the SWWales Charity. There is also no reporting of the benefits

that it may bring.

This is a real-world problem that the author felt had implications for theory and

practice. Utilising the author’s knowledge of the sector had resulted in an MBA

dissertation in 2005. In that dissertation, it had been written that this thesis was an

idea for future research. So, it was inevitable that eight years later, the opportunity

arose for the author to submit a proposal to the then University of Glamorgan, now

the University of South Wales. The proposal was accepted and the DBA journey

began in March 2012. It was perfect timing for a number of reasons. First the

organisation had been through a period of change that led to some paid employees

being made redundant. This meant that they changed from one stakeholder category,

(paid employees) to another, (traditional volunteers) because they still continued to

work with the organisation in an unpaid capacity. Some of their heartfelt responses

to the questionnaires are presented in Chapter Four and it is their passion and pride

in the organisation that led to the research being so interesting to the author.

The organisation, despite some difficult times and through a lot of hard work,

successfully achieved the internationally recognised, Gold IIP standard. This was a

turning point and a very real sense of achievement was felt throughout all the

6

stakeholder categories and it was this enthusiasm that led to the participation of all

stakeholder categories in this research. Aligned to this, the organisation was the only

Welsh European Social Fund, (ESF) project that was nominated for one of its

prestigious awards that year. All these achievements were duly recorded in the

annual report, yet the author believes that there was still so much that may be being

missed. For a small, third sector charity in South West Wales to achieve so much

was remarkable, but it was becoming more and more obvious to the author that there

was a gap in what was being reported on. Apart from a few photographs and

anecdotes of the traditional volunteers being acknowledged in the quarterly

community magazine, or on the website, there was nothing to show for all the

voluntary contributions of all its stakeholders or its benefits. The third sector and the

organisational context of the SWWales Charity are now presented.

1.1 The Third Sector

This thesis focuses on a South West Wales charity and in relation to charities,

Saxton, (2005, p.188) argues that, “they set performance targets, employ

professional fundraisers, marketers, campaigners and CEO’s to do their work”.

Saxton continues, “to do so, they must begin with mission, for the mission defines

what results are for an organisation … every non-profit organisation exists for the

sake of performance in changing people and society”. Performance is exactly what

the organisation is measured on, through their annual financial reports. However,

third sector organisations rely on the voluntary contributions, or social capital, of

stakeholders particularly traditional volunteers and board members to help change

people and society.

7

Changing people and society for the good of all stakeholders is associated with

social capital as described by Bourdieu in Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992, p.2) as

“… something that people can accumulate through their social networks which has

benefits for the stakeholders themselves, society and organisations”. However, there

is no current measure for all the benefits that stakeholders’ voluntary contributions

bring. In association with traditional volunteering Hutt, (2000, p.1) wrote that,

“volunteering, doing things for others, freely and by choice, is part of good

citizenship, an essential ingredient of a healthy democracy and in indispensable part

of creating an inclusive and supportive society”. Hutt, (2000, p. 1) continues that the

Welsh Government put volunteering at the heart of its, “social inclusion policies” but

the benefits of volunteering that Hutt describes are not fully measured.

On discussing volunteering, Adam Smith, (2006, p.3, first published in 1759) in his,

‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ argued that, “societies function best when economic

interests and ethical interests coalesce”. This landmark work is the original theory of,

“conscience, moral judgement and virtue.” Smith, (2006) continues,

how selfish soever a man may be supposed, there are evidently some

principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and

render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it,

except the pleasure of seeing it. Smith, (2006, p.3).

Altruism, has direct correlation with the ethical interests associated with

volunteering as Smith, (2006) suggests. Other advocates of volunteering include Day

8

et al, (2006) Danes et al, (2009), Drucker, (2012) and Fujiwara, (2012) and are

amongst many who have reported the various ways that traditional volunteering and

the resulting contributions benefit society.

Traditional volunteering is also advocated by Tan et al, (2005 p.353) who describe

social entrepreneurship and suggest that it, “… may be aimed at benefiting society

rather than merely maximising individual profits. It appears to promise an altruistic

form of capitalism that does not evaluate all human activities in business terms”. It is

this benefiting of society through the voluntary contributions of people to

organisations that underpins this research. Tan et al, (2005) found that social

entrepreneurship may be aimed at benefiting society, by evaluating it in business

terms, but suggested that it is only undertaken by traditional volunteers.  The work of

Tan et al excluded any voluntary contributions of the other stakeholder categories. In

relation to altruistic capital, Day et al, (2006, p.1) cite, “the notion of a civil society

suggests a sphere that is distinguished by more than the fact that it is inhabited by

people and organisations that come together voluntarily and are not characteristically

engaged of goods and services for profit”. Again, Day et al were only referring to

traditional volunteers and the benefit of providing goods and services in the

community for no financial payment to themselves. Aligned to selflessness and

doing things for the benefit of others, Knight, (2009) discusses the 1851 writings of

Auguste Comte, who was the first to use the term altruism. Discussing Comte’s

writings, Knight continues that the word, ‘altruism’ comes from,

… the Italian adjective ‘aluri,’ and was employed by him to denote the

benevolent, as contrasted with the selfish propensities … It is used in a

9

psychological sense, to designate emotions of a reflective kind, the

immediate consequences of which are beneficial to others; its important

significance is ethical … the happiness to be found in living for others.

Knight, (2009, p.1).

Volunteering in this way may be a description of why people do it and it suggests

that the reward is happiness or wellbeing but it also only refers to traditional

volunteers. This thesis investigates the voluntary contributions of all stakeholders of

the SWWales Charity, and the resulting benefits, not only its traditional volunteers.

The following section introduces the organisational context.

1.2 Organisational Context

The SWW Charity chosen for this research is the Lead Delivery Body, (LDB) for the

Welsh Government’s Communities First and Communities for Work programmes in

its area. It has a number of contracts to deliver services through European Social

Fund, (ESF), Dept. of Work and Pensions, (DWP), JobCentre Plus, (JCP), Local

Authorities, as well as grants from The Big Lottery, Children in Need and others. It

also utilises a number of social enterprise methods in its projects, for sustainability.

It has achieved IIP Gold status, is Agored Cymru and City and Guilds accredited. It

is a UK Learning Provider and its services include the provision of both accredited

and non-accredited training to enable the hardest to reach individuals in deprived

communities to become more employable and to enter further learning. It provides

volunteer opportunities and work experience to prepare people for the world of work

as well as a suite of other interventions that aim to tackle poverty. It is one of the

10

WCVA’s, (March 2013, p.1) 18% of third sector organisations in Wales that are

involved in community development. This figure rose to 19.76 in 2016, according to

the WCVA. The SWWales Charity’s Business Plan, forms the basis for its objectives

and critical success factors for all its stakeholders. The organisation has recently

merged with similar, smaller third sector organisations in the area. These mergers

have led to increased capacity across the whole of South West Wales. It is a member

led, community based regeneration organisation that is governed by a Board of

Director Trustees, drawn from the community.

The SWWales Charity employs forty nine people and has a large database of its

regular, traditional volunteers. It also works with a number of consultants on its

various projects and its area of benefit is South West Wales. It was established in

1995 to improve the living conditions of one of the poorest communities in Wales. It

formed working parties to discuss issues, such as pollution, poor health and

unemployment, that later fitted perfectly with the, ‘Communities First Vision

Framework Themes’ of prosperity, learning and health. Communities First is a

Welsh Government programme that aims to regenerate its most deprived

communities.

As the Grant Recipient Body, (GRB) for the Communities First programme, since

2001, the organisation’s capacity was increased substantially by the grant. It is

currently still the GRB, now called Lead Delivery Body, (LDB) for the Communities

First and Communities for Work Cluster and its new Business Plan 2015-2020,

forms the basis for its objectives and critical success factors. It was runner up in the

Western Mail’s, ‘FastGtrowth 50 Wales Award’ fastest growing community and

11

social sector organisation in 2008/9. It won its category in 2009/10. Professor Dylan

Jones-Evans, writing in the Western Mail on the 2nd February 2008 stated that, “there

have been notable successes, such as (this organisation), which has been extremely

successful in delivering projects that make a real difference to its community. Not

surprisingly, this innovative organisation was recently named as the only social

enterprise to be featured in last year’s Fast Growth 50 list of the fastest growing

businesses in Wales”.

More recently the organisation was shortlisted for a European Union, ‘RegioStars’

Award. It was one of five shortlisted and the only one from Wales. Its stakeholders

have also won numerous awards locally, including the Chair of the Board winning a

Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, (WCVA) Award for his dedicated volunteering

in the community. Also, its traditional volunteers have won awards such as,

‘Volunteer Mentor of the Year’ as well as the organisation itself being recognised as

having achieved the internationally recognised, ‘Gold’ IIP Status. This demonstrates

how the organisation’s success has grown by winning local, regional, national and

international awards, as well as a number of large contracts.

The SWW Charity also cultivates community enterprise and is also a member of the

Development Trust Association, (DTA) Wales. It acquires or purchases local assets

to meet local needs. It secures community prosperity by keeping money within the

community by sourcing local suppliers and customers. It strives to build a

sustainable organisation in a sustainable community. Its charitable objectives

include, ‘the promotion of public benefit, the advancement of education, to relieve

sickness and to preserve and protect good health, the relief of poverty, the provision

12

of recreational facilities, the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime

and such other means as may from time to time be determined subject to prior

written consent of the Charity Commissioner for England and Wales’. Its

beneficiaries include residents, community groups and organisations in the area

supporting or delivering services for people, those who are unemployed,

economically inactive, those who experience social exclusion and or disadvantage

and those who experience ill health and or poverty. Its volunteers, who contribute,

range from board level as Director/Trustees who are in constant contact with the

organisation, to traditional volunteers who may only turn up once a year at its annual

events. They undertake, ‘micro-volunteering’ as advocated by Browne et al, (2013,

p.65), in the community. The community is described by The Welsh Government as

being high (within the top 10% of deprived communities in Wales) in The Welsh

Index of Multiple Deprivation, (WIMD) 2011.

The SWWales Charity’s Communities First status indicates the high levels of social

disadvantage and deprivation that the community experiences. Three wards have

been divided into twelve Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the Welsh Index of

Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) 2011. Eleven of the twelve have Communities First

status. Seven of the twelve are in the top 10% most deprived LSOA’s in Wales. The

area of benefit has a total population of almost 24,000, (2012 Census) which

encompasses 7,982 households. 24.8% of the population is over sixty years of age.

32.8% have a life-limiting long term illness. 49.65% have no qualifications. 35.8%

are claiming some kind of income related benefit. These are the SWWales Charity’s

baseline statistics as The Welsh Government has announced that its Communities

First programme will be phased out during 2017 but that the ESF funded

13

Communities for Work programme will continue. The area of deprivation can be

compared to the work around regeneration of Liddle, (2003) who argues that,

… as well as employing large numbers of people, the creative, cultural and

tourism sectors provide opportunities for wealth creation and the economic

regeneration of de-industrialised areas. Cultural projects can raise the profile

of a region as well as maximising social benefits or minimising the

disadvantages of fragmented approaches to regeneration. Liddle, (2003,

p.34).

Liddle was describing the significance of culture, tourism and leisure services in

social and economic development a very similar former industrial area in the North

East of England. She describes the way in which partnerships were formed to

achieve community economic development and wellbeing.

In a similar way, the SWWales Charity works on the three-thirds method of

partnership working that has to include statutory, commercial and the third sectors to

deliver its outcomes. However, the Communities First programme has received some

criticism in the past and for example, Jones-Evans, (2008) argued that there was,

“more thought needed to put community first”, he continued that the, “anti-

deprivation programme is not meeting its potential”. There was criticism throughout

the lifetime of the Communities First programme from the press in particular, where

it was highlighted that it was unable to measure its soft outcomes effectively. Results

Based Accountability, (RBA) was introduced to measure hard outcomes. All

stakeholders are expected to contribute to making positive change in the community,

14

but there is currently no one all-encompassing way of measuring all the voluntary

contributions that enable those outcomes to be successfully met.

There are many authors who theorise on the contributions of stakeholders to

organisational success, and Donaldson and Preston, (1995, p.66) describe an

organisation as a, “constellation of cooperative and competitive interests possessing

intrinsic value”. While Gomes et al, (2010, p.708) argue that,

with reference to instrumental power, they (Donaldson and Preston)

recognized the importance of defining the relationships between stakeholder

influence and the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Normative

validity is the acceptance that each stakeholder represents a set of interests to

which the organization should devote attention. The organization should

therefore know each stakeholder as well as the sort of influence or

collaboration that stakeholder is able to dedicate to the organization’s

objectives. Gomes et al, (2010, p.708).

However, Gomes et als, (2010, p.720) work concentrated on a, ‘five-sided

stakeholder influence model for local government’, which contributed to the

literature on public management and leadership by describing the decisions of local

government managers and the influences of stakeholders.

It is suggested that each stakeholder, in Mendelow’s, (1991) Power/Level of Interest

Matrix, may contribute to the organisation’s objectives in a number of different

ways. Many other authors such as Freeman, (1984), Donaldson and Preston, (1995),

15

Freeman, (2004) Gomes et al, (2010) and Cots, (2011), also attempt to map

stakeholders and have been advocates of stakeholder theory. Their work forms the

theoretical framework for this research.

1.3 Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholding is the theoretical framework that this research is based on. It has been

established that there are many authors who define stakeholders, but this research

concentrates on the work of Freeman, (1984, 2004) and Mendelow, (1991) and

Gomes et al, (2010) as they are key authors in the field. According to Freeman,

(1984, p.46), the traditional definition of a stakeholder is, “any group or individual

who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives”.

Stakeholders are often defined by Freeman and Mendelow as, anyone with a stake in

an organisation. Mitchell et al, (1997, p854) questioned Freeman’s 1984 stakeholder

approach and argued for, “a theory of stakeholder salience that can explain to whom

and to what managers actually pay attention”. The definition has changed over time

and Freeman, in (2004, p.42), changed his definition of stakeholders to, “those

groups who are vital to the survival and success of the corporation”.

While Gomes et al, (2010, p.702) introduce, ‘A Five-Sided Model of Stakeholder

Influence’ and argue that, “there are few empirical, or even theoretical, studies

focussing on cross-cultural investigation on the subject of stakeholder analysis”.

Gomes et al, (2010, p.722) call for more, “cross-national investigations” concluding

that, “this would be a reliable path for constructing stronger, normative stakeholder

16

theory, capable of defining strategies for managing relationships with these powerful

actors in the domain of public organizations”. Without vital stakeholders companies

such as the SWWales Charity may not survive, and local authorities could not

deliver services, yet none have measured the totality of their voluntary contributions

or its benefits.

For the purposes of this research Mendelow’s, (1991) Power/Level of Interest Matrix

is used to describe both internal and external stakeholders. Stakeholder mapping

clarifies the roles of all stakeholders of an organisation and is described by

Mendelow who clarifies the roles of stakeholders in an organisation and states which

ones have the most power and level of interest. Figure 1, below is Mendelow’s,

(1991) ‘Power/Level of Interest Matrix’ which was used as it was easy to transpose

the stakeholders of the SWWales Charity on to each category of the matrix:

Figure 1: Mendelow’s, (1991, p.159) ‘Power/Level of Interest’ Matrix:

17

Power Level of interest

Low High

Low

High

A. Minimal Effort –Consultants

D. Key Players –Board Members

C. Keep satisfied –Paid Employees

B. Keep informed – Traditional Volunteers

There are other categories of stakeholder and those having low power/low level of

interest include infrequent customers and people who do not have regular contact

with the organisation, such as central government. The low power/high level of

interest stakeholders may also include major customers and the media. The high

power/low level of interest stakeholders could be environmental groups, for example

and high power/high level of interest stakeholders are local authority planners and

investors, according to Mendelow, (1991). For the purposes of this research, the

following focuses on the four stakeholder categories of consultants, traditional

volunteers, paid employees and board members of the SWWales Charity as

advocated by Mendelow, (1991). By utilising this matrix all stakeholders are

represented.

A. Minimal effort (low power low level of interest) – Consultants

Mendelow, (1991), advocates that stakeholders, who are commissioned to

undertake a particular piece of work in an organisation, have low power. This

category could include auditors or grants assessors, for example. Mendelow

suggests that they also have a low level of interest because they leave as soon

as the work is done and it was felt that the consultants fitted best into this

category. There are a number of consultants who occasionally work with the

organisation and a sample was identified as potential respondents for the data

collection in Chapter Three. The consultants work with the organisation to

enable the achievement of quality marks and with writing funding

applications, as well as being a critical friend. They often help with ‘horizon

scanning’ to inform organisations of new opportunities.

18

B. Keep informed (low power high level of interest) – Traditional volunteers

Stakeholders with low power but a high level of interest could be described

in Mendelow’s, (1991) matrix as traditional volunteers. Residents, members,

voluntary groups and partners are included in this category. Mendelow,

(1991) suggests that they may be perceived as being lower down the

hierarchy because they are not paid and therefore have low power. Mendelow

does, however, suggest that they are very interested in their community and

that this may be the reason that they undertake unpaid work. There is a good

cross section of about fifty regular traditional volunteers throughout the

organisation. They include people who volunteer in the garden and food co-

op project, volunteer hair and beauty supporters, business and administration

voluntary supporters, job search volunteers and voluntary café workers.

C. Keep satisfied (high power low level of interest) - Paid employees

Stakeholders with high power and a high level of interest are described by

Mendelow, (1991) as employees. It is suggested that they can influence

decision making power through their high numbers, particularly in unionised

organisations. The SWWales Charity does not recognise any particular union,

although the majority of its employees are union members, which protects

salaries through negotiation at a national level. Mendelow, (1991) does,

however, suggest that paid employees have a low interest in the organisation

and that some are only interested in their salaries. All forty nine employees of

19

the SWWales Charity are invited to be part of the research from all levels

throughout the management structure that include administrators, mentors,

managers, senior managers as well as ICT technicians.

D. Key players (high power high level of interest) – Board members

According to Mendelow, the board members have the highest power,

although some may disagree, as they have the responsibility and authority of

the organisation. They can delegate authority to senior employees, but they

cannot delegate responsibility. They also have the highest personal interest

because they must protect both their personal and organisational reputations.

There are sixteen unpaid board members who are Trustee/Directors of the

SWWales Charity’s Board. They include the Chairman, Vice Chairman and

Treasurer. The CEO is the Company Secretary and although he has authority

to act on behalf of the board, he does not have responsibility for any board

decisions. He is also a paid employee so does not fall into this category. The

board meets four times a year and regard themselves as volunteers. They all

attend stakeholder days and help out with operational tasks such as cutting

the grass around the centres and teaching people to read.

The idea for this research is that all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions may be

benefiting the SWWales Charity, although, it is suggested that none of the inputs, or

outcomes, are currently being measured. This thesis introduces the possibility that all

20

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and its benefits may exist and it presents the

epistemological position of the author that informs the research in Chapter Three. It

focuses on identifying the attributes of a sample of all stakeholder categories of the

organisation and discusses the reasons for the ontology, the facts, around which the

research is based. The following describes the structure of the thesis.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The aim of this thesis has been presented, which aims to identify if all stakeholder

voluntary contributions exist, and if so, whether it may be shown, alongside its

benefits, in a new model. This could be used to identify any added value that

stakeholders bring to funders and other external bodies to show how it measures

voluntary contributions in the same way as some of the literature presently does. For

example, Hesketh, (2014, p.7) advocates, “four levels of investment into human

capital” that include the metric, “Return on People Employed” as, “outcomes

measure the quality of outputs and the resulting impact at business level from the

combination of inputs and activities”, including knowledge and skills.

However, Hesketh only discusses the inputs and activities of paid employees and

their human capital. This is a potential gap in the literature as it does not help with

the understanding of what is being contributed in its totality. While Saxton, (2004,

p.188) concludes that, “nonprofits need to act now, however, if they are to close the

gap in public understanding and bring their stakeholders with them”. This can only

be done if there is a comprehensive way of measuring all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions and the benefits that they bring. Some of the approaches from the

21

literature only measure tangible time and money, while others attempt to measure

intangibles such as goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation, trust,

commitment or innovation. However, there is a potential need for an all-

encompassing model that measures all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and the

resulting benefits to organisations, the community and the individual stakeholders

themselves.

The theoretical context for this doctoral research is set in Chapter Two. It examines

what may be an under-researched area by investigating a number of approaches from

the literature that are presently used to report on stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions and its benefits. It aims to establish whether, or not, any of the studies

refer to all stakeholders’ and all their voluntary activity. There are a number of

studies that take tangible contributions into account, such as those that advocate

organisational improvements and performance, non-profit studies and human

resource management as well as those that account for and measure contributions.

However, there may be ways in which all stakeholders contribute to an organisation

that may not be being fully accounted for in the existing literature. It is recognised

from the literature review that not all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, or the

resulting benefits, are currently measured. As well as there being a potential gap in

the literature, it may be a practical problem for organisations to properly measure the

resulting benefits. The chapter looks the current measures as well as examining both

tangible and intangible inputs and outcomes. There is also the prospect of being able

to fully report on the potential threefold benefit to the organisation, the community

and the individual stakeholders themselves. Chapter Three describes the

methodological framework and the methods used for data collection. These methods

22

will be used to identify whether, or not, all stakeholders of the SWWales Charity

voluntary contribute to the organisation, and if so, whether this activity brings any

unreported benefits.

Chapter Three outlines the methodological framework and research design types for

data collection. It aligns the SWWales Charity’s stakeholder categories with the

literature to inform the questionnaires for data collection. Researchers have

advocated a number of tried and tested tools or methods for data collection that

include Guba, (1990), McNeil, (1990), Richards, (2005) Denscome, (2008), Bazeley,

(2009) and Bryman, (2012). While Cameron and Miller, (2010) also produced a

table of the research design type and methods that could be used for DBA theses.

The chapter introduces the ontology, an individual’s view of reality. While the

epistemology relates to how the enquirer should go about gaining knowledge and

introduces the methods for research. This research uses the approaches from the

literature in Chapter Two as the basis for the research questions. It identifies any

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to the SWWales Charity as well as their

potential benefits. The author has access to all stakeholders and was been given full

permission to undertake the empirical research.

This empirical study introduces methods of capturing data that complement the

author’s pragmatic research position. In Chapter Four the primary qualitative and

quantitative data from the questionnaires as well as the follow-up interviews is

presented. It is undertaken by means of descriptive codes for the stakeholder

categories, topic codes for the literature and analytical codes for the organisation,

community and individuals. The resulting data is presented in a number of tables that

23

culminate in initial, developed and final thematic maps. It also analyses the

secondary data that includes the scrutiny of organisational documents in the content

analysis to search for patterns and meanings, as presented by Bryman, (2012).

Authors utilised for the presentation of all the data include Guba, (1990), Richards,

(2005) as well as Braun and Clarke, (2006). All data is collected in a way that shows

congruence with the main research aim in Chapter Five, the analysis, interpretation

and reflection on findings.

The analysis, interpretation and reflection on findings are presented in Chapter Five.

It discusses what the findings mean, in the real world, within the context of the

literature. It discusses the findings that are presented in Chapter Four and relates

them to the literature review in Chapter Two as it analyses and interprets the

thematic data. There is found to be a threefold benefit to the organisation, the

community and the individuals themselves as a result of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. It presents organisational sustainability and competitive advantage as

well as enhanced services for community participation. Individual stakeholders’

wellbeing is found to be a return of their voluntary contributions. As well as this a

way of capturing their voluntary contributions is introduced in a new model called,

All Stakeholder Voluntary Contributions and Benefits, (ASVCB). It is a way of

measuring and reporting on its benefits annually. This is the contribution of this

research to knowledge and professional practice.

Finally, Chapter Six outlines the nature of the contribution to knowledge and

professional practice and discusses the new model, including the benefits of its

findings for theory and practice. It recommends the new model for capturing the

24

voluntary contributions of all stakeholders and its benefits to organisations, the

community and the individual stakeholders themselves. Alongside this, the chapter

critiques the research and highlights its limitations of the reporting of the

contributions in the literature. It highlights the benefits, and costs, of reporting in this

way as well as the limitations of this research and future research. The conclusion of

this whole DBA thesis draws together the research in the contribution to knowledge.

It finally focuses on what the findings mean in the real world and what is now known

a result of this research.

1.5 Conclusion

This chapter introduces the notion that the SWWales Charity’s current voluntary

contributions are unidentified and therefore may not be being fully reported on. It

suggests that the organisation may be missing an opportunity to account for the

benefits of those contributions to itself, the community and the individual

contributors. The voluntary contributions of all its stakeholders should be able to be

reported on annually in the same tangible way that money and time currently is. It

could provide the SWWales Charity’s funders, Companies House, The Charity

Commission and others with a much more accurate way of reporting on all of the

organisation’s voluntary contributions and its benefits. It could be used as part of the

organisation’s obligations around annual reporting, as a model, to market success in

the future and assert how stakeholders work together. All of the organisation’s

stakeholders may have had a positive effect on turnover, not just the traditional

volunteers. It could be presented in a model that emphasises the role that

organisations can and should play in developing stakeholders by valuing all their

25

contributions and its subsequent benefits. The following, Chapter Two, is the

Literature Review and sets the theoretical context for the research.

Chapter Two

A Review of the Literature that is Associated with Stakeholder Contributions

and Benefits

2.0 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to review literatures that focus on the voluntary

contributions which a range of stakeholders make to organisations. The input of

voluntary contributions may result in the outcome of benefits to the organisation, the

community and individuals. The chapter introduces the notion that some authors

argue that the current literature gives an incomplete picture of what is being

voluntarily contributed and that therefore its benefits are not being properly reported.

This is partially argued by Haldane, (2014), O’Donnel et al, (2014) and Bassi et al,

(2015). Aligned to this, there is an examination of a number of approaches in the

26

literature that highlights what contributions and benefits are currently measured, as

well as what are not currently measured. There is a discussion around the outcomes

of competitive advantage gained by organisations, the benefits of the contributions

for the communities of enhanced services as well as the increased wellbeing and

skills that are the outcomes for the individual stakeholders themselves. The

conclusion recognises that there is a requirement for giving a more complete method

of reporting on all stakeholders’ voluntary inputs and outcomes. It also recognises

the threefold outcome, or benefit multipliers, that all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions may make possible. Reporting in this way may enable more

comprehensive reports that will give a complete picture of how organisations,

including the community and the volunteers themselves, benefit from all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. Much of the literature currently focuses

heavily on traditional voluntary activity. However, this thesis is concerned with all

categories of stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and the resulting benefits.

This thesis is focused on identifying the contribution which all categories of

stakeholders may voluntarily input to organisations. Currently this not widely

recognised or assessed. It is proposed that there may also be an incomplete measure

for the benefit of those voluntary contributions that are made by all stakeholders.

While there is a wide range of literature around traditional volunteering, there is not

much known about the contribution of the paid employees or consultants who work

extra time that they are not paid for. Stakeholders can contribute a range of both

tangible and intangible resources to organisations and the various categories of

stakeholders have been discussed in detail in the introductory chapter, as has

traditional volunteering. The categories examined for this thesis include consultants,

27

traditional volunteers, paid employees and board members. The voluntary

contributions that are currently measured are now reviewed. While discussing

traditional volunteering, Chum et al, (2013, p.412) argue that, “nonmonetary factors

come into play such as tradition, the good will that volunteers bring to an

organization, and roles that are either prescribed for volunteer board members by law

or those that are prescribed for paid employees through union agreements”. While

Chum et al, consider most of the stakeholder categories in their work, they do not

consider the voluntary contributions of consultants, or any of its benefits, in their

argument.

However, despite the significant literature around traditional volunteering, there is

the recognition that the threefold benefit to organisations, the volunteers themselves

and the community are not fully measured. This is also true of the other stakeholder

categories and is a potential business limitation for organisations at least. If this

unmeasured contribution, and its outcome, could be measured and multiplied

throughout the sector it could have an effect on one of the existing measures, which

is Gross Domestic Product, (GDP). GDP has been advocated by Tucker-Drob et al,

(2014, p.2047) as well as Morgan et al, (2015, p.544) and measures the national

wealth, per capita, of a country or, “country-level per capita GDP”, Tucker-Drob,

(2014, p.2049). Nevertheless, GDP does not measure anything that’s worthwhile,

according to Kennedy, (1968). Cha, (2013) for example proposes that,

GDP also does not capture the value added by volunteer work, and does not

capture the value of caring for one’s own children. For example, if a family

hires someone for childcare, that counts in GDP accounting. If a parent stays

28

home to care for their child, however, the value is not counted in GDP. Cha,

(2013, p.1).

GDP does not consider any voluntary contributions of paid employees. This supports

the argument for a new all-encompassing measure of everything that is being

voluntarily contributed to organisations by all voluntary stakeholders’ contributions,

as well as its benefits. In relation to defining stakeholding, Miles, (2012, p.285)

states that, “the nature of what is a stakeholder is highly contested,” with, Miles,

(2011, p.1) also stating that, “hundreds of definitions existing in the academic field”.

The definition of the sample of categories for this thesis is the one advocated by

Freeman, (1984, p.46), who states that the definition of a stakeholder is, “any group

or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s

objectives”. This definition has changed over time as a result of their importance to

organisational survival and Freeman, in (2004, p.42), changed his definition of

stakeholders to, “those groups who are vital to the survival and success of the

corporation”. Without these vital stakeholders companies could not survive. The

stakeholders of the SWWales Charity and the voluntary contributions that they may

make will now be analysed in conjunction with the following current approaches in

the literature.

There are a number of approaches within the literature which recognise the

contribution of a range of stakeholders. These approaches include; Investors’ in

People, (IIP), Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR), Social Capital, Mass

Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering, The

Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA), Human Capital, Virtual Human

29

Resource Development, (VHRD), The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees, Human

Resource Accounting, (HRA), Return on Capital Employed, (ROCE), Return on

Talent, (ROT) and Social Value. These approaches are relevant to all of the four

stakeholder categories of the SWWales Charity.

Mendelow’s (1991) categories are examined, but there are other categories, such as

customers, The Welsh Government or funders externally, but the scope of this thesis

means that only consultants and traditional volunteers as external stakeholders of the

SWWales Charity are considered. However, all four stakeholder categories are

represented. Some of the approaches from the literature could be applied to all

stakeholders, while others are specific to a particular stakeholder category. For

example, the literature around formal, informal, micro-volunteering or altruism

includes Investors’ in People, (IIP), Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR), Social

Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, The Volunteering

Investment Audit, (VIVA), Human Capital and Human Resource Accounting,

(HRA). As a result of their work, Wang et al, (2016) argue that,

to date, existing literature on volunteering has focused much attention on

formal volunteering (doing unpaid work for an organization) but very little

on informal volunteering (doing unpaid work for strangers, acquaintances,

friends, and other individuals). Wang et al, (2016, pp.20-21).

Yet, it is suggested that their study does not go far enough because they also only

concentrate on traditional volunteering. Most of the literatures examined in this

chapter recognise that they do not fully report on the value of all the contributions

30

made by all stakeholders to organisations, the stakeholders themselves, or the

community. These threefold benefits are termed, “benefit multipliers”, by Haldane,

(2014, p.15). However, there is no way of presenting these benefits currently in one

approach, to give a complete picture of what is being contributed in order to achieve

those benefit multipliers in the literature.

2.1 A Review of the Literature

Each approach, such as CSR, IIP and Social Capital from the literature provides

important insights into particular stakeholder categories. The literatures examined

demonstrate that stakeholders, who are usually categorised as traditional volunteers,

contribute a range of resources to organisations that include their time and

commitment. For example, Danes et al, (2009, p.211) advocated that voluntary

inputs have the outcome of organisational survival in financially difficult times.

Fujiwara, (2012, pp.1,2 and 9) is among many who have reported the various ways

that voluntary contributions are made and Drucker, (2012, p.1) discusses the

outcome of volunteering being too narrowly defined. The stakeholders personally

benefit from the outcome of increased skills and wellbeing as a direct result of their

contributions is found by Moretti, (2005). According to Haldane, (2014, p.15)

traditional volunteering alone creates, “each year an economic value of at least £50

billion and potentially higher”. The voluntary contributions made by people to

organisations with the result of them benefiting from increased skills are considered

to be the benefit multipliers of “enhanced well-being, health benefits and increased

skills and employability”, according to Haldane, (2014, p.10), and O’Donnel et al,

(2014), call them rewards. Communities also benefit from traditional volunteering

31

according to Putnam, (1995, p.66) and Cots, (2011, p.334). For example, in their

research, Browne et al, (2013, p.65) discuss micro-volunteering, which are, “short

time bursts of volunteering with bare minimum formality”. It is suggested that these

inputs contribute to the outcome of a threefold benefit. Some of the approaches only

measure tangible outcomes such as money while others attempt to measure

intangibles such as goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation,

commitment or innovation. It is suggested that none of the approaches examined

here measure all the inputs, or indeed all of the outcomes.

A number of authors agree that the current way of measuring voluntary contributions

does not go far enough and that the literature could go even further. They suggest

that the existing approaches in the literature need to reflect the contribution of a

range of stakeholders in their widest sense. This is supported by Shortt, (2004,

pp.11-22), Kane, (2014, p.1), Haldane, (2014, p.15) and Banks, (2016) who agree

that the current way of reporting in literatures on voluntary contributions lack a

complete measure. This may also include a complete measure of its benefits. In

support of this, O’Donnel et al, (2014) argue that the measure of economic success,

GDP does not tell the whole story because it does not include all voluntary activity.

This gap has also been recognised in a paper produced by The Valuing Your Talent

Partnership, (May 2016, pp.4,19 and 47) and is supported by Kane, (2014, p.1) who

states that, “the sector’s contribution to the UK is about much more than just

finances”, which is the crux of this thesis. In relation to this statement Drucker,

(2012, p.1) identified comparable themes in relation to private businesses suggesting

that, “business usually defines performance too narrowly – as the financial bottom

line”. Bassi et al, (2015, p.71), in the same way, advocate that the usual reporting is

32

too narrow and could be linked to measuring the creation of value. However, none of

the literature considers all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions or the value of its

benefits.

Stakeholder theory is the theoretical framework for this thesis and stakeholding is

advocated by Freeman, (1984, 2004), Donaldson and Preston, (1995), Gomes et al,

(2010) and Cots, (2011) who each describe the evidence and implications of

stakeholder theory. This thesis argues that there are a number of approaches from the

literature that support the various categories of stakeholder, however they may not

account for the value of the contributions of all stakeholders, as they are mostly

concerned with traditional volunteering. It has been well documented, for example

by The WCVA’s Voluntary Sector Almanac, (2011), Taylor, (2011) Drucker,

(2012), Gregg and Marazzi, (2012), as well as the WCVA, (2012, 2014, 2016) that

traditional volunteering benefits organisations, yet there currently is no all-

encompassing way of showing this. All of the literatures examined here refer to at

least one category of stakeholder. Some also have shareholders as well as

stakeholders who need to know exactly how productive the organisation is as they

expect a measure for the return on their investment of shares. Productivity is

measured nationally by Gross Value Added, (GVA). Aparaschivei et al, (2011)

define GVA as,

... a measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area, industry

or sector of an economy. In the national accounts, GVA is output minus

intermediate consumption; it is a balancing item of the national production

account. Aparaschivei et al, (2011, p.210).

33

As a measure, both GVA and GDP are referred to in a number of the literatures by

Cha, (2013) and Tucker-Drob, (2014), for example. They recognise that GDP shows

the value of all productivity to the economy in one comprehensive measure. Yet, it is

suggested that there is no comprehensive measure of the benefit to GVA or GDP of

all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions at present and this is therefore a limitation

of the literature.

It is evident that there is a vast amount of empirical work that has been undertaken

around the various stakeholder categories by Freeman, (1984, p.42) and Mendelow,

(1991, p.159) for example, who consider all stakeholder categories in their work.

Both of their approaches focus in general on the categories that include internal

stakeholders such as paid employees and board members. They also consider

external stakeholders such as consultants and traditional volunteers in their work. As

well as Mendelow and Freeman, stakeholding has also been researched by

Donaldson and Preston, (1995), Freeman (2004) Gomes et al, (2010) and Cots,

(2011). More recent work, which only considers traditional volunteer stakeholders

has been presented by Cha et al, (2016).

Gomes et als, (2010, p.720) work on a, ‘five-sided stakeholder influence model for

local government’, contributed to the literature on public management and leadership

by describing the decisions of local government managers and the influences of

stakeholders. However, there is some criticism of how the value that partnerships

produce can be measured. In her work on Public Value Management, (PVM) and

New Public Governance, (NPG), Liddle, (2018) describes key characteristics of

these new concepts. She argues that the state is shrinking and that stakeholder

34

influence and power with public sector leadership is key to delivering public goods

and services. This can be achieved by both formal and informal arrangements with it

being overseen by public leaders.

The Strategic Triangle of Public Value is a model that shows how public value is

created and is advocated by Moore, (1995). His model describes how it is defined in

situations where there are public outcomes that satisfy the strategic goals of

governments. Its authority is for maintaining and building on stakeholder coalitions

on the three thirds model of private, public and the third sector to build on delivery

capacity to deliver the strategic goals and public outcomes to, “wicked problems”

Pressman and Wildavsky, (1973). Wicked problems include poverty and The

SWWales Charity had to form a partnership following the three-thirds principle to

deliver the Communities First outcomes in the area. The government’s goal at the

time was to reduce poverty in Wales by 2020. Governments have the overall power

in society to ensure that public value is achieved. They have to ensure that outcomes

can be met by ensuring that there are the right skills, technology, staff and finance to

satisfy the public interest and be seen to be doing it for public good. In relation to

public value, Benington and Moore, (2011) present that,

one of his, (Moores, 1995) goals was to develop a conceptual framework that

would be practically useful to public managers doing their jobs, and to

encourage strategic thinking and entrepreneurial action to tackle complex

problems in the community. Benington and Moore, (2011, p.1).

35

However, Moore did not consider any voluntary actions of stakeholders in his model

and Liddle, (2018, p.969) argues that, “research on public value is a highly contested

territory". Liddle, (2018, p.970) continues, “… there are studies of public value

approaches from numerous disciplines, but the whole notion of virtue, public good

and (the) key question of where values arise from remain problematic”. The

Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act, (2015) ensure long term-interests by

establishing public service boards in local authority areas to add value for,

‘connected purposes’. While Liddle, (2018, p.971), quoting the work of Bennington

and Moore, (2011), agrees that, “… we can only understand what adds value in the

public sphere by identifying the long-term interests of future generations, rather than

current practices”.

There is a move away from the traditional hierarchical structures of control to more

collaborative, or connected, ways of working. Curtin et al, (2010) argue that the

public management style of NPG is more aligned to co-operation amongst the

various sectors. The SWWales Charity is a member of a number of partnerships

whose terms of reference give equal power to the various sectors, including the third

sector to ensure public value. This has enabled the SWWales Charity to access

funding as part of a consortium that it would not have been able to access on its own.

However, the public bodies that support this way of working also need the

participation and influence of the third sector to comply with public value clauses,

for example. In this way, services can be delivered and outcomes met, because

organisations working alone would not be able to access the funding in the first

place, let alone deliver the outcomes, Gomes et al, (2010). However, as has been

discussed, there is no evaluation of any voluntary contributions to Public Value.

36

There are a number of approaches from the literature that do evaluate voluntary

stakeholders’ contributions and the resulting organisational benefits. For example,

The US Government Accountability Office, (GAO), (2012, p.9) suggests that

through greater consultation with community stakeholders they could, “strengthen

their refugee resettlement programme”. In their costings they do not consider the

voluntary contributions made by those voluntary community stakeholders’ and

therefore its benefits are not reported on by the organisation. This is also true of

other approaches from the literature such as in the work of Herman and Renz, (1998,

p.32) who undertook, “comparisons of the relationships between the most and least

effective non-profit organisations”, and found that stakeholder contributions are an

important factor. Whilst Gordon et al, (2010, p.213) studied the annual reports of

non-profit organisations and Krishnan and Yetman, (2011, p.1015) analysed the,

“institutional drivers of reporting decisions” in non-profit hospitals. They found

drivers of reporting based on tangibles such as money, but as a non-profit

organisation they did not include any intangible contributions such as commitment

or loyalty. Both studies use approaches that enable them to analyse tangibles that

give them competitive advantage over other organisations. Nonetheless, these two

approaches may not give a complete picture of everything that is being voluntarily

contributed by all stakeholders, or its benefits.

All of the literatures, or approaches to stakeholder contributions examined, suggest

that organisations will benefit from competitive advantage. Some of the approaches

are well recognised audits or accreditation for organisational performance such as

Investors in People, (IIP). Others are less well known and include Human Resource

37

Accounting, (HRA) and Return on Talent, (ROT). Not one of the existing

approaches to assessing and capturing the contributions of volunteers are compulsory

for organisations to adopt, and all promise to offer some sort of competitive

advantage over organisations that do not embrace, or pay for them. Some benefits

are measured by standards, strategies, matrices, ratios, audits, cultures, frameworks

or clauses.

All are resources that are used to benchmark how good or bad an organisation is at

managing money, people, the environment, or the community in which the

organisation is based. They attempt to enable the organisation to reflect on, and

measure the contributions that are made by some stakeholder categories. Some

advocate their benefits too, such as the, “outerperformance” described by Devoy,

(2015, p.8). All use key performance indicators, (KPIs) of some sort as well as the

organisation’s mission statement to drive the approach, and therefore the

organisation, forward. All offer a degree of sustainability, through the promise of

competitive advantage, over those that have not adopted them. Porter, (1985) (cited

by Thompson, 2001, p.343) argues that, “competitive advantage is created and

sustained when a firm performs the most critical functions either more cheaply or

better than its competitors as part of the value chain”. Some of the literatures partly

recognise the benefits that could be gained by measuring voluntary contributions,

such as The WCVA’s Voluntary Sector Almanac, (2011) and the WCVA, (2016),

for example. But, as has been discussed, these approaches are only concerned with

traditional voluntary contributions and the benefits they bring.

38

The benefits can be used for positive promotion, image and reputation to favourably

market how well the organisation is doing, to its shareholders or stakeholders. This,

in turn, attracts more business, funding, or even more voluntary contributions and

may repeated because, it is suggested, that the benefits provide the propensity to

repeat volunteering for even more benefit multipliers such as possibly doubling the

annual £50bn brought by the diverse army of traditional volunteers found by,

Haldane, (2004, p.15). Nevertheless, not one of the measurement approaches

examined offers a comprehensive examination of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. This, it is suggested, gives an incomplete picture of the resulting

benefits that may be fundamental to organisational survival. Nor do they fully

quantify the wellbeing benefits back to individual stakeholders or the community,

which is the threefold benefit. This section gave an overview of the approaches from

the literature examined. To enable a more in-depth analysis, the next section

provides an examination of the literatures that report on different voluntary

stakeholder categories and their contributions. It will also identify any benefits.

There is a vast amount of literature around the various voluntary contributions’ of

stakeholders and its benefits. First, the literature of Quality Marks, (IIP) and

Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR) are examined. This is because it is mostly

associated with consultants as they are the stakeholder category that usually takes the

lead on them for organisations. They are branded to enable organisational

improvements. Following the examination of the approaches from the literature

associated with consultants Social Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of

the Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering and The Volunteering Investment and

Value Audit, (VIVA), are examined. They are the approaches that are aligned to

39

traditional volunteers and they report on volunteering and its benefits. Then the

approaches of, Human Capital, Virtual Human Resource Development, (VHRD),

The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and Human Resource Accounting, (HRA),

are examined because they typically focus on paid employees. These approaches are

aligned to Human Resource Management and value and measure some aspects of

employee contributions. Associated with board members is the literature of Return

on Capital Employed, (ROCE), Return on Talent, (ROT) and Social Value. These

are accounting approaches that are concerned with measuring the Return On

Investment, (ROI). The literatures are demarcated into categories for ease of data

collection in Chapter Three. First, the approaches from the literature that is

associated with consultants are examined. These approaches profess to enable the

benefit of organisational improvements and increases in performance.

2.2 Organisational Improvement and Performance: Accreditations and

Corporate Social Responsibility

Some of the literature focuses on organisational improvement through accreditations

such as IIP and CSR. These approaches attempt to measure some stakeholder

contributions and its benefits. However, they may ignore important dimensions such

as any voluntary time contributed by consultants, for example. Consultants have low

power and a low level of interest in an organisation and are external stakeholders,

according to Mendelow, (1991). As such they are often portrayed as having little

interest in the organisation apart from the work that they are commissioned for. In

Blagden’s, (1973) conference paper, he states that,

40

consultants have been described as 'the people who borrow your watch to tell

you what time it is and then walk off with the watch' … In my view

management consultants, properly selected and briefed can make a real

contribution to the health of an organization. He states that they do this in a

number of ways including giving, ‘impartial advice … help on projects …

and an overall audit … they utilize in their work a wide range of techniques

drawn from such differing areas as behavioural science and operational

research together with a few gimmicks’. Blagden, (1973, p.459).

Consultants are commissioned to undertake a piece of work which saves

organisations the cost of employing a full-time member of staff. Consultants often

lead on accreditations such as IIP and Werr, (1999), in relation to this, argues that,

the actual leadership is seldom the responsibility of the consultant. Instead

this task has to be carried out by a respected actor in the client organisation;

still, consultants play a role in identifying suitable leaders and supporting

existing leaders in the work of the change process. Werr, (1999, p.357).

Yet, consultants’ input of their skills, and perhaps some of their voluntary time, for

that support is not acknowledged in the achievement of the standard. IIP gives

important insights into three of the stakeholder categories that are traditional

volunteers, paid employees and board members. However, it is suggested that by

ignoring the potential voluntary contributions of consultants, which benefits its

attainment, the IIP approach does not give a full picture of how it is achieved.

41

The argument is that there is a vast array of literature around consultants, and the

work for which they are paid. However, most of the literature ignores any voluntary

contributions of the unpaid skills that they may contribute to organisations, or the

resulting benefits, that is the achievement of the IIP standard. This literature on the

measurement of skills is also true of other stakeholders. The work of the Leitch

Review of Skills, (2006, p.20) suggests that, “Investors in People (IIP) can engage

employers in developing the skills of their employees to enhance business

performance, recognising achievement through a common standard”. There have

been a number of versions of IIP over the years but it remains a widely recognised

common standard. In criticism of the IIP version at that time, Lord Leitch, (2006)

called for a review of the standard to again be revised to reflect his findings. It was

then reviewed to become less bureaucratic but still attracted some criticism. In

criticism of the reviewed IIP standard, Hoque and Bacon, (2008, p.472) argue that,

“this needs to be balanced against the lack of growth in IIP recognition in

workplaces in small firms. This suggests that the new, supposedly less bureaucratic

version of the Standard is no more popular with small firms than was its

predecessor”. In their study of small firms Hoque and Bacon, (2008, p.472) “…

suggest that the government’s £30 million financial commitment in 2002 to raise

recognition rates through IIP UK’s Small Firms Initiative has not achieved its aims”.

This was despite IIP still being a government sponsored training initiative at that

time that included a requirement for equal opportunities. It was still not compulsory.

Hoque and Bacon, (2008) continue that,

one interpretation of the findings therefore is that the lack of uptake of IIP

among small firms could be seen as symptomatic of the problems inherent

42

within voluntarist institutional frameworks, particularly in terms of the lack

of employer willingness to engage with training initiatives. Hoque and

Bacon, (2008, p.472).

This may be because of the significant time and effort, including the voluntary time

contributed by consultants that has to be put into meeting the standard. Their

contribution is not measured or accounted for in attaining the standard. Although IIP

is important in measuring the organisational maturity of all sized organisations, it is

the argument for measuring all stakeholders’ voluntary time, including any voluntary

time and skills of consultants which should be considered by the latest Sixth

Generation Framework. Without these voluntary benefits, in some organisations, IIP

may not be achieved at all. It is suggested that the omission of consultants’ voluntary

contributions of their time and skills is a limitation of IIP. De Waal, (2015) argues

that,

Investors in People (IIP) was introduced by the UK Government in 1991 as a

reaction to the UK’s poor industrial performance, in comparison with other

developed countries at that time, (Smith et al, 2014). The aim of IIP was to,

help UK organisations improve the way they manage, develop and inspire

their workforce, on the premise that a focus on skills training was crucial in

achieving and sustaining the competitive advantage of organisations, their

sectors and the overall country. De Waal, (2015, p.665).

De Waal, (2015) continues that,

43

IIP is a quality standard by which organisations measure themselves in

relation to their human resources (HR) practices, (DeWaal, 2015). To support

the quality standard, IIP offers principles of best practice in people

management and techniques that organisations can apply to improve their

performance in these areas”, (DeWaal, 2015). According to the chain of

impact described by Bourne et al, (2008), “organisations that adopt IIP will

eventually achieve better financial performance. De Waal, (2015, p.665).

To date, there is no measure for the voluntary contributions of all stakeholders in the

achievement of IIP, including those of consultants, in the attainment of better

financial performance. The literature around IIP does not consider all stakeholders

because it only considers the skills of internal stakeholders. It therefore does not

provide an accurate measure of how it may actually be being attained. According to

the literature, “IIP is a measure of organisational maturity which is advocated by

Churchill and Lewis, (1983), who state that it encourages relationships between

internal stakeholders”, DeWaal (2015c, p.6). If IIP is concerned only with internal

stakeholders, then it already acknowledges the fact that it ignores any external

stakeholders’ contributions such as consultants. Only some of an organisation’s

stakeholders undertake any measure of skills performance to improve growth. It is

suggested that IIP is not accounting for everything in its achievement by not

measuring any skills of external stakeholders, such as those voluntarily contributed

by consultants.

44

It would be interesting to measure consultants’ voluntary contributions, and its

benefits, to fully report on how they contribute to IIP. In regard to business

performance, De Waal (2015) argues that,

the notion that organisations adopt IIP for two main reasons, obtaining

benefit by association or obtaining benefit by practice, provides another

possibility for future research on the link between the reasons for

implementing IIP and the organisational results achieved. A difference could

be expected because, for instance, organisations that adopt IIP in order to

benefit by association are unlikely to benefit in terms of performance, as in

these cases IIP has had no part in improving organisational practice. De Waal

(2015, p.678).

This argument is important, as IIP is branded as a way of improving complete

business performance, however the literature around it does not consider the

performance of all stakeholders, including consultants. With regard to the standard

De Waal, (2015) continues,

… the introduction of the new sixth version of the IIP Standard offers another

avenue for research and calls for more research. The effects of this new

Standard should be closely monitored to see whether the move towards a

high-performance framework will change perceptions of whether IIP

increases organisational performance. De Waal, (2015, p.678).

45

It can be argued that an organisation can have some increased competitive advantage

by adopting IIP; however, it has been discussed that it is not a comprehensive

measure of everything that leads to its achievement. A potential limitation of IIP is

that it focuses exclusively on the contributions of paid employees and board

members with some input from traditional volunteers. While the skills of these

stakeholders are central to achieving IIP, it may be worth considering the skills of

consultants in its attainment, because IIP has also been criticised for its neglect of the

issue of skills by Hoque, (2008) and Hoque and Bacon, (2008).

Advocates of the argument for skills include Smith et al, (2014, p.266) who state

that, “commonly cited as key factors in the drive to increase competitiveness, are the

development and acquisition of skills and the nurturing of a “positive” training and

development culture within the workplace”. Smith et al continue,

The Leitch Report (2006), which reviewed skills and education in the UK,

has been one of the more recent initiatives in this domain. Since the

economic turmoil of 2008 and beyond, Lord Leitch’s words have become

more prescient: without increased skills, we would condemn ourselves to a

lingering decline in competitiveness, diminishing economic growth and a

bleaker future for all. (Leitch Report, 2006, p. 1).

However, despite this warning, there are still shortcomings in the literatures that are

associated with IIP’s stance on skills. For example, while discussing the IIP Fifth

Generation Framework, Smith et al, (2014, p.274) argued that their, “findings

strongly align with viewpoints in the literature, whereby IIP is criticized for its

46

limited impact on training and development practices and the ease with which

organizations can secure recognition.

Smith et al, (2014, p. 274) continue that, “the data therefore raise a number of points

of concern and trepidation concerning the Standard. Indeed, IIP recognition may

simply represent external recognition, a ‘badge’ or ‘plaque on the wall’”. This, it is

suggested is for what the organisation is already doing anyway and, Smith et al

continue, “this could provide one explanation as to why IIP recognized organizations

may outperform non-IIP recognized organizations” as, “IIP status is merely a by-

product of recognition for the improvements already actively implemented. The

organizations studied were seeking external recognition for prior accomplishments

and were not using IIP as a tool by which to engender quality improvement”. This is

where the argument for what IIP actually helps organisations achieve is needed.

Being able to measure everything that contributes to its achievement would go some

way to giving an accurate account of what actually leads to the organisational,

‘outerperformance’ in the new Sixth Generation Framework as advocated by Devoy,

(2015). It is suggested that by measuring all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to

the organisational benefit of achieving IIP, it could produce a more meaningful

measure for, ‘outerperformance’.

Continuing with the argument that IIP is just a badge, Smith et al, (2014, p.275)

maintain that, “further research is also needed beyond the six organizations studied

here in order to fully understand why IIP recognized companies appear to

outperform non-IIP organizations”. Further research could consider measuring all

47

voluntary contributions as well as the outcome of the skills that benefit all an

organisations’ stakeholders. Smith et al, (2014) continue,

… nevertheless, this paper importantly highlights that IIP may not be the

transformative change tool it claims to be. Thus, it is suggested that there is a

timely need for government agencies to revisit how the principles of IIP are

introduced and embedded into organizations. Smith et al, (2014, p.275).

Any updates could consider the skills of all an organisations stakeholders, including

the voluntary skills contributed by consultants. Smith et al, (2014, p.275), continue

to criticise IIP by stating that there is a need for more empirical studies. With regard

to their findings, Smith et al, (2014, p.275) argue that, “ultimately, these findings

hold significant doubts concerning the relevance and usefulness of the Standard and

its potential to deliver an improved future for UK organizations”. Smith et al agree

with the earlier literature in that IIP recognition is still associated with it being a,

‘badge’. Whereas, if IIP included a measurement for all stakeholders’ contributions,

it may confirm that it is not just a badge.

Overall there are some limitations of IIP as it does not show the contribution of all

stakeholders, or its benefits. The literature does not consider any voluntary

contributions of consultants. Therefore, it may not show how the outcome of IIP

accreditation is actually achieved. The main focus of IIP is on whether stakeholders

receive enough training to enable them to support their own continuous

improvement, as well as that of the organisation. However, as all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions to the benefit of achieving IIP are not considered then it may

48

not be a comprehensive measure of continuous improvement. IIP is marketed as a

benchmark and that reaching the recognisable standard ensures organisational

sustainability. There is also some focus on whether top managers such as board

members provide strong inspirational leadership in order to maximise business

potential, but any contributions made by consultants remain unmeasured. IIP also

advocates dispersed leadership throughout organisations, yet De Waal, (2015) found

that it is usually associated with top leaders and managers. While Hoque, argues

(2003) that it is an international standard with a recognised logo, or badge, and Berry

and Grieves, (2003, p. 302) call it a trophy. Some funding contracts’ scores are

weighted in IIP’s favour, and a contract may be lost on the quality marks score

alone. So, it is important for organisational financial sustainability to show how

quality marks such as IIP are actually achieved.

Another approach that is connected to the idea of stakeholders and improving

organisations is Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR). CSR gives back to the

community and encourages social relationships by including external stakeholders in

an organisation’s mission. The mission provides vision and a clear purpose. CSR is

promoted as a benefit to society in that influences transparency, image and loyalty. It

accounts for the relationship between an organisation and society and relies on

stakeholders volunteering their time for free to attend meetings and briefings. An

example is large windfarm projects distributing community benefit funds for

voluntary groups in the area that is affected by their work. Yet, like IIP it does not

currently measure any of the contributions of consultants who are often

commissioned to communicate the organisation’s mission in the community. They

also lead on organisational improvements such as CSR. CSR generally argues that if

49

organisations look after the communities in which they are based then the

community will support its mission. It is the idea that a strategic and integrated

approach is important and that both IIP and CSR create a favourable impression of

the organisation in its community, which for CSR also includes stakeholders such as

the Welsh Government, according to Brooks and Evans, (2005). They are both

aligned to value and creating the right impression, as argued by Branco and

Rodrigues, (2007) and De Waal, (2015). CSR is not only concerned with economics,

but the social aspect too and the integration of all an organisation’s functions, not

just finance, marketing or HR departments as part of a communication strategy.

Gronroos, in (1990, pp.6-14) states that, “trust and commitment” are the products of

good communication. Communication is about how organisations send messages, as

a continual process and Schramm, in (1973, p.12) found that, “in fact, it is

misleading to think of the communication process as starting somewhere and ending

somewhere. It is really endless. We are little switchboard centres handling and

rerouting the great endless current of information”. This communication may be

undertaken by all stakeholders. However, this is not acknowledged in the CSR

literature, which is mainly concerned with the trust and commitment of the

community in which it is based. In support of a positive current of information in the

community Branco and Rodrigues, (2007) advocate a stakeholder view that

considers environmental protection. They also discuss the management of human

resources, internal and external relationships as well as health and safety.

CSR manages the risk of legal sanctions by abiding by rules, but goes further than

just legal requirements. This is supported by Brooks, (2005, p.403), who states that,

50

“it follows the claim that CSR is a strategic issue is to claim that it should be

considered as an integrated practice across the organisation and should not be

thought of as the domain of any particular function”. This statement means that CSR

is not just in the domain of HR, finance or marketing, or indeed any particular

category of stakeholder, yet it does not measure any voluntary contributions of

consultants. While the literature around CSR provides important insight into

particular stakeholder categories, such as community members, it should be noted

that the literature does not consider the role of consultants. This may be because,

according to Mendelow, (1991) consultants appear as external stakeholders, but so

do traditional volunteers which are considered in the CSR approach. This, it is

suggested, only gives a partial account of what actually contributes to CSR. In order

for CSR to be completely integrated it should consider the contributions of all an

organisations’ stakeholders, paid or unpaid, and the benefits they bring to achieving

an organisation’s mission.

The CSR approach shows that an organisation is citizen-centric and that stakeholders

are involved in its activities in a comparable way to IIP. It also utilises the balanced

scorecard method of Kaplan and Norton, (1996) which balances an organisations

internal and external environment. CSR is also comparable to IIP as it is about the

values of senior leaders who push them forward in their strategies. CSR does,

however exclude consultants and any voluntary contributions in the same way as IIP;

therefore it also gives an incomplete measure of how it is achieved. It can promote

the organisation to customers and prospective future employees, but, CSR is always

led by internal employees and board members. Consultants often lead on strategies

51

like CSR, yet they are not fully recognised for any of their voluntary contributions to

the organisations’ relationships with the community.

CSR accounts for the relationship between an organisation and society, which is one

of the functions often provided by consultants. Consultants can provide training and

introduce the organisation’s mission to stakeholders. Its main argument is whether it

is economic or social responsibility that leads to sustainability. It can be argued that

it is both, but neither aspect is fully reported on in the current literature. It is

suggested that this is because all stakeholders and their voluntary contributions are

not presently acknowledged, or its benefits reported on. It is not a legal requirement

to report formally on any voluntary contributions, but it would give a more complete

picture if strategies like CSR went further than its legal requirements.

Seitanidi, (2009, abstract), an advocate of CSR states that, “the role of accountability

is prominent in safeguarding that the voices of the internal and external stakeholders

are being heard”. While CSR considers the importance of communicating with

traditional volunteers, who are external stakeholders, it does not acknowledge any

voluntary contribution of its consultants. Externally, consultants may speak

favourably of the organisations that commission them, giving examples of good

practice, which could provide free marketing.

Kaplan and Norton, (1996) also consider the internal and external environment in

their balanced scorecard approach. With regard to managing the internal

environment, CSR “addresses morals and values in managing an organisation”

according to Freeman, (1984, p.12). IIP also addresses values in its framework,

52

according to De Waal, (2015a). CSR influences value, loyalty and image and

creating a strong impression by considering the interests of all parties affected by an

organisation’s actions. Creating a good impression is related to marketing and is

fundamental to organisational survival by attracting consumers to its services over

the long term. CSR is also responsible for an organisation’s ethics, legal and finance

functions as well as its own organisational philanthropy. But it does not take the

philanthropy of all its stakeholders into account because it does not consider any

voluntary contributions of consultants. CSR ensures survival through profits but also

has social considerations. There are benefits for both businesses and the community

in which the organisation is based.

There is a substantial amount of literature on CSR found in accounting journals

according to Huang and Watson, (2015) and is the way of managing all an

organisation’s activities and their impact. However, it can be argued that CSR does

not manage all an organisations stakeholders’ contributions or their impact. Even

though CSR places the organisation favourably in the community, so that the

economic welfare of society is maximised, it could go much further by including all

stakeholder categories, their voluntary contributions and its benefits. CSR involves

the community to ensure that it complies with its ethical and legal obligations. While

there is some crossover, IIP reports on the investment of upskilling people. While the

literatures around both IIP and CSR provide important measures for organisational

success for internal stakeholders, they are limited in that do not consider any

voluntary contribution of time, knowledge, skills and the free marketing that may be

made by the consultants. There are clearly many benefits of such behaviour that

includes the delivery of effective public services and goods, organisational

53

sustainability, survival and improvements. Volunteering helps achieve quality marks,

competitive advantage, benchmarking, increased performance, good citizenship,

social inclusion, social enterprise, knowledge and skills. As well as increased human

capital, community benefits, individual wellbeing, goodwill, capability, loyalty,

entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment and innovation.

Traditional volunteering helps to strengthen programmes and provides recognition,

accreditation and ‘outerperformance’ as well as positive promotion, image and

reputation. It supports best practice, better financial performance, increased

competitiveness, a positive training and development culture, continuous

improvement, health and safety, complying with legalities, value, loyalty and image,

ethics, legal and finance functions. These benefits are partially contributed by

external stakeholders, such as consultants, yet they are not fully accounted for or

measured in the literature. Having considered the potential voluntary contributions

made by consultants and the resulting benefits, the next section examines non-profit

studies and the impact of traditional volunteers who are also external stakeholders

according to Mendelow, (1991).

2.3 Non-profit Studies: Traditional Volunteering and its Impact

According to Mendelow, (1991) traditional volunteers have low power but a high

level of interest in an organisation. There is a significant body of literature that

typically focuses on traditional volunteers such as Social Capital, Mass

Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering and

The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA). Social Capital is something

54

that people can accumulate through their social networks, which has payback for the

volunteers themselves, society and organisations, resulting in a threefold benefit.

There are matrices, audits and measures that capture traditional voluntary

contributions and social capital, for example, measures the degree of individual

volunteers’ contacts, information and support that is translated into benefits for

society through social action. Putnam, (2001) and Wang et al, (2016) describe how

the amount of personal social capital has a positive correlation with the amount of

volunteering undertaken. While Hof, (2005, p.1) describes mass collaboration as,

“people power” and volunteers have the power to influence what they want on their

terms. Another approach from the literature is the contribution of the third sector,

which measures voluntary resources to third sector organisations and is advocated by

the WCVA, (2013), Browne et al, (2013) and Mahdi, (2016). This payback on

traditional volunteering is supported by Fujiwara, (2012) Haldane, (2014) and

O’Donnel et al, (2014) who agree that while people contribute voluntarily, they

receive benefits back to themselves. This can be partially measured in the

volunteering and value audit, (VIVA) which is advocated by Gaskin, (2011) and

shows the profit and loss of managing volunteers. First Social Capital examined and

is defined by Bourdieu in Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992) as,

…the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a

group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less

institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. This

may also be called community cohesion and plays an important role in the

delivery of key public services. Volunteering is also good for the volunteer: it

helps improve health and wellbeing and provides opportunities for

55

individuals to acquire skills and knowledge that can enhance career

development or employment prospects. Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992, p.2).

Social Capital also benefits the organisation, the individual and the community and

Liddle, (2003) and Cornforth, (2012, 2015) argue that decision making at a local

level is encouraged through the participation of all stakeholders. What social capital

does measure is the degree of individual volunteers’ social reserves of contacts,

information and support that is translated into benefits for society through social

action. This is as a result of community participation. It is aligned to civil society,

associations, social connectedness, civic engagement and trust. While monetary

rewards for these societal outcomes may be de-motivators for the prosocial acts of

traditional volunteers as they may be concerned about their reputations if they are

rewarded financially. People may fear not being seen as truly altruistic, if they are

paid, according to Carpenter and Knowles Myers, (2007). In agreement with this

Smith, (2006) also argues that people volunteer purely for the benefit of others and

do not expect any financial reward. It is suggested that the WCVA’s, (2013)

calculation for the hourly rates of pay for volunteering, does not reflect the true

effect of social capital to families, civic society or organisations as it only considers

traditional volunteering.

The literature does not consider the voluntary contributions of all stakeholders,

particularly around the contribution of their skills. For example, children of educated

people may be healthier because they have higher birth weights by the education of

the mothers around smoking according to Moretti, (2005, p.3). In agreement with

this, Wang et al, (2016, p.5) state that, “social capital, defined as a person’s social

56

networks, has been found to play a critical role in creating opportunity structures for

voluntary participation”. Wang et al also found positive correlation between

volunteering and personal social capital. They continue, “Social Capital provides

links to other members of society and is an important source of support, information,

and further social contacts, (Putnam 2001)”, Wang et al, (2016, p.5). Putnam’s,

(2001) work around social capital includes people voluntarily manning outposts,

branches of institutions or organisations and is mostly associated with women.

According to Putnam, (1995) female contributions declined as a result of more

women taking on paid employment in the 1960s and 1970s. With regard to

accounting for the benefits of social capital, Carpenter and Knowles Myers, (2007)

found that,

volunteers may value monetary rewards, but such rewards can also have the

indirect and presumably unanticipated e ect of discouraging prosocialff

behaviour among those who care about being perceived as altruistic.

Carpenter and Knowles Myers, (2007, p.21).

This is linked to the expectancy theory of Vroom, (1964, 1970, p.39) which argues

that, “one good deed will lead to another”. One of the outcomes is the benefit is to

the volunteers’ reputations. Carpenter and Knowles Myers’ research is only related

to the altruism of traditional volunteers and they agree that social capital benefits

organisations. However, there is currently no measure for how social capital benefits

organisations, only organisations. Of course, it may not be a good thing if volunteers

take the work of paid employees in the current economic climate.

57

In relation to this, Blackadder and Jackson, (2011, p.2), The TUC, (2012) and

Volunteering England, (2012) have identified the need for cohesion between paid

workers and traditional volunteers. There are theories that argue the fact that people

function best when they coalesce because some paid employees may also contribute

time to their organisations that they are not paid for. This makes them volunteers too,

although not in the traditional sense. Historically, in discussing the goodwill and

reputational outcomes of volunteering, Adam Smith, (1759 and republished in (2006,

p.3) in his, ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ argues that, “societies function best when

economic interests and ethical interests coalesce”. His landmark work is the original

theory of, “conscience, moral judgement and virtue”. Smith, (2006, p.3) continues,

“how selfish soever a man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in

his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness

necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing

it”.

This altruism is fundamental in that it is linked to social capital, which is also

defined by Cots, (2011, p.334) as having three main benefits of stakeholder social

capital which are, “(1) as a solidarity weaver;” (coalescing), “(2) as a mechanism for

managing collective action;” (voting, participation, collective action, networking)

“and (3) as a facilitator of intellectual capital”, (skills and education) “… among the

firm and its stakeholders”. Social Capital claims to help tackle poverty, yet while the

approach provides some important understanding, is suggested that there is no

measure of everything that is voluntarily contributed by all stakeholders and this is a

limitation of the literature. Mass Collaboration is another approach from the

literature that relies on the voluntary involvement of people.

58

Mass Collaboration is a resource for organisational improvement and a way of

measuring people’s voluntary involvement in the design of services and products.

Proponents of Mass Collaboration argue that it gives competitive advantage over

other organisations, as people may buy into and support the services that they helped

to design. Field, (2009, p.2) argues that, “mass collaboration has had a substantial

impact on a number of information based domains, notably software development”

that is made possible by technology. It supports ‘people power’ and Hof, (2005, p.1)

defines Mass Collaboration as, “the power of us” by the sharing of resources such as

personal computers for, “no central capital investment – just the willingness of its

users to share”.

This cooperation and participation is a force that may be contributing to the economy

through GDP and Public Value, but it is suggested that a measurement of this kind of

voluntary participation is not measured in the Mass Collaboration approach at

present, or in the measure for GDP. Mass Collaboration helps stakeholders to design

and create products and services, who then automatically become customers, or

service users through the use of technology. Stakeholders influence what they want

on their terms as they have the power to demand the services that they want. Mass

Collaboration also promotes the sharing of company secrets to gain trust and can be

aligned to ‘autopoiesis’, which is advocated by Maturana and Variella, (1992) and

describes people acting in a force that is greater than the sum of the parts. This is

also beneficial as the volunteers can acquire shares in the company that they provide

predictions for. Through Mass Collaboration people use their own mobile phones

and computers to cast their votes, for example.

59

In comparison, Mass Collaboration can be likened to Social Capital as it refers to

networks of the volunteers; they are potential customers volunteering their time to

give feedback. Increased voting is also one of the outcomes of social capital,

Putnam, (2001) and Wang et al, (2016). Mass Collaboration helps to design citizen-

centric products and services. It can be aligned to the SERVQUAL (service and

quality) model advocated by Parasuraman et al, (1991, pp.420-450) and supported by

Marshall and Murdock, (2005). It forms service users’ opinions on the quality of a

service so that customer’s needs are be satisfied. Mass Collaboration can augment

community participation by showing payback to the community itself. People get

together to tell the organisations which services they want.

Mass Collaboration can be considered a benefit of the volunteers’ time for the good

of the community. It measures voluntary participation by increased votes such as in

the Obama election, for example. Volunteers got up early on voting day and texted

reminders to the electorate. They also provided coffee and cakes as an incentive at

polling booths, simply because of their loyalty to the cause. Mass Collaboration

partially measures the interventions of traditional volunteers in this way by counting

increased votes, but it does not measure the number of volunteer hours contributed,

or if there was any volunteering by any of the other stakeholder categories such as

paid employees. The increased participation of traditional volunteers in developing

goods and services can be measured but the Mass Collaboration approach, but the

literature does not consider the voluntary contributions of all stakeholders, or its

benefits. It provides a valuable understanding of stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions but there is no current way of pulling all the approaches together to

60

give an all-encompassing measure for the benefits of what is being contributed. Mass

Collaboration partially communicates the benefits of people voluntarily working

together to enable citizen-centric services in a traditional volunteering role.

However, it disregards the totality of the other volunteering stakeholder categories

and their contributions.

Another approach that examines traditional volunteering is The Contribution of the

Third Sector, which measures the voluntary resources of third sector organisations.

One aspect of this is what Browne et al, (2013, p.17) describe as, “micro-

volunteering, which is a short time burst of volunteering with bare minimum

formality”. Doing it could lead to formal volunteering which is associated with

regular hours per month, and according to Wang et al, (2016),

during the course of an individual’s life, it is likely that he or she will move

back and forth across a ‘spectrum’ of volunteer activities — from the most

informal and direct to the most formal and mediated (Williams 2003). The

relationship between formal and informal volunteering may be influenced by

an individual’s gender, race, education, income, employment, marital status,

the presence of children, and immigrant status. Furthermore, individuals’

social networks, community connections, associational participation, and

other related factors might have different influences on the proclivity to

volunteer formally and informally. Wang et al, (2016, pp.3-4).

The spectrum that is presented by Wang et al, (2016) could also include paid

employees who are on parental leave, for example as volunteering during that time

61

would enable skills and social networks to be kept updated. So, someone could go

from a paid employee to a volunteer and back again. However, while the measure for

The Contribution of the Third Sector gives a partial insight into what is happening in

society, it only accounts for traditional volunteering. There is presently no measure

for the unpaid work that consultants or paid employees contribute in austere times or

even the benefit of the hours that are contributed by board members.

The Contribution of the Third Sector can be associated with the connectivity of

social capital that is brought about by informal volunteering as suggested by Putnam,

(2001). Also in alignment with informal volunteering, Wang et al, (2016, p.5-6)

continue that, “… there is extensive literature on formal volunteering, predominantly

in the US context, with only a handful of empirical studies that have focused on

informal volunteering. In addition, different views exist on how formal and informal

volunteering are related”. Wang suggests that they are related by a number of factors

that include demographics, age and sex. Informal volunteering could include the

voluntary contributions of the other stakeholder categories too, but there is nothing

in the literature that acknowledges this. The WCVA, (2011, 2013, 2016) publish

various documents on the contributions of traditional volunteers in Wales and show

how volunteering contributes to GDP as a benefit to society. In the WCVA’s, (May

2011) briefing paper, which highlighted The Contribution of the Third Sector, it is

stated that,

however, the voluntary contribution of the Third Sector cannot simply be

evaluated through financial means or conventional economic data or the

number of employees it has. As an industry, the Third Sector is underpinned

62

by a shadow labour force of volunteers. The time given by volunteers has an

estimated value of £1.6 billion. WCVA, (May 2011, p.1).

This approach measures actual volunteer time contributed by traditional volunteers,

but does not consider the benefits of the volunteering contributed by any of the other

stakeholder categories. This estimated value increased to £2.2bn in May 2013,

according to the WCVA, (2013, p.1). "If we combine the value of volunteers with

the income of the Third Sector in Wales, the Third Sector generates 7% of the GDP

of Wales. This is similar to the construction industry in Wales”. This 7% could be

used as a benchmark to account for all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, which

is presently ignored in the literature and in organisational financial annual reports,

because the regulators do not ask for or require it. If it is accounted for in future then

the figure of 7% could be vastly increased and it is this that is going unaccounted for

at present. The WCVA, (May 2013, p.1) reported, that, “volunteers make a

significant contribution, in unpaid hours’, to the economy of Wales. It is estimated

that every year volunteers contribute 191 million hours’, which is worth £2.2 bn.

This is equivalent to nearly 5% of Wales’ GDP”. The WCVA, (2016) published

figures of £3.7bn, which is equivalent to 6.8% of GDP in 2016.

It could be much higher and in support of this argument Mahdi, (2016) describes

austerity and how the contribution of the third sector could lead to organisational

sustainability by strengthening planning and good governance. Yet, there is no

comprehensive current measure for the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions in the third or any other sector. So, the headline figure of 6.8% does

not tell the whole story. While each of these literatures provides important insights

into traditional volunteering, there is nothing that draws on each stakeholder

63

categories’ voluntary contributions to pull them all together and measure everything

that is being contributed.

The literature around Payback on Volunteering is another approach to measuring

traditional voluntary contributions. It argues that there is payback, or benefits, on

volunteering to both the individual and society, but also focuses only on traditional

volunteering. For example, Fujiwara, (2012, pp.1, 2 and 9) found that for adults,

participating in a part-time course the payback is, “a greater likelihood that people

volunteer on a regular basis, which has a value of £130 to the individual”. Their

work also took into consideration the demographics and lifestyles of volunteers

finding that, “married, middle-aged and elderly individuals, as well as people with

large social networks dedicate more time to volunteering. Religiosity also correlated

strongly with volunteering” and can be aligned with the work of Putnam, (1995).

The voluntary contributions made by people to organisations with the result of them

benefiting from increased skills are considered to be benefit multipliers, according to

Haldane, (2014), and O’Donnel et al, (2014). The result of volunteering is that the

third sector is a growth sector may be attributed to the threefold benefit of voluntary

contributions to organisations, the community and the individuals themselves, yet it

is only partially measured. Social Capital and the Contribution of the Third Sector

can benefit society in the same way as the Payback on Volunteering approach and

also benefits the stakeholders themselves. As discussed, volunteering encourages

participation in health related activity and increased voting or decreases in

criminality according to Moretti, (2005), which are all benefits to society.

64

Another approach that attempts to measure traditional volunteering is called, The

Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA). This is an audit or ratio to

measure volunteering and is advocated by Gaskin, (2011, p.1), which shows the

profit and loss of managing volunteers. By undertaking the audit organisations gain

increased recognition in a comparable way to IIP. Through showing the due

diligence of good governance, organisations may benefit from more funding.

Contracts are also favourably weighted by an organisation’s due diligence as

advocated by the Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit (VIAT), which is

associated with VIVA and advocated by Volunteering England, (2011) as a measure

for traditional volunteering. The types of things that are measured include the

number of volunteer hours multiplied by the hourly rate for the job from The Office

for National Statistics, (ONS) (2012/13). VIAT measures money and the economic

value of volunteers and it can be used to lever in more funding by showing how well

an organisation governs its people through due diligence. An example of this is

linked to the strategic responsibilities of boards, yet their voluntary contributions are

not measured in the VIVA or VIAT approaches.

The general theory around Social Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of

The Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering and VIVA all professes to cut costs to

organisations through voluntary contributions. This enables them to gain the benefit

of better retention and recruitment of volunteers as well as recognition for

benchmarking. There are many gaps in the literature around fully reporting on all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and, it is suggested, that there are potential

business limitations for boards for failing to account for all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions and the benefits that it brings. At present the regulators do not expect

65

boards to report on all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions but it would give a

much more complete measure of organisational sustainability and how it contributes

to the productivity measured by GDP, and through Public Value if they did.

It has been established that the literature partially collects information on the benefits

of traditional volunteering to an organisation, but does not consider everything that

may be being voluntarily contributed as a result of stakeholders’ time, knowledge

and skills. The organisations, the community and the volunteers themselves benefit

from a number of outcomes as a result of their actions that include networking,

community cohesion, enhanced career development and employment prospects,

contacts, information and support, social action and participation, social

connectedness, civic engagement and trust. Also, free manned outposts, enhanced

reputations, increased voting, participation, collective action, networking decreases

in criminality, reduced poverty, citizen-centric design of services, people power,

payback for the community. Contributions to GDP, planning and good governance

though Public Value, £130 of new skills through volunteering to the individual,

participation in health-related activity, more funding for organisations through due

diligence. There is cost cutting because volunteers do the work for free, as well as

the recruitment and retention of volunteers, increased productivity, wellbeing and

social inclusion. Yet, most of these benefits are not being fully reported on at

present. This, it is suggested, is a limitation of the literature around traditional

volunteering.

There are other forms of volunteering in the literature that are associated with the

human resources of paid employees and their contributions, which will now be

66

investigated. It will be interesting to establish if they measure everything that may be

being voluntarily contributed, as well as any benefits of this activity. These

approaches include Human Capital, Virtual Human Resource Development,

(VHRD), The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and Human Resource

Accounting, (HRA).

2.4 Human Resource Management: Valuing and Measuring Paid Employees’

Contributions

Some approaches such as Human Capital, Virtual Human Resource Development,

(VHRD), The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and Human Resource

Accounting, (HRA) measure paid employees’ contributions to organisations. Paid

employees, according to Mendelow, (1991) have high power but a low level of

interest in an organisation. As such they may have increased Human Capital, which

measures an employee’s skills, health and education and suggests that it is a resource

for employees, as well as organisations. Aligned to the Human Capital approach is

the work of Weisbrod, (1966), who states that,

one of the early definitions in the literature revealed that human capital

represents resources which man (sic) has utilized to augment his personal

productivity. Expenditures on information, labour mobility, health, education

and training all are capable of enhancing the productive capacity of a worker

– his human capital. Weisbrod, (1966, p.6).

67

Human Capital is linked to the education, training, skills and experience of the

workforce. The approach of Human Capital is not interested in money but leadership

skills, for example. Human Capital shows how the HR function creates value by

return on the investment in skills in annual reports. However, while the literature

around Human Capital is valuable for the production of paid employees, it does not

currently include the skills and experience of any of the other stakeholder categories

of an organisation.

It has been established, through the literature, that there are a number of measures for

the contributions of traditional volunteers which do not measure the human capital of

paid employees and vice versa. These include Social Capital, Mass Collaboration

and VIVA, for example. There is a need for a way of reporting on all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions and the resulting benefits in an integrated way. With regard

to integrated reporting, there is a quality programme leading to, “smarter annual

reports” presented by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) that

attempt a more in depth measure of non-financial contributions. It includes the return

of the investment in paid employees. Integrated Reporting, (IR) is also advocated by,

Carruthers, (24th February 2015), who describes IR as a concept for explaining

organisational success and it is an important measure for non-financial returns on

investment. IR has also been advocated by Abeysekera, (2013) and De Villiers, et al,

(2014). In his, ‘Presentation to Welsh Government Integrated Reporting Steering

Group’, Carruthers, (24th February 2015), describes IR as a concept for explaining

organisational success.

IR shows a return on investment in people and money, as well as system and

management improvements but it does not tell the whole story of any voluntary

68

contributions made by paid employees and its benefits. Also, IR is only concerned

with paid employees’ at present and it does provide an important understanding of

what is invested into their development. It may, however give an ever better account

of organisational success if IR included the all stakeholders and any of their

voluntary contributions.

Most of the literatures examined involve contributions that paid employees make

through their Human Capital. It can be argued that some of these contributions may

be voluntary and it is possible to say that these contributions could be identified and

measured, even though they are not at present. Social Capital, which is about

connections to an individual’s community, is different from Human Capital which is

aligned to paid employees’ skills and productivity. Discussing Social Capital, Wang

et al, (2016, p.5) argue that, “in addition to formal memberships, an individual’s

connection to local communities and personal networks could influence the

likelihood of being asked to volunteer as well as obtaining information on

opportunities to volunteer, thereby increasing the propensity to volunteer for

organizations and help others”. Wang et al, however do not consider the propensity

of paid employees who may volunteer unpaid time to their organisations in their

work.

Wang et al, (2016, pp.8-9) also argue that, “there is a general consensus in the

literature that education, a component of human capital, increases the propensity to

volunteer for formal organizations ... However, working full time could also reduce

the free time available for unpaid voluntary work”. It is suggested here that people

who work may already be voluntarily contributing to their organisation by doing

69

unpaid work, but there is currently no measure for it or its benefits. In contrast

Blake, (2005) advocates that people who work do not have any time to volunteer

because they are, “worn out”. They may be worn out because they are doing over

and above what they are paid for in the current austere times. However, Blake was

discussing traditional volunteering that could be volunteered by paid employees to

organisations outside the organisations that they work for. It is suggested that this is

probably true, but that they are already volunteering within the organisations that

they are employed by, but that it is not recognised. This is supported by the work of

Danes et al, (2009, p.211) who argue that, “during financially difficult times, it could

be that human and social capital sustain small firms”. Yet, there is no measure for

how the social capital of traditional volunteers or the human capital of paid

employees actually sustains small firms because there is no comprehensive measure

for it. Bassi et al, (2015, p.71) agree that the usual reporting of Human Capital is too

narrow, and should be linked to measuring the creation of value. It does not report on

any voluntary human capital contributed by paid employees, so it does not tell the

whole story. Paid employees may be partially providing the benefit of organisational

sustainability through their voluntary contributions, although it is not presently

accounted for.

Virtual Human Resource Development, (VHRD) is another approach examined in

the literature. VHRD reports on human performance through technology. It may give

competitive advantage over other organisations that do not measure human

performance and report on it in this way. It treats employees’ competence as an asset

and gives it a value. Yet, it does not acknowledge any of the value of the other

stakeholder categories. VHRD was brought about by the technological advances in

70

learning and development of the workforce and is a performance framework which

measures workplace learning. Nafukho et al, (2010, p.648), undertook a literature

review in which they advocated that VHRD, “… demonstrates how technology can

be positively used to promote virtual learning, workplace learning and eventually

lead to performance improvement in the workforce”. However, VHRD does not

presently consider the knowledge, or human capital of all an organisation’s

stakeholders, or the benefits of any of their voluntary contributions. While it does

consider a wide range of performance indicators for paid employees, VHRD may be

enhanced even further if all stakeholders, and particularly the technological skills

they acquire through their

voluntary labour, are considered. Another approach from the literature that accounts

for the Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees is now presented.

The approach of the Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees accounts for the time that

people give over and above that which they are paid for. It could be associated with

the culture of a particular organisation, and is aligned to the work of Danes et al,

(2009). Paid employees may volunteer their time for the benefit of the organisation,

particularly in austere times, as has been discussed. However, they may also benefit

themselves through increased skills that enhance their human capital that may lead to

future promotion, for example. There are many ways in which paid employees

undertake duties that are over and above those that they are paid for, according to

Danes et al, (2009). Yet, the voluntary activity that is contributed by paid employees

is only considered in the approach from the literature on The Voluntary Labour of

Paid Employees. In agreement with the argument to report on the unpaid

volunteering of paid employees in this way Chum et al, (2013),

71

estimated that about two-thirds of a broad sample of nonprofits reported

some interchangeable tasks between paid employees and volunteers, and on

average the interchangeability involved 12 percent of the tasks. In other

words, interchangeability was widespread but across a narrow range of tasks.

The interchangeability went two ways: in some organizations volunteers

replaced paid employees, and in others paid employees replaced volunteers.

Chum et al, (2013, p.410).

It is suggested that this interchangeability also includes the benefits of the unpaid

work of paid employees, not only volunteers. While Chum et al, (2013, pp.411-412)

found that, “volunteers represent a primary human resource for nonprofit

organizations,” they do not discuss the voluntary contributions of paid employees.

However, their research does provide valuable insights into one particular

stakeholder category which is the unpaid work of traditional volunteers. Associated

with this, Chum et al, (2013, p.413) found that organisations that rely on volunteers

will, “find it impossible to substitute total volunteers with paid staff. In contrast, in

some organizations providing very specialized services (such as for medical services

in hospitals), it would be legally impossible to substitute paid staff with volunteers

for particular roles (Handy et al. 2008)”.

It is suggested that as a result of Chum’s work it may be the paid employees,

working voluntarily, who sustain firms in austere times which is in direct alignment

with the work of Danes et al, (2009). Also, in alignment with the work of Chum et

al, (2013), the value of volunteers is also supported by Banks, (2016). Banks

discussed traditional volunteering at an annual voluntary sector council conference.

72

He argued that voluntary organisations would not be able to survive without the

voluntary contribution of, “£625 million alone to replace the voluntary contributions

of traditional volunteers, including £156m to replace board members”. This is a valid

argument for the voluntary contributions of board members and traditional

volunteers, but it may cost a lot more to replace paid employees’ voluntary

contributions and the benefits that it brings to organisations. In relation to the

interchangeability of traditional volunteers working alongside paid employees,

Chum et al, (2013) also found that,

… various forms of organizational circumstances that create stress within an

organization and prompt changes in the allocation of human resources affect

interchangeability. Regarding the replacement of paid employees by

volunteers, we identified four such circumstances: an increase in workload

due to organizational growth, a shortage of paid employees, a sudden

increase in new tasks, and cost considerations. These circumstances explain

why certain tasks normally done by paid employees are done by volunteers

and why the organization must turn to volunteers for additional help. Chum

et al, (2013, p.423).

Yet, it can be argued that it is the additional help provided by the voluntary

contributions of paid employees taking on extra duties in austere times that are not

presently measured in the literature. This provides the benefit to the organisation of

cut costs. However, this kind of volunteering is not considered, nor is its benefits. If

it was considered it would greatly strengthen the relations between paid employee

volunteers and traditional volunteers.

73

‘The Charter for Strengthening Relations between Paid employees and Volunteers’

was jointly published by Volunteering England, (2012) and The TUC (2012). The

Charter states that, “the involvement of volunteers should complement and

supplement the work of paid employees, and should not be used to displace paid

employees or undercut their pay and conditions of service”. It is suggested that this

cannot be the case when the employees are supplementing their own paid work with

volunteering. Some paid employees may take work home at the weekend, for

example. Gregg and Marazzi, (2012, p.875) and Whyte, (1956, pp.8-9), called this

type of volunteering by paid employees, “habits and dispositions”. These habits and

dispositions may now be the culture as during austere times when people may feel

coerced into giving free time in order to save their jobs.

This is supported by Warshaw, (2004, p.3) who states that, “workplace volunteerism

is a growth industry within a growth industry”. Paid employees may do it in

expectation of some return to themselves through increased human capital that may

lead to promotion or more work in the future. Any voluntary contributions that

benefit the organisation or the benefits back to the paid employees are not currently

reported. There is nothing in the literature that measures everything that is being

voluntarily contributed by paid employees, or indeed all stakeholders. They may

contribute in the expectation of some benefit back to themselves and the notion of

expectancy theory, that one thing will lead to another, as a motivator is presented by

Maslow, (1943).

The notion of unpaid work is supported by the work of Gregg and Marazzi’s, (2012,

p.875) work which, “draws on classic studies of white collar work such as William F

74

Whyte’s The Organisation Man, (1956, pp.8-9). Whyte particularly describes

executives who work 50-60 hour weeks, making use of communications

technologies to enable evening and weekend working. “In one company, the top

executives have set up a pool of Dictaphones to service executives who want to take

them home, to do more night and weekend work. In almost all companies the five-

day week is pure fiction” (according to Whyte, cited in Gregg and Marazzi, (pp.8-

9)). For Whyte, the executive is a driven individual, working not as a service to the

company but, “because his ego demands it”. Also, according to Gregg and Marazzi,

“the working habits and dispositions of executives have now been adopted by

ordinary workers – but without pay, status or job security”. It may be because their

egos demand it, which motivates them to continue volunteering in this way, Gregg

and Marazzi, (pp.8-9). It may benefit their reputations as argued by Carpenter and

Knowles Myers, (2007), or it may give them self-esteem. It may be because paid

employees are anxious of losing their jobs in these austere times, so they may learn

extra skills by taking more work on to give themselves the benefit of competitive

advantage over their colleagues.

The opportunity for competitive advantage of this kind exist for volunteers at any

level in organisations, and Taylor and McAdam, (2003, p.382) suggest that,

“congruence”, which means similarity and equivalence, should exist between all

employees, “both paid and unpaid”. In relation to this, Blackadder and Jackson,

(2011) empathise that,

we take on board real concerns about the loss of the skills when employees

are made redundant, and fears that successful volunteer programmes may

75

influence future employment policy and budgets. However, as long as

volunteers are not exploited, we must acknowledge that involving more of

them has the potential to bring many benefits, including widening

participation and improving services if and only if, there is appropriate

investment in their management. Blackadder and Jackson, (2011, p.2).

Blackadder and Jackson’s study refers to traditional volunteers and there is no

reference to the benefits of the voluntary work of paid employees. The Voluntary

Labour of Paid Employees provides an important insight into the paid employees’

stakeholder category and provides some crossover with traditional volunteering. In

order to fully account for what is happening in organisations, it would be useful if

there was an approach which also considered any of the other stakeholder categories’

voluntary contributions and its benefits, in the same way as the investment of money

currently is.

Whilst the accounting literature is concerned with the benefit of the investment of

money, Human Resource Accounting (HRA) reports on the results of investing in

human resources. The HRA approach is a valuable tool for collecting information on

the activity that employees are paid for, but it is suggested that any volunteer time

that they contribute is not currently reported on. In support of this, Chum et al,

(2013) state that,

… the number of volunteers was a strong predictor variable for the

percentage of tasks normally done by volunteers that can also be done by

paid employees. One hypothesis to explain this finding is that organizations

76

in the study lacked adequate volunteer management resources to manage

large numbers of volunteers and therefore relied to a greater extent on paid

employees to handle tasks previously done by volunteers. Chum et al, (2013,

pp.422-423).

The work of Chum et al goes some way to acknowledging the pressure that paid

employees may feel in austere times. They may feel coerced into doing extra or even

unpaid work, managing volunteers, when there is a threat of redundancies, for

example. Yet, this voluntary work and its benefits to organisations are unaccounted

for in the HRA approach. HRA is defined by Birnberg, (2011, p.594) as, “the

process of identifying and measuring data about human resources and

communicating this information to an interested party”. This includes the number of

years employees have worked for a company and their motivation. It is argued that it

promotes competitive advantage over organisations that do not measure human

resources in this way. It can be used to show turnover of staff, for example which is

a measure of good management of human resources. It can be argued, however, that

there is no one model or method of calculating the value of all human resources,

whether paid or unpaid. The literature on HRA does not consider all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions as it does not include any resources provided by consultants,

paid employees, or the unpaid systems of management that are provided by board

members, for example. In support of management systems, Bullen and Flamholz,

(1967, p.947), wrote that, “… the history of HRA illustrates how academic research

can generate improvement in management systems”. In relation to this, Bullen and

Eyler, (2009) also state that,

77

accountants and others in the financial reporting environment have become

accustomed to using more complex measurement approaches to the financial

statement reported amounts. This would lend support to the possibility that

future financial reports may include non-traditional contributions, such as the

value of human resources using HRA methods. Bullen and Eyler, (2009, p.2).

It is suggested that HRA would give human resources a more complete value if it

included all stakeholders’ and any voluntary contributions and the benefits that they

bring. This would go some way to expand on an all-encompassing account of all

stakeholders’ human resources. As discussed, Flamholtz et al, (2002, p.947)

advocate that HRA has implications, “for measuring human capital for financial

reporting and managerial uses”. It considers the tangible investment of time and

money in HRA for accounting purposes, which gives a return on that investment.

The approaches from the literature on Human Capital, Virtual Human Resource

Development, (VHRD) and The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees provide an

essential understanding into one particular category of stakeholder, paid employees.

The benefits they provide are acknowledged in the literature and include the fact that

their voluntary contributions may sustain firms in austere times. As a result, they

also benefit communities. They may also volunteer some time that leads to increased

skills, health and education, productivity, experience through management

improvements. They undertake virtual learning, workplace learning that may lead to

performance improvement, promotion or job security. This cuts costs, strengthens

the relations between paid employee volunteers and traditional volunteers, which

results in personal self-esteem and ego. It gives competitive advantage over

colleagues, widening participation and improving services as well as self-motivation.

78

However, the approaches from the literature could be pulled together to identify all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and the benefits that it leads to in the same way

that some accountancy approaches currently do. Some approaches that do account

for and measure contributions and its benefits that are used to report to boards

include Return on Capital Employed (ROCE), Return on Talent, (ROT) and Social

Capital and are now examined.

2.5 Accounting For and Measuring Contributions

Board members are the stakeholders who are responsible for the due diligence of

organisations through properly accounting for its activities and making strategic

decisions. According to Mendelow, (1991) they have high power and a high level of

interest. A number of the approaches to measuring contributions are drawn from

accounting techniques and reporting and include Return on Capital Employed

(ROCE), Return on Talent, (ROT) and Social Capital. ROCE is also a measure of the

return on financial capital employed that can be reported to boards. It is desirable for

organisations to have high ROCE and Singh and Yadav, (2013, p.1) state that, “high

ROCE is a validation of a company’s competitive advantage”. The Return on Capital

Employed is concerned with the return on money that is invested in various stocks

and shares, for example, and is usually reinvested back into organisations, which

may give shareholders the propensity to invest more money.

As part of competitive advantage, ROCE demonstrates strong leadership and

management. The board members endorse the spending of money (capital employed)

79

to enable a number of training activities, for example. This may include the

investment of training for paid employees, as well as board members, to ensure that

they have the right skills to take the organisation forward strategically. This also

increases their human capital employed. ROCE is unlike the other approaches as it

does not advocate any measuring those increased skills. It does, however, highlight

an important aspect of reporting on financial investments. The literature on ROCE

does not consider how the skills and talent of consultants, traditional volunteers, paid

employees or of the board members themselves lead to the benefit of organisational

sustainability. This benefit may be being partially achieved by some voluntary

contributions of all stakeholders, but it is not considered in the ROCE approach.

Measuring the return on talent is however related to the approach of Return on

Talent.

Return on Talent (ROT) is a measure of money invested in workforce talent as

advocated by Chowdhury, (2007, p.1). Boards must analyse how much talent results

from their financial investment. ROT acknowledges how talent, through skills, may

contribute to organisational success for competitive advantage. However, the

literature around ROT does not consider any of the other stakeholder categories, only

the talent of paid employees. It does not consider any of the skills of consultants or

traditional volunteers, for example. ROT is like the, Return on Investment in Talent,

(ROIT) advocated by Deloitte, (2014). Deloitte, (2014, p.4) advocates a metric that

analyses it called, “five steps to calculating your gross and net return on invested

talent … return on invested talent (or ROIT)”. The five steps are, “1. Overarching

ROIT, 2. Working capital, 3. Calculating invested capital,” which is related to

ROCE, “4. Calculating the capital charge, and 5. Underlying ROIT”. Deloitte’s

80

(2014, p.12) research summarises, that, “corporate leaders must be able to make

evidence-based strategic choices to drive the performance of their business”. Yet, it

is suggested that corporate leaders, such as board members do not have all the

evidence on which to base their strategic choices. While measuring the talent of paid

employees goes some way to reporting on one stakeholder category, it would give an

even better indicator of success if all stakeholders’ talent, including the unpaid skills

of board members, could be accounted for in this way. In support of this, Rajesh and

Bajpayee, (2009) state that,

... there remains a great deal of ambiguity over the idea of managing talent as

an asset. It is a payback from investment in people and a return on invested

talent like ROIT. While organisations commit huge investment in talent and

incur heavy costs on it, rarely do CEOs have visibility on the returns on talent

employed, (ROTE). Rajesh and Bajpayee, (2009, p.2).

However, in austere times it has been established that it is paid employees’ voluntary

contributions are what help to partially keep organisations afloat, Danes et al, (2009),

so there are no heavy costs involved. Organisational sustainability is aligned to ROT

and Chowdhury, (2011) suggests,

to focus a successful organisation, managers must use a new tool called

Return On Talent, (ROT). Most organisations focus on Return On

Investment, (ROI), also known as ROCE, and fail to understand the key

strategy of how to increase ROI by increasing ROT. ROT = Knowledge

generated and applied - Investment in talent. Chowdhury, (2011, p.1).

81

This calculation gives the talent of paid employees a value, which could also be

applied to the talent as a benefit of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. This

would give a more complete picture of the literature around ROT. Although ROT

measures an important aspect of one category of stakeholder at present, it could be

expanded on to include the talent of all stakeholders and give boards a much clearer

account of the value of skills within an organisation. It could also take account of the

benefits of any voluntary contributions.

Social Value is another approach from the literature that seeks to measure voluntary

contributions in delivering social benefits. It is often outlined in a clause in the

procurement of contracts drawn from accounting in the same way as ROCE and

ROT. The Public Services (Social Value) Act, 2012, written by Parliament, is, “an

Act to require public authorities to have regard for economic, social and

environmental wellbeing in connection with public services contracts; and for

connected purposes, 8th March 2012”. It is similar in this way to the Well-being of

Future Generations (Wales) Act, (2015) anaw 2. It has been produced by the Welsh

Government as an act, ‘to establish public service boards in local authority areas to

plan and take action in pursuit of economic, social, environment and cultural

wellbeing in the area; for connected purposes’. It has been recognised by law that all

procurement of contracts must now have regard for a social, aspect and it is presently

only the time of traditional volunteers that is weighted in applications. The voluntary

time of all stakeholders is presently ignored in the procurement process.

The Act continues that, “all contracts must comply with the new requirements,

‘before’ starting the process of procurement”. The act exists to ensure that

82

communities are at the heart of service delivery in a similar way to CSR and

contracts are weighted towards this. There is an emphasis on the social side of public

service delivery, see Liddle, (2003) and Cornforth, (2012, 2015) who agree that

boards have to manage the shift from grant funding to contracts with local

authorities. Social Value is mostly aligned to delivering public services and takes

into account what service users want in the planning of those services in contacts.

However, their voluntary contributions are not fully acknowledged in the Social

Value approach.

In her article to the Public Sector Commissioners on how to include social value in

contracts, Ingliss, (2012) states that,

ironically, given the name of the Public Services (Social Value) Act,

commissioners could probably satisfy their duties under it without any

reference to the relative importance of outcomes; i.e. value. Value can

include potential savings but it can also include some prioritisation of

outcomes for which there is no market price. Ingliss, (2012, p.2).

Ingliss refers to intangibles such as goodwill, branding, capability and loyalty, which

could be associated with all categories of stakeholder. Aligned to this value, The

Social Enterprise UK (SEUK, 2012) and Anthony Collins Solicitors, (2012) have

published a guide for the ‘Public Services (Social Value) Act. They describe Social

Value as, “a way of thinking about how scarce resources are allocated and used. It

involves looking beyond the price of each individual contract and looking at what

the collective benefit to a community is when a public body chooses to award a

83

contract”. While this is a valuable measure of the benefit to a community, the Social

Value Act does not measure the benefits of the voluntary contributions of all

stakeholders, and this is a limitation of the literature.

To summarise this section, there were found to be many examples in the literature of

how consultants help organisations to achieve quality marks, Werr, (1999) and

DeWaal, (2015) and implement their corporate social responsibilities, Brooks and

Evans, (2005) and Huang and Watson, (2015). The literature around paid employees

also examined how voluntary contributions may be measured by means of the human

capital approach as presented by, Bassi et al, (2015). Alternatively a measure for

virtual human resource development, (VHRD) is shown by Nafukho et al, (2010).

The voluntary labour of paid employees is advocated by Danes et al, (2009) and

Chum et al, (2013) and human resource accounting, (HRA) is a measure for human

capital, for uses such as financial reporting. The board member category highlighted

literatures such as return on capital employed, (ROCE), Singh and Yadav, (2003),

while return on talent, (ROT) was described by Chowdhury, (2007) and Ingliss,

(2012) introduced the social value approach. Yet none of the literature described all

stakeholder categories, all their voluntary contributions, or its benefits in one

approach. It was therefore found to be an under-researched area.

It has been found that consultants’ voluntary contributions are not measured in the

IIP or CSR approaches. The literature around traditional volunteering does not

consider any other stakeholders’ voluntary contributions in the approaches of Social

Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback on

Volunteering and The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA). While,

84

paid employees voluntary contributions, or any of the other stakeholder categories’

voluntary contributions, are not measured in Human Capital, Virtual Human

Resource Development, (VHRD), The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees or

Human Resource Accounting, (HRA). The approaches of ROCE, ROT and Social

Value are concerned with the governance of finances by boards, yet they did not

measure any voluntary contributions, made by board members, or any of the other

stakeholder categories. Board members provide the benefits of strong leadership and

management, human capital, social capital, value, sustainability, increased skills,

competitive advantage, talent, goodwill, branding, capability and loyalty. Yet, these

voluntary benefits to the organisation, the community and the individuals themselves

remain unaccounted for. It can now be recognised that there is an incomplete picture

as not all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, or its benefits, are presently

measured in any of the approaches that were examined in the literature.

2.6 The Incomplete Picture from the literature and the Recognition that All

Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions and its Benefits are not Measured

It has been established that there is an incomplete picture of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions, and the benefits that it brings, from the approaches

investigated in this literature review. Whilst there is recognition that all the

approaches provide valuable information on a particular stakeholder category, there

is no single approach that draws them all together at present. Also, there is the

acknowledgement that the current ways of reporting do not go far enough as there is

presently no all-encompassing measure for the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. There is a significant amount of literature around traditional

85

volunteering, which does not consider any voluntary contributions by any of the

other stakeholder categories. According to Haldane, (2014, p.15) traditional

volunteering alone creates, “each year an economic value of at least £50 billion and

potentially higher”. It is suggested that it could have a higher value if all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions were measured in the same way as traditional

volunteering currently is.

In support of this is the work of Kane, (2014 p.1) who argues that, “the sector’s

contribution to the UK is about much more than just finances”. This is agreed, but

Kane is discussing gaps in fully reporting on everything that is being voluntarily

contributed by traditional volunteer stakeholders. The literature in general does

provide a valuable understanding of the benefits of volunteering but it would give a

much more complete picture by recognising all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. There is also no all-encompassing literature on the benefits that all

stakeholder categories may bring to organisations, the community, or the volunteers

themselves. In support of this argument, Drucker, (2012, p.1) states that, “nonprofits

are, of course, still dedicated to doing good but they also realise that good intentions

are no substitute for organisation and leadership, for accountability, performance and

results”. It is suggested that organisational performance, not just in the nonprofit

sector, is being enhanced by the contributions of a wide range of stakeholders, but

the current literature does not consider this.

As has been discussed, some literatures such as IIP, CSR, The Contribution of the

Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering, The Voluntary Labour of Employees, ROCE

and ROT are based on organisational sustainability, growth or performance. All

86

argue that adopting some, or all, of these approaches will improve organisational

performance. The approaches usually cost money to adopt but their advocates claim

that by investing in them, organisations will be better and have competitive

advantage over those who do not adopt them. Comprehensive research on everything

that contributes to their achievement has not been undertaken to date, so this remains

an under-researched area. It can be argued that because some organisations do not

have a badge or the accreditation of IIP, as argued by Hoque, (2003) it does not

mean that they are not better than those that do. Achieving quality marks is not

mandatory and it costs organisations a substantial amount of time and money to meet

the IIP standard, for example. As has been established, the other approaches, not

only IIP, do not consider everything that may be contributing to their achievement.

None of them consider the whole picture in terms of the full benefit of voluntary

contributions, or its benefits.

Some of the other approaches from the literature, such as ROCE, ROT and CSR

suggest measuring in terms of tangibles, such as money. While others, such as IIP,

VIVA and HRA attempt to measure intangibles such as goodwill, capability, loyalty,

entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment or innovation. None of them, it is argued,

report on the benefits of everything that may be being voluntarily contributed.

Associated to this, Shortt, (2004, pp.11-22), Kane, (2014, p.1), Haldane, (2014, p.15)

and Banks, (2016) agree that the current way of reporting in literatures on voluntary

contributions do not go far enough. For example Haldane, (2014) argues for a better

way of reporting on the benefit of wellbeing. In support of this, O’Donnel et al,

(2014) suggest that the current measure of economic success, GDP does not tell the

whole story, neither does Public Value. This gap is recognised by The Valuing Your

87

Talent Partnership, (May 2016, pp. 4, 19 and 47) their paper sought a standard way

of reporting on the contributions of, “Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KNA)”. They

argue that people create value and are an organisation’s greatest asset, but these

assets may not be being fully reported on because they are only concerned with paid

employees. They are also not being fully reported on in the Integrated Reporting,

(IR) approach and Bassi et al, (2015, p.73), argue that IR is, “… still early in

grappling with the issue of consistency of definition and measurement”. They looked

at a number of companies’ integrated reports and found no consistency in reporting.

Aligned to fully reporting on people, The Valuing Your Talent Partnership, (2016,

p.47) also found weaknesses and inconsistencies in reporting on human capital, but

summarised that, “the progress noted in this report is certainly a step in the right

direction and companies should be encouraged to continue enhancing their HC

reporting”. Their study called for more research on the reporting of human capital,

but it would be useful if there were a comparable, consistent approach to the benefits

of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. A more consistent way of reporting in

the future could consider everything, not just the tangible economic value or

intangible loyalty. Also, all stakeholders should be considered to ensure that there is

a degree of consistency that would allow an all-encompassing definition and

measurement.

If there could be a new way of measuring all stakeholders’ contributions, and the

benefits that it brings, it may lead to even better competitive advantage for

organisations, the community and the stakeholders themselves by fully reporting on

everything. For example, a tangible accounting measure such as ROCE is usually

88

applied in large enterprises such as those associated with utilities (electricity, gas and

oil), but it is useful for boards across all sectors. It would be interesting to have a

measure to show investment in all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and its

benefits in the same way as ROCE. This may show a significant return on their

investment too in regard to recognition in a way that is similar to the recognition of

IIP. Both tangibles and intangibles could then be accounted for more

comprehensively.

In agreement with this argument, some authors have also suggested that ROCE is not

effective on its own and Enyi, (2001, p.1), as well as Singh and Yadav, (2013, p.3)

advocate the adoption of an Enhanced Return on Capital Employed, (EROCE) that,

“measures the return or profit on each area expended by the firm for the financial

period”. In relation to this Enyi, (2005, p.1) also questioned the role of Return on

Capital Employed, (ROCE) as a performance indicator. In his paper he used the

premise that, “performance indication can only be meaningful to the user if it bears a

true reflection of the relationship that it intends to measure”. He concludes, “…

therefore, it is the considered opinion of this paper that the use of ROCE as currently

defined is erroneous and capable of misleading investors and other interested parties

on the performance of an enterprise”. So, it has been established by some authors

that ROCE is a limited approach as it gives a snapshot of the financial position of an

organisation in a given financial period alone. It does not report on the social

benefits of any stakeholder voluntary contributions and is another example of what is

currently missing from the literature.

89

O’Donnel et al, (2009), also calls for a more meaningful way of reporting, which

includes a social aspect. While, Haldane, (2014) argues for a better measure for

wellbeing and Smith, (2015) discusses the shortcomings of IIP. While in relation to

traditional volunteering, Chum et al, (2013, p.412) reported on, “organizations in

which volunteers are an essential part of the mission, as in faith-based

organizations”. However, it has been established that none of the literature measures

all voluntary contributions and its benefits in one all-encompassing approach. This, it

is suggested, results in an incomplete picture and the recognition that the all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions are not measured. The benefits that it brings

are also not measured. The next section investigates what is currently measured by

the approaches in the literature.

2.7 Measuring the Contribution of All Stakeholders

In relation to the benefits of stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, there are a

number of literatures that measure certain aspects of this, although it is usually the

literature on traditional volunteering. This section draws all those aspects together.

The main measure of everything in the entire economy that is produced by industry

is Gross Gross Domestic Product, (GDP), while Gross Value Added, (GVA) is the

measure of how much enterprises add to the economy and some authors such as

O’Donnel et al, (2014) suggest that these measures do not tell the whole story. The

contributions of volunteering are partially accounted for in the approaches of Social

Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback on

Volunteering and VHRD, which are measures of the outcomes for organisational

benefit. There is also measurement of some contributions in the traditional

90

accountancy methods are used in CSR, VHRD, The Voluntary Labour of Paid

Employees and ROCE. All except Payback on Volunteering, VHRD, The Voluntary

Labour of Paid Employees and Social Value include a framework, matrix, ratio,

reports, integrated reports, resource, contribution or measure to show outcomes or

benefits to organisations. Some rely on the organisations’ mission statements like

IIP, CSR, Social Capital, VHRD, The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and

ROCE are aligned with KPIs to drive the organisation forward. Greiner and

Ennsfellner, (2007, p.5) advocate that in order to perform, organisations, “must begin

with mission, for the mission defines what results are for an organisation … every

non-profit organisation exists for the sake of performance in changing people and

society”. But there is currently no effective way to measure how all stakeholders

voluntarily contribute tangible time converted into money for match funding

contracts, for example. Intangibles include goodwill, capability, loyalty,

entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment or innovation, trust and commitment to

organisations. It is this that may be changing people and society. It is argued that this

change can only happen if the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to

organisations, communities and back to themselves are now fully measured.

2.8 Measuring Tangible Inputs and Outcomes

Measuring tangible inputs such as the voluntary contribution of time made by all

stakeholders would enable a more complete picture of the benefits that this activity

provides. Tangible measures include time and money, while intangibles include

goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment or

innovation, trust and commitment to organisations. There are some measures for

both in the literature but intangibles are not reported on in the same way as money in

91

organisational reports. This is because intangible contributions are not a requirement

of the regulators at present. However, some of the approaches from the literature,

such as Integrated Reporting, do measure more than just financial results. From the

results of this literature review, it has been shown that it is increasingly important to

show the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. For example, Gaskin,

(2011, p.1) states that there is, “a demand for ‘headline’ figures that evidence the

impact of volunteering. Expressing this in financial terms is not the only option”.

However, her work discussed traditional voluntary activity. Yet, from the literature,

there may be the tangible voluntary time contributed by all stakeholders that enable

outcomes such as the money saved by organisations. This enables the tangible saving

of money on wages, NI and pension as the work is done voluntarily, by both paid

employees and traditional volunteers, but there is no current measure for it.

In relation to Gaskin’s argument of measuring the impact of volunteering, Banks,

(2016), also discussed the benefits of traditional volunteering at an annual voluntary

sector council conference. It is this voluntary contribution that should be properly

accounted for in annual reports, but even then it does not give the full picture of

everything that is being volunteered, or its benefits. Regarding the reporting of

volunteering Wang et al, (2016, p.11) discuss that, “… informal volunteering has

been underexplored in the literature in a disaggregate form”. This argument could

also include all stakeholder categories. The benefits of micro-volunteering “for the

individual volunteer and the organisation can be significant,” argues Browne et al,

(2013, p.65). Yet, all that is measured is the input of time to the organisation; there is

not a standard measure for all the time that is contributed by all stakeholders. There

may also be benefits back to the contributors themselves, but that too is

92

disaggregated at present. Measuring voluntary contributions in this way is advocated

by the Payback on Volunteering, VIVA and Human Capital approaches. They all

offer valuable insights into the traditional volunteering aspect, but these approaches

also appear disaggregated because they do not measure all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions, or all its benefits.

A tangible measure such as time banking is advocated by Time Bank UK as, “giving

a little but getting a lot in return”. It encourages paid employees to volunteer extra

hours, which can be aligned to the literature around the Voluntary Labour of Paid

Employees. A tangible measure of paid employees’ volunteering could be used in

contracts as part of The Social Value Act to enhance business, for example. With

regard to measuring business performance, Smith et al, (2014, p.275) argue that,

“further research is needed, however, to understand more conclusively if, and to

what extent, IIP contributes to business performance”. This may be because there is

not presently a complete measure for how it is actually achieved as all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions are not measured. The benefit is the achievement of the IIP

standard, but there is an incomplete picture of how it is achieved. ROCE is the

tangible financial return on the capital employed by boards to sustain organisations,

which is relatively easy to measure. While Return on Talent (ROT) measures the

return of investment in upskilling paid employees and can be aligned to HRA,

VHRD and Human Capital as the knowledge generated can be partially measured.

CSR also measures the money generated by financial investment, but none of them

measure all stakeholders’ voluntary contribution, or its benefits.

93

It can be agreed while there are many ways of measuring financial performance the

approaches from the literature do not tell the whole story. For example, CSR may be

used to justify what the organisation is delivering in the community and that it is

acting benevolently by meeting performance targets. Greiner and Ennsfellner, (2007,

p.5), found that charities now run their operations like professional businesses, “they

set performance targets, employ professional fundraisers, marketers, campaigners

and CEOs to do their work. Nonprofit Third Sector organisations have been equally

successful in improving their own effectiveness: in attracting new groups of

volunteers; in converting volunteers, from helpers to partners”. Describing

partnership working, Diamond and Liddle, (2005, p.9) argue that, “by identifying a

thematic approach to regeneration it was evident that individual agencies working

alone would not be able either to secure additional funds through the initiative or to

meet the stated outcomes”. However, there is no current measure for how these

outcomes are being fully met. Therefore, the contributions of the voluntary activity

of consultants and paid workers as well as the value of traditional volunteering,

including board members, should now be measured to show how the outcomes of

partnership working are achieved.

The approaches from the literature that include Social Capital, the Contribution of

the Third Sector, VIVA, Human Capital, the Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees,

HRA and ROT also measure at least one tangible contribution to an organisation.

They all partially measure how people help to develop products and services in the

community. It has been established that ROCE measures tangible money, but

traditional volunteering also measures the tangible time that people volunteer to an

organisation that can be used for contracts in the Social Value Act. This is invaluable

94

to organisations which only have to manage the volunteers in return for their

voluntary contributions. This may put some strain on resources as it has a cost on

management time and the volunteer’s training, WCVA, (2015). Organisations

however, may consider that the benefits outweigh the costs. Yet, costs, such as

volunteers’ travel expenses are the only measure that are associated with traditional

volunteers and shown in annual reports at present. It may be challenging but it would

be advantageous to both people and organisations if the benefits of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions are able to be fully measured in the future.

Social Capital leads to increased participation in health related activity, increased

voting or decreases in criminality, according to Moretti, (2005). While Human

Capital measures the benefit to an organisation of paid employees’ skills. It promotes

the economic benefits of an educated population as they are less likely to be

associated with anti-social behaviour and crime in the community. “Education has

social benefits over and above the private return”, according to Moretti, (2005, p.4).

However, the literature does not measure everything that is being contributed to

society. This is corroborated by Shortt, (2004, p.11-22) who states that, “the

theoretical articulation of social capital remains under-theorized and its measurement

is subject to considerable debate”. The measurement of social capital is debatable, as

is the approach of the Contribution of the Third Sector.

The Contribution of the Third Sector approach from the literature measures the

(virtual money, not real) impact of traditional volunteers’ contributions as a

percentage equivalent to GDP by The NCVO and others. Kane, (2014, p. 3) argues

that, “… at the moment, coverage of the voluntary sector in the national accounts is

95

poor”. Volunteer hours are multiplied over the year and costs taken out to give an

accurate value. The Contribution of the Third Sector can be aligned to the

approaches of Payback on Volunteering and Human Capital, which can also be

measured and used in the same way that CSR counts the Return on Capital

Employed or Return on Investment. Organisations do not legally have to do adopt

any of these approaches from the literature because they are optional. Human Capital

measures the skills of paid employees. Wage rates for paid workers are obtained

from the Office for National Statistics to establish how much money has been saved

in wages for match funding European projects. The approach of VIVA measures the

virtual money of time and gives it a value and can also be aligned to The

Contribution of the Third Sector.

However, Kane, (2014, p.2) describes a new way of measuring the contribution of

volunteering to GDP and argues that, “this doesn’t mean the voluntary sector will be

responsible for an economic recovery, as the changes are retrospective corrections to

previous years, but it does mean we’ll be better at quantifying the contribution it

makes to the economy”. He describes a new way of measuring the contribution of

volunteering to GDP. Kane’s approach is positive but his work does not consider

informal or micro volunteering, or any of the contributions or any of the other

stakeholder categories, only traditional volunteers. National GDP can be enhanced

by micro-volunteering, which, “for the individual volunteer and the organisation can

be significant” argue Browne et al, (2013, p.65), but while micro-volunteering is not

measured in Kane’s work, it is a very useful way of measuring some of the tangible

voluntary contributions of a particular stakeholder group. It has been established that

Deloitte, (2015) has presented a measure for intangible outcomes and combined with

96

tangible GDP this partially helps to quantify some of the voluntary contributions.

Yet it does not consider all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, and the benefits

that it brings, and this is a limitation of the literature on GDP, as well as that on

Public Value.

Also aligned to measuring voluntary contributions is the approach of VIVA, which

reports on the outcomes of volunteer programmes in regard to the investments made

by a company on training etc. It measures the time in the community multiplied by

the hourly rate for the job, according to Blake, (2005). It includes the time put in by

organisations to managing volunteers and accounts for overheads associated with

them, such as their management. These annual expenditures are collected and

include estimates for Human Capital where hard figures are not available such as the

intangible abilities advocated by The Valuing Your Talent Partnership, (May 2016).

With regard to the benefits, Human Capital also measures the impact on

organisations of increased skills. This has the outcome of increased productivity,

which can be measured by GDP, although there is not one all-encompassing measure

for everything that is being voluntarily contributed at present, or its benefits to GDP

or Public Value. The traditional voluntary inputs that can be measured at present

give the mean average to GDP over the year. “It accounts in financial figures the

value that volunteering creates”, advocates Gaskin, (2011, p.1) but the literature does

not consider all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to GDP. Cha, (2013) proposes

that GDP does not account for the childcare of ones’ own children, which is

provided by paid employees, for example. While the voluntary contributions to

Public Value are also not accounted for.

97

Organisations are increasingly focussing on developing staff in order to achieve

better results and are using a range of approaches for measuring this. In relation to

Human Resources, (HR), Bassi et al, (2015, p.71) found that, “HR is still developing

consistent standards and metrics for the reporting of important human capital

outcomes in organizations – and we are making progress”. Measuring progress on

voluntary contributions is not mandatory at present, but could be a choice that

organisations could make public alongside their annual reports. Human Capital is

reliant on a strong narrative so does not just consider financials as in annual reports.

It reports on good as well as bad results, which could be of value to regulators. In

association with reporting Human Capital, VHRD measures the development of

people through technology and this may be easier to measure as there is a benchmark

of where an individual starts and their progress can be measured. But it does not

communicate the Human Resource Development, (HRD) of volunteer board

members, for example. In relation to HRD, McCracken and Wallace, (2000)

advocated, ‘Strategic Human Resource Development’, (SHRD) as another method of

communication. They argue that,

the decade of the 1990s may be remembered for producing more rapid

change than in the whole of the preceding years of the twentieth century

combined. Such rapid changes resulted in radical and widespread shifts in the

global economy, allied with the emergence of communication and

information technology infrastructures which have revolutionised how

business is now carried out … the HRD function has experienced

considerable change in recent years. McCracken and Wallace, (2000, p.425).

98

In relation to HRD McCracken and Wallace advocate organisational maturity,

(Churchill and Lewis, (1983) as tool for human resource development that is also

used by IIP, (2015c, p.6). The current indicators of performance for VHRD are

people’s competences and it measures them as assets in the same way as Human

Capital is measured by Human Resource Development, (HRD). McCracken and

Wallace, (2000, p.425) also suggest that in organisations that are mature, HRD has a,

“proactive role in helping the organisation to both frame and achieve its corporate

objectives”. This is linked to organisational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and

mission statements and has some crossover with IIP. IIP enables top managers to

collate information on how adequate its HR procedures are functioning. It does not,

however, give any measure of any voluntary contribution of stakeholders, or its

benefits, to that function. IIP also accounts for the value of Human Capital alongside

the practices of traditional accounting and is based on the value of the skills of

people. However, it does not account for all stakeholders voluntary contributions,

such as those of consultants, as has been discussed.

VHRD also has some crossover with traditional Human Capital as it uses technology

and Nafukho et al, (2010, p.648) suggest utilising VHRD to, “define human capital

and demonstrates how technology can be positively used to promote virtual learning,

workplace learning, and eventually lead to performance improvement in the

workforce”. Yet, it is suggested that all workplace learning, including that of

traditional volunteers who shadow staff and that of board members who have to

attend training to comply is currently unmeasured. While VHRD provides important

insights into the virtual learning of paid employees, there is nothing that draws it all

together to give its true benefit through all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions.

99

This impact could then be measured more fully by GDP as it measures the impact on

an organisation’s human assets and the outcome of enhanced performance. In

alignment with HRD models, McCracken and Wallace, (2000) also argue that,

a new model of SHRD is then developed which proposed that strategic

partnerships (between HRD and senior management, line management and

HRM) are at the heart of the development of both SHRD and a learning

culture. The evaluation of training and development activity in cost

effectiveness terms is put forward as the key lever or trigger for the

development of these strategic partnerships … cost effectiveness evaluation,

it is suggested, could provide, ‘the ticket to ride’ for such organisations.

McCracken and Wallace, (2000, p.458,464).

However, there is no way of measuring the voluntary contributions, or human assets,

of all stakeholders in developing a learning culture, or how strategic human resource

development could fully contribute to organisational performance at present.

With regard to voluntary human assets, the approach of The Voluntary Labour of

Paid Employees has some crossover with Human Capital and HRA as it considers

the mission statement and KPIs as the way to account for paid human activity. HRA

also currently calls for a way of measuring traditional unpaid activity, alongside paid

employees activity, which could give a more complete picture of what is being

contributed. However, it does not measure everything that is being voluntarily

contributed by the other stakeholder categories. With regard to traditional volunteers,

Taylor, (2011) argues that,

100

too many fundraisers do not appreciate the potential contribution of

volunteers and waste their support by assigning them to time-consuming,

peripheral tasks not likely to yield significant income. Managing volunteers

does take a bit of time, but by being selective in your recruitment and

focusing on core fundraising activities, volunteers can significantly boost

your charity’s fundraising capacity. Taylor, (2011, p.1).

Volunteering in this way can be compared to Social Capital and HRA, as it also

considers the recruitment process as an indicator of talent management through

skills. The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees also has some crossover as it is

linked to a company’s KPIs and mission statement like HRA, Human Capital and

VIVA. VHRD is linked to GDP and Public Value the economy as it puts a value on

KPIs to give a useful measure, but there is not one measure that considers everything

that is being volunteered, or the benefits that it brings, at present. While regarding

traditional volunteers, The International Labour Office of Geneva, (2011, pp.16)

found that, “efforts that have been made to measure volunteer work have been

sporadic and frequently uncoordinated, leaving us without up to date, reliable

comparative data on the scope of this important social and economic phenomenon”.

They produced a, ‘Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work’ that included

time and money as measurements. But they only focussed on voluntary activities

such as “buying groceries for an elderly neighbour”, “making clothes for children”

and “driving a neighbour to a medical appointment”. The reporting of this kind of

voluntary activity provides an important understanding but the literature does not

consider all stakeholders or the benefits of their voluntary contributions. It only

101

concentrated on measuring traditional volunteering, as a phenomenon, not the

voluntary contributions of paid employees, for example.

With regard to paid employees and their voluntary contributions, Flamholtz, et al,

(2002, p.947) state that, “the history of HRA illustrates how academic research can

generate improvement in management systems … and suggests implications of

measuring human capital for financial reporting and managerial uses”. Their work is

also limited as it does not account for all improvements, as it does not measure all

human capital. In relation to measuring, HRA is defined by Birnberg, (2011, p.594)

as, “the process of identifying and measuring data about human resources and

communicating this information to an interested party”. This includes the number of

years paid employees have worked for the company and their skills, but suggests a

formula where only paid employees are considered for measurement and disregards

any data around traditional volunteers or any of the other stakeholder categories.

HRA has some overlap with ROCE, for example as improved skills can be measured

in an equivalent way, but ROCE is concerned with benefit of the return on the

investment of money, not people. HRA attempts to measure the return on the

investment of training and experience of people like IIP and is linked to Human

Capital. In support of this, Hesketh, (2014, p.7) advocates, “four levels of investment

into human capital” that include the metric, “Return on People Employed” as,

“outcomes measure the quality of outputs and the resulting impact at business level

from the combination of inputs and activities”, including knowledge and skills.

These measures go some way to measuring paid employees’ impact on businesses,

but do not consider all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to the benefit of

business performance.

102

Allied to measuring business performance, Birnberg, (2011, p.594) advocates that,

“accounting information is communicated to and utilized by people and serves

initially to motivate and subsequently to inform all parties about performance”. This

accounting information may be used by stakeholders who are given encouraging

news about their chosen organisation and may then buy their services in the same

way as Mass Collaboration, which has the measurement of increased sales. Making

positive information public may have the propensity to motivate the volunteers

themselves to continue to do it again. While measuring it could show the benefit of

competitive advantage over organisations which may not have as many voluntary

contributions.

Measuring competitive advantage is argued by the approach of, Return on Capital

Employed, (ROCE). Singh and Yadav, (2013, p.1) state that, “high ROCE is a

validation of a company’s competitive advantage”. The return on ROCE is usually

reinvested back into organisations by means of shares, giving shareholders’

enhanced motivation. ROCE is a very important tool used by boards to give a

tangible snapshot of the financial health of a company, but it has limitations as it

excludes any intangible contributions at present. ROCE is a tried and trusted

accountancy term, advocated by Mills and Robertson, (2000, p.388) and it, “is a ratio

that indicates the efficiency and profitability of a company’s capital investments”.

This is supported by Cox and Street, (2011, p.25) who define it as a, “measurement

of how well the total capital employed has been used by an organisation to generate

profits”. It is not concerned with the human side of performance, or human capital.

103

ROCE is a universal measure for multinationals and capital intensive firms, which

can also be used by non-profits.

The Return on Investment is shown on balance sheets to inform boards, who are

usually shareholders, as it is a reliable measure of company performance. It takes

away leases, for example, to show what is invested back into the company to give a

ratio to compare to other growth companies for benchmarking against. Some returns

on investment in money are measured by ROCE, ROT and HRA and are all linked to

financial performance. These are current approaches that measure performance, but

they do not tell the whole story of how all stakeholders’ contribute to the benefits of

organisational performance, community participation or stakeholders’ return of

wellbeing.

To account for the time and money saved, Banks, (2016) advocates a standard way

of reporting on tangible contributions, such as in the Time-banking approach. There

are approaches that do consider the benefits of volunteering and how it contributes

virtual money to GVA of £12.2bn in 2016 as advocated by The UK Civil Society

Almanac. Haldane, (2014) however, argues that it in relation to GDP it is closer to

£50bn per annum. The WCVA, (2015) agree that this figure would be much higher if

it included informal volunteering. It has been well documented that volunteering

results in increased civic behaviour such as voting, according to Moretti, (2005), as

well as decreased criminality. Haldane, (2014) calls them, ‘benefit multipliers’. A

number of authors have identified the need to report on social outcomes, including

Spence and Rutherford, (2001, pp.126-139) who suggest that, “a sociological

approach has much to offer”. While Shortt, (2004, pp.11-22) supports this and found

104

that, “social capital remains undertheorized”. However, they concentrated only on

the social aspect of accounting.

The literature around Human Capital which shows expenditures on information;

labour mobility, health, education and training all are capable of enhancing the

productive capacity of a worker’s human capital, but it only considers paid

employees. Virtual Human Resource Development, (VHRD) and The Voluntary

Labour of Paid Employees have no complete measure and Human Resource

Accounting, (HRA), does not consider any other of the stakeholder categories, only

paid employees. Return on Capital Employed, (ROCE), is also limited as it only

measures money. Return on Talent, (ROT) acknowledges how talent could

contribute to organisational success for competitive advantage, but it does not

consider any of the other stakeholder categories, only paid employees. It does not

consider board members, for example, who play a significant part in its ROI and

Social Value is also limited in its measurement as it only considers traditional

volunteers.

In summary, it is suggested that currently, the approaches from the literature for

measuring tangible inputs and outcomes do not examine all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. The literature does not consider consultants’ inputs to organisations’

such as the benefit of achieving IIP. Or the board member’s contributions that equate

to millions of pounds saved across the country, as presented by Banks, (2016), for

example. This lack of measurement is noted by, Meadows et al, (2006, p.1) who

state that, “documenting volunteer programmes is overlooked”. Alternatively,

O’Donnel et al, (2009, p.362) in their research around Human Capital suggest that,

105

“... the findings around the themes from the interview responses. These themes

include: a current lack of focus on industry based HC (Human Capital) analysis and

reporting, a trend towards formulaic rather than meaningful reporting, a perception

that analysts are not seen as strategic in their ability to understand implications of

human capital, and a belief that there is a need for alternative forms of reporting”.

This is agreed, however, O’Donnel et als, (2009) valuable work too only

concentrated on one aspect of reporting that does not include any other form of

reporting other than that of paid employees’ Human Capital. There are ways of

easily measuring the tangible input of time and money, for example and tangible

outcomes such as increased turnover but it is much more difficult to measure the

intangible contributions of all stakeholders that may lead to the benefits of increased

business performance through Public Value, or higher GDP. Having established

what tangible outputs, or outcomes, are measured, the following highlights which

intangible inputs and outcomes from all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions are not

currently measured.

2.9 Measuring Intangible Inputs and Outcomes

Tangible inputs include time and the contribution, through fundraising, of money.

Intangibles include goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation,

commitment or innovation, trust and commitment to organisations, as has been

discussed. The Integrated Reporting, (IR) approach includes all financial activity in

its reports and is similar to the Balanced Scorecard method. It measures the internal

and external environment for intangibles such as innovation, intelligence and

106

competence, but while it is a relatively new and valuable approach, it does not

account for any voluntary innovation, intelligence or competence. Intangible

outcomes could also be the cost savings by someone volunteering to do a piece of

work, rather than someone being paid to do it, as it is not measured. This often

happens in the SWWales Charity as it has a bank of skilled volunteers that support

its mentors, or help out in its environmental projects, for example. Change through

social capital can be seen in the community, although, it is not formally reported on

at present.

It has been established, through the literature, that it relatively easy to measure

tangibles, but it is more difficult to measure intangibles such as the networks that

help build Social Capital as defined by Bourdieu in Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992).

While an increase in money can be measured it is more difficult to measure

intangible networks. A number of approaches from the literature include KPIs as a

measure and the mission statement for the Balanced Scorecard method. This is

advocated by Kaplan and Norton, (1996), as a way of measuring intangibles such as

innovation, intelligence and competence. In their research, Surroca et al, (2010,

p.463) whose results, “indicated researchers failed to take into account intangible

resources”, yet they only examined CSR. Fletcher et al, (2003, p.505) state that,

“few authors have examined the intellectual capital of nonprofits or discussed their

strategic management in terms of intangibles”. While giving an important insight

into intangibles, their work only focussed on intellectual capital.

‘Intangible Assets’ are defined by Deloitte, (2013, p.1) in the International

Accountancy Standards, (IAS, standard 38) as, “IAS 38 Intangible Assets outlines

107

the accounting requirements for intangible assets which are without physical

substance and identifiable (either being separable or arising from contractual or legal

rights)”. Intangible assets such as licences can currently be described in the balance

sheets of annual reports, but the current way of reporting does not give the complete

picture of all an organisation’s assets. Neither, it has been suggested by this literature

review, does Gross Value Added, (GVA). For example, GVA in 2016 stated that the

voluntary sector contribution was calculated at £12.2bn, according to the UK Civil

Society Almanac, (2016), yet there is no measure for any intangible assets, such as

the social networking contributed by volunteers in CSR, for example. In support of

this, the WCVA, (2016) only considers formal volunteering and agrees that if

informal volunteering is measured, as well its benefits, it would be far higher.

Human Capital measures the impact on organisations of increased skills. The

intangible of abilities is advocated by The Valuing Your Talent Partnership, (May

2016). Intangibles also include commitment and loyalty. Social value measures the

amount of voluntary input that is contributed to the running of services in the

community. This also supports the notion of Drucker, (2012) that business reporting

should include much more than it currently does, which is the financial bottom line.

According to The Pensions and Investments Research Consultants, (PIRC), (2015,

p.7), “to enable human capital to be full and effectively valued in business decision-

making, there must be a change in mind-set, competency, and culture within

business at all levels”. This is a step in the right direction, but in order to instigate a

change in mind-set, it is suggested that a far more comprehensive measure of

intangibles is needed. This is because deprived communities with a high amount of

108

social capital are more inclined to benefit from The Social Value Act, as their

applications will score highly and more contracts may be won as a result.

However, intangible assets such as trust and commitment can be withdrawn at any

time, as they are not owned by the organisation in the same way as the intellectual

copyright of intangible assets as argued by Deloitte, (2015). They cannot be

considered in the same way as tangible assets such as stock or depreciation for

accounting information to show productivity for GDP, for example. Therefore, all

categories of stakeholder, who contribute their intellectual capital are all powerful,

not just board members, as suggested by Mendelow, (1991). It is difficult to measure

the intangible contributions of stakeholders at present and some literatures such as

those of, Surroca et al, (2010, p.463), Ingliss, (2012, p.2) and Kane, (2014 p.1)

acknowledge this. Kane for example, agrees that the current way of reporting in

literatures on all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and the resulting benefit lack

a complete measure. It is established that some approaches from the literature do

mention intangibles, but even then they do not give a complete picture.

Drucker, (2012) is a great advocate of traditional volunteering and presents awards

to organisations that embrace traditional volunteers, but his work does not consider

any other stakeholder categories. Also, Baines, (2004, pp.267-295) investigated

unwaged work in social services in Canada and traditional volunteering, which is

also advocated by O’Donnel, et al, (2014 Executive Summary Report, p.2). They say

that the contribution that people make through volunteering enhances wellbeing.

However, he is arguing for wellbeing to be measured as a result of their behaviours.

O’Donnel et al, (2014, p.2) state that, “… so in pursuit of policies to promote

109

wellbeing, researchers are collaborating to build models that reflect the way people

actually behave, rather than how the traditional models assume they behave. To

assess the success of such policies we need to measure changes in wellbeing”. We

also need to measure the changes in the intangible outcome of wellbeing for all

stakeholder categories. While the work of Drucker, Baines and O’Donnel et al is

invaluable, with regard to the contributions of traditional volunteers, Drucker and

Baines’ work excludes a measure for the contributions of any of the other

stakeholder categories.

It is more difficult to measure intangibles that include goodwill, trust and

commitment to organisations that result in increased productivity which is measured

by GDP, for example. The fact that GDP does not tell the whole story has also been

argued by Kennedy, (1968), Cha, (2013) and O’Donnel et al, (2014) argues for a

method that goes beyond the financial figures associated with GDP. He advocates a

worldwide measure of success that includes, ‘subjective wellbeing’. This measure

could be expanded to be associated with the intangible motivation of the other

categories of stakeholder and include the motivation of paid employees, who are

considered in the HRA and VHRD approaches, for example. This is one of the

intangible outcomes of the literature that Shortt, (2004, p.11-22) refers to in that,

“theoretical vagueness also encourages confusion as to measurement issues,

particularly with reference to the creation of valid indicators for a highly complex

social phenomenon”. Shortt is discussing Social Capital, but it could refer to the

potential measurement of any of the approaches from the literature. Saxton, (2004,

p.188) concluded that, “nonprofits need to act now, however, if they are to close the

gap in public understanding and bring their stakeholders with them”. This

110

understanding can only be achieved if there is a comprehensive way of measuring all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to the benefit of organisational success. This is

allied to the positive organisational culture of Peters and Waterman, (1982, p.9) who

emphasise the importance of culture and values to organisational success and the

desirability of developing a strong, common organisational culture, “capable of

motivating employees to unusual performance levels”.

However, Peters and Waterman also ignore the other stakeholder categories that may

be contributing to unusual performance levels. It is suggested that understanding

how organisations perform must now include a measure for how intangible inputs

contribute to those performance levels, alongside tangible time and money to give a

comprehensive picture. If its benefits are reported on fully it may also motivate other

stakeholders to volunteer or increase its unpaid voluntary workforce by giving them

the propensity to repeatedly act in this way. It may be worth their extra management

and cost of their out of pocket expenses to the organisation, as traditional

volunteering could be considered as a social return on that investment. It could be

measured in the same way as ROCE and ROT and could be included in tenders as

advocated by the Social Value Act. There is however, as has been argued, no

measure for the return on investing in all stakeholders, or all the benefits of their

contributions, in one all-encompassing model at present.

An approach that does consider some of the social return on investment is advocated

by The Social Return on Investment (SRI) Network, (2012, p.6) which issues a

‘Guide to Commissioning for Maximum Value’. This can be likened to the Social

Value Act, which also considers the social aspect of tenders for contracts. The guide

111

recognises that there need to be better ways to account for, “the social, economic and

environmental value that results from our activities. The language varies – ‘impact’,

‘returns’, ’benefit’, ‘value’ – but the questions around what sort of difference and

how much of a difference we are making are the same”. While this measure gives an

invaluable insight into the return of the social return on investment and its impact on

society, it presently only considers traditional volunteer stakeholders and can be

compared to the Payback on Volunteering approach.

This measure can also be compared to the Return on Talent, (ROT) of paid

employees and, and Chowdhury, (2011, p.2) states that, “ROT measures the payback

from investment in people”. This has some crossover with IIP. Both use KPIs but do

not really measure the intangible contributions or any of the time contributed by all

stakeholders. It has been established that time, for example, could be converted into

money as a tangible asset to account for some stakeholders’ contributions by the

WCVA and WEFO to offset staffing costs in applications for funding applications.

As discussed, ‘Intangible Assets’ such as branding and loyalty are defined by Mills

and Robertson, (2000) and Deloitte, (2013) but the intangibles of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions and its benefits are more difficult to define and are therefore

not currently measured.

The Contribution of the Third Sector does not consider all stakeholders, only

traditional volunteers’ contributions in its measurement of how it, virtually, enhances

GDP. Payback on Volunteering encourages participation in health related activity

and increased voting or decreases in criminality. Yet, there is no measurement for

any of these contributions. While The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit,

112

(VIVA), professes to cut costs, allow better retention and recruitment of volunteers

as well as recognition. It also attracts more funding, but that increased funding is also

not measured. It is suggested that there is a significant amount of voluntary

contributions that are being missed, particularly around the budgeting considerations

made by boards. In relation to volunteering, Chum et al, (2013) maintain that,

the interchange of paid and unpaid labor also raises a fundamental question

for managers: how to deal with budget shortcomings? Cutting down on costs

of paid labor is an attractive option for nonprofits, which can often recruit

volunteer labor. However, such action should be done judiciously,

notwithstanding the ethical problems. Chum et al, (2013, p.424).

There is no argument against the fact that volunteers are a valuable resource, but

they should not be at the expense of paid employees, which is supported by

Blackadder and Jackson, (2011).

The exploitation of volunteers who may replace paid employees is also described by

The TUC, (2012). While Chum et al, (2013, p.424) argue that, “even if no labor

union contracts exist to stop such conversions, replacement of paid staff by

volunteers could result in a fragmented labor force, require additional paid staff to

manage volunteers”. This is in alignment with the appropriate management of

volunteers advocated by Blackadder and Jackson, (2011, p.2). Finally, in their

work, Chum et al found that, “the benefits of such interchangeability must also be

recognized, such as the contribution of volunteer labor in providing word-of-mouth

endorsement and exposure, which may result in support (and funding) for the

113

organization and its mission”. This is the propensity to fund organisations again and

can be aligned to the approach of expectancy theory, Vroom, (1964, 1970) in that

one good thing will lead to another such as the free marketing of the organisation by

its volunteers. Nevertheless, this is not fully measured or acknowledged in the

literature.

The tangible measurement approach of Human Resource Accounting, (HRA)

promotes advantage over organisations that do not measure the human resources of

paid employees. But there is no one all-encompassing model or method of

calculating the value of all the intangible human resources to an organisation at

present. A better way of measuring the benefit of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions to show that all contributions are needed, not just reports on financial

performance to external stakeholders such as regulators and customers. In relation to

customers, Van der Wiele et al, (2002, p.184) state that,

… it is possible to find evidence for the notion that there is a positive

relationship between customer satisfaction and organisational performance

indicators, although the relationship is not very strong, is amongst the

empirical evidence for the relationship between customer satisfaction and

business performance. Van der Wiele et al, (2002).

This is relevant because customers are also stakeholders and if they are satisfied they

will buy into the organisation’s products and services. However, it has been

established that intangibles are not able to be measured fully at present. Fletcher et

al, (2003, p.505), in their discussion on the management provided by board

114

members, argue for measuring the intangible impact of volunteering. By measuring

the intangible impact of IIP, for example, it would be able to show the return on

investing money in it in an equivalent way to ROCE. This could also then include

the contributions of consultants and all stakeholders to be used as match funding for

European funding contracts, for example. Some contracts’ scores are weighted in

favour of IIP, for example and a contract may be lost on this alone. So, it is

important for organisational financial sustainability to measure all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions properly to give the benefit of competitive advantage over

others who may not have as many contributions.

The Contribution of the Third Sector, as an approach, is not the same as the financial

measures of ROCE and CSR as they measure a financial return to capital employed.

This is dissimilar to the Contribution of the Third Sector because it is linked to the

intangible governance by boards and the training of volunteers. In relation to boards,

Cornforth, (2012, p.1129) states that, “... nonprofit governance needs to recognize

that boards are part of a broader governance system, including regulators, auditors,

and other key external stakeholders, such as funders, that can place accountability

requirements on an organization and its board”. Cornforth’s research calls for boards

to be developed and that, “research on the governance of organizations with

subsidiary boards and those with federal structures is still relatively undeveloped ...

increasingly, nonprofit organizations are taking part in collaborations, partnerships,

and alliance with other organizations to address important social problems”. This is

also supported by Liddle, (2003).

115

Aligned to the approval by boards, The Social Value Act, (2012) allows third sector

organisations to deliver in partnership with local authorities and is supported by both

Liddle, (2003) and Cornforth, (2012). Cornforth’s (2012) work shows that third

sector organisations are becoming increasingly accountable and have increased

collaborations with local authorities to address important social problems. While

Liddle, (2003, p.41) argues that, “here are clear tensions between the different levels

of governance despite the appearance of harmony”. However, as there is no measure

for those collaborations or partnerships, they do not show a complete measure of

what each party contributes, or any of the other stakeholder categories and therefore

they cannot show all of the benefits.

There should now be a more robust way of measuring exactly what stakeholders

actually voluntarily contribute to the governance functions that address social

problems. Large contracts are vital to organisational sustainability and social

problems would not be addressed without the voluntary contributions of the board

members, or the other stakeholder categories. It could be considered in the approach

of Payback on Volunteering. Voluntary contributions could include paid employees

delivering citizen-centric services to address social problems. This is can be aligned

to the traditional volunteers’ contributions to Mass Collaboration and the

Contribution of the Third Sector. Both approaches from the literature utilise various

volunteers in diverse ways, but neither approach measures everything that is being

voluntarily contributed by all stakeholders or its benefits. The WCVA’s Voluntary

Sector Almanac, (2011, pp.1, 5) found that the third sector is a growth sector, but it

could be even more so if it measured the intangible unpaid work of all stakeholders

116

such as board members, Banks, (2016). It is in this way that intangibles could

become tangible.

Regarding what is important to measure in organisations; The Balanced Scorecard

method is a general theory of measuring what counts in organisations. It gives a

measure of intangibles such as the connections of the Social Capital approach.

Integrated Reporting positively promotes (communicates) how good the organisation

is at responding to the needs of its stakeholders. Organisations do this by creating a

strong image to the community in which it is based. CSR is a strategy that measures

the input of money for the intangible outcome of community participation to an

organisation’s goods and services as is Mass Collaboration. CSR also gives

something back through funding community groups, not only the measurable, well-

publicised contributions to a charity, for example. With regard to measuring

intangibles, The Integrated Reporting approach also goes some way to giving a more

complete picture of non-financial measures, but it still does not measure all

intangible contributions to organisational success. Integrated Reporting is advocated

by Carruthers, (24th February 2015), who describes it as a concept for explaining

organisational success and while it gives an invaluable insight into the contributions

of paid employees, it ignores the other stakeholder categories contributions, such as

those of board members. While, Bassi et al (2015, p.72) and the Global Reporting

Initiative (GRI) concentrate more on CSR than value creation for their smarter

annual reports. Smarter reporting could include internal assessments on Human

Capital and external assessments such as the payback on volunteering. This would

give a more complete account of all intangible contributions for smarter annual

reports.

117

To summarise what is not currently measured; whilst there is some measure in the

literature for tangible benefits there is generally no comprehensive measure for

intangible benefits such as connectivity, networks or empowering people. There is

also a lack of measure or meaningful reporting on both tangibles and intangibles in

one all-encompassing approach and it is this that is missing from the literature.

Finances are not enough on their own, as in Drucker’s, (2012) stance on businesses

reporting too narrowly on the, (financial) “bottom line”. Drucker thought that reports

should include voluntary contributions as well as money, but his work does not

include any other stakeholder categories. Wellbeing also needs to be measured

according to O’Donnel et al, (2014) and the fact that GDP does not tell the whole

story as has also been discussed. “There is no one clear model or method for

calculating human value and researchers have failed to take account for the

mediating effects of intangible resources”, according to Surroca et al, (2010, p.463).

The Mass Collaboration approach does go some way to account for increased sales

by the value gained by involving customers, but, “value has no market price” and is

therefore intangible, according to Ingliss, (2012, p.12). There is a desire for the

intangible value created by all stakeholders to now be reported on in the same

tangible way as Return on Investment. The Valuing Your Talent Partnership, (May

2016) called people an organisation’s greatest asset and has been found that this

asset is currently only partially measured. This is supported by Freeman, (2004) who

states that stakeholders are vital to organisational survival. While Shortt, (2004,

pp.11-22) calls their Social Capital, “a highly complex social phenomenon”. This is

supported by The SRI, (2012, p.6) who agree that there needs to be a better way to

118

account for social (stakeholders), economic (organisational) and environmental

(community) value. It would give a far more complete picture if it included the value

of the benefits that result from all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. The

literature suggests that all these voluntary contributions have a threefold return, not

only to the organisation but to the individuals and the community as well. Yet, the

literature is broken up with some such as the literature around payback on

volunteering and social capital only considering traditional volunteers. The

approaches of the Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and VHRD also do not

consider all stakeholders. It has been established that there is not one literature that

reports on all the tangible and intangible contributions of all stakeholders in one

approach. There is also no measure for the benefits of these contributions.

In all of the approaches examined in this literature review, it is found that most do

not show how the contribution of all stakeholders leads to standards being met. This

does not show how the outcomes such as competitive advantage are actually

achieved. Organisations cannot legally do without voluntary board members, but

they are not fully recognised for their voluntary contributions in the CSR model,

neither are consultants. This is not a true measure of the benefits. Social Capital

helps the understanding of stakeholders and their contributions by the strength of

what they are doing and how it helps society, yet there is no measure for it apart

from generalisation. Mass Collaboration does not measure linkages and networking

and it does not consider the interventions of all parties affected by the organisation’s

actions. The literature does not measure the contributions of all stakeholders whether

voluntary or not. It also does not measure any of the benefits of volunteering, to

119

organisations, the community and individuals. The following is an analysis of that

potential threefold benefit.

2.10 The Threefold Benefit that All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions

bring to Organisations, Communities and the Volunteers Themselves

The threefold benefit to organisations, the community and the stakeholders

themselves of volunteering is comparable to the, “benefit multipliers” of Haldane,

(2014, p.15). He states that, “now, it is fair to say that I have not much discussed any

costs of volunteering. Plainly, no activity is costless, both in a direct and opportunity

cost sense. But the evidence here, however imperfect, suggests some significant

benefit multipliers from volunteering, economically, privately and socially”.

Haldane’s research is based purely on traditional volunteers and argues that the

benefits outweigh any costs associated with their volunteering. Volunteer costs are

already accounted for in annual reports, in their current form. If there could be a way

to report on all voluntary activity, and its benefits, then it would be an even better

way to influence policy, as he proposes. According to Haldane, (2014, p.15)

traditional volunteering alone creates, “each year an economic value of at least £50

billion and potentially higher”. His measure of that contribution is the tangible input

of time, and it has been established that there are also intangibles such as loyalty and

commitment that are not being currently measured.

The approaches from the literature attempt to enable organisations to reflect on, and

measure some of the contributions that are made to them. All use key performance

indicators, (KPIs) and the organisation’s mission statement to drive the approach,

120

and therefore the organisation forward. All offer a degree of sustainability over those

that have not adopted all or some of the approaches from the literature. The different

approaches outlined in the literature review all recognise that the additional

information gained by measuring these different contributions can be used for

positive promotion, image and reputation to favourably market how well the

organisation is doing, to its stakeholders. This, in turn, may provide benefits that

would attract more business, funding or the propensity for even more voluntary

contributions. Nevertheless, not one of these measurement approaches offers a

comprehensive examination of all functions or contributions and its benefits that are

fundamental to organisational survival. Nor do they fully quantify the wellbeing or

social benefits back to individual stakeholders, or the community, that enable

organisations to have competitive advantage over others that do not have as many

voluntary contributions.

2.11 Organisational Benefits and Competitive Advantage

There are many benefits that result from the input of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions to organisational sustainability. The benefits are that an organisation

may have competitive advantage over other organisations that may not have as many

contributions. However, there is no current way of reporting this because all

voluntary contributions are not fully reported on. Reporting on volunteering goes

some way to help organisations to do things better than its competitors and does gain

a degree of competitive advantage, as argued by Kane, (2014), the WCVA and

(2015) Banks, (2016). For example, Banks argues that without the substantial

voluntary contributions to voluntary organisations they would not survive. While

121

Freeman, (2004) argues that organisations could not survive at all without

stakeholders.

In order to examine organisational benefit further, it has been found that the

literature is usually associated with only one particular stakeholder category. Yet,

most of the literature states that adopting some or all of the approaches offer

competitive advantage. For example, both IIP and ROCE profess continuous

improvement. Singh and Yadav, (2013, p.1) state that, “high ROCE is a validation of

a company’s competitive advantage”. The general literature around IIP advocates the

standard as a way to inspire employees by valuing excellent people management,

according to De Waal, (2015a). Achieving IIP confirms that the right people policies

are in place to ensure the continuous improvement that result in competitive

advantage over other organisations that do not have the quality mark. IIP helps the

organisation to achieve its ambition through a framework of nine indicators, IIP

(2015b, p.1). All of the approaches from the literature, including VIVA, VHRD, The

Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees, HRA, ROCE, ROT and Social Value, profess

organisational benefit. All of them offer competitive advantage of some kind, Porter,

(1985) and cited by Thompson, (2001). The approaches of IIP, Human Capital,

VHRD and HRA promote communication and information. Values, value creation

and validation are included in the approaches of IIP, CSR, VIVA Human Capital,

VHRD, The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees, ROCE, ROT and Social Value

and all argue that they are linked to competitive advantage.

Parallel to these approaches from the literature, Social Value incorporates equality as

well as meeting the criteria of the contract through relationships with the community.

122

In these ways it contributes to competitive advantage. Social Capital is a resource

that is contributed by paid employees and is also translated into societal benefit. The

organisation may gain competitive advantage over others that may not have as much

of it. However, this is not currently known because it is not fully measured. It is

contributed through the networks of relationships among people who live and work

in a particular society, enabling that society to function more effectively through

volunteering according to Hof, (2005) and Smith, (2006). In relation to the

competitive advantage brought by people, The Pensions and Investments Research

Consultants, (PIRC), quoting Hesketh, (2015, p.7) states that, “some organisations

do publish people-related data in their annual reports and corporate social

responsibility reports, which focus on the contribution of volunteers. Very few

communicate an integrated understanding of the capacity of their business to deliver

sustained value-creation through their people”. This is integral to this thesis which

argues for the measurement of the benefits provided through people and their

voluntary contributions.

In relation to this, Bullen and Eyler, (2009, p.2) also state that, “accountants and

others in the financial reporting environment have become accustomed to using more

complex measurement approaches to the financial statement reported amounts. This

would lend support to the possibility that future financial reports may include non-

traditional contributions such as the value of human resources using HRA methods”.

It would be beneficial if non-traditional contributions brought by people could be

fully reported on to give a better measure for the competitive advantage that

volunteering may give. McClean, (2004, p.16) argues that, non-profit third sector

organisations can perform better, or even, “create a benchmark for delivering

123

customer value amongst all its stakeholders”. Stakeholders’ voluntary contributions

may deliver value back to all organisations for competitive advantage. By utilising

volunteers to help deliver the services, there are savings on salaries that may lead to

sustainability. This voluntary activity, particularly of board members may enable

organisations to go from asking for grants to generating their own income for

organisational sustainability. It is their skills and knowledge that would lead to

competitive advantage over other organisations, as a Payback on Volunteering.

While competitive advantage through the skills of paid employees can be aligned to

the work of Chowdhury, (2011, p.3) who advocates that, “ROT is a superb

performance indicator, and one that is set to be measured and managed in much the

same way as financial issues”. The measurement of financial performance through

accountancy methods has been discussed in the ROCE approach which also shows

competitive advantage. Organisational performance is reliant solely on the talents of

its paid employees, according to Chowdhury, (2011). However, this argument can

now be challenged. Performance is also linked to increased sales like Mass

Collaboration. The SRI, (2012, p.6) states that, “… although the value we create

goes far beyond what can be captured in financial terms, this is, for the most part, the

only type of value that is measured and accounted for”. The SRI is discussing

tangible money and agrees that intangibles are not being measured or properly

accounted for. It would be beneficial to organisations to have a complete measure of

everything that gives it competitive advantage, including quality marks, so that it can

benchmark against other comparable organisations.

124

Another benefit for organisations identified in many of the approaches from the

literature is that adopting quality marks can enable benchmarking. Both IIP and

CSR offer ways of benchmarking with other organisations through people for IIP

and through services for CSR, which has its roots in the military, according to

Brooks, (2005). Other approaches such as ROT, HRA and Social Capital also

promote ways of benchmarking by measuring outcomes. Human Capital and ROCE

are also used to benchmark and all the approaches give some measure of ROI or

show profit and loss. HRA shows return on investment, as does Social Value. These

measures can be benchmarked with other organisations who measure in a

comparable way. Stakeholders voluntarily contribute to organisations with no

financial investment, apart from some management time and training. While, Human

Capital can be compared to IIP as it measures retention, training, performance and

absenteeism as well as talent which resemble the ROT approach. Retention, for

example can be benchmarked against other organisations whose turnover of staff

may be higher. All of the approaches from the literature can be used for recognition

and benchmarking and there is a lot of organisational financial information being

currently reported on in the literature. Benchmarking is a measure of how an

organisation compares to others that are in the same field, but it misses out a

significant amount of information on how it is actually achieved. At present it is used

to convince customers that an organisation is at a certain standard when compared to

others in the community.

2.12 Enhanced Services in Communities as a Benefit of All Stakeholders’

Voluntary Contributions

125

The benefits of stakeholders volunteering in a community is also linked to the work

of Moretti, (2005) who found a positive effect on civic behaviour as a benefit of it,

such as increased voting through participation. Some stakeholder categories, such as

board members have increased Social Capital through the skills they gain by

volunteering for an organisation. This increase in skills and education can lead to an

impact on wider social goals such as enhanced participation and can be measured by

the numbers that vote in an election, as has been discussed. Moretti, (2002) argues

that Social Capital shows that there are decreases in criminality as the result of

voluntary activity but while this work is extremely important, the literature does not

consider all stakeholders voluntary activity, so it does not give a full understanding

of what is happening in communities. Traditional volunteering through Mass

Collaboration also has also been shown to have a positive impact in communities

because volunteers can have a say in which services are delivered. CSR accounts for

the relationships between an organisation and its community and gives its services a

valuation through loyalty, according to De los Salmones and Del Bosque, (2011).

There is a large variety of CSR undertaken by SMEs in Wales, according to Brooks

and Evans, (2005). It decreases risks and improves organisational performance,

argue Fontaine et al, (2006). It cultivates loyalty by giving back to the community

through initiatives such as community benefit funds.

Another benefit that is discussed in some of the literature is the benefit back to the

community from stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. The benefits include

enhanced services that are delivered by voluntary stakeholder activity that may also

lead to the benefit of community participation. For example, Putnam, (1995)

describes people voluntarily manning outposts, branches of institutions or

126

organisations to provide services. Stores were run by volunteers, in newer

democracies, particularly the USA, but throughout the world. The volunteers’ Social

Capital can be aligned to Mass Collaboration as it includes the voluntary

contribution of people to enable citizen-centric goods and services to be produced

and delivered in the community.

Social Capital results in a civil society, according to Day et al, (2006) and decision

making at the local level is encouraged through participation, according to Liddle,

(2003) and Cornforth, (2012, 2015). The third sector can attract grant funding to

enable it to address social problems in the community and is aligned to the wellbeing

that is argued by O’Donnel et al, (2014). While Mass Collaboration advocates people

power to deliver citizen-centric services as it relies on their voluntary input. Wang et

al, (2016, p.6) state that, “… long-term residents may be more willing to volunteer

for the public good of the community because they have more of a stake in the safety

and quality of life in the community. Comparably, an individual with a stronger

sense of belonging in their particular community would probably be more willing to

undertake the costs associated with volunteering than someone less attached who

may not value the benefits of the public good produced through volunteering”. The

belonging that is described by Wang et al could include the benefit of the wellbeing

felt by individuals through volunteering.

The significance of the literature is that more contacts can be won by involving

stakeholders. Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector and Social

Value are approaches that are associated with customers or service users in the

community. While the Contribution of the Third Sector, VIVA, Human Capital and

127

Social Value are all involved in citizen-centric planning. Aligned to this, VIVA and

The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees are involved in influencing policy and

most claim enhanced quality, delivery, services, systems, functions, operations,

commissioning or procurement, which also leads to enhanced services. This leads to

less crime and more voting in the community. For example, Putnam in (1995, p.66)

wrote the paper, ‘Bowling Alone’, stating that, “life is easier in a community blessed

with a substantial stock of social capital”. His work includes women’s institutes

PTAs etc., but he claims that volunteering is declining due to the number of women

going out to work since the 1960s and 1970s. Putnam, (1995) argues that it is

stakeholder contributions that lead to enhanced social capital. As do Wang et al,

(2016).

Social Capital promotes skills in a way that is not unlike Mass Collaboration uses

volunteers’ knowledge of IT skills to submit their feedback to organisations. The

outcome of increased sales is tangible and relies on people power to change the

delivery of citizen-centric services in communities. Mass Collaboration is a driver

for productivity through people behaving socially. People volunteering in the Mass

Collaboration approach results in increased sales as products and services are

citizen-centric in the community. In relation to people acting socially Field, (2009)

advocates that Mass Collaboration is made possible by volunteers using their own

technology. The benefit to the company is that it does not have to pay for computers

or mobile phones, so this is also a voluntary contribution. VIVA also assesses how

services could be improved through acting on feedback, like Mass Collaboration, by

improving the management of volunteers. VIVA gives volunteers feedback on how

their contributions make a difference to the community and is also used to market

128

and attract more funding that can be spent in the community. It also helps to

influence policy and the law. Involving the participation of community stakeholders

is paramount in The Social Value Act, as contracts could not be delivered without

them. Volunteering may also result in the outcome back to the stakeholders

themselves of their enhanced wellbeing.

2.13 Wellbeing as a Return on Individual Stakeholder Contributions

Some of the approaches in the literature highlight the individual benefits, such as the

wellbeing, that results from all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to an

organisation. It is interesting to note that IIP has recently introduced a, ‘Health and

Wellbeing Award’ as part of its recognition and awards portfolio. In support of this,

are Haldane’s, (2014, p.15) “benefit multipliers”. Aligned to Haldane’s argument,

are the approaches of Social Capital, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback

on Volunteering, VIVA, Human Capital and Social Value which all claim benefits to

health and wellbeing. They include benefit multipliers that enhance volunteers’ self-

esteem and confidence, which may increase the propensity for them to do it again.

While these approaches are usually associated with traditional volunteers, Human

Capital is linked to paid employees.

The benefits of Human Capital are long-term through investing in employees’

education, on the job training and work experience that lead to retention of the

workforce. O’Donnel et al, (2014, p.48) concluded that, “… unemployment is a

major cause of misery and this is mainly for psychological rather than financial

reasons … more generally, these results show that when we consider disadvantage,

129

we need a much wider concept of deprivation than simple lack of income”.

Volunteering may help people feel less miserable if they are unemployed, but has the

added benefit of enhancing their skills to increase their Social Capital until they can

become employed again. However, others argue that volunteering can have a

negative impact on wellbeing such as Blackadder and Jackson, (2011). They argue

that paid employees may feel coerced into volunteering in austere times, which is

opposite to them feeling good about contributing their unpaid time. Associated with

this, O’Donnel et al, (2014, p.54) argue that, “… governments should develop new

methods of analysis where wellbeing is taken as the measure of benefit”.

Aligned to wellbeing, Jones-Evans, (2018) argues that, businesses large and small

are turning their attention to making sure their staff are happy and fulfilled by

treating Monday morning’s like Friday afternoons and advocating 20-minute power

naps. He continues that, “more importantly, an increasing number of organisations

will begin to integrate mental and emotional wellbeing into performance

management indicators, especially if it can be shown that the return on investment

into such programmes can lead to increased competitiveness”. It would be

encouraging if showing wellbeing could include a measure for the wellbeing of the

other stakeholder categories too, particularly if it was as a benefit of any voluntary

contributions. The wellbeing from the approach of Payback on Volunteering, or

Haldane’s, (2014) ‘benefit multipliers’ is also aligned to the findings of Moretti,

(2005, p.1) who advocates that, “the possibility that the social return to human

capital differs from its private return has a tremendous practical importance”. He

continued, “in fact, much of the argument for public education is based on the

recognition that education not only rewards the educated individual, but also creates

130

a variety of benefits that are shared by society at large”. Education ensures that the

volunteers have the skills to deliver services in communities. In return, the

volunteers have the benefit of increased wellbeing. Volunteering in this way is

advocated by Leaman, (2015, p.1) who was a games marker for the 2012 Olympics,

where she had, “four of the most extraordinary weeks of her life”. She continues, “…

my personal motivation is to give something back to the hospital that saved my

husband’s life. While not having everything I want, I am fortunate to have

everything I need and believe that most of us can help in the community in some

way and not ask for a monetary reward”. Leaman also writes on emotional health.

Emotional health and wellbeing includes the increased skills of volunteers and is

supported in the work of Fujiwara, (2012).

Another benefit for individuals is that they may develop new skills. While the

approach of Mass Collaboration also measures increased skills as do HRA, Human

Capital and VHRD. VHRD also uses accounting practices to measure the value of

skills. Human Capital and HRA use metrics to analyse the contributions of skills too.

Skills are also considered in the Social Return on Investment, (SRI) which is akin to

Return on Talent Employed, (ROTE), ROCE and The Social Value Act because it is

a way of continuous improvement though skills. Increased skills to enable economic

growth are presented in The Leitch Review of Skills, (2006) as previously discussed.

However, none of the approaches measure the resulting wellbeing of all stakeholders

that is gained by learning new skills. Training for continuous improvement is also

advocated by IIP and it has been discussed that people who are well trained may

have competitive advantage over those who are not. Many who volunteer do so in

the third sector but The Contribution of the Third Sector approach has no measure

131

for the increased wellbeing that results from new skills. Also linked to skills,

Fujiwara, (2012, pp.1, 2 and 9) found that, “participating in adult learning is found to

have significant positive effects on individual health, employability, social

relationships, and the likelihood of participating in voluntary work”. This value is

worth £130.00, according to Fujiwara, for the individual, but there is no measure for

the wellbeing gained by that value. While undertaking a VIVA audit means that

things get done in societies through unpaid work and this is alike the skills that

contribute to the Human Capital of paid employees. VIVA measures traditional

volunteering which overlaps with HRA that measures paid employees’ skills.

However, there is no current measure for the wellbeing that results from the

increased skills of all stakeholders.

The approach of The Contribution of the Third Sector can be compared to Social

Capital in that it is contributed for the benefit of society. However, while these

approaches give valuable insights into traditional volunteering, they do not measure

the contributors’ wellbeing. A number of the approaches that measure traditional

volunteering, like Payback on Volunteering implies that volunteering is also good for

the volunteer: it helps improve health and wellbeing, but does not present an accurate

measure for it. Usually, it is only traditional volunteering that is reported on in the

literature while it excludes the voluntary contributions of the other stakeholder

categories. The approaches from the literature such as IIP claim better behaviour,

competency, culture or motivation while others, such as HRA support performance

and retention. All the approaches from the literature include a degree of outcomes

such as training, skills, knowledge, intellectual capital, development, talent,

innovation, competence, or promotion for individuals voluntarily through unpaid

132

work. This is in alignment to the voluntary labour of paid employees as a way of

continuous improvement though the transfer of their skills. Nevertheless, there is no

measure for all the voluntary activity that enables the people who volunteer to gain

enhanced wellbeing. There is also no current measure for the voluntary services that

are provided in the community by all stakeholders or the voluntary contributions that

result in organisational sustainability. Table 2.1, below is a summary of what the

literature does measure and what it does not measure:

Table 2.1 A summary of what the literature does measure and what it does not

measure.The approaches from the literature for the consultants:

What the literature does measure:

What the literature does not measure:

Quality marks, (IIP)

IIP is a benchmark for organisational, ‘outerperformance’ that is a standard achieved through excellent people management and maturity, which enables growth.

IIP is focussed primarily on paid employees and does not measure any voluntary time or skills contributed by consultants, or any of the other stakeholder categories in attaining the standard.

Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR)

CSR measures an organisation’s relationship with its community and influences an organisations’ transparency, image and loyalty.

There is a substantial amount of literature on CSR in accounting journals, but it does not account for any time voluntarily contributed by consultants, or any of the other stakeholder categories.

The approaches from the literature for the traditional volunteers:

What the literature does measure:

What the literature does not measure:

Social Capital Social Capital is a resource that includes networks that is contributed for free by volunteers and translated into societal benefit, or benefit multipliers. It also plays an important role in the delivery of services.

Social Capital results in enhanced wellbeing, health benefits, increased skills and employability, but does not measure any voluntary contributions to how it is achieved. It usually measures the social capital of

133

traditional volunteers.Mass Collaboration

Mass Collaboration is a resource and a way of measuring people’s involvement in the design of services and products that gives competitive advantage over others as people will buy into the services they helped to design. Also called, ‘people power’ or, ‘the power of us’.

It measures voluntary participation by increased votes and partially measures the benefits of people voluntarily working together to deliver citizen-centric services. It does not measure the time contributed by traditional volunteers or any of the other stakeholder categories.

The Contribution of the Third Sector

The Contribution of the Third Sector measures the impact of the time contributed through traditional volunteering to the economy and compares it as a percentage of GDP.

It does not measure the voluntary contributions of any of the other stakeholder categories such as the voluntary contributions of paid employees.

Payback on Volunteering

There is a payback from volunteering that results from voluntary activity such as increased skills that will result in better jobs for the contributors themselves, but also to society through reduced criminality which is a benefit multiplier.

It contributes to sustained economic growth and wellbeing through social action, but there is no measure for everything that is being contributed to the resulting growth and wellbeing because it only considers one of the stakeholder categories and their contributions.

The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA)

VIVA is an audit or ratio which measures the profit and loss of managing volunteers. By undertaking an audit an organisation gains increased recognition, potentially more funding and better public relations.

It accounts for the overheads associated with managing volunteers and gives time a value. It cannot be used to account for the time given voluntarily by paid employees or the due diligence provided by boards in their management.

The approaches from the literature for the paid employees:

What the literature does measure:

What the literature does not measure:

Human Capital Human capital is linked to the education, training, skills and experience of the workforce. It contributes to the sustainability of organisations.

It shows how the HR function creates value by return on the investment in skills to productivity. It does not consider any human capital of any of the other

134

stakeholder categories.Virtual Human Resource Development, (VHRD)

VHRD reports on human performance through technology. It treats paid employees’ competence as an asset and gives it a value. It leads to performance improvement in the workforce.

It considers a wide range of performance indicators for paid employees, but it does not measure the human performance of board members, traditional volunteers or consultants.

The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees

The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees accounts for the time that paid employees give over and above that which they are paid for. It helps to shore up organisations in austere times until the economy improves.

The interchangeability between paid employees the reasons for it such as increased costs or a shortage of paid employees is acknowledged in the literature, but it does not fully measure the voluntary labour of paid employees or any of the other stakeholder categories.

Human Resource Accounting, (HRA)

HRA measures five parameters of recruiting, acquisition, formal, informal training, experience and development. It measures metrics such as absence and staff turnover.

A valuable tool for collecting information the activity that employees are paid for, but does not measure any voluntary time that they, or any of the other stakeholder categories, contribute.

The approaches from the literature for the board members:

What the literature does measure:

What the literature does not measure:

Return on Capital Employed, (ROCE)

ROCE is a validation of a company’s competitive advantage. High ROCE enables competitive advantage through the strong leadership and management of boards. It is an important aspect of reporting on financial capital investments.

The literature argues that it is, ‘erroneous’ and can mislead investors because it only gives a snapshot of the organisation’s position at a given time. It does not account for any voluntary activity or intangibles in its measure. It does not consider any of the stakeholder categories or their voluntary contributions, including the board members who manage it.

Return on Talent, (ROT)

ROT measures the amount of money invested in workforce talent and boards analyse how much talent

It only measures the talent of paid employees in a similar way to financial issues and does not consider the talent

135

results from their investment and how it contributes to organisational success for competitive advantage.

of any of the other stakeholder categories as indicators of success.

Social Value The Social Value Act is a way of thinking about how scarce resources are allocated and used and considers the collective benefit to the community when awarding a contract from a public body.

Contracts are weighted to include voluntary activity in the community in the achievement of its outcomes, but social value does not consider any voluntary activity of consultants or paid employees in the procurement process.

It can now be shown that the approaches from the literature give an incomplete

measure of everything that is being voluntarily contributed by all stakeholders, as

well as all the benefits it brings. It has been shown that there is no complete measure

for all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and its benefits.

2.14 Conclusion

In conclusion of the literature review, all stakeholders both contribute to and benefit

from a range of both tangible and intangible resources. However, a significant

amount of voluntary contributions that result in this threefold benefit to

organisations, communities and the stakeholders themselves currently remains

unmeasured. This may be partly because trust and commitment, for example are

intangible, but also because there is no all-encompassing measure for what is being

contributed and its resulting benefits. This highlights the need for a more complete

picture of the inputs and outcomes from all stakeholder contributions, whether paid

or unpaid.

136

It is found that all the approaches from the literature investigated, purported to

improve organisations, society or individuals, but they are all fragmented as none of

the approaches from the literature provide a comprehensive measure of all

stakeholders’ voluntary contribution or its benefits. The outcomes of adopting some

or all of these approaches are argued to benefit the contributors through increased

wellbeing and skills. Communities benefit by having citizen-centric services through

participation and the benefit to organisations is competitive advantage for

sustainability. The approaches are used mostly to benchmark against other

organisations to show what they produce or deliver is even better than their

competitors. However, some say that they are just a badge or trophy, (Hoque, 2003,

Berry and Grieves, 2003 and Smith, 2014). Organisations do not account for all the

contributions of all its stakeholders in their reporting. Therefore, it is suggested that

this is a business limitation as it may be all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions that

provide the benefit of helping organisations to survive in these austere times. All

organisations have to do in return is to properly manage the volunteers, traditional or

otherwise, and report fully on the benefits of all their contributions.

Throughout the literature, no single study has produced an all-encompassing

approach of all the voluntary contributions made by all stakeholders or its benefits. It

has been established that the third sector is presently a growth sector, according to

The WCVA’s Voluntary Sector Almanac, (2011) and in 2016, there was an increase

in the number of Companies Limited by Guarantee, (2016, p.8), but it may not be

fully reporting on what is contributing to its growth. It has been established that it

would be much higher (Haldane, 2014) if it included informal volunteering.

Haldane’s argument is a step in the right direction but it needs to include all

137

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, not just traditional volunteering. This is not

only a potential business limitation for the SWWales Charity but the sector as a

whole. All stakeholders’ voluntary contributions should be captured and reported on

as its benefits may be a driver for that organisational growth, as it has been

established that GDP does not tell the whole story, nor does Public Value. The

SWWales Charity may contribute to third sector growth alongside the other,

“approximately 33,000 voluntary and community organisations in Wales, of which

32,197 are recorded on the All Wales Database, maintained by the WCVA”, the

WCVA, (March 2014). The SWWales Charity’s Board reports on an annual turnover

of £1.6m, but this may not be the full value of its human assets. Current reporting is

only concerned with traditional volunteer costs and the costs associated with

consultancy, for example. The Board may be omitting to report on its total assets to

its funders, governing bodies, the Charities Commission, Companies House or any

of its other external stakeholders, but it is not a legal requirement at present.

The aim of this chapter was to examine a range of literature that focuses on

approaches that highlight stakeholders’ voluntary inputs to organisations. It was

found that each approach is limited as it only concentrated on one particular aspect

of stakeholders and their individual contributions. This is a limitation, as no one

approach from the literature acknowledged all stakeholders or all their voluntary

contributions. They also did not acknowledge the threefold benefit. Each literature

provides important insights into particular stakeholder categories but all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and benefits are under-researched. There was

found to be a small amount of research around consultants, but none on any

voluntary contributions, for example, but a large body of research around traditional

138

volunteering. However, there is presently not one all-encompassing approach that

measures everything that is being voluntarily contributed or the benefits that it

brings. It may also now be stated that as the literature advocates that all stakeholders

contribute to organisational success, in a variety of ways, Mendelow’s, (1991) model

could now possibly be updated. It could now show that all stakeholders who

voluntary contribute have equal power and an equal level of interest in the

organisation, but first the primary research must be undertaken to test this theory. In

order to establish if all stakeholders of the SWWales Charity voluntarily contribute

to it, the methods to collect primary and secondary data will now be examined. The

approaches from the literature will be aligned to the four stakeholder categories and

used to form the research questions to collect the primary data in Chapter Three. It

will also examine organisational documentation of the SWWales Charity to collect

secondary data. It introduces the methodological framework of case studies and

methods for data collection to establish if all stakeholders of the SWWales Charity

voluntarily contribute to a threefold benefit to the organisation, the community and

back to themselves.

Chapter Three

The Methodological Framework and Methods for Data Collection

3.0 Introduction

139

This chapter focuses on the research question, which is to identify the voluntary

activities that may be being contributed to the SWWales Charity by all its

stakeholders, and any benefits that result from their actions. It presents the methods

for collecting data from the SWWales Charity’s stakeholders, as stakeholding is the

theoretical framework for this research. It will examine if all stakeholders voluntarily

contribute to organisational success, community participation and the wellbeing of

the contributors. It will gather both primary data from the stakeholders and

secondary data from organisational reports. In order to gather primary data, each

stakeholder category is linked to the relevant approaches from the literature. For

example, the consultants were assigned quality marks and the paid employees were

assigned the human capital approach. These approaches from the literature will

inform the research question to establish if there are any contributions that the

SWWales Charity’s stakeholders’ voluntarily make. The literature highlighted that

all stakeholder categories may voluntarily contribute a range of both tangible and

intangible resources. There are measures for some of their contributions, but they

may not measure everything that is being contributed.

The research question suggests that a mixed methods approach is considered as it

seeks to identify both tangible time contributed and intangible contributions such as

trust and commitment. It discusses both qualitative and quantitative methods that

would complement this research. This chapter aims to revisit the findings from the

literature and the stakeholder categories. It introduces research philosophy, Guba,

(1990) and reviews a range of research methods, Denscome, (2008) and Yin, (2012),

identifying the most appropriate. It reviews and summarises the methods used for

140

data collection that includes questionnaires and follow-up interviews. It then

considers the collection of secondary data from organisational documentation, using

a content analysis. The chapter concludes with the method of analysing the data from

all the stakeholders.

3.1 Research philosophy

The methods of data collection available for research will ensure that it is

methodologically robust. Methods of data collection must take into consideration

the research question and the author’s ontological position. Ontology and

epistemology are the philosophical assumptions that researchers make. For example,

ontology is an individual’s view of reality and whether there is a single reality or

truth, or many. These contribute to many different research paradigms. There are a

range of paradigms that include positivism, post positivism (pragmatism), critical

constructionism and interpretivism, according to Guba, (1990). Epistemology is

concerned with how reality can be known and methodology is how the enquirer

should go about gaining knowledge. It sets out and defends the author’s proposed

methodology to support their ontological position. Guba (1990, pp.17-27), suggested

various ontological positions and argued that, “ontology: is an individual’s view of

reality about people’s perceptions and describes the facts that exist when conducting

research”. Positivism is based on observation of reality to draw conclusions, whereas

post positivism, or pragmatism describes that reality exits but can never be fully

apprehended. Constructionism is socially and experientially based that is dependent

for their form and content on the persons who hold them. Interpretivism is concerned

with social actors and patterns of meaning.

141

Many authors have described research philosophy and the paradigms associated with

it. As well as Guba, (1990), these include McNeil, (1990) Denscombe, (2008),

Bryman, (2012) and more recently Morgan (2014). Traditionally, the tried and tested

methods of data collection include the scientific positivist methods using quantitative

techniques. By using this method any enquirer will always get the same result, while

an interpretivist approach using qualitative methods would be influenced by the

perceptions of the researcher. In his findings around generating inquiry paradigms,

Guba, (1990, p. 18) states that inquiries, “… can be characterised by the way their

proponents respond to three basic questions. The questions are: 1. Ontological: what

is the nature of the “knowable” Or, what is the nature of “reality”? 2.

Epistemological: What is the nature of the relationship between the knower (the

enquirer) and the known (or knowable)? 3. Methodological: how should the inquirer

go about finding out knowledge?”

The author’s ontological position is central to the research design, as it informs the

gaining of authoritative knowledge, or epistemology. Guba, (1990 pp. 17-27)

describes epistemology as gaining authoritative knowledge about a social problem or

phenomena in research and describes methodology as the how the enquirer should go

about gaining knowledge. A pragmatic standpoint adopts both quantitative and

qualitative methods and undertakes an inquiry in more natural settings, as opposed to

the scientific method suited to positivism. As such, this research suits the mixed

methods approach of case studies. Combined, it is both ontology and epistemology

that inform the methodological tools needed to inquire of the SWWales Charity’s

stakeholders and to identify any voluntary contributions that they may make.

142

It has been established that research philosophy includes ontology, epistemology and

research methods. These research paradigms are now investigated fully before

choosing the ones that have best fit for the research question. In his writings

Denscombe, (2008, p.5) attempted to, “avoid jargon”. It has been established that

ontology is an inclination to a particular view of the world and the philosophy

includes positivism and interpretivism. Aligned to research philosophy, Denscome,

(2008, p.5) stated that, “theoretical debates have been deep, complicated and,

sometimes, abrasive between researchers who hold different beliefs about the nature

of social reality, (‘ontology’) and competing visions about the ways that humans

create their knowledge about the social world in which they live (‘epistemology’)”.

As has been discussed, the research question may indicate a more pragmatic

approach but first ontology, (what facts exist in reality) epistemology, (the theory of

obtaining that knowledge) and research paradigms are examined in more detail.

3.2 Ontology, Epistemology and Research Paradigms

In order to begin the process of answering the research question, first the author’s

ontological view must be established. It has been recognised that ontology is an

individual’s view of reality and include a single reality, (positivist) or only

perceptions of reality, (interpretivism). There is also the pragmatic approach which is

a view of reality which, “focuses instead on ‘what works’ as the truth regarding the

research questions under investigation” as argued by Tashakkori and Teddlie, (2003,

p.713). Pragmatism considers some qualitative methods and undertakes an inquiry in

natural settings. Pragmatism also suits the mixed methods approach for case studies,

143

for example and Bryman, (2012, p.6) stated that ontology is related to, “… how

social phenomenon influence the research process”. He continues, “… it is simply

there, acting upon and influencing their behaviour, beliefs, and values. We might

view the culture of an organization as a set of values and behavioural expectations

that exert a powerful influence over those who work in the organization and into

which new recruits have to be socialised”. Bryman continued, “… but we could also

view it as an entity that is in a process of reformulation and reassessment, as

members of the organization continually modify it through their practices and

through small innovations in how things are done. Considerations of this kind are

referred to as ontological ones”.

To link the ontological considerations of what exists, or not, and how to translate a

phenomenon into knowledge is achieved through epistemology. In the various

paradigms, positivism asks scientific questions and lets nature answer back. In the

interpretivist approach an understanding of the meaning of the respondents’

definitions of the situation are interpreted by the author. Epistemology, or gaining

authoritative knowledge about a social problem or phenomena in social research, is

presented by Bryman, (2012, p.4). He states that it, “… it denotes academic research

on topics relating to questions relevant to the social scientific fields, such as

sociology, human geography, politics, and criminology. Thus, social research

involves research that draws on the social sciences for conceptual and theoretical

inspiration”. In relation to social research, Bryman continues, (p.5), “such research

may be motivated by developments and changes in society … it is deeply rooted in

the ideas and intellectual traditions of the social sciences”. The research question is

based on a social aspect around the behaviours of stakeholders of the SWWales

144

Charity’s and it is crucial to have an understanding of the social aspect, which must

reflect the right research method.

It has been discussed that research paradigms, according to Guba, (1990) include:

positivism, post positivism, pragmatism, critical theory, constructionism and

interpretivism. The paradigms range from positivism and interpretivism, according

to Guba, (1990 p.17) who argues that, “in between these two pillars, there are the

other, emerging paradigms of post positivism (pragmatism), critical theory and

constructionism”. Guba continues, “… the salient differences between traditional

positivism, on the one hand, and three paradigms that have emerged to challenge

(replace? Parallel?) it on the other”. These paradigms are, “postpositivism, critical

theory and constructivism”, according to Guba, (1990 pp.17-25). Guba also

describes the doctrine of positivism, which is aligned to quantitative methods of data

collection and in the scientific method. In agreement with Guba, Denscombe, (2008,

p.6) stated that, “by using the scientific method researchers hoped to achieve the

same level of success in explaining the social world that their counterparts had

managed with the natural world. Using the tried and tested methods of science, they

hoped to diagnose social, economic and psychological problems and offer advice to

influential leaders about appropriate remedies”. Another scientific, hypothetico-

deductive method is advocated by Popper, (1979) which suits the method of

positivism. Popper likens this method as a crime being solved through investigation.

With regard to the hypothetico-deductive method, Popper, (1979) also discusses

causal relationships for corroboration of facts. In relation to this, Bryman, (2012,

p.27) argues that, “… positivism is extremely difficult to pin down and therefore to

outline in a precise manner, because it is used in a number of different ways by

145

authors”. He continues, “for some writers, it is a descriptive category – one that

describes a philosophical position that can be discerned in research – though there

are still disagreements about what it comprises; for others, it is a pejorative term

used to describe crude and often superficial data collection”. Positivist paradigms are

associated with realism, what is fact and can be measured, while interpretivist

paradigms are more closely aligned with naturalist and constructivist stances. This

research however uses both ends of the spectrum because quantitative questions

around the amount of time contributed by stakeholders would fit into the scientific

methods because anyone undertaking this part of the research would gain the same

results. The doctrine of positivism is linked to the traditional scientific methods of

collecting data in a tried and tested way. In these scientific circumstances, only one

result can be achieved.

Alternatively, interpretivism, according to McNeill, (1990, p.119) is, “the central

feature of social life is that actions are the result of people’s interpretations of the

situation that they are in … the causes of social action lie in people’s ‘definition of

the situation’, their interpretation of events, not in some pattern of objective laws that

govern from outside”. Interpretivism, provides an, “alternative to the positivist

orthodoxy that has held sway for decades”, according to Bryman, (2012, p.30). It

considers the view that there needed to be a strategy that embraces the differences

between objects and people. Bryman (2012, p.28) also states that, “interpretivism is a

term given to a contrasting epistemology to positivism”.

Realism, also known as essentialism or critical realism is another epistemological

consideration that chronologically appeared after positivism and before

146

interpretivism. Realism is defined by Bryman, (2012, p.715) as, “an epistemological

position that acknowledges a reality independent of the senses that is accessible to

the researcher’s tools and theoretical speculations. It implies that the categories

created by scientists refer to real objects in the natural or social world”. While the

most recent consideration, advocated by Michel Foucault, is postmodernism and also

defined by Bryman, (2012 p.714) as, “a position that displays a distaste for master-

narratives and for a realist orientation. In the context of research methodology,

postmodernists display a preference for qualitative methods and a concern with the

modes of representation of research findings”.

It is also concerned with knowledge, power and methodology which are linked to

phenomenology. Interpretivism takes the standpoint that purely qualitative research

is undertaken. Ajjawi and Higgs, (2007, p. 614) argue that, “… these phenomena

cannot maintain their essential and embedded features if reduced or measured as in

quantitative research. Both clinical reasoning and communication are complex

phenomena involving multiple strategies, purposes and interpretations; there are no

perfect approaches to reasoning or communication”. The qualitative questions

around stakeholders’ thoughts and feelings can be more aligned to the interpretivist

paradigm as they often use mixed methods of data collection, which are more

aligned to the pragmatic school of philosophy.

3.3 Pragmatism

A pragmatic epistemological, (authoritative knowledge) position considers

involvement, understanding, values and can include mixed, or qualitative and

quantitative methods. Morgan, (2014, p.1049) argues that, “pagmatism presents a

147

radical departure from age-old philosophical arguments about the nature of reality

and the possibility of truth”. The pragmatic approach is also advocated by

Denscome, (2007, p.91) who states that, “pragmatism places great emphasis on the

‘practical’ rather than the ‘abstract’ when it comes to issues of knowledge and truth

and it operates on the premise that the value of any theory can only be gauged by

how well it addresses real practical needs and how well it works in practice”. This

method is suitable to this research, which aims to address the practical need of

reporting on whether or not all stakeholders’ voluntarily contribute to the SWWales

Charity.

Denscombe, (p.116), continues that, “pragmatism is generally regarded as the

philosophical partner for the Mixed Methods approach. It provides a set of

assumptions about knowledge and enquiry that (a) underpins the Mixed Methods

approach; and (b) distinguishes the approach from purely quantitative approaches

that are based on a philosophy of positivism and purely qualitative approaches that

are based on a philosophy of interpretivism”. Therefore, the pragmatic approach,

which underpins the choice of research methods, provides the best fit for this

research.

The author did not consider either positivist or interpretivist approach alone, as

separate constraints would not give the right mix for data collection. In his argument

for a pragmatic approach, Morgan, (2014, p.1051) continues, “rather than framing

the study of social science research as commitments to an abstract set of

philosophical beliefs, pragmatism concentrates on beliefs that are more directly

connected to actions”. Another advocate of pragmatism McNeill, (1990, p.123)

148

states that, “some writers refer to this process as ‘triangulation’… and means that

you get a better view of things by looking at them from more than one direction”. He

continues that, “while people’s actions are a result of their interpretation of a

situation, their interpretations and their choices are limited by structural factors

external to them and beyond their control”. Having established the author’s

pragmatic ontological stance and the epistemological position, research design of

mixed methods is now examined.

Having considered all of the different paradigms that have been advocated by

Popper, (1979) Guba, (1990) McNeill, (1990), Ajjawi and Higgs, (2007),

Denscombe, (2008), Bryman, (2012) and Morgan, (2014), there is only one possible

method that would answer the research question and that is a pragmatic, mixed-

methods approach. However, a mixed-methods research (MMR) approach is not

necessarily related to pragmatism, as argued by Morgan, (2014, p. 1045), who asks,

“… does arguing for a broader application of pragmatism to social research require a

clarification of its specific relationship to MMR? At issue here is the idea that

pragmatism is somehow uniquely related to MMR. This confusion is reminiscent of

some paradigmatic claims that qualitative methods must be connected to

constructivism and quantitative methods must be connected to post-positivism. In all

of these cases, there may be an affinity between paradigms and methods, but there is

no deterministic link that forces the use of a particular paradigm with a particular set

of methods”. Morgan, (2014, p.1051) continues that, “switching to this new

(pragmatic) paradigm does indeed require effort, but the benefits that it provides are

well worth it”. While Meissner, (2010, p.24) states that, “mixed methods research

may place a higher burden on participants than single-method approaches, but may

149

also give greater benefit … investigators should carefully consider and identify any

unique benefits from the use of mixed methods, such as the potential for individual

or community impact”. The research question includes both quantitative and

qualitative perspectives for a greater benefit through a mixed methods research

approach. Therefore, the author’s ontological position for this research is a pragmatic

one and in order to find out the facts it utilises both quantitative and qualitative

methods to gather data. Examples of advocates of mixed methods as a research

design are Rowley, (2002, pp.17, 27) and Cameron and Miller, (2010, p.7-8).

3.4 Research Design

Statistics alone would not give complete results in this research, neither would

purely qualitative methods. However, the quantitative contribution of any voluntary

time that the stakeholders may give must be asked alongside any qualitative

questions aligned to the literature. As well as the quantitative methods of research for

collecting the unit of time, there also needed to be qualitative methods which draw

out detail and individual perspectives in questionnaires. Follow-up interviews also

form the basis for collecting more data for triangulation and advocates of this

method include Spitzeck and Hansen, (2010, p.379) who undertook research into

stakeholder governance. They found (p.387) that there were limitations to one kind

of research and that, “a triangulation with further qualitative data could help to

establish a more critical analysis”. The mixed methods movement, which combines

both qualitative and quantitative methodological methods is supported by, amongst

others, Cameron and Miller, (2010, p.1) who presented a paper, “to map the

experience of introducing the teaching of mixed methods in an international Doctor

150

of Business Administration (DBA) curriculum within an existing Australian

University”. They found (p.11) that, “however, there is a need to be cautious that

mixed methods does not be seen as a compulsory approach to be adopted by

researchers in business and universities that need to promote a general philosophy

that there are many ways that a research problem might be investigated, each with its

own strengths and weaknesses and that no one particular paradigm, is superior to

another”.

Researchers have advocated a number of tried and tested tools, or methods for

collecting data, while Cameron and Miller, (2010, pp. 7,8) also produced a table of

the research design type and methods that could be used for DBA theses. This

included, “exploratory, case study, descriptive, explanatory, action research,

experimental, grounded theory, longitudinal, quasi experimental and mixed

methods”. In order to answer the research question, mixed methods is the chosen

epistemology.

Case studies, which use mixed methods fit well with the research question and in

support of case studies, Rowley, (2002, pp.17,25) contrasts surveys to case studies

by stating that, “… typically the number of units studied in a case study is many less

than in a survey, but the extent of detail available for each case should be greater. As

compared with an experiment, the case study researcher has much less control over

the variables, than if an experiment were used to investigate a situation”. As a

research strategy, Rowley, (2002) advocates that the kinds of questions that case

studies ask are, ‘how’ and ‘why’. Therefore, in order to answer the research

151

question, mixed methods is the chosen epistemology to gain authoritative knowledge

by means of a case study.

3.5 Case Studies

There are a range of methods for collecting data that include qualitative and

quantitative methods aligned to the social aspect of research. In his work around case

studies, Yin, (2012, p.19) “… pointed to the potential relevance of both qualitative

and quantitative data in doing case study research. This duality reinforces the

positioning of the case study method as a method not limited to either type of data.

An important correlate is that case study investigators should be acquainted with

collecting data from a variety of sources of evidence as well as using a variety of

analytic techniques”. The case study approach is also defended by Denscombe,

(2008, p.45) who states that, “unwarranted though it may be, case studies are often

perceived as producing ‘soft’ data. The approach gets accused of lacking the degree

of rigor expected of social science research. This tends to go alongside the view of

case study research as focussing on processes rather than measureable end-products,

as relying on qualitative data and interpretative methods rather than quantitative data

and statistical procedures”. Siggelkow, (2007, p.20), however defends the single

case study method as a, “very powerful example”.

A case study is defined by Yin, (p.4) as, “an empirical inquiry about a contemporary

phenomenon (e.g., a “case”), set within its real-world context – especially when the

boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. Case studies

include both qualitative and quantitative questions to complement the research

question and in support of case studies, Yin, (2012, p.3) states that, “the case study

152

method embraces the full set of procedures needed to do case study research. These

tasks include designing a case study, collecting the study’s data, analyzing the data,

and presenting and reporting the results”. As this research is an experiment in the

real-world context of a SWWales Charity, a case study approach seems to be a good

fit for the research question as it utilises quantitative and qualitative methods for

triangulation, which are aligned to the author’s pragmatic ontological position.

A case study approach appears to give the best fit to the aim of this research. This

method is supported by Eisenhardt, (1989, pp.548-549) who states that case studies

can be, “particularly well suited to new research areas or research areas for which

existing theory seems inadequate. This type of work is highly complementary to

incremental theory building from normal science research. The former is useful in

early stages of research on a topic or when a fresh perspective is needed, whilst the

latter is useful in later stages of knowledge”. Case studies are usually assigned to

new research areas and include more than one organisation. However, a more

suitable approach for this research is a single case study methodology. In her defence

of single case study methodology, Siggelkow, (2007, p.20) states that, “…

researchers using case research often feel they are fighting an uphill battle to

persuade their readers”. Her research uses the analogy of a talking pig, and suggests

that reviewers of the paper would say, “… interesting, but that’s just one pig, show

me a few more and then I might believe you”. Siggelkow continues (p.20), “I think

that we would agree that that would be a silly response. A single case can be a very

powerful example”. Therefore, a single case study was found to have the best fit to

undertake the research aim of this thesis.

153

Having discounted all of the previous methods for collecting data, a single case study

is chosen as the best method as it enables a rich and detailed examination of the

social phenomenon of volunteering and provides the results needed for this research.

It is aligned to the author’s pragmatic research philosophy, as has been discussed.

The limitations of a single case study includes its lack of comprehensiveness; ideally

it would be more robust to be able to compare with other, similar non-profits or even

the statutory sector for multiple case studies in the area but this would have had great

time and cost constraints. It may, however, be an idea for future research. A single

case study is chosen because, as described, case studies include mixed methods of

research that include both interpretive qualitative and positivist quantitative methods

of collecting data inform a pragmatic approach. This single case study takes into

account all ethical considerations.

3.6 Ethics

This research sets out to investigate all of the tangible and intangible contributions

that all stakeholders of the SWWales charity may make. It is undertaken ethically to

ensure that there is no risk, or conflicts of interest, to individuals, the SWWales

Charity or the University of South Wales.

Axiology is concerned with personal values and ethics that may impact on the

research. As stated earlier, the author has been employed at the SWWales Charity for

a number of years and this is taken into consideration when designing the

questionnaires. Ethical considerations are paramount to any research and

Denscombe, (2007, p.174) described, “in the English language the word “ethics” has

154

come to combine the two origins by linking (a) the duties and responsibilities of

individuals; with (b) broader systems of moral principles by which individuals can

judge their actions as right or wrong, good or bad”. As an example of ethics in

relation to his research, Denscombe, (2008, p.128) found that, “the distinct ethical

problem for action research is that, although the research centres on the activity of

the practitioner, it is almost inevitable that the activity of colleagues will also come

under the microscope at some stage or other, as their activity interlinks with that of

the practitioner who instigates the research … the usual strands of research ethics

must be observed: permissions obtained, confidentiality maintained, identities

protected”. In support of this Winter, (1996, p.17) and cited by Denscombe, (2008,

p.129) advocated that ethics in research should include that, “the development of the

work must remain visible and open to suggestions from others. Permission must be

obtained before making observations or examining documents produced for other

purposes. Description of others’ work and points of view must be negotiated with

those concerned before published. The researcher must accept responsibility for

maintaining confidentiality.” Confidentiality is paramount to this research as it takes

place in a relatively small organisation in a close-knit community where everyone

knows each other.

The author guaranteed confidence by personally overseeing the whole process and a

confidentiality statement is included in all the questionnaires and throughout the

follow-up interview process. This research is guided by the good practice of The

Economic and Social Research Council, (ESRC) ESRC Framework for Research

Ethics (FRE) 2010, Updated September 2012, (p.2), which advocates that the

research it carries out is to a high ethical standard. As a result it has published a

155

framework of six key principles for its researchers, “1.Research should be designed,

reviewed and undertaken to ensure integrity, quality and transparency. 2. Research

employees and participants must normally be informed fully about the purpose,

methods and intended possible uses of the research, what their participation in the

research entails and what risks, if any, are involved. Some variation is allowed in

very specific research contexts for which detailed guidance is provided in Section 2.

3. The confidentiality of information supplied by research participants and the

anonymity of respondents must be respected. 4. Research participants must take part

voluntarily, free from any coercion. 5. Harm to research participants and researchers

must be avoided in all instances. 6. The independence of research must be clear, and

any conflicts of interest or partiality must be explicit”. This refers to medical

research and ensures that no harm befalls anyone who offers themselves up for

medical research but it is a good standard to follow in this research.

Similarly, from an ethical perspective, the SWWales Charity’s Ethics Policy includes

a reference to, “dedicating ourselves to carrying out the mission of the organisation”

and states that, “we (employees and board members), will: Recognise that the main

function of the charity at all times is to serve the best interests of our communities.

Respect the structure and responsibilities of the Board of Directors, provide them

with facts and advice as a basis for their policy decisions, and uphold and implement

policies adopted by the Board of Directors. Keep the community informed about

issues affecting it. Demonstrate the highest standards of personal integrity,

truthfulness, honesty, and fortitude in all our activities in order to inspire confidence

and trust in our activities. Not engage in any activity that might create a conflict of

interest for ourselves or the charity. Respect and protect privileged information to

156

which we have access in the course of our official duties. Strive for personal and

professional excellence and encourage the professional developments of others”. The

SWWales Charity’s policy also recognised that ‘… the main function of the charity

at all times is to serve the best interests of our communities’. This formed the basis

for the ethical considerations from the author’s standpoint which adhered to the

policy at all times. For the purpose of this research, The University of South Wales’

Ethics Policy is also taken into consideration.

With regard to the ethics of a mixed methods approach, Meissner, (2010, pp. 23,24)

advocated the, “protection of human subjects”. It is suggested that there were three

examples of ethical issues that may relate to the use of a mixed methods approach.

Firstly, (p.23) “describe potential methodological issues and challenges that may

arise in using a particular mixed methods design”, this example included explaining

to respondents that there were others who had used this method in the past and that it

is suitable to the aim of the research. Secondly, (p.23) it is suggested to, “include a

timetable of the quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods procedures involved in

the design”. Confidentiality is paramount to this research and the SWWales

Charity’s stakeholders’ can only identified with their prior written consent. In order

to begin this research, the following introduces the chosen tools for collecting the

data and the timescales.

3.7 Introducing the Chosen Tools for Collecting the Data and the Timescales

The body that advocates good governance, AccountAbility, (2008, p. 27) uses a

myriad of data collection techniques including, “surveys, focus groups, meetings

157

with selected stakeholders, workshops, online feedback mechanisms, advisory

committees, collective bargaining, multi-stakeholder forums, advisory panels as well

as integration of stakeholders into governance, strategy and operations

management”. The NCVO/CAF’s overview of charitable giving the UK, (2010/11,

p. 25) also, “used a survey, three times a year, carried out face to face in people’s

homes”. This vast collection of data included a broad range of social, economic and

demographic data which is published on their website. A number of authors in

various fields, including accountancy, have identified the need to report on social

activities, including Spence and Rutherford, (2001, pp.126-139) who suggest that, “a

sociological approach has much to offer”. However, Spence and Rutherford thought

that the figures alone did not give the full facts when reporting on organisational

performance. This is in alignment with the research question which aims to establish

if all stakeholders voluntarily contribute social capital, amongst other approaches

from the literature. Having examined the approaches of surveys and focus groups,

they have to be ruled out as the method of gaining knowledge for this research,

because they are designed for larger organisations and collective bargaining and

advisory panels are not appropriate for a relatively small charity. The more relevant

tools for data collecting, questionnaires and follow-up interviews are now examined.

Data collecting tools include questionnaires and follow-up interviews.

Questionnaires act as a multi-purpose tool which allow for a range of both

quantitative and qualitative data to be gathered. The arguments for questionnaires are

that it is possible to get brief answers which can be followed up at interviews. As

they can include both quantitative data such as time and money they can also use

qualitative ‘soft’ anecdotal data and are suited to a mixed methods approach.

158

According to Rowley, (2002, p.22) who advocates that, “… the evidence to be

gathered is defined as it is collected, and the researcher is an active agent in the

process. This means that the researcher undertaking data collection needs to be able

to ask good questions, to listen and to interpret the answers. This involves having a

sound grasp of the questions and propositions of the case study, and being able to

approach the study in an unbiased, and flexible manner”. Having chosen

questionnaires as the method for the research, the questions can be related directly

back to the findings in the literature review. Questionnaires had been used previously

for other research, so all stakeholders are familiar with them and consist of both

closed and open questions.

This is supported by McNeill, (1990, p. 26) who advocates that, “questionnaires or

interview schedules may be made up of ‘closed’ or ‘open’ questions. Limitations of

questionnaires are that with closed questions, the researcher has in some way limited

the possible responses”. However, some closed responses have to include ‘yes’ or

‘no’ closed answers, for the amount of time contributed, for example, which can then

be further probed by follow-up interviews. The disadvantages of asking just closed

questions were that the responses would have been limited and McNeill continues,

“… the problem is that the researcher has imposed a limit on the possible answers

that the respondent may give, and this may cast doubt on the validity of the data

collected”. Being mindful of this, a set of both open and closed questions to probe

further is used. McNeill, (1990, p.26) also advocates that, “there are, however,

dangers in ‘over-probing’, which may put answers into respondents’ heads”.

159

In order to design the questionnaires, first the findings from the literature review

were revisited: the review of the literature found that there were existing studies that

have used the approach of stakeholding. Freeman, (1984), Johnson and Scholes,

(2001), Yuen et al, (2004), Williams and Lewis, (2008) Slatten, (2010), and Chigona

et al, (2010) have all categorised stakeholders. For example, Freeman stated that

stakeholders are vital to organisational survival and they all advocate the use of a

model that demarcates internal and external stakeholders. They have undertaken a

large body of research in the public and private sectors. However, only a few studies,

of the sample used, refer to the third sector and they include Balser and McClusky,

(2005, p.302) and, more recently, Krishnan and Yetman, (2011, p.1015). However, it

is the reporting of the all contributions of all the stakeholders of the SWWales

Charity that this thesis seeks to establish, regardless of where they are placed in

Mendelow’s matrix.

Authors such as Mendelow, (1991, p.159), Freeman, (1984, p. 42), and Gomes et al,

(2010) identified the need to map stakeholders and identify the impact of their power

and levels of interest. It has been established that there are a number of literature

approaches that take tangible voluntary contributions into account. Time is a tangible

measure that could be converted into money. For example, the time contributed by

traditional volunteers is well documented in the literature, while the additional hours

that the other stakeholders contribute, has a tangible value that could also be

documented and converted into money. The SWWales Charity has high number of

traditional volunteers but their contribution may not be being reported on in its

entirety at present. Their contributions may only be shown in annual reports as a cost

of expenses, for example but this will be examined in the review of organisational

160

documentation. There are a number of tools that can be used to gather primary data

that include hermeneutically (deciphering texts) as advocated by Guba, (1990) and

Ajjawi and Higgs, (2009).

The SWWales Charity’s stakeholders, who were focussed on to gather data for the

purpose of this research, included both internal and external stakeholders. External

stakeholders are defined as those in Mendelow’s, (1991, p.159) A and B categories.

Members of category A are those who contribute minimal effort, (low power low

level of interest). An example of this category is consultants. The B category are

those who need to be kept informed, (low power, high level of interest) and includes

residents, members, voluntary groups and partners, called traditional volunteers for

the purpose of this research. Mendelow, (1991) also suggests that the C and D

category are internal stakeholders. Category C stakeholders are those that need to be

kept satisfied, (high power, and low level of interest). Included in this category are

paid employees. While category D stakeholders are key players, (high power, and

high level of interest) and this group includes Board members.

Having established the arguments and limitations for questionnaires and the pitfalls

to avoid, another issue to consider when designing and conducting questionnaires is

being over ambitious. In his description of these issues Yin, (2012, p.91) advises,

“keep your research questions focused and don’t be too over ambitious in the scope

of your study … although teachers of research methods and writers and writers of

textbooks like the present one observe that the choice of method should be shaped by

the research question(s) being asked, researchers do not always follow this practice,

(citing Bryman 2006b)”. The issues for this research and the design of the

161

questionnaire have been well considered alongside the research question. After

consideration, it was decided to undertake a pilot questionnaire to make sure that it

was right. Suggested questions for the pilot questionnaire may be found in Appendix

1.

3.7.1 Pilot Questionnaire Design

To ensure that the final questionnaire was absolutely suitable a pilot questionnaire,

was undertaken with a sample of the stakeholder categories. The final pilot

questionnaire, (Appendix 2) included both quantitative and qualitative questions as

case studies include a mixed methods approach. Each question requested both

quantitative and qualitative responses. Lickert Scales, which gather thoughts and

opinions by means of a sliding scale, were not used because there needed to be more

in-depth responses in order to fully interpret the answers. Lickert Scales always have

a middle question as they use odd numbers. The questions in the pilot questionnaire,

(Appendix 2) were designed and aligned to the approaches in the literature review

and included even numbered questions. This ensured that opinions were clear and

that there was no middle ground. Each stakeholder category was given a set of their

own questions as well as some general ones. Initially, the font and size was

consistent (Times New Roman, 12 pitch) and bold print used for the instructions as

well as the questions. The number of questions in each category corresponded to the

number of approaches in the literature review. The scale included the closed

question, ‘how many’ for the number of quantitative hours. Bryman, (2012, p. 252)

observed that, “closed questions may be irritating to respondents when they are not

able to find a category that they feel applies to them”. The closed question referred to

the number of hours contributed, (including 0 hours), as well as the symbol for plus

162

(+) this eliminated the respondents’ not being able to find a category that applied to

the number of hours that they contribute. The qualitative scale included the open

questions, ‘why’ and ‘what’, as discussed earlier. This allowed, according to

Bryman, (2012, p.252) for, “a chance for personal expression”. The pilot ensured

that this was the right approach and that the instructions were clear as well as that it

was easy to complete. The pilot questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.

The pilot study was conducted using a small random sample of stakeholders. On the

importance of pilot studies, Van Teijlingen and Hundley, (2001, p.2) stated that, “the

term ‘pilot studies’ refers to mini versions of a full-scale study (also called

‘feasibility’ studies), as well as the specific pre-testing of a particular research

instrument such as a questionnaire or interview schedule. Pilot studies are a crucial

element of a good study design”. In agreement with this, De Vaus, (1993, p.54)

warned, “… do not take the risk. Pilot test first”. Bryman, 2012, p.263) also

advocates that, “it is always desirable, if at all possible, to conduct a pilot study

before administering a self-completion questionnaire or structured interview

schedule to your sample … piloting also has a role in ensuring that the research

instrument as a whole functions well”. The pilot study was undertaken and

completed by the end of March 2014. It highlighted the issues with interpretation of

the questions, as well as dealing with practical issues such as the time needed for

completion and any other observations from the stakeholder sample that needed to be

considered. One member of each stakeholder category was chosen at random to

complete the pilot questionnaire, at a stakeholder event. The pilot questionnaire

explained the process, which included the ethical considerations around

confidentiality. The aim of the research was also described in detail. They were

163

observed completing the questionnaire to see if they missed out any answers or had

any other difficulties. The method, results and feedback appear below:

The small sample of stakeholders that were chosen at random included two

employees, one consultant, one traditional volunteer and one board member. A brief

introduction to the process was given and the author was not really concerned with

the answers just for ease of understanding and layout, this took two minutes. During

the questionnaire completion, some instruction was given and all were completed in

seventeen minutes. At the end a feedback/discussion took ten minutes. The feedback

was gathered from the stakeholders on the process and the whole pilot questionnaire

was evaluated. This process produced some valuable pointers into the design of the

final questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire consisted of one document with

instructions for each stakeholder category to complete, (Appendix 2). This proved

very stressful for the respondents, who not only had to answer some quite

challenging questions, but had to follow a set of complicated instructions in a set

time frame. The instructions for some were hard to follow, so it was suggested that

having a separate questionnaire for each stakeholder group would be beneficial. It

was also suggested that another box should be added for, “if you contribute no hours

at all”. The hours should be used to increase the amount of time being contributed to

1, 10, 20, 30 + as the original hours of 1, 2, 3, 4 were too small.

The Times New Roman font was perceived as too formal; ‘Comic Sans is good for

people with dyslexia because of the spacing of the words’ was the advice given by a

consultant who is a special needs teacher. ‘The spacing was too small and scrunched

together’, was the opinion of another. A colour scheme was suggested for each

164

stakeholder group, but was not used because one of the respondents was colour

blind. A lot more instruction was needed and definitions should be in full. Take out

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods as respondents do not need to know this.

Use sub numbering instead – 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2 etc. They also said that there were too

many big words. They said that the final questionnaires should start with an

introduction, which would be useful to explain the research.

The feedback from the pilot questionnaire was taken into consideration and applied

to the final questionnaires. Once the final questionnaires had been designed, (see

Appendices 4-7) a free, electronic data collecting package was used for stakeholders

to complete the questionnaire electronically. It was decided early on that this

however, may have excluded some of the less IT literate stakeholders so, to ensure

fairness, alternatives were put in place to address this potential problem.

Questionnaires had been used previously for other research so all stakeholders were

familiar with them. The final questionnaires were completed individually, with

mentor support or in focus groups. Ethical considerations and confidentiality was

maintained at all times. The collection of the data took into account the potential cost

constraints of time and resources. The decision was taken to split the questionnaire

into four, corresponding with each stakeholder category, i.e. consultants, traditional

volunteers, paid employees and board members. The framing of the questions are

around the gaps in reporting on all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, and their

potential benefits, to the SWWales Charity in the form of open ended questions

beginning with, ‘what’ and ‘why’ to gather qualitative data, as well as, ‘how many

hours’ for the quantitative data.

165

A sample of each stakeholder category was chosen to complete the final

questionnaire. Therefore, it is important to use a representative sample of all the

categories of stakeholders using a ‘sampling frame’. An advocate of using a,

‘sampling frame’ is McNeil, (1989, p.37) who discusses, “as soon as we have a

sampling frame, we can select a number of names from it. If we choose the names

out of a hat, or by using random numbers, then we are doing truly random sampling.

If we choose every tenth or every twentieth name, then this is called quasi-random

sampling, since not every name on the list has an equal chance of being chosen”.

Quasi-random sampling is not used as it is desirable for the respondents to be chosen

completely at random. In order to choose the sample, at random, the SWWales

Charity has a number of lists which can be utilised. All members of each category

that had previously given permission to appear on existing mailing lists etc. were

included in the circulation of a covering letter, (Appendix 3) and were sent the

questionnaire that was pertinent to them. The Business Administrator, who keeps all

the mailing lists up to date, adhered strictly to fairness and ensured independence

from the author in the random sampling and the mailing out of the letters and

questionnaires. For example, there is a preferred suppliers list that the consultants

were chosen from. The community stakeholder’s mailing list was used for the

traditional volunteers as well as the payroll list of paid employees. The board

members’ sample was chosen using the list of board members that is supplied

annually to Companies House. These four documents informed the sampling frame

and the following stakeholders were invited to take part in completing the

questionnaires completely at random:

166

Category A – a final sample of four consultants responded. From the SWWales

Charity’s preferred suppliers’ mailing list, six consultants were sent an email, on

27th May 2014, with the covering letter and final questionnaire attached. Two

responded by return of email, two needed a bit more explanation and two did not

respond. At the end of the time given of 27th June 2014, in total there were three

responses to the questionnaire. Another one responded on the 25th July 2014. It was

decided not to pursue the other two because although there were only four

respondents, they provided some very comprehensive, useable data.

Category B – a final sample of six traditional volunteers responded. In order to begin

collecting the data, there is an organisational membership/mailing list that consists of

about fifty traditional volunteers from the community who are invited to quarterly

stakeholder days. These people attend events, support the organisation and join in

with any workshops around planning and evaluating its services. It was decided that

there would have been constraints on the cost and time to the organisation if

everyone on the list is included. Instead, the author decided to just send the

questionnaire out, on 27th May 2014, to the regular volunteers, i.e. people who turn

up at least once a week, even if it is only for an hour, to volunteer in any of the

organisation’s projects. They were the ones that had a SWWales Charity, ‘Volunteer

Contract’. This made the process more manageable and 16 people were sent the

covering letter in Appendix 3 along with the traditional volunteer questionnaire in

Appendix 5. At the end of the time given of 27th June 2014, in total there were six

responses to the questionnaire.

167

Category C – a final sample of seventeen paid employees responded. A selection of

employees from 17 – 64 years of age, male and female and from all levels

throughout the management structure completed the questionnaire electronically. All

said that they were involved with the SWWales Charity by giving their job titles and

a significant amount of data was gathered from their responses. This was collated by

hand by the author in the same way as in the other stakeholders’ responses. The

organisation’s IT department was sent the questionnaire, (see Appendix 6) which

included the covering letter. This was uploaded into a free survey computerised

package. After the changes were made to the pilot questionnaire to make it easier to

complete it was circulated by email to all employees on 27th May 2014. The

responses were slow at first with some employees needing further clarification of the

questions. It was decided to send a reminder email about ten days after it was first

sent. This led to eight being completed in one day and the rest were completed

intermittently within the timeframe. At the end of the timeframe which was the 27th

June 2014, in total there were seventeen responses to the questionnaire. All forty

nine employees were invited to complete the questionnaire. A subsequent email was

sent to all employees after the closing date of 27th June 2014, inviting them to

complete it by hand if they found the electronic computer package difficult. This

offer was not taken up by any of the employees. Being satisfied that all avenues were

exhausted and that the process had been fair, the author proceeded to gather the data

from the seventeen respondents.

Category D – a sample of six board members responded. The final six replies from

the board members confirmed that their involvement included them having a number

of titles including; Trustee, Director of the SWWales Charity Board, Chairman,

168

Director/Trustee, board member and volunteer. This provided a good selection

across all officers and included an age range from 45 to 80 years of age. They all had

specific areas of expertise throughout the Board but all regarded themselves as

volunteers as they gave their time freely. A relatively small sample of respondents

gave their opinions about the way that the organisation operates, yet they were

passionate about their voluntary contributions. Prior to the scheduled Board meeting

on the 21st May 2014, the covering letter and questionnaire, (Appendices 3 and 7)

were mailed to all sixteen board members. The research was an agenda item under

AOB. The author introduced the research, distributed a hard copy and was on hand

to give advice throughout its completion, which took approximately 15 minutes. One

board member took it home and posted it back. Two others, who were absent on the

day were sent it electronically for ease of completion. At the end of the time given of

27th June 2014, in total there were six responses to the questionnaire.

They were all told that they could opt in or out or any time with no negative effect

for fairness. In relation to fairness, Meissner’s (2010, p.23) third example was, “in

discussing preliminary studies for new applicants, highlight prior quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed methods experiences”. This research ensured that the author

adequately documented each stage of the process through, “the inclusion of

individuals with expertise in these areas”, according to Meissner, (2010, p.24). In

this research advice was sought from the author’s Director of Studies and Supervisor

at all stages. Meissner, (2010, p.24) also advised to, “maintain the anonymity of the

participants … the investigator may need to gather information that can identify

participants … put safeguards in place for protecting that information”. The author

was the only one with all of the information, stored securely in files kept locked

169

away in a filing cabinet that only they have access to. All computerised responses

were kept in an electronic file which was password protected.

The same process was used for each category for equality of presentation.

Respondents were all told that they could leave the survey at any time and that all

responses would be anonymous. The results of the pilot study proved invaluable in

making changes to the questionnaire in order to make it more user friendly, enabling

it to produce more useable results. The research needed everyone to be at the same

starting point and by eliminating the use of an electronic computer package for all

but paid employees. This ensured that all respondents were on a level playing field

and that no-one was disadvantaged by their lack of IT skills. All had the choice to

complete them either electronically or by hand. Having prior knowledge of all of the

respondents it was decided that it would be fair if everyone had the same help.

Timing was not really an issue so if anyone indicated that they would like the

questionnaire to be read out to them, or completed by a member of staff, that support

was also provided. They were also given the option of completing them at home. No-

one was disadvantaged in any way. It was emphasised that employees were only on

hand to offer independent practical support on the process but did not influence the

responses in any way. This ensured that there was no bias. For ethical, fair

considerations, as well as for clarity and better presentation, the decision was taken

to split the questionnaire into four, corresponding with each stakeholder category,

i.e. consultants, traditional volunteers, paid employees and board members. Each set

of stakeholders was chosen from mailing lists etc. and they were written to with prior

notice stating what the research was about, asking if they would be happy to

contribute and whether they wished to remain anonymous (see Appendix 3). It was

170

also explained that if respondents remained anonymous, then they would be unable

to take part in any follow-up interviews, (as part of triangulation) for the data

collecting process. They were told that they could opt in or out or any time with no

negative effect.

The timescale for the return of the questionnaire was initially the 27th June 2014.

This was achieved for the consultants, paid employees and board members. However

the timescale was extended to the 18th July 2014 for the traditional volunteers in

order to give them more time. Time was planned, as was also advocated by

Meissner, (2010, p.23) to allow for, “transcribing qualitative data, meaningful

qualitative data analysis, and the integration of the quantitative and qualitative data

results”. Anonymity was re-iterated and everyone who responded also indicated that

they would like to be involved in any follow-up interviews to probe deeper into their

responses.

3.8 The Follow-up Interviews

Another tool to triangulate the data from questionnaires is follow-up interviews.

These were chosen so that more in-depth views could be gathered. This would

enhance the questionnaires by following up on any interesting responses to get more

detail and clarity. Each respondent answers the same set of questions, as suggested

by Yin, (2012, p.175). In order to gather secondary data reports and other

documentation can be examined for further triangulation. On discussing follow-up

interviews, Meissner, (2010, p.24) stressed that, “… investigators should inform

participants about the possibility of a follow-up contact so they understand the full

171

nature of their participation at the time of initial consent”. In the covering letter,

(Appendix 3) that was attached to the questionnaire for this research, it was stated

that,

“… if you are willing to have a face to face follow-up interview with me,

please ensure that you add your name to the questionnaire. All results will be

anonymous and there will be no way of knowing who gave a particular

answer or comment”.

The advantages of follow-up or secondary interviews were that they allowed the

author to probe deeper into interesting issues that had arisen from the primary data.

As stated earlier, the disadvantage of this is that it may have led to over-probing, as

argued by McNeill, (1995, p.26). In order to address this, the author stuck to the

same format for all respondents and asked exactly the same questions, in the same

order to each category. Each response was transcribed by the author in the form of

notes as opposed to electronic recording.

The respondents were all asked the same set of open questions, please see Appendix

8. With regard to their aim Yin, (2012, p.209) describes interviews for social

research as, “in the social research interview, the aim is for the interviewer to elicit

from the interviewee or respondent, as he or she is frequently called in survey

research, all manner of information: interviewee’ own behaviour or that of others;

attitudes; norms; beliefs; and values”. The eliciting of this information was not an

issue at the SWWales Charity because the interviews took place as part of the usual,

planned individual supervision meetings and stakeholder days. They occurred as an

172

agenda item at the end of regular management or board meetings and detailed notes

were kept alongside the results of the final questionnaire ready for the presentation

of findings from the case study in Chapter Four.

McNeill, (1990, p.123) states that, “some writers refer to this process as

‘triangulation’ … and means that you get a better view of things by looking at them

from more than one direction”. He continued that, “… while people’s actions are a

result of their interpretation of a situation, their interpretations and their choices are

limited by structural factors external to them and beyond their control”. Another

advocate of triangulation is Yin, (2012, p.104) who described it as, “consider the

difficulty of establishing the occurrence of an event if you were unable to observe it

directly yourself. You would be more confident in saying that the event had occurred

if your study showed that information from interviews, documents, and archival

records all pointed in the same direction … this type of triangulation is the most

desired pattern for dealing with case study data, and you should always seek to attain

it. An important clue when doing fieldwork is to ask the same question of different

sources of evidence, as well as asking the same questions of different interviewees.

If all sources point to the same answer, you will have successfully triangulated your

data”. Following the timescales, and having had information on the various analytic

packages such as SSPS and NVIRO, it was decided that as it was a relatively small

number of stakeholders that the interpretation would be done by hand. This is apart

from the initial interpretation of the quantitative data using the code of time, which

was analysed through the electronic computer package, ‘Excel’ as advocated by

Leahy, (2004, pp, 1-28). It is a database that includes a workbook with worksheets of

all the categories were designed to total the number of hours that respondents said

173

that they voluntarily contribute to the organisation. It was felt that analysing the data

personally would enhance the author’s understanding of the responses from each

category and for ease of interpretation of the results by means of coding and

analysis. The following is a summary of the timescales for collecting data.

3.9 A Summary of the Timescales for Data Collection

In order to gather the data for identifying if all stakeholders voluntarily contribute to

the SWWales Charity, the research design for data collection was divided into three

parts; first a set of suggested questions and a questionnaire, (Appendices 1 and 2)

was piloted with a small random sample of stakeholders at the end of a scheduled

stakeholder day in February 2014. Having one questionnaire for all proved very

stressful for the respondents, who not only had to answer some quite challenging

questions, but had to follow a set of complicated instructions in a set time frame. The

questions were reviewed to ensure that the questionnaire was fit for purpose by the

end of March 2014. The changes which were put in place to reflect the feedback that

included the need to make it easier to complete and a covering letter with clear

instructions was circulated, (Appendix 3). Having acknowledged the advice given by

respondents in the feedback, the questionnaire, which originally consisted of one

document with instructions for each stakeholder category to complete, individual

questionnaires were subsequently produced for each stakeholder category

(Appendices 4-7). The third stage of the research, the follow-up interviews,

(Appendix 8) commenced in April 2014.

3.10 Methods for Presenting the Data

174

Once the data from the questionnaires and follow-up interviews was gathered, the

task of its presentation was undertaken by means of an initial table. In order to record

the data, various techniques were used. This is a method advocated by Spiggle,

(1994, p.496) who stated that, “the primary sources describing qualitative research

(Glaser and Strauss 1967; Miles and Huberman 1984; Lincoln and Guba 1985;

Strauss 1987; Wallendorf and Belk 1989; Strauss and Corbin 1990) strongly

encourage the investigator to keep records of the analysis in the form of memos,

journals, charts, or other documents”. Once the information was in place, the table

was interpreted by the author by hand for patterns and meanings. The topic codes

were the approaches from the literature such as CSR, IIP etc. while descriptive codes

included the stakeholder categories. The analytical codes included the organisation,

community and individuals and each response was carefully interpreted by the

author into themes using thematic analysis.

With regard to thematic analysis, Lorelli et al, (2017, p.2) state that, “through its

theoretical freedom, thematic analysis provides a highly flexible approach that can

be modified for the needs of many studies, providing a rich and detailed, yet

complex account of data (Braun and Clarke, 2006; King, 2004). As thematic analysis

does not require the detailed theoretical and technological knowledge of other

qualitative approaches, it offers a more accessible form of analysis, particularly for

those early in their research career (Braun and Clarke, 2006)”. Thematic analysis

enables the author to establish what is interesting about the data. There are also

disadvantages and Nowell et al, (2017, p. 2) continue that, “the disadvantages of

thematic analysis become more apparent when considered in relation to other

175

qualitative research methods. The lack of substantial literature on thematic analysis -

compared to that of grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology, for example

- may cause novice researchers to feel unsure of how to conduct a rigorous thematic

analysis. A simple thematic analysis is disadvantaged when compared to other

methods, as it does not allow researcher to make claims about language use (Braun

and Clarke, 2006)”.

Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.68) describe that codes, “identify a feature (semantic

content or latent) that appears interesting to the analyst”. For the purposes of this

research, the topic codes were drawn from the theories in the literature such as CSR,

HRA and ROCE, for example and were therefore, “theory-driven”, Braun and

Clarke, (2006, p.68). While, Richards, (2005, p.90) describes descriptive coding as,

“… information about the attributes of these cases, (the person’s gender, the school’s

size and so on)” and it was used to describe the code of the stakeholder category.

Richards continues, (2005, p.91) about topic coding by describing it as, “putting data

where it belongs … “this is about the local schoolteacher … this is about

neighbouring” and is used to describe the literature. For example, this is about CSR

or this is about quality marks. Richards, (2005, p.94) goes on to describe, “analytical

coding”, and all coding is a way of cataloguing or grouping text to create a

framework of thematic notions about it. When the analytical codes of organisational,

community and individual contributions and benefits were collated, “this phase,

which re-focuses the analysis at the broader level of themes, rather than codes,

involves sorting the different codes into potential themes … essentially you are

starting to analyse your codes, and consider how different codes may combine to

form an overarching theme”, Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.68).

176

The initial thematic maps from the analytical codes of organisational, community

and individual contributions and benefits may be seen in Tables 4.4, 4.8, 4.12 and

4.16. The author is active in this process of this kind of research and themes do not

emerge as in grounded theory, as advocated by Cameron and Miller, (2010, pp. 7,8).

When all the themes are presented for all the stakeholder categories into an initial

thematic map, then further analysis can be undertaken to create a developed thematic

map as in Table 4.20 as coding always reduces the data. Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.

71) describe this phase as, “… you should have a fairly good idea of what your

different themes are, how they fit together, and the overall story they tell about the

data”. At the end of this process, the final thematic mark, as described by Braun and

Clarke may be found in Table 5.1. Braun and Clarke, (2006, p. 78) conclude that, “as

we have demonstrated, thematic analysis is a flexible approach that can be used

across a range of epistemologies and research questions”. Choosing this method of

analysing the data for this research is supported by Nowell et al, (2017, p. 11) who

concluded that, “highlighting the process of how to conduct a trustworthy thematic

analysis may be a positive contribution to qualitative research as a methodology and

help to the advance the elusive research method: thematic analysis”.

According to Braun and Clarke, (2006, p. 65), “some of the phases of thematic

analysis are similar to the phases of other qualitative research, so these stages are not

necessarily all unique to thematic analysis. The process starts when the analyst

begins to notice, and look for, patterns of meaning and issues of potential interest in

the data – this may be during data collection”. A variety of techniques for data

analysis and interpretation of the qualitative results explore the issues of reliability,

177

validity, and research ethics by means of a number of tools that include content and

thematic analyses. This analysis also incorporates topic codes. The topic codes were

the approaches from the literature, such as IIP and CSR, which were associated with

the descriptive code of each stakeholder category and the analytical codes of the

organisation, community and individual stakeholders. The results of the coding then

informed the themes, which were not pre-set. Braun and Clarke, (2006, pp. 99,100

and 101) also state that, “thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and

reporting patterns (themes) within data”. This is well suited to the case study

approach as it is the method used for analysis of both the primary and secondary

data. Triangulation was also used in order to interpret all the stakeholders’ responses

including in the scrutiny of organisational reports which included the use of a

‘content analysis’. Once the primary data was gathered, finally the scrutiny of

organisational documentation to gather any relevant secondary data via a content

analysis was undertaken.

3.10.1 Sources of The SWWales Charity’s Reports

A ‘content analysis’ of reports and written material from the SWWales Charity was

also undertaken. This is advocated by Bryman, (2012, p.289) as, “… an approach to

the analysis of documents and texts (which may be printed or visual) that seeks to

quantify context in terms of predetermined categories and in as a systematic and

replicable manner. It is a very flexible method that can be applied to a variety of

different media”. This was used because its approach to analysis which will consist

of putting the material into categories. Although usually aligned to quantitative

analysis, a content analysis looks for recurring themes and patterns, i.e., ‘are

178

stakeholders’ contributions referred to or accounted for, either qualitatively or

quantitatively, in any of the SWWales Charity’s reports?’

All the reports that were investigated were already in the public domain so presented

no issues around confidentiality. They included, for example, Annual Reports,

project reports and The IIP Gold Report and were aligned to each stakeholder

category. For example, the IIP Gold Report 17th October 2013 Scrutiny of this

document was undertaken to establish if there is any evidence of recognition of

intangible contributions by consultants or any publicity of their contribution. These

reports were scrutinised to establish if there was any account of all stakeholders’

voluntary contribution or its benefits. A number of both qualitative and quantitative

reports were scrutinised to evidence any voluntary activity and whether it was

presented as a contribution or benefit. The results of the content analysis may be

found in Table 4.17 on page 263.

3.11 Conclusion

It has been established that a case study approach gains an in-depth study of the

behaviours of all stakeholder categories. The topic codes for the pilot questionnaires,

(Appendix 1) included both tangible questions around time. There were also

qualitative questions that referred back to the approaches, or topics such as CSR etc.,

that were examined in the literature review. The questionnaire was piloted,

(Appendix 2) and a number of changes were made to make it more user friendly.

When the author was satisfied that the questionnaire was able to produce the correct

responses a covering letter to all stakeholders was sent to introduce the research

179

(Appendix 3). Each category’s final questionnaire is presented in Appendices 4-7.

Appendix 8 contains the follow-up interview questions. The data that resulted from

the questionnaires, follow-up interviews and content analysis was analysed and

interpreted by the author by hand. A computerised package was not used because it

was important to interpret the data in a way that reflected the words used by the

people themselves. In relation to ways of presenting data, Braun and Clarke, (2006,

pp. 99,100, and 101) presented a model which consisted of, “… an initial thematic

map, (p. 39) a developed thematic map, (p. 40) and final thematic map, (p. 41)”. This

method of presentation is now utilised to interpret the qualitative data in Chapter

Four. Strauss, (1987, pp. 27, 28) also incorporates coding in his work and he

describes, “… the excellence of the research rests in large upon the excellence of the

coding”. The interpretation of the data from the descriptive codes of the four

stakeholder categories, quantified their contribution by showing the code of the time

that they contributed each month, which is the quantitative data.

Richards, (2005, p.85) argues that coding, “refers to data reduction” and is shown in

the final thematic map adapted from Bruan and Clarke, (2006) in Table 5.1.

Richards, (2005, p.85) continues that, “in qualitative research you do usually have to

do some of this sort of data reduction, to store information describing the attributes

of an interviewee”. Richards, (2005, p. 94) also argues for analytic coding by stating

that, “I use the term analytical coding here to refer to coding that comes from

interpretation and reflection on meaning”. In the same way Braun and Clarke, (2006,

p. 56), call it thematic analysis, and describe it as, “a method for identifying,

analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data”. This method of collecting

180

both primary and secondary data, from a number of different sources, will examine

the theory that all stakeholders may voluntarily contribute to the SWWales Charity.

A single case study, using mixed methods fits well with the research question as it is

aligned to the author’s pragmatic epistemological position. Yin, (2012, p.173) states

that, “you should use the data from the multiple sources in converging fashion, to

determine the extent to which the data triangulate over the “facts” of the case.

Quantitative and qualitative data both may be considered potentially important and

relevant”. In order to evaluate the data, Yin continues, (p.175) “… thus, successful

case study evaluators are likely to be diligent investigators who (a) understand the

objectives of the inquiry and can identify relevant evidence even though specific

sources may vary, and (b) thoroughly document the methodological steps taken to

assure an unbiased data collection procedure despite this variation”. Next, the

findings from the case study are presented in Chapter Four.

181

Chapter Four

Presentation of the Findings from the Case Study

4.0 Introduction

The author adopted a pragmatic epistemological approach which is suited to a case

study and this chapter presents the findings. Case studies enable the collecting of

primary data and its critical evaluation through questionnaires, (Appendices 4-7) and

follow-up interviews, (Appendix 8). The collection of secondary data included the

scrutiny of organisational documents and a content analysis, (Table 4.17) to search

for patterns and meanings is also applied. The authors who were utilised for

presenting the data include Strauss, (1987), Guba, (1990), Braun and Wilkinson,

182

(2003), Leahy, (2004), Richards, (2005), Braun and Clarke, (2006) and Beazley,

(2009). They all advocate ways of analysing, interpreting and presenting findings.

All data was collected in a relevant way to explain the research aim which is,

‘to identify and report on the benefits of the tangible and intangible

voluntary contributions made by all stakeholders of a third sector

organisation – a case study of a SWWales charity’.

All the data was gathered from all four stakeholder categories, to explore the notion

that the organisation may not currently be fully accounting for all the voluntary

contributions of all its stakeholders. The following interprets the data using,

Richards’, (2005, p. 90) work, which introduces, “descriptive coding” and this was

used to code the stakeholder categories of consultants, traditional volunteers, paid

employees and board members. “Topic coding”, according to Richards, (2005, p.91)

was used to link the data back to the literature and includes CSR, quality marks,

HRA and ROCE, for example. In order to further analyse the data, Richards, (2005,

p.94) describes, “analytical coding”, and all coding is a way of cataloguing or

grouping text to create a framework of thematic notions about it and the analytical

codes of organisational, community and individual contributions and benefits were

applied for ease of presentation.

Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.69) describe, “this phase, which re-focuses the analysis

at the broader level of themes, rather than codes, involves sorting the different codes

into potential themes … essentially you are starting to analyse your codes, and

consider how different codes may combine to form an overarching theme”.

183

Therefore, the data was analysed by means of descriptive coding for the stakeholder

categories, topic coding for the literature and analytical coding for the organisation,

community and individuals. This provides a framework on which to undertake the

initial themes. All four stakeholder categories are analysed in this way, but first the

data from the responses of the consultants is analysed.

4.1 The Data from the Responses of the Consultants

In order to present the data gathered from the descriptive codes of consultants, this

section compares data using thematic analysis by means of the topic codes of CSR

and quality marks. Table 4.1 frames the analytical codes of the organisation,

community and individuals and is a summary of the qualitative themes. Table 4.2

presents an analysis of the quantitative theme of time for the consultants. Table 4.3 is

the themes from the follow up interviews and Table 4.4 presents all the results by

means of thematic analysis using an initial thematic map as advocated by Braun and

Clarke, (2006).

Four consultants agreed to be part of this research. One respondent had recently

become a consultant after a number of years in industry and another had been a

consultant and an author in the voluntary sector for almost 40 years. One is a

national trainer for IIP and the other an IIP assessor and verifier. Between them they

had a significant number of years of experience in the third sector and willingly

came forward to take part in the research. They provided a great deal of useable data

by means of the time that they provided free and gratis on a monthly basis. They also

provided a large amount of anecdotal evidence of the unpaid time that they provided

184

that enabled the organisation to meet its obligations to achieving and maintaining

both CSR and quality marks.

The consultants’ involvement with the SWWales Charity ranged from assisting with

the maintenance of CSR and quality marks to being a, ‘critical friend’ provided by

the WCVA to ensure compliance with grant applications. The themes from their

responses included assisting, improving, supporting, accreditation, specialist, help

and being a critical friend. The thematic analysis highlighted that they said that they

helped with relationship building and familiarisation with the organisation, as well as

helping the organisation to achieve and maintain quality marks. The cost to the

organisation of buying in the consultants is a relatively high monetary value that is

currently presented in the organisation’s annual reports. However, the benefits to the

organisation of achieving CSR and quality marks by the voluntary contributions of

the consultants cannot currently be given a tangible value and it is therefore not

being reported on. It was interesting to follow-up this notion by questions to

establish how the consultants saw their roles within the organisation. They said that

they were seen as, ‘the professionals’, ‘who were not afraid to criticise, if needed’

and that they, ‘transferred their skills’ in order to comply with CSR and achieve

quality marks. The topic codes of CSR and quality marks for the consultants are now

examined. The following are the responses to the questionnaire for the consultants,

(Appendix 4) and CSR is examined first.

Topic Code – Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR)

185

CSR demonstrates an organisation’s relationship with the community in which it is

based and responses to the question around CSR included the themes of policy, top

down legislation, carbon footprint and that consultants must retain a critical aspect.

Most said that they had no choice but to do it to meet the standard to deliver quality

services. The benefits of volunteering their expertise were that it, ‘saves money’ but

that it also, ‘lets the government off the hook’ by them not having to pay for the

consultants expertise. There is evidence that,

‘… if the organisation is being provided with free expertise from the

consultants then it will lever in more funding’.

Yet, there is no current way of showing this because the free expertise that the

organisation gains is not currently being reported on anywhere. Most said that there

is a cost of time and money to achieve the aims set out in the CSR policy. But they

said that voluntarily contributing to it, ‘gives no choice because the organisation

must do it’ in order to comply. Yet, by voluntarily contributing, the benefit is to both

the consultants themselves through their enhanced reputations as well as compliance

to the regulators by the organisation. This in turn benefits the community by quality

services being provided through its relationship with the organisation. The benefit of

good CSR is imposed by the legislation, but through its imposition there is the

benefit of recognisable standards to the organisation, the community and the

consultants themselves.

When asked what the consultants thought was the benefit of good CSR, one quoted

from the Welsh Government’s policy on sustainability. While another said that it,

186

‘would be unthinkable that the way in which it operates is not with social

responsibility for its environment; CSR must remain a critical aspect of the

organisation’s approach’.

The same respondent said that they thought that the organisation is supported by

their voluntary contributions around CSR, and another said that, ‘fortunately my

time is funded by WG’ so they didn’t provide any voluntary contributions to the

maintenance of CSR. The same respondent did, however indicate that they actually

contributed a number of hours, free of charge, to the organisation by helping to

achieve quality marks. While another said that their voluntary time,

‘… lets the government off the hook by relieving THEM of the responsibility

to act responsibly (i.e., it is not all positive)’.

This suggested that they thought that they had no choice but to contribute voluntarily

to the organisation in order that it complied. A follow-up interview question,

(Appendix 8) resulted in the consultant saying that even though he had said it, he did

not feel coerced into his voluntary activity. All agreed that CSR is, ‘very important’

and the themes included: measure, comparison, benchmark and support as well as

policy, top down legislation, carbon footprint and that it must remain a critical

aspect, that there is no choice but to comply and standards. The benefits of good

CSR were that it saves money and provides evidence to lever in more funding. Yet,

there is currently no way of measuring the benefits of the consultants voluntarily

contributing to CSR.

187

In support of this, most respondents said that they thought that their voluntary

contribution should be measured because, ‘if we don’t measure then we can’t

improve’ the services that are provided. Most of the others said, ‘... no’ to it being

measured but one responded with, ‘my level of support is very small and is ancillary

to my paid work’.

While in agreement with this, another responded with the fact that the SWWales

Charity is already a, ‘sophisticated, well-run organisation. So any benefit is

marginal’. This small, marginal amount of support, however could be shown to yield

a significant annual contribution. The themes from the responses around CSR also

included: measure, comparison, benchmark, support, important, great and

recognition. Yet, while they all thought that it is important to demonstrate their

contributions, they could not put a monetary value on it but suggested that the value

may be, ‘potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds by an organisation’. It is

suggested that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds go unmeasured at

present. Without these important contributions the organisation may not survive and

the community would not have access to services. The consultants themselves may

not feel valued.

With regard to measuring their contributions, most respondents agreed that the

organisation would be less successful if it is not for their voluntary contributions

even though it is, ‘only a small contribution so far’. Another commented that,

‘it might not be cost effective to measure my negligible contribution’.

188

The same respondent continued,

‘but in principle I think it is extremely important to be able to demonstrate

the value of volunteering (both to the receiving organisation and to the

volunteers) to offset society’s obsession with evaluating everything in purely

financial terms’.

The response to further probing at their follow-up interview around measuring the

impact of their contribution is,

‘I don’t know. It is too early to say. But of course it would be great to have

that kind of impact. Then the value would include making me feel good about

myself’.

The themes were: contribution, volunteering, value, impact and self-gratification.

On the subject of whether the organisation would be less successful if not for the

voluntary contributions of consultants, most agreed that it would be less successful.

One respondent is adamant that,

‘you cannot put monetary values on the way people feel about their places of

work, their lives and their communities and the impact that has on everyone

else (not unless you’re stupid, anyway!)’.

189

In a subsequent telephone conversation, this consultant agreed to a follow-up

interview to clarify some of the interesting issues raised. They responded that it is

their choice and that they were not made to do it. Another said that their work,

‘... will be over and above agreed time on goodwill basis and added value

should be recognised for good of both the organisation and those

contributing’.

Recognising or measuring their goodwill is crucial because they thought that the

organisation would be less successful, if not for their voluntary contributions. This is

important as one replied that theirs is a, ‘specialist area of work so I bring experience

and expertise to the processes’ even though their voluntary contributions go

unmeasured. The themes were; important, great and recognition. All respondents

agreed that a measure is needed and that although their support is small, it could

potentially equate to hundreds of thousands of pounds across the sector. The

following examines the responses made by the consultants on the topic code of

quality marks.

Topic Code – Quality Marks

Quality marks are a way of demonstrating that an organisation has reached a pre-

determined standard and the quality mark of IIP is interested in sustainability

through the continuous improvement of organisations through its people. Two of the

respondents said that they were involved in the maintenance of quality marks and

said that they volunteered time that they were not paid for during IIP assessments.

190

They said that they did it because they thought that their contributions benefitted the

SWWales Charity as well as themselves. One consultant said that he is highly

interested in the organisation,

‘attending meetings and events in my free time allows me to build a

relationship with the team which supports the ongoing Quality Management

System, (QMS) activities’.

They said that this enables them to ensure that standards are met. The themes

included their immersion in the organisation as well as the transfer of their skills and

relationship building, which were themes that were aligned to the consultants’

individual values. There is a cost to the organisation of hiring consultants, but the

benefit of them voluntarily contributing their time to the organisation that is not

being reported on as was found in the content analysis in Table 4.17.

Their responses around their involvement in quality marks included that even though

they contributed their time freely to the organisation, it also gave the benefit of

enhancing their own reputations. Their individual values were aligned to those of the

organisation and that they also helped the, ‘credibility of the organisation’ through

relationship building and familiarisation. The themes also included: support,

reputation, individual values, partnership, credibility, assurance and confidence. The

responses included there being a benefit to themselves of credibility as well as the

organisation but there is no current way of giving this contribution a tangible value.

Nor can there be a monetary value put on the amount of voluntary effort to get

through an IIP review, for example. The consultants said that they impart their

191

experiences, while benefitting from enhancing their reputations that also benefits the

organisation in the community. This was investigated later in the follow-up interview

questions in Appendix 8 and all said that they all had some degree of self-

gratification from their voluntary contributions. The overall benefit is seen to be the

achievement of the standard as a benchmark against other organisations and although

some authors view quality marks as just a badge or plaque, it was found that a

significant amount of voluntary contributions are being ignored in its achievement. It

is essential to now have some way of measuring the amount of time and effort that is

regularly contributed voluntarily by consultants. Below is a summary of the themes,

which were not pre-set, that formed the basis of the follow-up interview questions:

4.1.1 A Summary of the Thematic Analysis for the Consultants

There were three analytical codes in the data from the questionnaires that included

organisational benefit of survival, community benefit of better services as well as the

individual benefit of self-gratification. First, the organisational benefit is examined in

detail:

Organisational Benefit: This included knowledge transfer, immersion, recognisable

standards, compliance and achievement. The individual benefits associated with

quality marks benefitted the consultants themselves, as well as the organisation

through support, reputation, individual values, partnership, credibility, assurance and

confidence. They said that it saved money, lets governments off the hook, and

providing evidence that the organisation is doing it should lever in funding. CSR is

192

of benefit to both the consultants themselves as well as to the organisation.

Recognisable standards also benefitted the organisation, services in the community

and the consultants themselves. They enable the organisation to measure, compare,

benchmark, recognise and support as well as adhering to policy, top down

legislation, carbon footprint and that it must remain a critical aspect. Also, that there

is no choice but to comply with the standards. The organisation is supported by

consultants’ voluntary contributions who gained self-gratification from their

voluntary contributions and it is agreed that some way of giving this benefit a

tangible value is needed. They also suggested that volunteering made a vast

contribution annually. The consultants also said that giving free time had some

definite benefit to themselves but greatly to the organisation and the community.

They said that it is important to be able to demonstrate the benefit of volunteering;

both to the receiving organisation and to the volunteers and that it would be great to

show this kind of impact. It is important to note they thought that the organisation

may not be able to survive without their voluntary contributions. Theme:

Organisational Survival.

Community Benefit: Voluntarily contributing to CSR and quality marks led to the

delivery of quality services that benefitted the community. It was found that without

the compliance that is enabled by the voluntary contributions of the consultants the

organisation may not be able to deliver services in the same way. Theme: better

Community Services.

Individual Benefit: It is suggested that relationship building through CSR and

quality marks are of benefit to the consultants themselves, while familiarisation with

193

the organisation, helped it to maintain CSR and achieve quality marks. Consultants

said that they enhanced their reputations through their voluntary contributions. This

led to them gaining self-gratification. Giving free time benefitted the organisation

and the community, but they all said that there is some definite benefit back to them.

Responses included, ‘If it could be given a value, then the value would include

making me feel good about myself’. Theme: Individual Self-gratification.

The themes from the consultants’ qualitative responses are presented below in Table

4.1:

Table 4.1The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Consultants:

Consultants Qualitative organisational

benefit Survival

Qualitative community benefit

Services

Qualitative individual benefit Self-gratification

In summary of the themes, there is a threefold benefit to the organisation of survival,

quality community services and the self-gratification of the consultants themselves.

There is a high monetary cost by buying in consultants but the benefits to the

organisation of achieving quality marks and CSR but their voluntary contributions to

their maintenance cannot presently be given a tangible value. However, most played

down the time that they voluntarily contributed each month by saying that it was,

‘negligible’. Even though they thought it was negligible the annual amount of

tangible time was converted into a significant £24,681.60, (Table 4.2). This figure

was calculated by the number of hours that said that they voluntarily contributed to

the organisation per month.

194

Two respondents said that they contributed 20 hours of time per month that they

were not paid for. Both of the other respondents said that they did not contribute any

time that they were not paid for. Total 40 hours.

Topic Coding – CSR. None of the consultants said that they contributed any

voluntary hours to comply with CSR even though they gave many examples of how

they helped the organisation to achieve it. Total 0 hours.

Topic Coding – Quality marks. Total 40 hours.

Total contribution = 40 hours per month, which is 2 consultants x 20 hours

each.

Theme – Time: the total hours per month were divided by the four respondents

which gave 10 hours per month, on average, per respondent. The method of

calculating the hourly rate is; £360 per day divided by 7 hours is £51.42 per person

per hour, which is then multiplied by 10, the number of hours per respondent which

gave - £51.42 x 10 = £541.20. This is then multiplied by 12 months for annual

reporting purposes which came to £6,494.40. This is multiplied by 4 for the number

of respondents which gave a grand total of £24,681.60 per annum. The quantitative

results of the voluntary time contributed by the consultants are presented in Table

4.2, below:

Table 4.2The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed by the

Consultants.Total hours per month 40

195

Divided by number of respondents 40 divided by 4Average number of hours per respondent per month

10 average hours per respondent

Method of calculating hourly rate £360 per day divided by 7 hours is £51.42 per person per hour

X no. of hours per month per respondent

£51.42 x 10 = £514.20

X 12 months £6,170.40X number of respondents £6,170.40 x 4Total £24,681.60

The consultants said that they gave some small support, through their voluntary

contributions. They said that it could be of great benefit, to the organisation and

themselves if their voluntary contributions were reported on properly. As can be seen

from the quantitative results, the consultants’ said they contribute a relatively small

amount of time. Converting that time into money gives it a significant value that

could be reported on. In order to relate the data with the literature, the authors who

have written about quality marks include Drucker, (2000), Heskett, (2002) as well as

Hoque and Bacon, (2008). Whilst Driscol, et al, (2004), are amongst others wrote

about CSR. However, the approaches from the literature around CSR and quality

marks provided no evidence to support the voluntary contributions of all

stakeholders in one approach. In order to gather more data as evidence of the

consultants’ voluntary contributions, follow-up interviews were undertaken.

All four of the consultants said that they gave their time, free of charge, to the

organisation. They also indicated that there were be benefits back to them as a result

of their voluntary contributions. They were clearly passionate about the organisation

and wanted to help it to survive and continue the work that it undertakes in the

community to provide quality services. They said that they spend free time

promoting what the organisation does with other organisations that they support,

196

which gives them the individual benefit of self-gratification, for example. This is the

author’s interpretation and summary of the data from the questionnaires. Probing

deeper into the responses was essential to provide more rich data by means of

follow-up interviews. Data was gained by using questions around the benefit of the

consultants’ contributions, the resulting recognition and the benefit to the

community:

Organisational Benefit: On the benefit of their intangible contributions, responses

from one consultant included that that they invoiced the organisation for much of

their time. However, they all thought that contributing their gift of volunteering some

hours is an integral part of their role and that they had a pretty good idea of its value.

Another said,

‘I would still contribute over and above to the organisation what I am paid

for’.

When asked why, they responded,

‘... because I believe in and am passionate about what people are trying to

achieve and I like to give something back to the third sector, I have a social

conscience and enjoy improving things’.

This was probed even deeper and the response to why they voluntarily contributed to

the SWWales Charity in particular is,

197

‘… no particular reason for the SWWales Charity, I do it for others’.

The themes throughout their responses were individual benefits and gifting

something back. Theme: The Gift to the organisation of free consultancy.

Community Benefit: On the topic of how their individual recognition and

reputation had been enhanced by their involvement with the SWWales Charity,

responses were,

‘yes, I am sure it has, particularly if I am given the opportunity to work with

other third sector organisations’.

While the other said that it is, ‘too soon to judge’. One of the respondents is very

familiar with the organisation and had worked with it for at least twelve years, while

the other is relatively new and had only been involved for about six months. This had

a direct bearing on their responses and the themes for the one associated for the

longest included the fact that it had helped them transfer their skills to other similar

organisations in the third sector.

Whereas, the more recent consultant said that their previous skills lay in the

commercial sector. Even though they had given freely to the third sector organisation

which had a direct benefit to them, there is also a great deal of payback of more paid

employment as a result of their enhanced reputations in the community. This led to

the opportunity of better services that help to regenerate the community. Theme:

Community Opportunity.

198

Individual Benefit: One respondent, in support of the benefit to community

members, answered, ‘although most of my work with The SWWales Charity is

behind the scenes in relation to people management etc., there is evidence which

indicates that commitment-based HR policies and processes coupled with strong

leadership result in improved performance of employees and volunteers which

inevitably impacts on the organisation's community work’. While another said,

‘in relation to Communities First I have brought my wider knowledge in

relation to poverty and the community for the bigger picture. It is where we

need to be going strategically as well as operationally in the community and

horizon scanning for future forward trends’.

Again, knowledge transfer and leadership were the themes, as well as looking to the

future for trends that would help the organisation to adapt through up-skilling its

people. It is also acknowledged that employees and volunteers benefit from

improved performance as a result of the consultants’ voluntary contributions, which

leads to the organisation being able to deliver quality services in the community. The

consultants also gained additional skills that improved their own performance.

Theme: Improved Performance.

The themes from the follow-up interviews are presented in Table 4.3, below:

Table 4.3The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Consultants.

Quantitative£24,681.60

Qualitative organisational

Qualitative community benefit

Qualitative individual benefit

199

benefit Gift

Opportunity Improved performance

The results in Table 4.3, above demonstrate that as a result of the interpretation of

the themes for the follow-up interviews; the consultants gifted their time to the

organisation, the community had more opportunities as a result of this and the

consultants themselves had the return of improved performance as a return on their

voluntary contributions. The following combines the interpretation of the qualitative

data and the follow-up interviews. It also includes the quantitative data of the time

contributed by the consultants. Table 4.4, below, presents the initial thematic map as

advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for the Consultants:

Table 4.4The Initial Thematic Map as advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for

the Consultants.Quantitative £24,681.60

Qualitative organisational

benefit Survival and gift

Qualitative community benefit

Services and opportunity

Qualitative individual benefit Self-gratification

and improved performance

Table 4.4 demonstrates that as a result of the interpretation of all the data, the

consultants contributed £24,681.60 per annum and the organisation is able to survive

as a result of their gift of time. The community enjoys better services and more

opportunities while the consultants themselves have the benefit of their self-

gratification for giving their time free of charge which results in their personal

improved performance. The next section presents the data gathered from the

organisation’s traditional volunteers.

4.2 The Data from the Responses of the Traditional Volunteers

200

In order to present the data gathered from the descriptive codes of traditional

volunteers, this section compares data using thematic analysis by means of the topic

codes of CSR, quality marks, Social Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution

of the Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering, and The Volunteering Investment and

Value Audit, (VIVA). Table 4.5 frames the analytical codes of the organisation,

community and individuals and presents the qualitative themes. Table 4.6 presents

an analysis of the quantitative theme of time for the traditional volunteers. Table 4.7

is the themes from the follow up interviews and Table 4.8 presents all the results by

means of thematic analysis using an initial thematic map as advocated by Braun and

Clarke, (2006).

There was a cross section of traditional volunteers throughout the organisation.

Between them they had a significant number of years of experience in the third

sector and willingly came forward to take part in the research. They provided a great

deal of useable data by means of the time that they provided free and gratis on a

monthly basis. They also provided a large amount of anecdotal evidence of the

unpaid time that they provided that enabled the organisation to meet its obligations.

The traditional volunteers’ said that their involvement with the SWWales Charity is

on a number of levels. Some helped paid employees to deliver courses during busy

periods and others included those who volunteered in the garden and food

cooperative project. There is a volunteer hair and beauty supporter, a business and

administration voluntary supporter, a job search volunteer and a voluntary café

worker. The age range is from 16 – 63 years of age. All were unemployed or

economically inactive and all contributed with enthusiasm. The following are the

201

responses to the questionnaire for the traditional volunteers, (Appendix 5) and CSR

is examined first.

Topic Code – CSR

None of the six respondents answered the question around the topic coding of

Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR). In relation to how they were involved in

safeguarding the SWWales Charity’s environment, again, no one answered. This is

because some of the traditional volunteers have literacy and numeracy issues.

Although when asked in a more basic way if it benefited the organisation they gave

examples of how the organisation had taught them gardening which now produces

food, as well as homes for the wildlife. The themes were individual and community

benefit. The other two reiterated that any benefit they receive is passed on to others

in the community. The other two provided a response to the question on its benefits.

One said that they were grateful of the help that the organisation had given them and

the other, also gave examples of protecting the wildlife of the community. All six

respondents thought that the organisation is supported by their voluntary

contributions and were asked if they benefited individually in the follow-up

interviews, (see Appendix 8).

One respondent mentioned their support for learners and two others referred to the

fact that,

‘... without my contribution as a volunteer, it would be more difficult to

stretch employee resources’.

202

While another stated that their voluntary contributions benefit both employees and

customers. All six agreed that their voluntary activity should be acknowledged. This

was also followed up in the content analysis of organisational reports in Table 4.17

to see if any of their activity is being acknowledged. When asked why they

contributed they responded with the themes, of the hard work that they provide,

recognition and appreciation. One said that they did it only,

‘to know that it is appreciated and that it is beneficial to the company’.

Other themes included self-benefit as well as organisational benefit. Two

respondents said that what they provided is, ‘hard’ work.

Two did not respond to the question around why they did it and two said that they

had been invited to a recognition event as thanks for their endeavours. Only one

respondent stated that the organisation would have been less successful if it was not

for their voluntary contributions. This may be because the others thought that what

they contributed is a relatively small amount. However, as well as the consultants the

relatively small amount of time voluntary contributed by the traditional volunteers

resulted in a substantial total of £43,302.88, (Table 4.6). They also said that there

were community and organisational benefits that resulted from their actions. Themes

included the fact that this is agreed with by the respondents who stated that if they

did not do it then the community would miss out. One respondent did not respond

while three alluded to the employees being more stretched and that their individual

experience is essential. Also that their help is needed because one stated that,

203

‘... sometimes employees cannot spend enough time with individuals and my

experience is essential in various areas’.

This is CSR and was also a follow-up interview question, which is around the

amount of time involved in achieving quality marks that is being regularly

contributed by the traditional volunteers.

Topic Code – Quality Marks

All of the traditional volunteers provided a regular service for the community by

helping in the café, the community garden and by giving,

‘quality time to people who have not used computers or systems before’.

Which helped the organisation to achieve quality marks.

The community and organisational benefit themes were that they thought that their

help is appreciated which benefitted them. This is important because the consultants

also said that there were benefits to themselves through their voluntary contributions

to the organisation in order to achieve quality marks. Four of the six respondents on

the question about the value of quality marks did not respond, one only replied, ‘…

yes they were valuable’. Another mentioned being involved in the standard and

another said,

204

‘yes, I definitely think it emphasises how good an organisation the SWWales

Charity is within the community’.

The themes included standards and the fact that all respondents thought that it is a

good organisation to be individually associated with as well as that it gave

community benefits by it being recognised as doing, ‘good’. This is linked to the

organisation’s relationship with the community through social capital.

Topic Code – Social Capital

The benefit of the traditional volunteers’ contributions has been found to be

significant. Terms of grants, such as those with volunteering outcomes would not be

complied with if there were no voluntary contributions. This is also a clause in social

value contracts. Social capital impacts on the Contribution of the Third Sector

because it match funds its grants by voluntary contributions, using the WCVA’s

method of calculating time and converting it into money. This is acceptable by

WEFO but can only be used for up to 20% of the grant total, which is of great help

to the organisation. With regard to whether peoples’ voluntary contributions

benefitted the organisation, three did not respond. Of those that did, their responses

included, one saying ‘… yes’, one said, ‘not at present’ and another responding with,

‘I do other work in the community as well which is not directly linked to the

SWWales Charity’.

The themes from all the respondents to the social capital question also included that

it had community and organisational benefit. Themes included one of the

205

respondents saying that they are involved in one of the organisation’s major projects,

which helps the organisation achieve its outcomes aligned to the performance

measures, (KPIs) in its business plan. Yet, this crucial contribution is not

acknowledged in the organisation’s reports, even though it would be difficult to

achieve outcomes without the voluntary contributions of the traditional volunteers.

Another topic that relies on voluntary contributions through technology is mass

collaboration.

Topic Code – Mass Collaboration

The next topic coding is mass collaboration. The respondents were asked whether

they thought that there is a benefit to people volunteering their help in the

organisation’s community activities. Responses included all six saying that they had

been involved in community events while another respondent said that it is a chance

to meet new people and learn new skills. The themes here were; familiarity,

community benefit and individual benefit. Attending events in the community is a

way of being part of the organisation with the benefit of some recognition back to

them. One respondent said that they support the community and another said that

they had met new people and learned IT new skills. This is an individual benefit to

them that is then cascaded back to the community. While another simply replied,

‘yes’. There is also found to be a benefit of mass collaboration for themselves, the

organisation and the community. Only one of the six said that they attended formal

meetings, but they had all attended at least one AGM.

206

All the respondents said that they voluntarily contribute because they live in a

deprived community and that the benefit is to everyone. Also that it creates a better

community and brings people together which is cohesion. One respondent said that

they do it,

‘not only for the deprived community but for individual satisfaction and

development’.

The themes were that they said that they all did it for the benefit of the community,

while another two mentioned that people should work together. Increased social

capital during austere times is supported by the fact that during a recession, when

paid work is scarce, people may have more time to volunteer and contribute to third

sector organisations.

Topic Code – The Contribution of the Third Sector

The next topic coding is around the contribution of traditional volunteers to the third

sector. All six respondents left the question on the number of hours they contributed

informally blank. This could be because they see themselves as not being informal

volunteers because they have a volunteer contract. There were plenty of responses to

the benefits of this to the organisation, even though they said that they did not do it.

The themes included raising the awareness of community services, volunteering

opportunities, support for workshop mentors and others of the SWWales Charity’s

volunteers. One responded by saying that they did it to,

207

‘give other people time to concentrate on one to one time etc.’

They all said that this enabled community benefits, individual benefits as well as

benefits to the organisation. This has a value to the organisation and they were asked

if they knew the value of their volunteer time. Three did not respond but the

responses of those that did included, organisational support, knowledge transfer,

individual benefit as well as community benefit. They did, however, think that their

voluntary contributions benefitted the organisation by more people using its services

because they know the people who are volunteering, (recognition and appreciation).

Yet there is no current way of measuring the benefits that the volunteers provide to

the organisation, the community or themselves. There is a Volunteering Investment

and Value Audit, (VIVA) that is used to account for the voluntary contributions of

traditional volunteers, but it is suggested that does not give a complete picture

because it does not measure the threefold benefit to the organisation, the community

and the volunteers themselves. It only accounts for volunteer time.

Topic Code – Volunteering Investment and Value Audit

The subject of the next topic coding is VIVA. The respondents were all asked about

the benefits of volunteering. A typical response is that,

‘I am more skilled to pass on my knowledge to other learners’.

The themes from all the respondents were knowledge transfer, community benefit,

and individual benefit. One respondent said that he just turned up while another said

that they passed on their knowledge to others for community benefit. Another

208

respondent is concerned with their own individual development and satisfaction as

well as transferring those skills to other people for community benefit. The responses

to the benefits of the increased knowledge of the traditional volunteers included them

transferring their new knowledge on to others in the community and other

organisations. They also said that it enabled them to gain confidence. The analytic

codes were knowledge transfer, community and individual benefit. They all

highlighted that what they learn through volunteering is then confidently passed on

to other people. This is admirable because not only they benefit by acting in such an

altruistic way, others in the community do too. The respondents benefitted

individually because they enjoyed giving something back to the organisation in the

community as well. The following is a summary of the thematic analysis for the

traditional volunteers.

4.2.1 A Summary of the Thematic Analysis for the Traditional Volunteers

There were three analytical codes in the data from the questionnaires that included

organisational benefit of increased outcomes from their support. The community

benefitted from cohesion through the transfer of skills as well as the individual

benefit of a feeling of belonging. First the organisational benefit is examined in more

detail:

Organisational Benefit: Contributions from the traditional volunteers included

compliance with grants, support for, ‘stretched’ paid employees, as well as their

voluntary contributions being used for match funding. The traditional volunteers

raised the awareness of community services, volunteering opportunities and gave

209

support to the workshop mentors. Volunteering helped the organisation achieve its

outcomes aligned to its performance measures as well as self-benefit and

recognition. The organisation had high standards and the fact that it is a good

organisation to be individually associated with is one of the themes. What they

provide is, ‘hard’ work and the fact that it is a good organisation to be individually

associated with. Also, that it is good to know that it is appreciated and benefits the

organisation as well as it benefitted the paid employees and the community. The

SWWales Charity had the outcome of many things including compliance. Theme:

Organisational Outcomes.

Community Benefit: One respondent highlighted the benefits not only to the

community but individually as well through their own personal satisfaction and

development. They said, ‘I am more skilled to pass on my knowledge to other

learners’. The benefit is to everyone and that it created a better community and

brought all stakeholders together which is cohesion. They said that any benefit they

receive is passed on to others in the community. Most said that they are supporting

the community and standards through their voluntary contributions. The organisation

is at a good standard through knowledge transfer and familiarisation. They said that

they had met new people and learned IT new skills. However, they did say that it

was unable to provide services if the organisation did not comply with the regulators.

They also stated that if they did not do it then the community would miss out. They

thought that it benefitted the organisation by more people using its services because

the community knows the people who are volunteering there, (recognition). This is

an individual benefit to them that is then cascaded back to the community and other

210

organisations, ‘not only for the deprived community but for my individual

satisfaction and development’. Theme: Community Cohesion.

Individual Benefit: The individual benefits included recognition, raising awareness

of services, volunteering opportunities, support for workshop mentors and other the

SWWales Charity’s traditional volunteers. Respondents said that they liked

belonging to the organisation with some recognition for themselves as well as

meeting other people, ‘without my contribution as a volunteer, it would be more

difficult to stretch employees’ resources’. One said that they,

‘met new people and learned new skills by liaising with other volunteers.

New skills, meeting people, gaining confidence, development, individual

satisfaction, help, being needed and that conservation is of great value’.

They all said that they received recognition and appreciation through their hard

work. The organisation had taught them how to garden which now produces food, as

well as homes for the wildlife. Their support for learners has a double benefit. The

respondents that stated that if they did not do it, then the community would miss out.

They had the opportunity to meet new people and learn new skills. Employees were

being more stretched in these austere times and that their experience is essential.

They also felt that their help is needed and relied upon, which gives them a feeling of

familiarity and belonging. Theme: Individual Belonging.

The themes from the qualitative data from the questionnaires for the traditional

volunteers are presented below in Table 4.5:

211

Table 4.5The Themes from Questionnaires for the Traditional Volunteers.

Traditional Volunteers

Qualitative organisational

benefit Outcomes

Qualitative community benefit

Cohesion

Qualitative individual benefit

Belonging

In summary of the initial themes, there was found to be a three way benefit to the

organisation of increased outcomes, community cohesion and the traditional

volunteers themselves gained a feeling of belonging. This is the interpretation of the

qualitative value of their voluntary contributions. Their tangible contribution is

calculated by the number of hours that the traditional volunteers said that they

contributed monthly. This is presented below in the quantitative tangible

contribution of time provided voluntarily by traditional volunteers:

Topic coding – CSR: Are you involved in ensuring that our natural

environment is safeguarded, if so how many hours? Two said 20 hours, three said

0 and one did not respond. Total 40 hours.

Topic coding - Quality Marks: One respondent said that they contributed 6 unpaid

hours per month, one said 10 hours, one said 20 hours and three said 30+ hours.

Total 126 hours.

Topic coding - Social capital: How do you contribute to social/community

benefit? One said 10 hours, two said 20 hours and two said 30+ hours. One said 0.

Total 110 hours.

212

Topic coding - Mass collaboration: How many hours are you involved in

partnership working/meetings? Five said, 0 while one said 6 hours. Total 6

hours.

Topic coding - Contribution of the third sector: How many hours do you

contribute informally? One said 6 hours, three said 20 hours and one did not

respond. Total 66 hours.

Topic coding - Payback on volunteering: Are you involved in learning? If so,

how many hours? Two said 20 hours per month, two said 0, one did not respond

and one said that they had, ‘previously supported a course’. Total 40 hours.

Total contribution per month = 348 hours.

Theme: Time - the total of 348 hours per month were divided by 6 respondents

which gave 348 hours per month, on average, per respondent. 348 is divided by the

number of 6 respondents which gave 58 average hours per respondent. The method

of calculating the hourly rate utilised WEFO’s guidance for in kind match funding @

an administrators’ rate of £10.13 per hour x 58 = £587.54, which is then multiplied

by 12 for annual reporting purposes gave £7,050.48, multiplied by the number of

hours per respondent which gave - £7,050.48 x 6 giving a grand total of £43,302.88.

The quantitative results of the time contributed by the traditional volunteers are

presented in Table 4.6, below:

213

Table 4.6The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed by the

Traditional Volunteers.Total hours per month 348Divided by number of respondents 348 divided by 6Average number of hours per respondent per month

58 average hours per respondent

Method of calculating hourly rate WEFO’s guidance for in kind match funding @ administrators’ rate of £10.13 per hour

X no. of hours per month per respondent

£10.13 x 58 = £587.54

X 12 months £7,050.48X number of respondents £7,050.48 x 6

Total £43,302.88

In order to relate to the literature around CSR, quality marks, Social Capital, Mass

Collaboration, The Contribution of the Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering, and

The Volunteering Investment and Value Audit, (VIVA) are advocated by Hof,

(2005, p.1). Hof, for example, called mass collaboration, “the power of us” and

Kane, (2014, p.2) describes a new way of measuring the contribution of volunteering

to GDP. In order to gather more in-depth data, follow-up interviews were also

undertaken with the traditional volunteers.

The follow-up interview questions were around the benefit to the organisation of

their voluntary contributions, their increased personal satisfaction and the benefit to

others of them transferring their skills. Six traditional volunteers said that they

volunteered time to the organisation. They also indicated that there may be benefits

back to the community as well as themselves as a result of their voluntary

contributions. They were clearly passionate about the organisation and wanted

voluntarily involvement by their contributions and continue the work that it

214

undertakes in the community through providing their knowledge. They said that they

time promoting what the organisation does in the community, which gives them the

individual benefit of confidence and self-assurance, for example. First the

organisational benefits of traditional voluntary contributions are presented:

Organisational Benefit: It is interesting that the six traditional volunteers said that

they were involved by contributing their time, free of charge, to the organisation.

The questions for the follow-up interviews evidently need to investigate the reasons

for why they do it because they were clearly passionate about volunteering in the

organisation. Responses on whether there is any benefit to the organisation of their

support for the paid employees included, ‘I am already doing it’ and, ‘yes, certainly’.

This input has a definite benefit but it is not being measured anywhere currently.

Theme: Voluntary Involvement in the organisation.

Community Benefit: The traditional volunteers said that they spend free time

promoting what the organisation does for other community members that they have

contact with. The community members themselves benefit from the free courses that

the organisation provides and the knowledge transfer of the traditional volunteers

who help the paid employees to deliver some courses. This means that without their

voluntary contributions, some of the courses may not be able to run, so it is vital that

the traditional volunteers’ knowledge is acknowledged and accounted for. Otherwise

there would be a definite cost to the organisation of buying in more staff, which can

be measured. Theme: Knowledge Transfer.

215

Individual Benefit: The respondents were then asked if their individual self-

assurance, (knowledge, confidence, development and meeting new people) increased

through their voluntary activity. They mostly replied with,

‘… my confidence has increased and I also made new friends’ and, ‘yes, I

feel more confident to speak in front of people’.

Finally they were asked, what is the benefit to others by them passing on their skills?

Most answered positively and for example, one respondent answered,

‘I hope to pass on what I have learned myself over the years’ and, ‘I am

giving the others confidence in what they do’.

This self-assurance should also be acknowledged even if it cannot currently be given

a value. Theme: Individual Self-assurance.

The follow-up interview themes for the traditional volunteers presented are Table 4.7

below:

Table 4.7The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Traditional Volunteers.

Traditional Volunteers

Qualitative organisational

benefit Involvement

Qualitative community benefit

Knowledge

Qualitative individual benefit Self-assurance

The results in Table 4.7, above demonstrate that as a result of the interpretation of

the themes from the follow-up interviews, the traditional volunteers were involved

by contributing their time to the organisation, the community benefitted from their

216

knowledge as a result of this and the traditional volunteers themselves had the return

of self-assurance as a result of their voluntary contributions. The following combines

the qualitative and quantitative data of the time contributed by the traditional

volunteers. Table 4.8, below presents the initial thematic map as advocated by Braun

and Clarke, (2006 p.99):

Table 4.8The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for

the Traditional Volunteers.Quantitative£43,302.88

Qualitative organisational

benefit Outcomes and involvement

Qualitative community benefit

Cohesion and knowledge

Qualitative individual benefit Belonging and self-assurance

Table 4.8 demonstrates that as a result of the interpretation of all the data, the

traditional volunteers contributed £43,302.88 per annum and the organisation is able

to continue to achieve its outcomes as a result of their involvement of time. The

community enjoys better cohesion through the knowledge imparted by the traditional

volunteers while the traditional volunteers themselves have the benefit of feeling a

sense of belonging and self-assurance as a result of their contributions. The next

section relates to the data gathered from the organisation’s paid employees using

topic coding, according to Richards, (2005, p.90):

4.3 The Data from the Responses of the Paid Employees

In order to present the data gathered from the descriptive codes of paid employees,

this section compares data using thematic analysis by means of the topic codes of

CSR, quality marks, Social Capital, Mass Collaboration, The Contribution of the

217

Third Sector, Payback on Volunteering, and The Volunteering Investment and Value

Audit, (VIVA). Table 4.9 frames the analytical codes of the organisation, community

and individuals and is an analysis of the qualitative theme of time contributed by the

paid employees. Table 4.10 presents the quantitative themes for the paid employees.

Table 4.11 is the themes from the follow up interviews and Table 4.12 presents all

the results by means of thematic analysis using an initial thematic map as advocated

by Braun and Clarke, (2006).

The results of the data from the paid employees first described their involvement

with the SWWales Charity. Responses to each topic code from the literature gave

examples of them voluntarily contributing time by them staying on late after work

and taking work home with them at the weekend in order to meet deadlines. When

asked why, some responded with, ‘everyone does it’, which suggests that it is the

culture of the organisation. They said that they did it because the deadlines would

not be met if they did not do it. However, most paid employees said that it was a,

‘great place to work’. This was expanded upon in the follow-up interviews. First, the

approaches that are related to the literature for the paid employees are discussed. The

following are the responses to the questionnaire, (Appendix 6) for paid employees

and CSR is examined first.

Topic Code – Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR)

The first topic coding was around the benefit of maintaining good CSR. Responses

included the fact that,

218

‘sustainability is embedded in the organisations ethos and as such we are

obligated to ensure that our natural environment is safeguarded for future

generations’.

Another responded,

‘yes, as it shows that as an organisation it is adhering to its environmental

policy and that it is contributing to reduce the carbon footprint’, as well as,

‘we all need to do our most to make the organisation a better place to work

and the community a place that is safe and clean’.

This is in compliance with CSR and another responded supported this comment

with,

‘I believe CSR promotes our standing as regenerators of the community if we

are seen to be helping out with recycling waste or resources, keeping the

grounds of our buildings smart and eco balanced where possible’.

The themes here included all respondents giving reasons for the benefits of good

CSR and how it was important to the organisation and the community. Most referred

to its environmental theme also benefits of the organisation’s reputation to external

stakeholders such as funders, community buy-in and the overall benefit of behaving

in such a socially responsible way. Although a CSR policy is not mandatory, there

was felt to be a definite benefit through benchmarking and recognition.

219

With regard to what the paid employees said that they all considered the benefit of

safeguarding the environment and acting in a socially responsible way, their

responses included,

‘yes, the benefit is to see others take on board what you have said, to help

with their day to day handling of their own environment and that of the wider

family’.

Another responded with,

‘yes, you should treat your workplace like it is your house. You would not

leave the heating on with windows wide open or lights on in a room you’re

not in. Every little counts.’

As well as another respondent who said,

‘the benefit is immeasurable, not just my generation but the future generation

to come’.

While another referred to it having a three-way benefit,

‘… organisations need to care for the community and environment in which

they exist to enable preservation, growth of people, places and the natural

environment’.

220

The themes here were that CSR is beneficial to the organisation by ensuring that it

acted socially responsible and globally by,

‘looking after the planet, EU, local, your town and even your own home.’

These were given as examples. Comments also included, ‘renewable energy, fossil

fuels and sustainability for all’.

There were no suggestions on how to measure this sustainability though.

Interpretation also included the respondents all giving reasons for the benefits of

good CSR and how was important to the organisation, as well as the planet.

Behaving in such a socially responsible way in the community was promoted by all

the respondents and is linked to quality marks.

Topic Code – Quality Marks

The next topic coding for this section was around the benefit of quality marks. Most

respondents found it difficult to give achieving them any value. Although there were

three respondents who said that achieving it had some sort of, ‘monetary value’. One

mentioned that it helped, ‘financially when applying for bids’. One respondent did

mention that the company valued the IIP standard, for example, but no suggestions

were made about what the benefit of achieving standards was. One stated that the

company invests, ‘time and effort’ in achieving standards and is, ‘investing in their

development’, which means that the organisation invests in the development of

quality marks but no value was suggested for any return on this investment. The

221

themes from all the respondents for quality marks were that the organisation works

to a, ‘high standard’, ‘it instils confidence’, ‘work ethic, quality services, our

reputation even before people have worked with us’, which is important because it is

how the organisation is perceived by the community. As well as this, one respondent

said that,

‘truth, integrity and care ensures that all employees are treated fairly and all

sections of the organisations and are working the same and to the same

objectives’.

Another responded with the fact that there is, ‘enhanced credibility’ for the

SWWales Charity as a result of quality marks.

In order to ensure that there was plenty of rich data respondents were asked about the

benefits of quality marks to themselves. The themes consisted of, quality (7),

standards (5), and benefit (2). The highest number, seven people, mentioned quality,

with five mentioning standards and two saying benefit. They also said, procedures

(1), professionalism (1), expectation (1), fairness (1), recognition (1), continuous

improvement (1), reputation (1), image (1), commitment (1), excellence (1) care and

attention (1) and marketing (1). These are all words associated with the IIP Gold

standard, which could have been predicted as the organisation had recently achieved

the IIP Gold standard. Most respondents stated that it was a, ‘great place to work’

and that,

‘IIP enhanced partnership by offering a, high standard of working’.

222

The benefit to the community of IIP was that included the marketing of the

organisation, enhanced its reputation and therefore provided quality services. The

interpretation of the themes included the respondents agreeing that there was a

benefit to reputation, goodwill and branding brought about by the achievement of

quality marks. They all gave examples such as,

‘I believe that the quality marks we have go a long way with our funders who

will have more trust in placing projects with the company’ and, ‘financially,

when compiling bids for funding the value and reputation of the company is

strengthened by the achievement of quality marks’.

Another respondent mentioned that the company valued the standard and that the

company invests, ‘time and effort’ in achieving standards. Another described the,

‘the monetary value of increased consideration for contracts and funding’,

It was also suggested by this respondent that human capital could be used as match

funding.

Topic Code – Human Capital

The next topic coding was Human Capital, which specifically investigated the skills

gained by paid employees through their human capital. Responses included,

223

‘... to continue the good work that the SWWales Charity does its imperative

that new ways of working are designed to meet the needs of the local

community and the funders who provide the money for delivering’

And, ‘continuous improvement can only be a benefit to the SWWales Charity as it

improves performance for the benefit of the community’. Also that, ‘it is important

to offer up to date and effective provision both for the benefit of participants and also

to compete in a developing and changing market’.

A number of the paid employees agreed that,

‘yes, as employees are always striving to carry out tasks and have systems

that are more time effective and efficient.’ As well as, ‘as an organisation we

need to be ahead of the game to ensure that we are able to deliver on

contracts, offer new and unique services to ensure that we have a place in the

market’.

All respondents spoke of how improving their skills through human capital, was a

definite positive. They all gave examples of how a skilled workforce marketed the

organisation well to its external stakeholders. Part of marketing what the

organisation does is to show paid employees’ development through virtual human

resource development, which is another of the approaches from the literature.

Topic Code - Virtual Human Resource Development (VHRD)

224

The themes here were that of the fourteen respondents that completed the question,

all agreed that one of the strands of Human Capital, improved technology, and

individually learning new skills, by means of VHRD, was beneficial. Responses

included, new, progressive ways of working (2), keeping up to date with technology

(2), effective provision, being ahead of the game, thinking ahead at all times,

updated systems, up-skilling, achieve the best results possible through technology,

improving skills, better skills (7) and increasing standards. They all agreed that

improved technology and new ways of working were beneficial to the organisation.

With regard to putting a value on that benefit the responses included,

‘funders are always looking to support organisations that are willing to

change to fit the needs of an ever changing society.’

Other common responses included that,

‘it portrays a professional and efficient company that is not afraid of change

and one that takes its valued employees with it’ and, ‘better engagement with

the community’.

The themes from all the respondents include the suggestion that the benefits of new

technology levers in more funding, to a company which values its employees. One

respondent described how technology helps the organisation to make good decisions

and gives better information for decision making. There was a lot of reference to

how excellent the organisation is at improving technology and developing new ways

of working. There were no suggestions as to the benefits of the organisation’s

225

improved delivery and relationships with the community. One said that it, ‘... makes

me keep up with the pace of technology’ and was related to the respondents’

individual development. Most respondents agreed that,

‘… technology can make working more efficient and less time consuming’

and that, ‘technology makes delivering our services easier, better and more

efficient’.

There was a lot of reference to how excellent the organisation was at improving

technology and new ways of working.

The interpretation of this section included that all of the respondents agreed that

improved technology and new ways of working were beneficial to the organisation

because they were,

‘promoting excellence to our stakeholders whilst striving to be the best’ and,

‘it enables the company to keep close eye on all finances and records all

transactions.’

On the subject of benefits one respondent indicated that there were greater benefits

than just to the organisation alone,

‘developing human resources develops the organisation and its services and

therefore its participants’.

226

The interpretation of the themes included that only one respondent saying that it was

of no direct improvement, but there were plenty of comments on compliance, being

honest and acting with integrity to benefit the organisation and the community

participants, making it a better place to work. Acting with integrity by voluntarily

contributing time over and above that what is paid for is the voluntary labour of paid

employees. As discussed earlier, it is the culture of the organisation to stay late when

there are deadlines because, as one suggested that,

‘... the work would not be completed on time otherwise!’

There was however, found to be a return to the voluntary labour of paid employees

by increased development and even job promotion for some.

Topic Code – The Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees

The following topic coding was the Voluntary Labour of Paid Employees and there

were also the three analytical codes of organisational, community and individual

benefit. The responses to the organisational benefit included,

‘as an employee of the SWWales Charity it benefits me as I am able to

continually learn new processes and apply these processes to the

sustainability of the organisation. I do not see it as, work that I am not paid

for I see it as valuable time spent by contributing to the success of the

organisation and therefore my employment and that of the team’

227

This was the general response and,

‘it shows that as an employee you are willing to put in hours over and above

to ensure the organisation achieving what is set out in its business plan and

what is expected by funders’.

This suggests that it is the culture and norm of the organisation where everyone does

it. One response was to the point,

‘it allows me to complete jobs that I need to do, which otherwise I could not

do within working hours’.

However, in support of this statement another response was,

‘but I would not hesitate to do so if I thought it would help my managers or

the SWWales Charity to succeed’.

This last comment suggests that they do it willingly, but it was decided to ask a

question around this in the follow-up interviews, (Appendix 8). The themes

included,

‘this is a difficult question to answer. It depends on the type of work

required, for example if it is to support a worthy cause and gain something

valuable form it then I do not see why not. However, if it is working longer

hours to keep up with your workload then there is an issue that needs to be

228

addressed. Long hours are not productive even when they are unpaid. I have

experience of this in my last job and it does finally lead to over work and

stress.’

This is something that was also probed further in the follow-up interviews in

Appendix 8. The interpretation of the data was that most respondents did give their

time for free at periods of high workloads so that it supported their colleagues, the

organisation and the community. Two respondents felt that their voluntary activity

benefitted the community by stating that,

‘yes, it helps promote the activities and the work that we do in the

community’.

As well as the benefits of the voluntary labour of paid employees to the community,

organisational and individual themes then explored and most of the responses

included,

‘the value that I gain is to know that I am trying to offer the best possible

support. It is obviously for the benefit of the organisation and the community

but also for my individual satisfaction’. And that, ‘it shows that the employee

is dedicated to the organisation and prepared to give up their time, for free,

for the benefit of the organisation’

And mostly all the respondents gave similar responses such as,

229

‘I want the SWWales Charity to be the best it can’.

One respondent felt passionate about the time that he was contributing to the charity

and said,

‘I think it shows commitment to ones’ job and company as well as to

demonstrate passion in ones’ work’.

A good example of all the responses was the respondent, who said that the

organisation is,

‘… working towards becoming an employer of choice, maintaining good

employees who are committed to the organisation and believe in the work it

does and are not there just for the money’.

The themes here included individual satisfaction and passion. The following is a way

of accounting for human resources that examines if there are any more voluntary

contributions made under the HRA topic code.

Topic Code – Human Resource Accounting, (HRA)

The following topic coding is Human Resource Accounting, HRA and the questions

here were specifically around the benefits of human management systems to the

organisation. Responses included,

230

‘new and effective management systems have to be put in place to satisfy the

funders, the teams and the participants’ and, ‘change that improves the

working lives of employees and improves what the organisation can deliver

to the community is always welcome’

In support of the benefits of adopting new management systems, another responded

with,

‘I think that the benefit of improved human systems is a demonstration of the

commitment to the job and the sector’.

The themes here were the benefits to human resources to the altruistic acts of people

working over and above their contracted hours. Some mentioned commitment to the

organisation and the sector by keeping up to date, an ever changing organisation, and

continuous improvement and to satisfy funders as the benefits. All said positive

things. Interpretation of this section included that five of the fifteen respondents

thought that volunteering was referring to something that someone else, (the

traditional volunteers) did. This may be because it is not currently measured or

reported on.

On the subject of whether or not voluntary contributions should be measured, or

given a value, one respondent said, ‘one balances out the other’. One mentioned that

volunteer hours could be counted towards grant applications in the form of match

funding. Only one said whether or not they did it from choice with, ‘… no I just get

on with it’ which suggests that there may be some form of culture where they felt

231

that they had no choice, yet they all voluntarily contributed repeatedly. When asked

whether the organisation be less successful if not for the voluntary contributions of

paid employees, responses included,

‘as a community organisation, we rely on volunteering and without it we

would be nothing’.

They all agreed that the voluntary contributions made by paid employees should be

measured and another responded in a similar way by saying,

‘yes, they show other people in the community the benefit of volunteering in

the organisation’.

On the topic of whether or not the organisation was supported by their voluntary

contributions, responses included,

‘I cannot say that the organisation is supported by my voluntary contributions

just that at times of need the team pulls together to ensure the success of the

task’ and, ‘absolutely, work does not finish as soon as 5pm arrives!’ As well

as, ‘with the volunteer contributions, by both paid and unpaid employees, the

SWWales Charity is supported greatly’.

Another typical response was,

‘work would not be completed or not to a high standard and deadlines for

funders/partner organisations would not be met’.

232

This means that their contributions were integral to the survival of the organisation

and all thought that it should be measured to show how much hard work they are

putting in,

‘so that an organisation can fully appreciate the volume of work that is

carried out by employees that are not paid!’ and, ‘to measure the amount of

hard work that they put in’.

As well as all the respondents who spoke of the benefits of the free work to them and

the organisation of,

‘recognition, training, progression for the individual and the organisation and

monetary value for match funding’.

In support of this, one respondent said,

‘I think that all voluntary hours should be noted and recorded as it would

show the effort of the individual on behalf of the SWWales Charity and it

also shows the good that the SWWales Charity must be doing to inspire the

loyalty and commitment of such individuals to give up their time and help us

make our community a better place’.

233

Typically all respondents spoke of the threefold benefit of voluntary contributions to

the organisation, the community as well as individual loyalty and commitment. This

was supported by the respondent, who said that,

‘volunteers and their contributions bring not only added value but show the

diversity of an organisation and the engagement and empowerment of the

community’ and, ‘volunteer hours are counted towards grant applications and

also valued by the organisation’.

Again, most respondents thought that voluntary activity was carried out by

traditional volunteers and did not mention their own voluntary contributions. All but

one respondent answered the question on the organisation being less successful if it

was not for their personal voluntary contributions,

‘as no funding is available to employ additional employees to assist carrying

out activities, running of projects, planning of events etc. so it has to be done

by existing employees working with volunteers or services would suffer’.

And that, ‘I believe the community benefits so much from the services the

SWWales Charity offers. It gives people the chance to change their

circumstances if they want to change them. There are so many cut backs from

local government that affects the everyday person the SWWales Charity

gives something back’

As well as the organisation and the community benefitting from their altruism,

another respondent described how it benefitted them,

234

‘working for the SWWales Charity has brought me a lot of experience and

enjoyment and I hope to continue’,

This is a direct benefit back to the respondent. While another stated that they did it

because,

‘volunteering is part of the not for profit ethos’.

It may be part of the not for profit ethos but it is not acknowledged anywhere in the

literature even though many employees said that they regularly did it. The following

is a summary of the responses of the paid employees which demonstrates that there

are also a three themes brought by their own voluntary contributions to the SWWales

Charity.

4.3.1 A Summary of the Thematic Analysis for the Paid Employees

There were three descriptive codes in the data from the questionnaires included the

organisational benefit of sustainability, the community benefit of relationships as

well as the individual benefit development. First the organisational data is examined

in more detail:

Organisational Benefit: It was found that quality marks ensure that the organisation

is to a, ‘high standard’, ‘it instils confidence’, ‘work ethic, quality services, our

reputation even before people have worked with us’ and, ‘truth, integrity and care

ensures that all employees are treated fairly’. As well as, ‘enhanced credibility’ for

sustainability. Almost half of the respondents mentioned quality, professionalism,

235

fairness, commitment and excellence, which are traits associated with organisational

sustainability. While the responses around CSR were that it added value to the

organisation of reputation, goodwill and branding. This they said was through

investing in, ‘time and effort’ acting in a, ‘socially responsible way’ through,

‘benchmarking and recognition’ that leads to organisational sustainability by looking

after the planet. The respondents said that their voluntary contributions should be

used for match funding and that it should be measured in the same way as traditional

volunteering currently is. The voluntary contributions of paid employees through

their human capital enabled new ways of working, continuous improvement and

more efficient systems that led to the sustainability of the organisation. The

respondents said that it enabled the organisation to be, ‘ahead of the game’ and that

VHRD gave the organisation new, progressive ways of working. This enabled it to

keep up to date with technology, provide effective provision, think ahead at all times,

updated systems, up-skilling, achieve the best results possible through technology,

improving skills, better skills and increasing standards through making good

decisions which are all associated with organisational sustainability. It was also

found that HRA enhances the sustainability of the organisation and that it can be

used as match funding, although it is not at present. Theme: Organisational

Sustainability.

Community Benefit: The voluntary labour of paid employees has been shown to

have a great impact on the organisation as ‘regenerators of the community’ and all

respondents said that they wanted the organisation to succeed. One respondent said

that,

236

‘volunteers and their contributions bring not only added value but show the

diversity of an organisation and the engagement and empowerment of the

community’.

Another respondent said,

‘I think that all voluntary hours should be noted and recorded as it would

show the effort of the individual on behalf of the SWWales Charity and it

also shows the good that the SWWales Charity must be doing to inspire the

loyalty and commitment of such individuals to give up their time and help us

make our community a better place’.

The achievement of quality marks ensures that the community receives quality

services. While they said that human capital provided effective provision through

enhanced relationships in the community. VHRD gave value to the ‘better

relationships with the community’ and levered in more funding to provide even more

services that are, ‘easier, better and more efficient. It was also found that,

‘developing human resources develops the organisation and its services and

therefore its participants’ and that, ‘the community continued to be provided

with seamless services by targets being met’.

While HRA ensures that the organisation continues to deliver in the community and

CSR ensures community buy in. Respondents said that it provided a three way

benefit to people, places and the natural environment and the planet. Theme:

Relationships with the community.

237

Individual Benefit: The paid employees said that they contributed by giving their

time for free, when needed to enable change.

‘Change that improves the working lives of employees and improves what

the organisation can deliver to the community is always welcome’.

They also said that without their hard work and the volume of their work the

deadlines would not be met. Through VHRD there was found to be the individual

benefits of learning new skills and development. They said that there was

recognition, training, progression for the individual and that change that

improvements to the working lives of employees is always welcome. They said that

there was the chance to change their circumstances if they wanted to through their

own development and that volunteering brought them a lot of experience and

enjoyment as it is part of the not for profit ethos. The voluntary labour of paid

employees may have the cost of employees being slightly stressed by overwork but

the individual benefit of the development of their jobs and the sector and all

respondents said that they have no problem contributing their time for free. They

said that doing it was a demonstration of their commitment to the job and the sector

through compliance, being honest and acting with integrity to benefit the

organisation and the community participants, making it a better place to work. One

respondent said,

‘I do not see the voluntary labour of paid employees as, work that I am not

paid for I see it as valuable time spent by contributing to the success of the

238

organisation through my development and therefore my employment and that

of the team’.

All respondents said that their voluntary contributions should be measured. Theme:

Individual Development.

Table 4.9, below presents the themes from the questionnaires for the paid employees:

Table 4.9The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Paid Employees.

Paid Employees

Qualitative organisational

benefit Sustainability

Qualitative community benefit

Relationships

Qualitative individual benefit

Development

In summary of the initial themes from the questionnaires, there was a three way

benefit to the organisation of sustainability through the contribution of the

volunteers. The community of enhanced relationships and the paid employees

themselves benefitted from their own development. This is the interpretation of the

qualitative benefit of the paid employees’ voluntary contributions. Their tangible

contribution of time was the number of hours that they said they contributed per

month. This was then totalled to give a significant annual amount of £159,120.00.

The quantitative benefit of the time voluntarily contributed by the paid employees is

now presented.

Eleven of the respondents said that they contributed time to the organisation that

they were not paid for and six said that they did not do any unpaid work. Contrary to

this only one said that they contributed 0 hours per month. Four said that they

239

contributed 10 hours (40 total), three 20 hours (60 total) and three 30+ hours per

month, (90+ total). Total 190 hours.

Topic Coding – CSR: Two said that they contributed no hours at all. Seven said that

they contributed 10 hours (70 total), three 20 hours (60 total) and two said 30+ hours

(60+). Total 190 hours.

Topic Coding – Quality Marks: In relation to quality marks, all stakeholder

categories were asked about their involvement, however seven employees said that

they were not involved in quality marks, ten said that they were. This is puzzling as

all are involved to some extent in maintaining the IIP Gold standard. The same seven

said that they contributed 0 hours to the achievement of quality marks. The four who

indicated that they did said that they contributed 10 hours (40 total), three said 20

hours, (60 total) and one said that they were involved for 30 hours, (30 total). Total

130 hours.

Topic Coding – Human Capital and VHRD: When asked if they improved their

performance through technology or new ways of working, one of the seventeen

skipped the answer. Eleven said that they were involved for 10 hours (110 in total),

one said that they were involved for 20 hours (20 total) and four said that they were

involved for 30+ hours (120+ total). Total 250 hours.

Topic Coding – The voluntary labour of paid employees: Responses included,

four who said 0 hours, five who said 10 hours (50 total), four who said 20 hours (80

240

total) and three said that they contributed 30+ hours unpaid labour to the

organisation (90+ total). Total 220 hours.

Topic Coding – HRA: Four respondents did not respond to how they were involved

in the improvement of management systems as part of HRA. Of the remainder, five

said that they were not involved at all. Five said that they were involved for 10 hours

(50 total) one said 10 hours and two said that they were involved for 30+ hours a

month (60+ total). Total 120 hours.

Total contribution per month = 1,100 hours.

Theme: Time - 1,100 hours per month divided by 17 respondents equals an average

of 65 hours each. The average organisational wage totalled and divided by the full

number of employees was £12.00 per hour. This was multiplied by the average hours

per month which came to £780. This was then multiplied by 12 months for annual

reporting purposes, which totalled £9,360 and was again multiplied by the number of

respondents. This gave a grand total of £159,120.00 per annum.

The quantitative results of the voluntary time contributed by the paid employees are

presented in Table 4.10, below:

Table 4.10The Quantitative Results of the Voluntary Time Contributed by the Paid

Employees.Total hours per month 1,100Divided by number of respondents 1,100 divided by 17Average number of hours per respondent per month

65 average hours per respondent

Method of calculating hourly rate Average organisational wage totalled and divided by the full number of staff was £12.00 p.h.

241

X no. of hours per month per respondent

£12.00 x 65 = £780.00

X 12 months £9,360.00X number of respondents £9,360.00 x17Total £159,120.00

As can be seen from the sum above, even though the paid employees said they

contribute a relatively small amount of time, by converting that time into a value it is

a substantial amount of money. The selection of authors, from Chapter Two who

have written about quality marks include, Drucker, (2000), Heskett, (2002) as well as

Hoque and Bacon, (2008). While Driscol, et al, (2004), amongst others, wrote about

CSR. Maslow, (1943), Weisbrod, (1966), Nafukho et al., (2010), and Saxton (2004)

and were advocates of Human Capital and VHRD. While HRA is promoted by

Bullen and Flamholz, (1967), Flamholtz, et al, (2002) Bullen and Eyler, (2009), and

Birnberg, (2011). Advocates of the voluntary contribution of paid employees include

Gregg and Marazzi, (2012), Whyte, (1956) and Baines, (2004). The sample chosen

for the literature review provided little evidence to support the voluntary

contributions of all stakeholders, as has been found as most were concerned with

traditional volunteers. As the results have shown, paid employees are voluntarily

contributing to all the topic codes from the literature. It has been established that not

only traditional volunteers are contributing to organisational, community and

individual success, paid employees are too. Having gathered a great deal of data

from the questionnaires, some further questioning was required to substantiate these

claims by means of the follow-up interviews in Appendix 8.

The respondents gave their opinions in the questionnaires about the way that the

organisation operates in both face to face and telephone interviews. Some responded

by email. They were complimentary about how, ‘there are so many cut backs from

242

local government that affect the everyday person. The SWWales Charity gives

something back’. They said that being involved in the organisation gave the

organisation sustainability, while they felt humility and pride in their relationships

with the SWWales Charity. The community benefitted from being occupied in the

organisation’s services and the paid employees themselves benefitted from

promotion as the result of some of their extra development through their voluntary

contributions. Again, there were found to be benefits to the organisation, the

community and the individual stakeholders themselves.

Organisational Benefit: It was interesting that all of the small sample of employees

gave a large amount of time, free of charge, to the organisation. They were clearly

passionate about the unpaid work that they undertook in the organisation. They said

that they spend free time marketing what the organisation does the community and

that they support by giving credible anecdotes of the ways they voluntarily

contribute their time. Three people, just over a fifth of the seventeen respondents,

indicated that they would be happy to take part in a follow-up interview. A follow-up

interview question included; ‘if you knew the benefit to the organisation of your

contribution, would you still give it freely?’ All three said, ‘yes’ giving accounts of

having the humility of, ‘no doubt that giving my time to the organisation has

benefitted both myself and the organisation’. The same respondent continued,

‘I am committed to the organisation and therefore take pride in completing

my responsibilities’.

While in support of their volunteering to the organisation, another said,

243

‘for me it is about taking the organisation forward irrespective of the value of

the time’.

The third respondent summed up the responses of most of the respondents and said,  

‘you must be willing to give above and beyond to support the organisation …

to give that little extra support when needs be’.

This gave them a feeling of humility and pride in being able to help the organisation

out. They all agreed that there was a need for them to work in this altruistic way and

said that the organisation worked with a, ‘great community’ and had, ‘organisational

common aims which has led to the benefit of its success and individual humility and

pride shown for allowing them to volunteer’.

Theme: Humility and pride of being associated with the organisation.

Community Benefit: The respondents also spoke of the benefit to the community

by being part of the support mechanism by working unpaid hours. Responses

included that,

‘it can often take over and above the time allocated within a working week to

establish’.

As well as most typically responding with,

244

‘community work takes commitment and dedication to achieve aims and

outcomes’,

And that some of their time is unpaid. Another follow-up question was about the

benefit to others of them working over and above their contracted hours. Responses

included,

‘the community that I represent through my work has benefited by several

large contracts to help people find employment in an area of high deprivation

and poverty.’

And that, ‘each and every hour that I give freely is sometimes the difference between

successful resources being acquired for the local community’.

Another said that it,

‘means jobs/opportunities for local people ... which can then lead to other

employees being employed or volunteers being recruited’,

Therefore, people are being given occupation as a result of volunteering. The same

respondent said that, ‘free time can help to create a valuable resource helping others

to freely add their time to create a sustainable resource for generations’.

The final question to the paid employees was, ‘have community members benefitted

from your voluntary contribution?’ One said that, ‘all the free time that I offer is to

create and provide occupation and resources for the local community’.

245

Another supported this by saying that the,

‘continuation of funding enables community involvement and provides

support for all members of the community.  Active community members

improve the working and social life of families’.

While a third said,

‘… to give something back to them, for them to enjoy a day out being

occupied and gaining knowledge on what support organisations and

initiatives are being carried out in the area’.

Theme: Occupation for people in the community.

Individual Benefit: With regard to the individual benefit of their voluntary activity,

the paid employees were asked if there had ever been a detrimental effect on them

giving over and above to the organisation. Responses included that,

‘… it helped me to change my career’ and, ‘it helped me gain considerable

knowledge that has benefited me through gaining promotion’.

Another said,

246

‘I began in the organisation on a 3-month contract as an administrator and I

have been rewarded by successfully applying for and gaining promotion’.

The same respondent concluded with,

‘in my previous employment in the Civil Service I had no job satisfaction – I

do now’.

While a third responded with (volunteering),

‘… gives you a sense of achievement’ and that, ‘being a full team member

while supporting colleagues when needs be is in itself is a rewarding, and

allows you to gain more skills, knowledge and experience which is always a

benefit to myself through promotion’.

Aligned to the benefits of their own altruistic acts back to themselves, another

respondent said that it allowed,

‘the continuation of funding and therefore continuation of my employment’. 

Typically, another said,

‘they have my time, commitment, skills, knowledge and support whenever

needs to be I am always willing and ready to help my colleagues as I believe

that team work is crucial to what we do on a daily basis’.

247

Theme: Individual Promotion.

Table 4.11 below, presents the follow-up interview themes for the paid employees:

Table 4.11The Follow-up Interview Themes for the Paid Employees.

Paid Employees

Qualitative organisational

benefit Humility and pride

Qualitative community benefit

Occupation

Qualitative individual benefit

Promotion

The results in Table 4.11, above demonstrate that as a result of the themes from the

follow-up interviews, the paid employees voluntary contributions were humility and

pride while the community had the continued occupation in the services that are

enabled in the community. The paid employees themselves had the return of

promotion for some of them as a return on their voluntary contributions. The

following combines the qualitative data and the follow-up interviews. It also includes

the quantitative data of the time contributed by the paid employees.

Table 4.12, below presents the initial thematic map as advocated by Braun and

Clarke, (2006 p.99) for the paid employees:

Table 4.12The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for

the Paid Employees.Quantitative£159,120.00

Qualitative organisational

benefit Sustainability,

humility and pride

Qualitative community benefit Relationships and

occupation

Qualitative individual benefit Development and

promotion

248

Table 4.12 above, demonstrates that as a result of the interpretation of all the data,

the paid employees contributed £159,120.00 worth of time per annum. The

organisation is able to be more sustainable as a result of their humility and pride in

their association with the organisation. The community enjoy better relationships

through their occupation in the services provided and the paid employees themselves

have the benefit of their own development and promotion. The next section relates to

the data gathered from the organisation’s board members using topic coding,

according to Richards, (2005) as well as Braun and Clarke, (2006).

4.4 The Data from the Responses of the Board Members

In order to present the data gathered from the descriptive codes of board members,

this section compares data using thematic analysis by means of the topic codes of

CSR, quality marks, ROCE, ROT and Social Value. Table 4.13 frames the analytical

codes of the organisation, community and individuals and is an analysis of the

qualitative themes. Table 4.16 presents an analysis of the quantitative themes of time

for the board members. Table 4.15 is the themes from the follow up interviews and

Table 4.8 presents all the board members’ results by means of thematic analysis

using an initial thematic map as advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006).

Board members responded that their involvement included them having a number of

titles including; Trustee, Director of the SWWales Charity Board, Chairman,

Director/Trustee, board member and volunteer. This provided a good selection

across all officers and included an age range from 45 to 80 years of age. They all had

specific areas of expertise throughout the Board but all regarded themselves as

249

volunteers as they gave their time freely. A relatively small sample of respondents

gave their opinions about the way that the organisation operates, yet they were

passionate about their voluntary contributions. The following are the responses to the

questionnaire for the board members, (Appendix 7) and CSR is examined first.

Topic Code – CSR

On discussing the benefit of positive Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR,

responses included that,

‘all time given must have a value’ and, ‘social and environment benefits go

hand in hand as energy waste is both expensive and unnecessary’.

The themes were the cost to the organisation of ineffective CSR, to the community,

the wider environment and the planet of expensive energy waste through ignorance.

There was benefit to the community through the organisation’s energy efficiency

scheme and the saving of energy. They also said that positive promotion in the

community saves money and markets the organisation as one that complies with

legislation, even though there is no real choice. This can be translated to benefits by

word of mouth for free marketing and funders being satisfied and willing to fund

again because of the reputation of the organisation in the community through due

diligence.

With regard to the benefits of good CSR and being considerate of the environment,

typical replies included,

250

‘trust from other organisations’ and, ‘this indicates to the community a

benefit of care and consideration by the corporate body towards the

community as a whole which is again of immense value’.

The themes included knowledge transfer, cost savings and individual benefits to

community members. Also, the benefit of contributing voluntarily and to due

diligence had the return back to the volunteers themselves. This was also a follow-up

question in Appendix 8.

They were then asked whether or not their voluntary contributions should be

measured. Responses included that it was,

‘voluntary only so no need of it being measured’ and, ‘individually I think a

measure would detract from the reason for doing it’.

Typical themes included, leading by example, cost savings, community benefit and

benchmarking against other organisations. They all said that CSR is good for the

organisation, the community and the wider environment. It was found to be of

immense benefit, but there was no way of measuring or reporting on it. They said

that measuring would have a negative effect because it would detract from the true

altruism of their acts. They also though that there would be a problem if people were

claiming state benefits. This is laid down in a DWP publication, (2010) as people can

only volunteer for a number of hours without it affecting certain types of benefits.

However, most said that they would still voluntarily contribute. Comments on

251

whether the organisation would be less successful if not for their voluntary

contributions included all but one saying,

‘yes, it would be much less successful, indeed it could not survive’. The

reasons given for their responses included that, ‘volunteers are needed in

these organisations’ and ‘every voice should be heard and opinions listened

to for team work and community spirit’.

In contrast, the one respondent who said, ‘no’ also said that,

‘the organisation existed before I joined it and will exist in the future but the

best I can ask is that I left it by contributing in a positive way’.

Two respondents, who were positive about their experiences wanted to add

something and said that,

‘as a volunteer what is achievable is very much supported by the full time

employees, just to say thank you’.

Another responded by saying that,

‘this questionnaire has been difficult to fill in. Maybe a verbal questionnaire

could be had next time; I can speak better than I can write’.

252

This request was undertaken by means of follow-up interviews with the people who

had indicated that they would like to take part. The following introduces the data for

quality marks.

Topic Code – Quality Marks

The topic coding for this category was quality marks and having established their

roles, the board members were then asked about the benefits of quality marks to the

organisation. Their responses included that it is,

‘a prestigious benchmark for others shows that the SWWales Charity is

operating in an efficient way and can demonstrate it to a measured standard’.

The themes included that quality marks give a prestigious benchmark, measure and

standard. The organisational benefit was that achieving quality marks show that it

has reached a benchmark and standard and can be benchmarked to the outside world.

They all thought that quality marks were important but there was no suggestion of

evaluating or reporting on these benefits. Responses to whether or not the

organisation would attract less funding if it was not for their voluntary contributions

were,

‘I think volunteering enhances the reputation of the organisation and the IIP

Gold standard is a demonstration of quality for any potential customer’.

253

Other themes were quality, trust, funding, grants, and achieving IIP, for example

attracted more customers. They all responded, ‘yes’ to whether they ever talked to or

explained to external people or organisations about the work of the SWWales

Charity and commented that, ‘it is very much a bottom up driven organisation with

close contacts with the community and community groups’.

Themes were service, understanding, bottom up and community. Their responses

included that by them volunteering it levers in additional funding as well as

organisational survival through customers (the community), buying in to the

services. They also responded that they give free marketing, goodwill and reputation

through their due diligence. They said that the community was understanding the

organisation better through their voluntary contributions is its benefits. Aligned to

this was the benefit of the board members’ promotion of the organisation and

responses included the opinion that,

‘marketing is expensive, and an individual’s promotion of the organisation

shows self-commitment to its work’,

The voluntary contributions of the board members are also responsible for the due

diligence of the return on the capital that it employs.

Topic Code – Return on Capital Employed, (ROCE)

The next subject for topic coding was Return on Capital Employed, ROCE and

respondents commented that without their voluntary contributions the, ‘the

254

SWWales Charity would be unable to fulfil their grants’. They also said that they

were responsible,

‘for the overall running of the organisation, funding grants and the due

diligence to fulfil them’.

For example, a grant from Children in Need required that board members undertook

training in child protection. If this had not taken place there would have been non-

compliance and the grant would have been withheld. When asked to give their

opinions on whether or not the organisation would be able to comply with terms of

grants if it was not for their voluntary contributions, the responses included,

‘good governance and the procedures that apply to the way the SWWales

Charity is run is of paramount importance to the organisation’.

The themes included cost savings, efficiency, governance and compliance. The cost

to the organisation of non-compliance would be the claw back of grants. They were

saying that due diligence is of paramount importance and that achieving it is the

return of their talent.

Topic Code – Return on Talent, (ROT)

The next topic code for the questionnaire was Return on Talent, (ROT). Responses

to the benefit of their increased knowledge through their voluntary contributions

included that, ‘knowledge is freedom’ and that volunteering, ‘changes values’ as

255

well as, ‘money saved by not employing people to do work we already do’. While on

the subject of measuring voluntary contributions one responded with,

‘increased knowledge is also important in any organisation that is community

based. I am not aware of it being reported on currently’

They were also asked, ‘how the benefit of increased knowledge could be reported

on?’ The themes were individual benefits and decreasing costs to the organisation.

There is a cost to providing travel expenses, (even though hardly any Board

members claim them) room hire and buffets etc. It is not just the number of hours

that they volunteer has a benefit, the amount of money saved by due diligence, as the

cost of non-compliance has already been discussed. This is the true value of the

board members’ voluntary contributions, but there is no current way of reporting on

it. The board members intangible contributions to the organisation enable it to

comply with grants as well as in the weighting given to social value clauses in

contracts.

Topic Code – Social Value

One board member responded with the statement that, ‘the organisation would be

unable to deliver contracts without complying with social clauses’.

This is important but there is no measure for this compliance, which is due diligence.

Two Board members had been given an action at a Board meeting to ensure that a

recent Health and Safety, (H&S) report was being adhered to. Both were previously

256

Health and Safety Officers in their former employment. Responses were that, ‘H&S

checks save the cost of buying it in’.

The theme was that money was being saved through voluntary contributions because

the cost of consultants to undertake the work would be £360 per day. There was a

question around whether or not they thought that if it was not for people’s

knowledge and talent being returned to the organisation that it would have to be

bought in. Comments were, ‘in our particular case it is invaluable having expertise

on tap’ and that,

‘information and knowledge spread across a larger number of people allows

for their experiences to expand and shared within the organisation’ as well as,

‘this shows willing and belief in the product that the organisation provides

for the community, that we are unpaid laymen have faith in what we are

trying to do’.

The themes were that there was no need to buy in consultants when they already had

the expertise, experience and belief in the organisation. As well as knowledge

transfer, no time constraints and advocacy. There was also found to be the invaluable

benefit of board members passing on their skills, to the community through the

organisation. Around the benefit of social value, responses included that,

‘the board oversees the contracts and their progress, looking for compliance

with the organisational arrangements and value for money’.

257

They said that they did it for match funding and compliance as well as if it was not

for the board members’ social value then contracts would not be awarded in the first

place. The benefit to the SWWales Charity of due diligence is significant. It was

interesting to find out the benefit to the board members themselves, which was asked

as a follow-up question. The following summarises the responses of the board

members to the questionnaire, which included the three descriptive codes of

organisational, community and individual benefit.

4.4.1 Summary of the Thematic Analysis for Board Members

There were three descriptive codes in the data from the questionnaires included the

organisational benefit of due diligence, the community benefit of achievements as

well as the individual benefit of enhanced reputations. First the organisational data is

examined in more detail:

Organisational Benefit: The voluntary contributions of the board members were

found to be of great benefit to the organisation. The themes around quality marks

were that they were a prestigious benchmark, measure and standard. Achieving IIP,

for example, enabled quality, trust, funding, grants, and attracted more customers.

While responses to the questions around CSR were that it saves money and markets

the organisation as one that complies with legislation, even though there is no real

choice as,

‘good governance and the procedures that apply to the way the SWWales

Charity is run are of paramount importance to the organisation’.

258

The themes included decreasing costs of energy, efficiency, governance, word of

mouth and free marketing. There is expertise on tap from the board members as there

are no time constraints for people who are unemployed or retired. Other themes

around IIP included decreasing costs by compliance and saving the cost of energy

waste, common aims and due diligence. The number of hours that the board

members volunteer has a value which is the amount of money saved by due

diligence, as there is a cost to non-compliance. This was supported by the board

member who said that, ‘the organisation would be unable to deliver contracts

without complying with social clauses’. Theme: Organisational Due diligence.

Community Benefit: There were benefits of the board members passing on their

skills through quality marks to the community through the organisation. The themes

were service, understanding, bottom up and community buy-in to services. They said

that the organisation would be unable to provide services if it did not comply through

marketing, goodwill, understanding, bottom-up driven and the achievement of

standards. There are standards for customers and the organisation has commitment to

the community through CSR. The board members said that they have experiences

and expertise to the community and want others to achieve the same. They said that

their voluntary contributions enabled, ‘trust from other organisations’ and that,

‘this indicates to the community a benefit of care and consideration by the

corporate body towards the community as a whole which is again of immense

value’.

259

The themes included knowledge transfer, cost savings and belief in the product that

the organisation provides for the community. Theme: Community Achievement.

Individual Benefit: The board members’ responses to the IIP question were that

their voluntary contributions were of great benefit. They said that, ‘knowledge is

freedom’ and that volunteering, ‘changes values’ Other themes around IIP included

advocacy, match funding, through compliance, goodwill, enhanced reputation,

knowledge transfer, immersion, leaders in the field, decreasing costs by their good

reputations, individual values, feeling needed, teamwork and gratitude for being

allowed to volunteer. The themes for ROT were individual benefit to the board

members themselves through being leaders in the field. They said that this was of

high importance to them and their reputations as they said that they led by example.

They said that it was, ‘invaluable having expertise on tap’ and that voluntarily

contributing allows for their experiences to expand the expertise through their belief

in the organisation. Theme: Enhanced individual Reputation.

Table 4.13, below presents the themes from the qualitative data from the

questionnaires for the board members:

Table 4.13The Themes from the Questionnaires for the Board Members.

Board Members

Qualitative organisational benefit Due diligence

Qualitative community benefit

Achieving

Qualitative individual benefit

Reputation

In summary of the initial themes, there was the three way benefit of the board

members’ voluntary contributions to the organisation of due diligence that allowed it

260

to comply with the regulators. The community was able to achieve its ambition of

more quality services and the consultants themselves gained enhanced reputations.

This is the interpretation of the qualitative benefit of their voluntary contributions.

Their tangible contribution was calculated by the time that they said they contributed

per month. This was then totalled and the benefit of the board members’ contribution

to the organisation is high when converted to an hourly rate. The benefit to the

organisation was that it was able to be given an hourly rate and used for match

funding by the WCVA. The board members, as well as the consultants, said that they

contribute a relatively small amount of time, but by converting that time into a value

gives a significant amount of money.

Topic Coding - CSR: How are you involved in safeguarding the SWWales

Charity’s environment? Two respondents said that they contributed no time at all to

safeguarding the SWWales Charity’s environment. Two said that they contribute 10

hours each (20 total) and two said that they contribute 20 hours each per month (40

in total). Total 60 hours.

Topic Coding - Quality Marks: with regard to whether or not they contributed any

time to the organisation that they were not paid for, all six said, ‘yes’. The number

of hours contributed ranged from three who said 10 hours (30 in total) two said 20

hours (40 total) and one who said 30 + hours. Total 100 hours.

Topic Coding - ROCE: When asked, ‘Do you ever talk to/explain to external

people or organisations about the work of the SWWales Charity?’ they all replied,

261

‘yes’. Between them they said that they were involved in actively promoting the

performance of the organisation for 90 hours a month. Total 90 hours.

Topic Coding - ROT: ‘How many hours are you involved in governance training?’

they all replied that they contributed 10 hours each. Total 60 hours.

Topic Coding - Social value: ‘How are you involved to enable us to deliver

contracts and services?’ Four said 10 hours (40) and one said 30 hours +. Total 70

hours.

Total tangible contribution per month = 380 hours.

Theme - Time: 380 hours per month divided by the number of respondents gave an

average of 63.5 hours per month per respondent. The method of calculating the

hourly rate utilised the WCVA’s hourly rate of Board members’ time @£21.72 per

hour. This was the method most appropriate for the sector. This was multiplied by 12

months for annual reporting purposes and gave an average of £16,550.64 per

respondent per annum. This was then multiplied by the number of respondents and

gave a grand total of a quantitative £99,303.84 per annum.

The quantitative results for the voluntary time contributed by the board members can

be found in Table 4.14, below:

Table 4.14The Quantitative Results for the Voluntary Time Contributed by the Board

Members.Total hours per month 380Divided by number of respondents 380 divided by 6Average number of hours per 63.5 average hours per respondent

262

respondent per monthMethod of calculating hourly rate WCVA’s hourly rate of board members’

time @£21.72 per hourX no. of hours per month per respondent

£21.72 x 63.5 = £1,379.22

X 12 months £16,550.64X number of respondents £16,550.64 x 6Total £99,303.84

The board members contributed the second highest amount, with the paid employees

being first. This is due to there being more paid employees @ £12.00 per hour

completing the questionnaire. If there were equal numbers of respondents then the

board members contribution at £21.72 per hour would have been higher. The

selection of authors, from the literature review, who have written about ROCE, for

example include Mills and Robertson, (2000), Enyi, (2005), Birnberg, (2011) as well

as Cox and Street, (2011). Whilst Chowdhury, (2011) described ROT. The Social

Value brought by Board members in order to comply with contracts was advocated

by The SRI Network, (2012), The Public Services (Social Value) Act, 2012, (SEUK,

2012), Anthony Collins Solicitors, (2012) and Ingliss, (2012). The sample chosen

provided little evidence to support the voluntary contributions of board members to

an organisation. Having interpreted the qualitative and quantitative data from the

questionnaires, probing deeper to provide more rich data by means of follow-up

interviews with the board members was undertaken.

The questions from the follow-up questions were around whether the benefits of the

voluntary contributions of the board members should be reported on included that,

263

‘people should know of its achievements’ but also that ‘word of mouth is not

guaranteed to be positive’. They also said that, ‘the press may prefer less

successful stories’.

All but two respondents said that their voluntary contribution should be measured in

some way as they felt that their contributions enabled savings on, ‘consultancy costs

e.g. Health and Safety issues’ and, ‘it has saved quite a lot of money by people

giving freely’. The themes here were branding in the community, compliance,

knowledge transfer and money saving. This would cost a lot of money if it had to be

bought in.

It was interesting that the small sample of board members gave a large amount of

time worth £99,303.84 annually to the organisation. The questions for the follow-up

interviews evidently needed to investigate the reasons for this. However, in contrast

it was further investigated to establish if this was really ‘free’ time to the

organisation, or was it because of some benefit to them? They were clearly

passionate about it and the work that they undertake in the community. They actually

did spend free time marketing what the organisation does to other organisations that

they support by giving credible anecdotes of the way in which it operates. It was

decided to ask them again in the follow-up interviews if they thought their

contributions had a benefit and whether the organisation would be worse off it was

not for their contributions. There were the same three descriptive codes as were

derived from the questionnaire of organisational, community and individual benefits.

First the organisational benefits are presented:

264

Organisational Benefit: The follow-up interview questions were around whether

the board members knew the benefit to the organisation of their voluntary

contribution as well as how they would feel about still giving it freely if it could be

measured. The responses included that it was an,

‘an interesting word 'benefit'. Are you thinking of this in terms of my time or

as a financial return or maybe something else? In all honestly, even if I had

an idea the benefit, both in terms time and money, would it make any

difference to me and my altruistic contribution to the organisation? I don't

think so. Its voluntary, if it causes me any difficulties or I stop enjoying it, I

can always walk away. I do it because I chose to, not necessarily because I

need to’,

Aligned to the benefits back to themselves another typical response was,

‘it is not something I do every day but I am not surprised how much a board

member would cost. I am not bothered by that because I have done it for the

past fourteen years and not claimed a penny. It’s about giving back to the

community, not what is in it for me’.

The cost of hiring consultants to undertake work has already been discussed so it was

asked as a follow-up question whether or not they thought that if it was not for

people’s knowledge and talent being returned to the organisation that it would have

to be bought in. The themes included; cost, financial, time, money and selflessness.

Theme: Organisational Altruism.

265

Community Benefit: The responses around the benefit of their voluntary

contributions to the community included,

‘the fact that we are involved in community activities is secondary to me. I

see myself less as a contributor to the community, but more as an, enabler to

support those who are far better at this role than I am’.

Another response was,

‘I am older and wiser, more confident. I feel satisfaction by seeing things

happening and people succeeding. I like to see people genuinely happy with

their work. If I didn’t do it I’d be a vegetable, watching Jeremy Kyle all day

and would have to do something like work in a charity shop or be a driver for

someone’.

The themes were skills, management experiences, individual satisfaction, supporter,

experienced, responsible, and confident, being busy and enabler. Theme: Enabling

community activities.

Individual Benefit: Next, the individual gain of the board members was followed up

by asking them what they get individually by contributing to the community. Some

responses were that,

266

‘I find this the most difficult of your questions. I am not convinced that I see

myself contributing to the community in the way I read your question. I see

my role as slightly removed from that. If I have a skill or contribution to

make, it is centred on my management experiences and as a result I get a lot

of individual satisfaction in seeing an organisation run efficiently and

effectively. That is why I joined the SWWales Charity’.

Although board members spoke of, ‘giving back’, that they did it, ‘not for individual

‘gratification’ and said that they had, ‘the freedom to withdraw it at any time’, they

all said that they felt responsible for the success of the organisation and that is why

they volunteered for the SWWales Charity through self-commitment. The responses

to whether they felt responsible by being a part of the board included,

‘of the many things I might feel about being a board member, responsibility

must be key. Like being a member of any committee, it has a degree of

frustration, celebration, anxiety, humour and achievement’.

And, ‘I feel part of a team that I try to nurture and mentor. I help other people and

consider employees as friends rather than employees. It fills me with pride to see

people getting on. I like to think I have enabled someone to have a better start in life

than I had and I lead by example’.

Both the respondents said that they did not feel powerful and the themes were

responsibility, knowledge transfer and leadership. They all said that they liked being

part of something and making friendships. They took responsibility by voluntarily

267

contributing to the compliance of a well-run organisation and using their time to give

something back. Theme: Individual Responsibility.

Table 4.15 below, presents the themes from the follow-up interview questions for the

board members:

Table 4.15The Themes from the Follow-up Interviews for the Board members.

Board Members

Qualitative organisational

benefit Altruism

Qualitative community benefit

Enabling

Qualitative individual benefit

Responsibility

The results in Table 4.15, above demonstrate that as a result of the themes from the

follow-up interviews, the board members altruism enabled the organisation to

comply, the community was enabled as a result of this and the board members

themselves had the return of increased responsibility as a result on their voluntary

contributions. The following combines the interpretation of the qualitative data from

the questionnaires and the follow-up interviews. It also includes the quantitative data

of the time contributed by the board members in an initial thematic map.

Table 4.16 below, presents the initial thematic map as advocated by Braun and

Clarke, (2006 p.99) for the board members:

Table 4.16The Initial Thematic Map as Advocated by Braun and Clarke, (2006 p.99) for

the Board members.Quantitative £99,303.84

Qualitative organisational benefit Due

diligence and altruism

Qualitative community benefit

Achieving and enabling

Qualitative individual benefit Reputation and responsibility

268

Table 4.16, above demonstrates that as a result of the interpretation of all the data,

the consultants contributed £99,303.84 per annum and the organisation is able to

ensure due diligence as a result of the board members altruism. The community

achieves cohesion that is enabled as a result of the services that the board members

ensure comply with the regulators. While the board members themselves have the

benefit of their own enhanced reputations through their responsibility.

In summary of the findings from the data for all four stakeholder categories, there

were both tangible and intangible benefits to the organisation, the community and

the individual stakeholders themselves. This was the recurrent theme throughout the

initial thematic maps for all categories. The next section is a review of the secondary

data from the organisational documentation to establish if it is being reported on.

4.5 A Review of Organisational Documentation

Following the collection of a number of organisational documents, a content analysis

(Table 4.17) of the SWWales Charity’s reports and written material was undertaken.

This method was advocated by Bryman, (2012, p.289) as, “… an approach to the

analysis of documents and texts (which may be printed or visual) that seeks to

quantify context in terms of predetermined categories and in as a systematic and

replicable manner. It is a very flexible method that can be applied to a variety of

different media”. This method was used because of its approach to interpretation

which consisted of putting the material into categories. The research question was,

‘are stakeholders’ contributions referred to or accounted for, either qualitatively or

quantitatively, in any of the organisation’s documentation?’

269

All the reports that were investigated were already in the public domain so they

presented no confidentiality issues. They included, for example, annual reports,

project reports, and the IIP Gold Report. These documents were scrutinised by the

author by hand to establish if there were any voluntary contributions being reported

on. All these reports culminate in the annual report which is traditionally only

concerned with volunteer costs in the Statement of Financial Activities, (SoFA), as it

is the only requirement requested by the regulators at present.

In order to begin the examination of organisational documents, first the data was

divided into stakeholder categories; Consultants - the source of the reports included

the IIP Gold Report, November 2013. The reports were scrutinised to establish if

there was any information in there about the voluntary contributions of the

consultants. Traditional volunteers - the source of the reports that were examined

included; volunteer time as match funding for Communities First, WEFO and project

quarterly reports. Paid employees - the reports examined were appraisal reports,

work plans and weekly reports. The board members reports included board minutes,

a due diligence test, an annual report and social clauses in contracts. Reports are a

source of information which provided more data to identify what was actually being

reported on. They were investigated to establish if there was any information in the

reports about intangible contributions such as the levering in of funding, any

voluntary activity or any appreciation in recognition of the voluntary activity of all

the stakeholder categories. Table 4.17, below is the content analysis of the data from

organisational reports:

270

Table 4.17 A Content Analysis of the Data from The SWWales Charity’s Organisational

ReportsStakeholder category and the source of

the reports.Evidence of voluntary

contribution?Evidence of any

benefit?

Consultants - IIP Gold Report 17th

October 2013 Scrutiny of this document was undertaken to establish if there is

any evidence of recognition of any voluntary contributions by consultants or

any publicity of their contribution, i.e. photographs or names.

Yes, but not reported on. Yes, but not accounted for.

Stakeholder category and the source of the SWWales Charity’s

quantitative/qualitative reports.

Evidence of voluntary activity?

Evidence of any benefit?

Traditional volunteers - volunteer time as match funding (C1st, WEFO,

Engagement Gateway quarterly reports), social clauses in contracts.

Yes Yes, and used for match funding but not fully accounted

for.Stakeholder category and the source of

the SWWales Charity’s quantitative/qualitative reports.

Evidence of voluntary activity?

Evidence of any benefit?

Paid employees - Appraisal reports, workplans, weekly reports.

No Yes, but not accounted for.

Stakeholder category and the source of the SWWales Charity’s

quantitative/qualitative reports.

Evidence of voluntary activity?

Evidence of any benefit?

Board members - Board minutes, Community Involvement Plan, Due

Diligence test, Annual Report.

Yes, by the amount of volunteer expenses

claimed.

Yes, compliance with funders terms and conditions, but not accounted for.

As can be seen from Table 4.17 above, there is little reporting of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions to the organisation. However, there were found to be many

examples of its existence, in the data from the responses to the questionnaires and

follow-up interviews. The consultants’ IIP Gold Report found no mention of their

input apart from their names as the author of the document. Scrutiny of this

document was undertaken to establish if there is any evidence of recognition of any

voluntary contributions by consultants or any publicity of their contribution and

there was found to be none.

271

The documents scrutinised for the traditional volunteers did show that their time is

being used as match funding and in reports to funders, but it was not being fully

accounted for. The appraisal and supervision documents for the paid employees

showed no incidence of any unpaid work, although staff often spoke of it. While the

annual reports that are associated with the board members show the amount of

money in the accounts that are claimed as volunteer expenses, there is no evidence to

show fully how their voluntary time allows compliance. It is suggested that the

benefit of this significant contribution is currently going unreported, which is a

business limitation on behalf of the SWWales Charity. The next section combines

the summary of all the findings from this research.

4.6 A Summary of all the Findings

Having interpreted all the tangible and intangible data from the questionnaires and

follow-up interviews, the following, Table 4.18, below, presents a summary of all

the intangible data contributed by all stakeholder categories:

Table 4.18A Summary of all the Intangible Data Contributed by all Stakeholder

Categories.Stakeholder

categoryOrganisational

benefitCommunity

benefitIndividual benefit

Consultants Survival and gift Services and opportunities

Self-gratification and improved performance

Traditional volunteers

Outcomes and involvement

Cohesion and knowledge

Belonging and self-assurance

Paid employees

Sustainability, humility and pride

Relationships and occupation

Development and promotion

Board members

Due diligence and altruism

Achieving and enabling

Reputation and responsibility

272

The table above demonstrates the interpretation of the qualitative responses to the

questionnaires and follow-up interviews. The interpretation shows that the

organisation, the community and the individual stakeholders themselves can describe

how their voluntary contributions allow many benefits to the organisation, the

community and themselves. Next, the qualitative value of time contributed by all

stakeholder categories is presented.

Table 4.19 below, summarises the tangible value of the time contributed by all

stakeholder categories:

Table 4.19The Tangible Quantitative Contribution of the Voluntary Time Contributed by all

Stakeholder Categories.Consultants

Traditional volunteers

Paid employees

Board members

Total

Total hours per month

40 348 1,100 380 870 hours per month

Divided by number of respondents

40 divided by 4

348 divided by 6

1,100 divided by 17

380 divided by 6

33 total number of respondents

Average number of hours per respondent per month

10 average hours per respondent

58 average hours per respondent

65 average hours per respondent

63.5 average hours per respondent

196.5 hours per respondent

273

Method of calculating hourly rate

£360 per day divided by 7 hours was £51.42 per person per hour

WEFO’s guidance for in kind match funding @ administrators’ rate of £10.13 per hour

Average organisational wage totalled and divided by the full number of staff was £12.00 p.h.

WCVA’s hourly rate of board members’ time @£21.72 per hour

(£95.27 average divided by 4 categories = £23.81 on average per hour)

X no. of hours per month per respondent

£51.42 x 10 = £541.20

£10.13 x 58 = £587.54

£12.00 x 65 = £780.00

£21.72 x 63.5 = £1,379.22

£3,287.96divided by 33 = £99.63 on average per person per month

X 12 months

£6,494.40 £7,050.48 £9,360.00 £16,550.64

£39,455.52

X number of respondents

£6,494.40 x 4

£7,050.48 x 6 £9,360.00 x17

£16,550.64 x 6

£327,550.64

Total £24,681.60 £43,302.88 £159,120.00 £99,303.84

£326,408.32

Dividing £326,408.32 by the 33 respondents = £9,900 per respondent per

annum.

The table above shows a significant tangible value to the organisation that is not

being measured or reported on at present. If it was shown, annually it could enable

benchmarking with other organisations in the sector as well as showing funders its

value for social clauses, for example. In relation to the benefit of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions, however small, there is a tangible amount that can be put on

to people’s time.

Although most respondents said that they gave relatively little time, there is a

significant annual benefit. There was a cost to a consultant, for example of giving

free time but some definite benefit back to themselves, the organisation and the

274

community. One also mentioned the bigger picture of governments benefitting from

voluntary contributions too, yet only traditional volunteers contributions are

measured for GDP. The existence of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and its

benefits has been shown and the following table presents all the data for all the

stakeholder categories.

Table 4.20, below summarises the interpretation of all the intangible and tangible

data for all the stakeholder categories and is the developed thematic map, described

by Braun and Clarke, (2006, p. 100):

Table 4.20The Developed Thematic Map for the Intangible and Tangible Data for all

the Stakeholder Categories from Braun and Clarke, (2006, p. 100).Consultants - £24,681.60 per

annum

Consultants Qualitative

organisational benefit

Survival and gift

Consultants Qualitative

community benefit

Services and opportunity

Consultants Qualitative

individual benefit

Self-gratification and improved performance

Traditional volunteers -

Traditional volunteers

Traditional volunteers

Traditional volunteers

275

£43,302.88 per annum

Qualitative organisational

benefit

Outcomes and involvement

Qualitative community benefit

Cohesion and knowledge

Qualitative individual benefit

Belonging and self-assurance

Paid Employees - £159,120.00 per annum

Paid employees Qualitative

organisational benefit

Sustainability, humility and pride

Paid employees Qualitative

community benefit

Relationships and occupation

Paid employees Qualitative

individual benefit

Development and promotion

Board members -

£99,303.84 per annum

Board members Qualitative

organisational benefit

Due diligence and

altruism

Board members Qualitative

community benefit

Achieving and enabling

Board members Qualitative

individual benefit

Reputation and responsibility

Virtual Annual

Contribution £326,408.32

Organisational Benefit

Sustainability

CommunityBenefit

Participation

Individual Benefit

Wellbeing

Organisational sustainability, it is suggested, is partly achieved by the virtual

financial contribution of consultants and is shown to be £24,681.60 to the

organisation per annum. This is a significant amount, which could provide evidence

to other stakeholders, such as funders. It is suggested that highlighting it could also

help to lever in other funds. Consultants also enabled organisational survival through

the gift of their voluntary contributions. The traditional volunteers’ outcome was

£43,302.88 per annum and was as a direct result of the involvement of their

voluntary contributions. The total value of the paid employees’ time was the highest

at £159,120.00. Their voluntary contributions enabled sustainability through their

humility and pride and the board members contributed £99,303.84 through their

altruism that resulted in organisational due diligence. This shows a significant

276

amount of both qualitative and quantitative contributions. However, none of the

approaches from the literature has identified a way of presenting this total virtual

contribution to the SWWales Charity of £326,408.32, that was made possible by the

voluntary contributions of all stakeholders identified by this research.

Community participation should also be identified as a result of reporting on the

benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. Reporting on it would show the

positive benefit it is having on the community through the relationships and

occupation of paid employees, for example. The community benefits from the

voluntary contributions of the consultants were shown to be services and

opportunity. One respondent indicated that, ‘charities, voluntary and community

groups and social enterprises need people with the right skills to be able to make a

difference to the people and communities they serve’. However, it was discussed that

there may still be some negativity around any category of stakeholder, not just the

traditional volunteers’ roles in the delivery of services in times of cuts. Yet it was

found that the traditional volunteers brought cohesion and knowledge to the

community. This may assuage the detrimental effect of how the organisation is

perceived in the community, as it may be seen to be using traditional volunteers

instead of paid employees. This however, has been dispelled as there have been

shown to be many benefits to traditional volunteers themselves who contribute

voluntarily. Reporting on this voluntary activity would market the organisational

success achieved by all voluntary activity, including that of board members who

enabled to the community’s achievement. Success would lead to extra effort and

ownership, through quality relationships that continue to provide occupation, paid or

otherwise.

277

Individual wellbeing is the result of voluntary contributions and its benefits include

the development and promotion of paid employees. Also, individual self-

gratification and improved performance are the traits associated with consultants.

The board members’ voluntary contributions included the return to themselves of

their enhanced reputations through their responsibility of ensuring that the SWWales

Charity complies.

It has been established that there are definite outcomes from traditional volunteers

which include their belonging and self-assurance. It was also found that volunteering

is also good for the volunteer, whichever stakeholder category they belong to. It is

suggested that it helps improve health and wellbeing and provides opportunities for

individuals to acquire skills and knowledge that can enhance career development or

employment prospects. The similarities between all four stakeholder categories are

that their voluntary contributions enable the organisation’s sustainability. As well as

this, community participation is happening through individual wellbeing as a result

of their contributions. The following is the conclusion of this chapter.

4.7 Conclusion

The data shows a threefold benefit of organisational sustainability, community

participation and individual wellbeing that is supported by £326,408.32 of tangible

time as a direct result of the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions.

278

Chapter Five analyses, interprets and reflects on the data in more detail to inform the

contribution to knowledge.

Chapter Five

Analysing, Interpreting and Reflecting on Findings

5.0 Introduction

279

I will use the first person from this point forward, as it is, “important to emphasise

your own idea or contribution”, as suggested by Ruger, (2013, p.17). Having

undertaken the literature review in Chapter Two, I now analyse the results from my

research in Chapter Four and present my analysis of the findings that support my

contribution to knowledge. The findings of my study indicate that there is a

significant amount of volunteering being contributed by all stakeholders of the

SWWales Charity and that there are benefit the organisation, the community and the

individual stakeholders themselves. I also found that this is not currently measured

or reported on.

5.1 Review of Findings

All the respondents were very positive to about their many voluntary contributions

and the threefold benefit that resulted from their altruism. For example, one

respondent suggested the existence of this threefold benefit by stating that, ‘although

most of my work with The SWW Charity is behind the scenes in relation to people

management etc., there is evidence which indicates that commitment based HR

policies and processes coupled with strong leadership result in improved

performance of employees and volunteers which inevitably impacts on the

organisation's community work’. However, there is no existing way of measuring or

reporting on what all the stakeholders of the SWWales Charity voluntarily contribute

to the organisation. This significantly benefits the organisation by a tangible

£326,408.32 worth of time annually. One of the interviewees recognised the need to

be able to capture the contributions saying, ‘… in principle I think it is extremely

280

important to be able to demonstrate the benefits of volunteering (both to the

receiving organisation and to the volunteers) to offset society’s obsession with

evaluating everything in purely financial terms’. Finances are not enough on their

own, as in Drucker’s, (2012, p.1) criticism of businesses reporting too narrowly on

the, (financial) “bottom line”.

There are also many benefits that I found that include survival, gift, involvement,

outcome, humility and pride as well as due diligence and altruism to the

organisation. Typically, respondents said that they did it just, ‘… to know that it is

appreciated and that it is beneficial to the company’. As evidenced in this research,

the organisational benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions lead to

benefits to the community and individual stakeholders as well, which gives a

threefold benefit. This supports the work of Moretti, (2005) as well as Bourdieu and

Wacquant, (1992) who advocate the multiple benefits of volunteering to social

capital. These threefold benefits are termed, “benefit multipliers”, by Haldane,

(2014, p.15). Haldane’s work on benefit multipliers is supported by my findings that

the community benefits from services, opportunities, cohesion, knowledge,

relationships and occupation as well as, achievement and enabling, which contributes

to community participation. Stakeholders themselves gain increased resources

themselves such as skills and wellbeing as a direct result of their contributions as

found by Moretti, (2005). The work of Putnam, (1995) Browne, (2003), and Cots,

(2011) found similar results in their research, as did O’Donnel et al, (2014).

In regard to wellbeing, a report by O’Donnel et al, (2014, p.10) presents a way to,

“define ‘overall wellbeing’. One solution is to use measures of subjective wellbeing

281

(sometimes expressed as SWB) by which we mean the answers to questions about

people’s happiness and satisfaction with their lives. This approach fits with a

utilitarian view of the world where governments try to maximise the sum of

everybody’s happiness (or utility or ‘hedonic experience’). So in this report we focus

on subjective wellbeing – or what, for short, we shall often simply call ‘wellbeing’”.

With regard to my thesis, most respondents they described their measure of

wellbeing as, ‘… my confidence has increased and I also made new friends’. Most

respondents talked of the benefits of wellbeing to themselves, for example, one said,

‘… yes, I feel more confident to speak in front of people’. The individual

stakeholders benefit from, self-gratification, improved performance, belonging, self-

assurance, development and promotion as well as their own reputation and

responsibility, which contribute to their individual wellbeing. A typical response

from one of the paid employees was, ‘I hope to pass on what I have learned myself

over the years’ and, ‘I am giving the others confidence in what they do’ through their

own development. This sense of wellbeing comes from the respondents helping

others and is supported by O’Donnel et al, (2014) and Fujiwara, (2002), among

others as some paid employees said that it was a, ‘great place to work’.

As discussed, I found that there is a tangible contribution to the organisation in time

worth £326,408.32 annually that enables the organisation’s sustainability, yet it is

not accounted for or reported on by the SWWales Charity. The WCVA, (2011, 2013,

2016) publish various documents on the contributions of traditional volunteers in

Wales which show how volunteering contributes to GDP, but their records ignore

any other stakeholder category and this, it is suggested, is a limitation of their

reporting. Three respondents said that their voluntary contributions had some sort of,

282

‘monetary value’ and one said that it helped, ‘financially when applying for bids’.

Yet, as has been found, there is no current measure for its benefits. The contribution

of the third sector is also advocated by the WCVA, Mahdi, (2006) and Kane, (2014,

p.2) who describes a new way of measuring the vast contribution of volunteering to

GDP and argues that, “this doesn’t mean the voluntary sector will be responsible for

an economic recovery, as the changes are retrospective corrections to previous years,

but it does mean we’ll be better at quantifying the contribution it makes to the

economy”. One respondent in my research, for example, said that their contributions

could be translated into a, ‘monetary value for increased consideration for

contracts/funding’, and it was also suggested by this respondent that it could be used

for match funding. This is just one example of how quantifying the monetary value

of time could be utilised and it is already being used by the WCVA, but only for

traditional volunteers.

The WCVA has a way of measuring voluntary contributions but this does not

consider informal or micro volunteering, or any of the contributions of any of the

other stakeholder categories. This is a limitation of the existing evidence and

literature as none of the approaches that I reviewed consider everything that is being

contributed. This is potentially a real business limitation for the organisation as I

found that all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions are significant and it is its

benefits that lead to organisational sustainability, community participation and

individual wellbeing. A stakeholder said that they do it, ‘... because I believe in and

am passionate about what people are trying to achieve and I like to give something

back to the third sector, I have a social conscience and enjoy improving things’. It is

this social conscience, I suggest, which leads to volunteering and as a result

283

contributes to the threefold benefit of all stakeholders’ annual voluntary

contributions to the SWWales Charity, see Table 5.1, below:

Table 5.1The Annual Voluntary Contribution of all Stakeholders to The SWWales

Charity (The Final Thematic Map as described in Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.101).

Annual Total - £326,408.32

Organisational Benefit

Sustainability

CommunityBenefit

Participation

Individual Benefit

Wellbeing

Threefold Benefit

Table 5.1 above outlines this threefold benefit from my findings in an adaptation of

the final thematic map as described by Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.101). The

questionnaires from my research were devised from the approaches from the

literature. The approaches of quality marks, CSR, human capital, for example were

used as the topic codes for the questions and provided the themes that formed the

basis of voluntary contributions in my research. My research was much wider than

traditional volunteers as it was based on identifying the voluntary contributions of a

range of different stakeholders of the SWWales Charity. A sample of each the four

categories included in my research drawn from the organisation were: consultants,

traditional volunteers, paid employees and board members. Most felt that they

contributed because of their loyalty to the SWWales Charity. For example, one paid

employee said that, ‘as an organisation we need to be ahead of the game to ensure

that we are able to deliver on contracts, offer new and unique services to ensure that

we have a place in the market’. My results established that all four stakeholder

categories voluntarily contributed time to the organisation and reporting on their

voluntary contributions in a new way could be a, “significant driver to influence

284

policy,” as Haldane (2014, p.15) suggests. It would also ensure that its regulators are

presented with full and accurate accounts of all the SWWales Charity’s activities.

Table 5.1 above, could be used to report annually on the benefit of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions.

Reporting on these findings annually would ensure that the benefits of time to the

organisation enable its sustainability; community participation and individual

wellbeing are properly reported on in future. However, as has been discussed, these

benefits are not presently acknowledged through the current reporting methods. A

new approach could be adopted to make these invisible contributions visible through

reporting on them. As can be shown, each of the stakeholder categories contributed a

significant amount of time to the organisation which resulted in an annual virtual

increase of 20% on top of turnover at £326,408.32. Yet most respondents said that

they are not concerned with the monetary value of volunteering.

A board member said that, ‘it is not something I do every day but I am not surprised

how much a consultant would cost. I am not bothered by that because I have done it

for the past fourteen years and not claimed a penny. It is about giving back to the

community, not what is in it for me’. The same consultant said that he had been

given the opportunity to work in a wide range of sectors as a result of his voluntary

work. The SWWales Charity benefitted from the gift of time that the consultants

gave which contributed to its survival. Even though one consultant said that his

contribution was, ‘negligible’, overall their category’s contribution was significant.

The traditional volunteers were also involved by their contribution of time and one

said that they did it, for example, ‘... not only for the community but for personal

285

satisfaction and development. This enabled the organisational outcome of

sustainability, as well as them contributing to their own wellbeing. The results of this

research suggest that all stakeholders, as a result of their voluntary contributions,

have equal power and levels of interest in the SWWales Charity. They are all key

players, and are even more powerful according to the respondent who suggested that

they ‘have the freedom to withdraw it at any time’. There is also the quote from a

consultant who was ‘highly interested’ in the organisation, but according to

Mendelow, (1991) consultants have low power and a low level of interest. It can

now be suggested that in contrast to the work of Mendelow, (1991) and his

stakeholder, ‘Power/Level of Interest Matrix’, another version could be considered,

which shows all stakeholders having equal power and levels of interest in an

organisation. This could be updated as a result of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions and benefits, (ASVCB):

Figure 2: Equal Power/Level of Interest Model as the result of ASVCB:

In my research I examined the literature around organisational improvements and

performance; accreditations and corporate social responsibility as well as non-profit

286

High Level of Interest

High

Power Level of interest

HiHigh

Key Players – All Stakeholders:

Consultants

Traditional Volunteers

Paid Employees

Board Members

approaches; traditional volunteering and its impact. As well as this I researched

human resource management that value and measure paid employees’ contributions

and examined the literature around accounting for and measuring contributions. I

also used the themes of Quality Marks and Corporate Social Responsibility, (CSR)

for all stakeholder categories. These themes informed all the questionnaires for the

mixed research methods in Chapter Three.

The literatures that were examined demonstrate that volunteers contribute a range of

resources to organisations and Danes et al, (2009), Drucker, (2012) and Fujiwara,

(2012) are among many who have reported the various ways that voluntary

contributions are made. Communities benefit from stakeholders’ altruism according

to, Browne et al, (2013) Putnam, (1995) and Cots, (2011). For example, Browne et

als research discusses micro-volunteering, which are short time bursts of

volunteering with bare minimum formality. The stakeholders themselves gain

increased resources such as skills and wellbeing as a direct result of their

contributions as found by Moretti, (2005), Browne et al, (2013), Haldane, (2014) and

O’Donnel et al, (2014). I suggest that it is this involvement that contributes to the

outcome of a threefold benefit. Yet, some of the approaches from the literature only

measure tangible money as an outcome, while others attempt to measure intangibles

such as goodwill, capability, loyalty, entrepreneurship, motivation, commitment or

innovation. None of the approaches that were examined in the literature currently

measure all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to an organisation in one all-

encompassing approach. The threefold benefit that all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions bring to the organisation, the community and back to the volunteers

themselves can now be analysed.

287

5.2 The Threefold Benefit that All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions bring

to the Organisation, the Community as well as back to the Volunteers

Themselves

I have established that each of the stakeholder categories gives a significant amount

of time and effort for the benefit of the organisation, which in turn benefits the

community. I also found that each stakeholder category received a return from these

benefits to themselves as individuals. The wellbeing from their voluntary

contributions motivates them to contribute again, which has been well documented

by the WCVA, O’Donnel et al, (2014) and Haldane, (2014). Haldane, (2014) for

example, suggests that there is enhanced wellbeing arising from their volunteering

and this indicates that there needs to be a better way of reporting on it. Health

benefits of this kind are also referred to by O’Donnel, et al, (2014). They advocate

the positive effects of volunteering on the health of traditional volunteers. In support

of this, one volunteer suggested their feeling of wellbeing was enhanced by them

transferring their knowledge to others and corroborates O’Donnel et als research.

Traditional volunteers felt that their wellbeing had increased and said, ‘… yes, it has

increased and I also made new friends’ and, ‘yes, I feel more confident to speak in

front of people’. They were asked about the benefit to themselves by them passing

on their skills to others. Most answered, very positively, for example one said, ‘I

hope to pass on what I have learned myself over the years’ and, ‘I am giving the

others confidence in what they do’.

5.2.1 Organisational Benefits

288

However, examples of this have never been accounted for in the organisation’s

annual reports and I suggest that organisational boards, in general, are not presently

being given the full information on which to base their decision-making. Fully

reporting on all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions could show the positive

benefits of performance, as advocated by Cornforth, (2012, 2015). In agreement with

this, I also found that the board members enabled due diligence to be met through

their altruism even though they described themselves as. ‘... laymen’. Cornforth,

(2012, 2015) discusses the necessity for strong boards as well Liddle, (2003) who

agrees that partnerships between local authorities and the third sector enhance

organisational performance. Cornforth, (2012, 2015) also undertook research into

boards and their governance and found that organisational reporting should include

much more than it currently does.

Currently all stakeholders, including the unpaid governance provided by board

members, contribute to the SWWales Charity in a variety of different ways that are

not acknowledged in any of the organisational reports at present. The time that is

contributed voluntarily to the organisation is supported by the typical answers from

the respondents, which included paid employees giving accounts of having, ‘no

doubt that giving my time to the organisation has benefitted both myself and the

organisation’. The same respondent continued, ‘I am committed to the organisation

and therefore take pride in completing my responsibilities’. While another said, ‘for

me it is about taking the organisation forward irrespective of the value of the time’.

This is the culture of the organisation and people said that they act in this way

because ‘everyone does it’. This may be one of the reasons that volunteers act in this

289

socially responsible way, yet there is also payback on their volunteering. O’Donnel

et al, (2014, p.54) continue that, “… governments should develop new methods of

analysis where wellbeing is taken as the measure of benefit”. There was no mention

in their work of any unpaid work that may be given by paid employees or

consultants, for example. So, it is suggested that there is a limitation in O’Donnel et

als, (2014) argument about the need to measure the contribution of volunteering to

wellbeing.

For example, in some cases, the organisation’s consultants benefitted from more

work with other organisations as a result of their voluntary contributions. However,

the total value of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions may be worth, ‘potentially

hundreds of thousands of pounds by an organisation’, according to one consultant.

This is supported by Banks, (2016), on discussing traditional volunteering at an

annual voluntary sector council conference. He argued that his organisation would

not be able to survive without the voluntary contribution of £625 million alone to

replace the voluntary contribution of volunteers, including £156m to replace board

members. It may cost a lot more to replace paid employees’ voluntary contributions.

This threefold benefit to organisations, the community and the stakeholders

themselves is aligned with the, “benefit multipliers” identified by Haldane, (2014,

p.15) who states that, “... the evidence here, however imperfect, suggests some

significant benefit multipliers from volunteering, economically, privately and

socially”. Haldane’s research for The Bank of England is based purely on traditional

volunteers and argues that the benefits outweighed any costs associated with

volunteering. If there was a way to report on all stakeholders’ voluntary

290

contributions, and its benefits, then it would be a way to influence policy, as he

proposes. My findings suggest that the consultants’ felt that their activities helped

the, ‘credibility of the organisation’. As well as how doing it, ‘saves money’. They

also said that by contributing it would help to, ‘lever in funding’. This is supported

by Haldane, (2014, p.15) who argues that traditional volunteering alone creates,

“each year an economic value of at least £50 billion and potentially higher”. His

measure of that contribution is the tangible involvement of time, and it has been

established that there are also intangible inputs that are not being currently measured.

This is a limitation of the literature as none of the approaches from the literature,

such as ROCE, IIP, Social Capital and HRA that I examined in this thesis are

compulsory for organisations to adopt, but all promise to offer some sort of

competitive advantage over organisations that do not embrace them. The promoters,

or benefactors, of the approaches have argued that adopting them will make

organisations better. Some are standards, strategies, matrices, ratios, audits, cultures,

frameworks, measures, clauses but all are resources, such as frameworks, that are

used to benchmark how good or bad an organisation is at either managing money,

people or the community in which the organisation is based.

The approaches from the literature such as Return on Talent, VIVA and CSR attempt

to enable the organisation to reflect on, and measure some of the contributions that

are made to organisations. All use key performance indicators, (KPIs) and the

organisation’s mission statement to drive the approach, and therefore the

organisation forward, according to the literature. All offer a degree of sustainability

over those that have not adopted all or some of them. The different literatures all

recognise that the additional information gained by measuring these different

291

contributions can be used for positive promotion, image and reputation to favourably

market how well the organisation is doing to its stakeholders. This, in turn, may

attract more business, funding, or the propensity for even more voluntary

contributions. Nevertheless, not one of the measurement approaches from the

literature offers a comprehensive examination of all functions or contributions that

may be fundamental to organisational survival, particularly in the third sector. Nor

do they fully quantify the wellbeing or social benefits back to individual

stakeholders, or the community, that enable organisations to have competitive

advantage over others that may not have as many stakeholders voluntarily

contributing throughout the year. It is this human and social capital that may give

organisational sustainability and competitive advantage, yet it is not fully reported

on.

5.2.2 Organisational Sustainability and Competitive Advantage

I interpreted that the paid employees helped organisational sustainability because of

their, humility and pride through being associated with the organisation and,

‘wanting it to be the best it can’. This is suggested in the work of Whyte, (1956)

Chum et al and (2013) Danes et al, (2009). Whyte, (1956, pp.8-9) called it, “habits

and dispositions”. Employees acquired new skills as a result of them working unpaid

hours which can be aligned to their human capital. Discussing Social Capital, Wang

et al, (2016, p.5) argue that, “in addition to formal memberships, an individual’s

connection to local communities and personal networks could influence the

likelihood of being asked to volunteer as well as obtaining information on

opportunities to volunteer, thereby increasing the propensity to volunteer for

292

organizations and help others”. A paid employee responded with the fact that doing

work that they are not paid for, ‘…gives you a sense of achievement’. It is this

propensity to volunteer, as part of social capital, which can lead to benefits for the

stakeholders themselves, society and organisations, for a threefold benefit and is

defined by Bourdieu in Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992, p.2) as, “…the sum of the

resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of

possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual

acquaintance and recognition. This is also known as community cohesion and plays

an important role in the delivery of key public services. Volunteering is also good for

the volunteer: it helps improve health and wellbeing and provides opportunities for

individuals to acquire skills and knowledge that can enhance career development or

employment prospects”.

In support of the benefits of volunteering, Danes et al, (2009, p.211) argue that,

“during financially difficult times, it could be that human and social capital sustain

small firms”. Yet, there is no evaluation in the literature for how it actually sustains

small firms because there is no comprehensive measure for everything that is being

contributed. For example, a paid employee said that in order to help sustainability,

‘you must be willing to give above and beyond to support the organisation … to give

that little extra support when needs be’. They said that it, ‘... shows that as an

employee you are willing to put in hours over and above to ensure the organisation

achieving what is set out in their business plan and what is expected by funders’.

While another said, ‘… work would not be completed otherwise!’ This activity is

undertaken as the norm throughout the organisation and contributes to its

sustainability without being acknowledged. Most respondents agreed that

293

sustainability through voluntary contributions was a good thing and that, ‘it was

good to know that it was appreciated and that it also benefits the organisation’.

Although there is no current way of measuring its benefits, I found that reporting on

all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions could enhance the SWWales Charity’s

sustainability, as well as its benefits to competitive advantage, as I found that it has a

quantitative value that can now be measured.

The findings of this study indicate that that the SWWales Charity could be reporting

on all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, and showing an extra virtual benefit of

20% on top of its annual turnover. One respondent said that, ‘… it is voluntary, if it

causes me any difficulties or I stop enjoying it, I can always walk away. I do it

because I chose to, not necessarily because I need to’. This does not mean that if it

was withdrawn that the organisation would only be operating at 80%, it may mean

that it now operates at 120%. It is 20% extra benefit through all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions that I am arguing exists. But this is not being acknowledged

anywhere and could help the organisation gain bids and tenders, with local

authorities for example, which is aligned to the work of Liddle, (2003) and

Cornforth, (2012, 2015). I found many examples of all categories of stakeholder

contributing time to the organisation that were not just traditional volunteers. Yet, all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions to the organisation, or its benefits, are not

presently accounted for or even mentioned in the current way of annual reporting.

This is not giving a complete picture of the organisation’s actual turnover. A new

approach could report on everything that is being contributed to the organisation by

all categories of stakeholder. It could utilise a method based on the SWWales

Charity’s current turnover of £1.6m. I can now show that from the sample of

294

stakeholders who responded to my research, there is potentially an additional

unmeasured contribution of 20% on top of turnover that is not being reported on. It

is this that enables the threefold benefit of organisational sustainability and

community participation, as well as individual wellbeing. If a new method was

utilised widely it could also be used to benchmark against other organisations.

I found that there were many other benefits such as the benefits of increased skills as

advocated by Leitch, (2006). Increased skills are gained through human and social

capital and individuals, society and organisations gain a threefold benefit,

particularly in austere times. I argue that this enables organisations to survive if only

until the economy improves and then the traditional volunteers have the skills to

enable them to undertake paid work. In support of other categories of stakeholder,

not just traditional volunteers, volunteering in austere times, Chum et al, (2013,

p.410) found that, “… some organizations volunteers replaced paid employees, and

in others paid employees replaced volunteers”. This was found in my research and

one paid employee said that, ‘it shows that the employee is dedicated to the

organisation and prepared to give up their time, for free, for the benefit of the

organisation’ and, ‘yes as I want the SWWales Charity to be the best it can’. While

another said, ‘I think it shows commitment to one’s job and company as well as

demonstrate passion in ones work’. This is confirmation of their positive habits and

dispositions, as described by Whyte, (1956). In support of this, Chum et al, (2013,

pp.411-412) found that, “volunteers represent a primary human resource for

nonprofit organizations”. It is volunteers, or even paid employees working

voluntarily who sustain firms in austere times according to Danes et al, (2009). The

value of volunteers is also supported by Banks, (2016), as has already been

295

discussed. He argued that his organisation would not be able to survive without the

voluntary contribution of £625 million alone if he had to replace the voluntary

contribution of volunteers. This was including the £156m it would cost to replace

board members. Using this assumption it may be a lot more to replace the benefits

brought by all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. Associated with this, Chum et

al, (2013, p.413) found that organisations that rely on volunteers will, “find it

impossible to substitute total volunteers with paid staff. In contrast, in some

organizations providing very specialized services (such as for medical services in

hospitals), it would be legally impossible to substitute paid staff with volunteers for

particular roles (Handy et al. 2008)”. This is also true of the SWWales Charity.

While discussing their voluntary work, one paid employee, for example, said that he

enabled the sustainability of the organisation and that, ‘I am committed to the

organisation and therefore take pride in completing my responsibilities’. While

another said, ‘for me it is about taking the organisation forward irrespective of the

value of the time’. A fourth paid employee respondent said that extra support had to

be given in order to help sustainability. Respondents also spoke of the benefit of

their contributions to the community. They acknowledged that, ‘it can often take

over and above the time allocated within a working week to establish’. As well as,

‘… community work takes commitment and dedication to achieve aims and

outcomes’.

This is supported by Hebson et al, (2003, pp.481-501) who identified that, “among

workers, certain traditional values – especially a concern for working in the public

interest – continue to inform the way they identify with, and understand, their work

296

in delivering public services”. However, Hebson et al described the work that paid

employees were paid to undertake, he did not consider all stakeholders.

In support of delivering public services, another paid employee said that, ‘it shows

that the employee is dedicated to the organisation and prepared to give up their time,

for free, for the benefit of the organisation’ and, ‘yes as I want the SWWales Charity

to be the best it can’. This is confirmation of their positive habits and dispositions, as

described by Whyte, (1956). I suggest that it impacts on the, humility and pride that I

found in my research, as individuals as well as the sustainability of the organisation.

In relation to the sustainability of the organisation through his voluntary due

diligence; a board member said that his altruism, ‘definitely emphasises how good an

organisation the SWW Charity is within the community’.

Conversely, another respondent stated that they were grateful for, ‘the help that the

organisation had given them’. This is a good point of discussion as this benefit back

to the individual is what I suggest is a direct benefit of their contribution. Another

respondent was assured by the organisation and that their contribution was valued, ‘it

was good to know that it was appreciated and that it benefits the organisation’. The

involvement of all categories of stakeholders is essential in enabling organisational

survival through the benefits of volunteering. Aligned to this I also found that the

community benefitted from the SWWales Charity’s sustainability that leads to

enhanced services for community participation and it is to this area of the benefit to

the community that this chapter now turns to.

5.3 Enhanced Services for Community Participation

297

As well as benefits to the organisation, I found the benefit of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions to the community to be that there are much needed services

that continue to be provided. This is as a result of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. If more people are volunteering in the community it leads to more

participation in democracy and less crime and that results in social capital. The

benefits of stakeholders volunteering in a community is also linked to the work of

Moretti, (2005) who found a positive effect on civic behaviour as a benefit of

education, such as increased voting. Some stakeholder categories, such as board

members have increased Social Capital through the skills they gain by volunteering

for an organisation. This increase in skills and education can lead to an impact on

wider social goals such as enhanced participation and can be measured by the

numbers that votes in an election, as has been discussed. Community services are

advocated by Putnam, (1995) and Banks, (2016). The consultants helped to provide

services and opportunities for the community as a result of their unpaid

contributions.

Many of the examples included stakeholders volunteering when there was a lack of

paid employees to deliver courses and their increased skills are promoted by Danes

et al, (2009). They received increased skills as a result and helped to provide

community cohesion through the transfer of their knowledge, Fujiwara, (2012). My

research found that the paid employees gained relationships through their occupation

with the SWWales Charity in the community. This is supported by a paid employee

who contributes to the success of the organisation and wanted the organisation to be

the best that it could be, which concurs with the work of Hebson et al, (2003). While

298

another said, ‘I think it shows commitment to one’s job and company as well as

demonstrating passion in ones work in the community’. It is this passion which is

currently unmeasured that increases feeling of happiness and wellbeing which also

needs to be measured according to O’Donnel et al, (2014) and Jones-Evans, (2018).

The board members, who are drawn from the community, through their endeavours

enable achievement, which is satisfying the regulators and is due diligence, as

advocated by Cornforth, (2012, 2015). Without their voluntary contribution of time

due diligence could not be achieved and the organisation would not legally comply.

I interpreted community participation from the traditional volunteers’ responses as

can be found in Table 5.1. One respondent said that his involvement, ‘definitely

emphasises how good an organisation the SWW Charity is within the community’.

Another said that it ‘helps the organisation achieve its outcomes aligned to the

performance measures in its business plan’. The SWWales Charity’s business plan’s

critical success factors reflect that the organisation is committed to providing

services in the heart of the community. It can only do this through its own

sustainability. To date, only financial sustainability is measured and gives

information through GDP, which is particularly relevant in an economic downturn.

However, I have shown that this is not the complete picture. There are many

contributions from all stakeholders during austere times, as my research has

presented. By utilising the organisation’s facilities in the community, people gain a

sense of belonging and self-assurance, leading to community cohesion. Putnam

(1995) describes people voluntarily manning outposts, branches of institutions or

organisations to provide groceries locally and run by volunteers, in newer

democracies, particularly the USA, but throughout the world. Their Social Capital is

299

similar to the approach from the literature of Mass Collaboration as it includes the

voluntary contribution of people to enable citizen-centric goods and services to be

produced and delivered.

I found that all stakeholders acted as volunteers for the organisation, but it enhanced

the benefit to the community as a result of their relationships and occupation.

Alternatively, the two volunteering categories, of traditional volunteers and board

members said they gave their contributions to enable community achievements, ‘this

shows willing and belief in the product that the organisation provides for the

community and that we are unpaid laymen have faith in what we are trying to do’.

The community benefitted from all these contributions and board member called

themselves, ‘laymen’ and may not have had any professional qualifications. Yet,

they all gained knowledge, either through professional qualifications or through

mentoring in the community. I found that there was a direct benefit to all

stakeholders. In fact, all individual stakeholders responded with anecdotes of how

they benefitted from their own contributions to the community. I have now

established that there are benefits to the SWWales Charity as well as the community

through all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions. I will now present my findings to

support the return of wellbeing to individual stakeholders.

5.4 Wellbeing as a Return on Individual Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions

This section presents the benefit of wellbeing to individual stakeholders. Each

category that I examined received indirect benefits of their contributions back to

themselves, as individuals. For example, the consultants gained more work as a

300

result of their improved performance, for which they were grateful and gave them

the propensity to do it again.

A paid employee supported this feeling of wellbeing by saying, ‘being a full team

member while supporting colleagues when needs be and this in itself is a rewarding,

and is also allow you to gain more skills, knowledge and experience which is always

a benefit to myself’. This can be aligned to the approach of expectancy theory,

Vroom, (1964, 2004) in that one good thing will lead to another such as the free

marketing of the organisation by word of mouth by its volunteers. ‘It is important to

offer up to date and effective provision both for the benefit of participants and also to

compete in a developing and changing market’, stated one respondent. In their

responses the consultants were complimentary about how the organisation is a,

‘sophisticated organisation’ and said that they openly spoke favourably about their

volunteering in the SWWales Charity to external stakeholders. Schramm, in (1973,

p.12) called it the, “apostle like behaviour of convincing others”. The individual

benefits to traditional volunteers were that they had more self-assurance as a result of

their sense of belonging that led to paid employment for some of them and Law,

(2001, p. 1) describes it as, “… emotional engagement”. Five traditional volunteers

were recently employed by the SWWales Charity. This was based solely on their

knowledge, which was gained by their unpaid volunteering work and its positive

impact on the organisation. There was no need for them to undertake probationary

periods in their new jobs. They could achieve outcomes immediately, as paid

employees, with little supervision.

301

This is supported by The Charter for Strengthening Relations between Paid

employees and Volunteers, jointly published by Volunteering England, (2012) and

The TUC (2012). The Charter states that, “the involvement of volunteers should

complement and supplement the work of paid employees”. The individuals

themselves said that they gain a feeling of wellbeing from their ‘belonging and self-

assurance’. I found that, even if people employed by The SWWales Charity were

made redundant, a high proportion continued to volunteer to learn new skills, which

shows that they trust the organisation to re-employ them in more affluent times. One

respondent said that, ‘without my contribution as a volunteer, it would be more

difficult to stretch staff resources’. This is also true of the paid employees who

contributed voluntarily to the organisation and gained increased skills.

The paid employees, through their development and hard work, achieved

recognition. Reward and recognition is advocated by the IIP approach by Devoy,

(2015). This led to more pay, through promotion, for some within the organisation.

One respondent recognised that work, ‘... can often take over and above the time

allocated within a working week to establish’. However, they were rewarded with

the recognition when there were opportunities for promotion. In relation to the

individual benefits of the board members, they said that they benefitted from their

enhanced reputations as a result of their responsibility, both within the SWWales

Charity and the community. One responded, ‘… the value that I gain, is to know that

I am trying to offer the best possible support. It is obviously for the benefit of the

organisation but also for my personal satisfaction’. This is a direct benefit even

though most said that they did not contribute for their own gain. Another stated that,

‘in my previous employment in the Civil Service I had no job satisfaction, I have

302

now’. Van der Wiele et al, (2002) Hoque, (2003) and Smith, (2014) discuss job

satisfaction in relation to IIP, but IIP is sometimes seen as a badge or plaque as has

been discussed in the literature review. I agree because it does not recognise the

voluntary contributions of all stakeholders. However, neither do any of the other

approaches from the literature.

I suggest that it is the result of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions that provides

all categories of stakeholder with the benefit of personal wellbeing that is not

acknowledged in the current literature. I have shown that all stakeholder categories

stepped in and gave their time for no financial benefits, yet I have shown that they

did benefit individually and gained a sense of wellbeing and satisfaction that is

supported by Moretti, (2005). This in turn leads to organisational sustainability and

community participation. However, there was not one piece of the literature that I

examined that acknowledged this in one all-encompassing approach. This is found to

be a limitation of the literature as well as the current models of reporting. The return

on individuals’ stakeholder voluntary contributions is shown by one response from a

board member who stated that, ‘the value that I gain is to know that I am trying to

offer the best possible support to people. It is obviously for the benefit of the

organisation but also for my personal satisfaction’. The board member is referring to

the board being able to achieve due diligence through the altruistic acts of its

members.

Alternatively, the consultants enhance their self-gratification by being able to attract

more personal funding through their improved performance. While the traditional

volunteers may contribute to stand them in good stead for any future opportunities,

as part of expectancy theory as advocated by Vroom, (1964 and 2004). One

303

traditional volunteer supported this and said that they contributed, ‘… not only for

the community but for personal satisfaction and development’. I found examples of

this satisfaction throughout all stakeholders of the SWWales Charity, not just the

paid employees. Yet, the benefit of going the extra mile is also presently unreported.

Responses from board members to why they did it included that, ‘it portrays a

professional and efficient company who is not afraid of change and one which takes

its valued employees with it’ and, ‘yes it enables better engagement with the

community’. This free time enables even better benefits in the community. I have

established that it is the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions that lead

to organisational success in the community, for the benefit of community. The

additional contributions of paid employees also add to organisational success. This is

supported by Law, (2011, p.1) who states that, “employee engagement has been

hailed as the key to organisational success”. She found that paid employees of the,

“not-for-profit are more engaged at work than those in the public and private sectors.

The key contributing factor to higher levels of employee engagement in the third

sector has increased emotional engagement”. This can also be applied to the

voluntary contributions of paid employees.

I also found evidence to support this statement in my research as the paid employees

described strengthened relationships through their occupation. Blackadder and

Jackson, (2011, p.2) continue, “when employees believe that their work genuinely

‘makes a difference’ they find it more meaningful and enjoyable, which encourages

them to perform at high levels and ‘go the extra mile’ without additional pay”.

However, there may still be some negativity around any category of stakeholder

304

taking the work of paid employees. This was associated with the traditional

volunteers’ roles in the delivery of services in times of cuts. This may have a

detrimental effect on how the organisation is perceived in the community. In my

research I found no evidence to support this and there was no bad feeling by using

traditional volunteers instead of paid employees. In fact it was viewed as very

positive and gave the volunteers opportunities, as there are many benefits of helping

to provide services back to the traditional volunteers. The paid employees, through

their development, achieved promotion that led to more pay, for some. While the

board members said that they benefitted from their enhanced reputations. This, it is

suggested gives all the volunteers new skills which gives them the propensity to

voluntarily contribute year after year.

In support of the benefit of skills, The Leitch Review of Skills, (2006) advocated

training to build the economy. In alignment with this, a respondent said that related

to increased skills, “continuous improvement can only be a benefit as it improves

performance (through skills) for the benefit of the community.” Organisational

continuous improvement though people is also advocated by IIP and people who are

well trained and upskilled may have competitive advantage over those who are not.

A paid employee said that, ‘they have my time, commitment, skills, knowledge and

support whenever needs to be I am always willing and ready to help my colleagues

as I believe that team work is crucial to what we do on a daily basis’. Many who

volunteer do so in the third sector, but the contribution of the third sector has no

measure for the increased skills of individuals that are transferred back to the

community in the same way that some approaches from the literature measure the

impact of the investment of training to paid employees. There is also an impact of

305

the increased skills of volunteering but it is not measured in the same way. Also

linked to the impact of skills is the work of Fujiwara, D, (2012, pp.1, 2 and 9) who

found that adults, participating in a part-time course leads to, “a greater likelihood

that people volunteer on a regular basis, which has a value of £130 to the

individual”. Fujiwara, (2012) also found that, “participating in adult learning is

found to have significant positive effects on individual health, employability, social

relationships, and the likelihood of participating in voluntary work”. This value is

worth £130.00 to the individual but there is no measure for the impact of increased

skills to the organisation or the community and this benefit is a limitation of the

literature.

This benefit is linked to the feelings of belonging and self-assurance of the

traditional volunteers through their increased skills and the self-gratification of the

consultants who provide them. As well as this development and promotion of paid

employees, there is the enhanced reputation and responsibility of the board members.

This is linked to the board members achieving due diligence through their altruistic

acts. They are not paid, yet they are responsible for all organisational compliance,

while protecting the individual board members’ reputation and responsibility. The

contribution of the individual stakeholders enables the organisation’s

accomplishment and the community to meet its potential. One responded with, ‘free

time can help to create a valuable resource helping others to freely add their time to

create a sustainable resource for generations’. The individual stakeholders benefit

from their own voluntary contributions by achieving wellbeing. The benefits are that

each and every contribution affects organisational sustainability, community

participation and individual wellbeing which have also already been discussed. Yet, I

306

found that there was no evidence of all any of these stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions being quantified in the literature or organisational reports. Neither was

the wellbeing that resulted from the significant amount of time that was being

regularly, voluntarily contributed. It is here that the new model for All Stakeholders’

Voluntary Contributions, (ASVCB) is introduced to fully account for all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and its benefits.

5.5 Capturing All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions and its Benefits

through the ASVCB Augmentation Model

There is generally no comprehensive measure for intangible outcomes such as

connectivity, networks or empowering people. I found that all stakeholders of the

SWWales Charity voluntarily contribute a significant amount of time to the

organisation that result in the threefold benefits, which augments the organisation,

the community and the individual stakeholders themselves. Augmentation brings it

all together and shows that the individual sums can be greater than the individual

parts for synergy. I now present the new All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions’

and Benefits, The ASVCB Augmentation Model. ASVCB is the contribution that all

stakeholders of the SWWales Charity make that augments its sustainability.

I am now able to argue that organisations may not be fully accounting for the

threefold benefit of ASVCB in annual reports, because there is no literature that

considers all the contributions of all its stakeholders, or indeed the benefits back to

themselves. Because there was not one single all-encompassing approach to show

what I found, I now present a method of considering ASVCB, and the augmentation

that it brings in one approach. It is not suggested that by not having a method to

307

present it up until now has been non-compliance or misappropriation on the part of

organisations. Reporting on ASVCB is not legally required at present because

organisations do not know of its full existence. Some probably know of its existence

but there has not been a mechanism to capture it until now. Regulators such as the

Charity Commission and Companies House currently only require quantitative

accounts of an organisation’s annual activities. The SWWales Charity’s financial

auditors undertake the preparation of these annual accounts; they also expect to see

some qualitative account of the activities that have been undertaken during the

previous year. Whilst there is an expectation that some of the qualitative background

is provided, there is no requirement to report on any voluntary activity, let alone

ASVCB. Apart from volunteer’s expenses being shown as a cost, no ASVCB are

currently reported on.

The present requirement by Companies House is that the board adopts the provisions

of the Statement of Recommended Practice, (SORP). This is laid out in its

‘Accounting and Reporting by Charities’ document issued in March 2005. This

method of accounting and reporting, I suggest, does not fully reflect the benefits of

the significant contributions of all the organisation’s stakeholders. This is important,

as I also suggest that in austere times it is ASVCB that is helping to shore up the

organisation as more people are unemployed and have more time on their hands in a

recession. During an economic downturn, Haldane, (2014) suggested that there may

be a glut of volunteers. He suggests that there are more people unemployed with

more time on their hands, because they may have been made redundant. The

majority of the SWWales Charity’s board members are not in paid work. By this

statement I mean that they are unpaid for the work that they do for the organisation.

308

This was also true of paid employees and for example, one respondent who

contributed a significant number of hours of unpaid work said that, ‘…community

work takes commitment and dedication to achieve aims and outcomes’. Their

voluntary labour helps to ensure organisational survival until the economy improves.

To date, none of these voluntary contributions are being accounted for. Indeed, the

current requirement for annual reports does not necessitate complete information on

all stakeholders’ voluntary contribution, or its benefits. Therefore, I suggest, it is not

a true reflection of all the essential voluntary contributions, through the mass

collaboration of all stakeholders. This is people power and Hof, (2005, p.1) defines

mass collaboration as, “the power of us” by the sharing of resources such as their

personal computers for, “no central capital investment – just the willingness of its

users to share”. This cooperation and participation is a force that may be contributing

to the economy through Public Value or GDP, but it is suggested that the outcome of

participation is not measured fully at present. It also attracts more funding, but that

increased funding is not measured either.

It is suggested that there is a significant amount of different voluntary contributions

that are being missed, particularly around the budgeting considerations made by

boards. The Contribution of the Third Sector also measures the (virtual money, not

real) contribution of the impact of volunteering to the output of GDP. Kane, (2014,

p.2) describes a new way of measuring the contribution of volunteering to GDP and

argues that, “this doesn’t mean the voluntary sector will be responsible for an

economic recovery, as the changes are retrospective corrections to previous years,

but it does mean we’ll be better at quantifying the contribution it makes to the

309

economy”. This argument is valuable but the literature does not consider informal or

micro volunteering or any of the contributions or any of the other stakeholder

categories, only traditional volunteers. The work of O’Donnel et al, (2009, p.362) is

also partly associated with traditional volunteering. Also, that the benefits of micro-

volunteering, “for the individual volunteer and the organisation can be significant”,

argue Browne et al, (2013, p.65) but are not measured in Kane’s work. It has been

established that Deloitte, (2015) has presented a measure for intangible outcomes

and combined with tangible GDP this partially helps to quantify the contributions

but the literature does not consider all stakeholders in Kane’s measurement.

This is a significant shortfall on behalf of the SWWales Charity, and possibly other

organisations, not just those in the third sector, in South West Wales. There is a

consequence, I suggest, of not fully reporting on ASVCB, particularly in these

austere times. If it was fully reported on it could provide a benchmark against other

organisations. The literature does not consider the benefits of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions because it has been fragmented, until now. I suggest that

engaging with all stakeholders and evaluating their contributions through holistic

reporting, is likely to have a positive effect on the sustainability of the organisation,

the participation of the community and the wellbeing of the individual stakeholders

themselves. There is a great deal of effort being contributed to the SWWales Charity

which is not being reported on because it is presently unquantifiable. It now needs to

be made quantifiable by showing it in annual reports. If ASVCB was withdrawn, the

SWWales Charity may not exist, at least not in its present form.

5.5.1 Measuring and Reporting on ASVCB

310

I have established that there is currently an incomplete picture of ASVCB, and its

resulting augmentation, from the literature. The picture could now be completed by

measuring ASVCB to fill the gaps in the current ways of reporting on both tangible

and intangible contributions. A more accurate representation can now be shown of

what is being contributed. As can be seen the total contribution combined across all

categories has a value of a significant £326,408.32 per annum. Most respondents

agreed that if this were withdrawn for any reason it would have a devastating effect

on the organisation, as well as themselves. Adopting a new method of reporting on

the virtual value of an additional 20% would show ASVCB’s existence and make it

visible. For prediction, this figure could also be multiplied by any given figure, if all

stakeholders contribute in this way, not just the ones who responded to the

questionnaires. According to Haldane, (2014, p.15) (traditional) volunteering alone

creates, “each year economic value of at least £50 billion and potentially higher”.

This figure is significant but it does not consider ASVCB.

There is now the recognition that the current ways of measuring the benefits of the

voluntary contributions of all stakeholders, or ASVCB, do not go far enough as there

is no all-encompassing measure for it. Yet, there is a significant amount of literature

around traditional volunteering and Kane, (2014 p.1) argues that, “the sector’s

contribution to the UK is about much more than just finances”. This is in support of

Drucker’s, (2012, p.1) stance on the “bottom line” being only concerned with

finances. Kane was discussing intangible contributions and the fact that there were

some gaps in fully reporting on everything that is being voluntarily contributed by

traditional volunteer stakeholders. He does not recognise all stakeholders’ traditional

311

voluntary contributions in his work around volunteering. Most of the literature refers

to traditional volunteering and Haldane’s, (2014) work refers to volunteering where

unemployed, retired, or those people who work and volunteer in the evening.

Economically inactive people may also give their time freely but there is very little

work on the benefits that all stakeholder categories may bring to organisations,

individuals or the community.

Organisational survival, community participation and individual wellbeing measures

in the literature currently gives an incomplete picture of what is being contributed to

organisational performance. Drucker, in (2012, p.1) states that, “nonprofits are, of

course, still dedicated to doing good but they also realise that good intentions are no

substitute for organisation and leadership, for accountability, performance and

results”. It is suggested that this performance is being enhanced by the voluntary

contributions of stakeholders, but the current literature does not consider this. My

new ASVCB Augmentation Model does consider the voluntary contributions of all

stakeholders and therefore gives an all-encompassing model of everything that is

currently being missed from the literature.

Using the results in Table 5.1 as its origin, below, is my presentation of the benefits

of ASVCB all-encompassing model, to the SWWales Charity, which I suggest,

provides the amplification and intensification of the augmentation of the

organisation, the community and the individuals who contribute it. Figure 3 below,

presents The ASVCB Augmentation Model:

312

Figure 3: The ASVCB Augmentation Model:

313

£326,408.32

The SWWales Charity -

Sustainability

TheCommunity

- Participation

Individual Stakeholders -

Wellbeing

ASVCB

ASVCB produces the

Augmentation of the organisation,

the community and the individuals who

voluntarily contribute it.

Even though these calculations are not based on all the possible stakeholders of the

SWWales Charity, it can now be shown in a model that ASVCB enables the

augmentation of the organisation, the community and the individuals who contribute

it. Including ASVCB could enhance the economic value of GDP and GVA even

more. In this regard, the percentage of annual turnover in Wales increased to £2.2bn

in 2013, according to the WCVA, (2013). "If we combine the value of volunteers

with the income of the third sector in Wales, the third sector generates 7% of the

GDP of Wales. This is similar to the construction industry in Wales”. In 2016 GVA,

which does not currently measure the benefits of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions, states that the voluntary sector contribution was calculated at £12.2bn,

according to the UK Civil Society Almanac, (2016). In support of this, the WCVA,

(2016) only considers formal volunteering and published figures of £3.7bn, which is

equivalent to 6.8% of GDP in Wales 2016 and agrees that if informal volunteering

was counted as well it would be far higher, which is in direct alignment with this

thesis. The value of a virtual 20% on top of the organisation’s annual turnover is

being contributed by just a small sample of respondents. This may well have been

increased if all stakeholders responded. Making it mandatory could give the

regulators a full account of the augmentation that is happening as a result of all

stakeholders volunteering across Wales.

In contrast to a full account of what is actually happening across Wales, Chorley,

(2013, p.1) stated that the, “Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary

Organisations representing 2,000 charities warns pace of reform is ‘glacially’ slow”

and that “critics say PM’s flagship, (Welfare Reform) concept is vague and a cover

for cuts”. This is in direct correlation with struggling charities, including the

314

SWWales Charity, that are already stretched due to cutbacks. However, if there are

more cuts, the void may be able to be partially filled by reporting on ASVCB to

show organisations’ full potential for the wider public benefit through Public Value,

for example. This would also show its effect on GDP and GVA, as discussed earlier.

5.6 Conclusion

To summarise this chapter, there is a lack of measurement or meaningful reporting

on both tangibles and intangibles in one all-encompassing approach and it is this that

is missing from the existing approaches from the literature. Reporting on finances

are not enough on their own, as argued by Drucker, (2012), for example. He thought

that reports should include voluntary contributions as well as money. Wellbeing also

needs to be measured according to O’Donnel et al, (2014) and the fact that GDP does

not tell the whole story as has also been discussed. There is no one clear approach or

method for calculating human value through models such as Public Value, for

example, and researchers have failed to take account for the mediating effects of

intangible resources, according to Surroca et al, (2010, p.463).

It would be useful then, to adopt a method to present a fuller description of the

SWWales Charity’s ASVCB, alongside its financial turnover. It could take account

of the augmentation that is the virtual value of ASVCB and help complete what was

found to be omitted from the present methods of reporting. ASVCB may not be a

legal requirement, but if adopted would give a comprehensive account of all the

SWWales Charity’s activities. This figure could be shown alongside turnover to

summarise ASVCB in any given year. The current balance sheets show a 100% of

315

what can presently be counted. ASVCB could show a virtual 20% on top of its

current turnover as I have shown that it exists. In conclusion of this chapter, even

though it is not real money it does show the contribution of all its stakeholders to

organisational sustainability, community participation and individual wellbeing.

Chapter Six

Conclusion

6.0 Introduction

The threefold benefit to organisations, communities and individual stakeholders that

was found in my research can now be recognised and reported on. My findings

highlight how much more important it is to think in a new way about what

stakeholders contribute annually to organisations across Wales and further afield.

The new approach can be applied to any organisation, but I suggest that the

augmentation that ASVCB produces may occur more widely in the third sector at

present because of its association with traditional volunteering. It could possibly

exist in all organisations and it would be an interesting piece of future research to

find out.

316

This thesis presents a way to understand more about All Stakeholders’ Voluntary

Contributions, and its Benefits, (ASVCB), which was found to exist in the SWWales

Charity. Many examples of ASVCB were found in this research, but it was not

acknowledged in its entirety anywhere within the organisation’s reports or in any of

the literature that I examined. Yet, it was found that ASVCB not only benefitted the

organisation but the community and individual stakeholders too, giving a threefold

benefit. This, I suggest, will have an effect on reporting the future performance of

the organisation to the community. It also highlights the efforts of its stakeholders

and why they may have provided the input of their contributions, as there was found

to be the benefit of wellbeing back to those who voluntarily contributed themselves.

The original aim of my research was only concerned with identifying stakeholders’

contributions,

‘to identify the tangible and intangible voluntary contributions made by all

stakeholders of a third sector organisation – a case study of a SWWales

charity.’

It was changed early on to include the words, ‘… and report on’. While more

recently, following the analysis the words, ‘… the benefits of’ was also added. The

final aim is,

‘to identify and report on the benefits of the tangible and intangible voluntary

contributions made by all stakeholders of a third sector organisation – a case

study of a SWWales charity’.

317

The aim of my research has been met as prior to this as only, ‘traditional’

volunteering was able to be identified in third sector annual reports until now. Even

then the altruistic activity of traditional volunteers has only appeared as a tangible

cost through such headings as travel expenses or subsistence. Their intangible

contributions were also seldom reported on fully as in my experience, there were

only photographs of them smiling and helping out at events or receiving awards.

There was no evidence of the significant threefold benefit that their contributions

bring.

There is no legal requirement for fully accounting for all their contributions, as the

regulators do not currently require such detail. It was this gap in reporting that led

me to believe that there was a need to undertake further research into traditional

voluntary contributions. As well as this, it would be useful to identify if any other

stakeholder categories contributed to organisational success in the same way. This

research contributes to theory and practice, which culminates in my contribution to

knowledge by means of the new model in Figure 3, The ASVCB Augmentation

Model, which demonstrates the results of my research.

The structure of this thesis could be repeated in any future research as this thesis

evolved from my interest in the contributions of all stakeholders of the SWWales

Charity, as was introduced in Chapter One. Organisational sustainability through

people has been always been my primary focus as a practitioner in the third sector. It

was a definite positive to discover that there were benefits to community

318

participation and individual wellbeing too. I did this by means of the literature

review in Chapter Two.

I examined a number of approaches in the literature on the various categories of

stakeholders, both paid and unpaid, and found that that they were fragmented. They

each only described one stakeholder category and none of them referred to all

stakeholders, or the benefits of all of their voluntary contributions to an organisation.

However, this is not what the authors intended to do, so it is not fair to criticise them.

There were a number of authors who did advocate ways of measuring contributions,

but I found that there was so much that was not being currently measured. It was this

that I found to be missing from the literature. In order to undertake the research in

the SWWales Charity I adopted a pragmatic research position, which is aligned to

case studies methodology. I took a pragmatic standpoint, which underpins the choice

of research methods. This standpoint provided the best fit for this research which has

a practical, social need using mixed methods in a single case study.

Chapter Three described how the single case study, which complemented my

pragmatic research position, would utilise the mixed methods of both qualitative and

quantitative research. The case study was undertaken to establish if all stakeholders

of the SWWales Charity contributed to its sustainability and, if any voluntary

contributions were found, to establish if they were being reported on. A

questionnaire was the method that I chose for collecting the primary data. This

included a pilot questionnaire, the main questionnaire, interviews and the scrutiny of

secondary data from organisational documentation for triangulation. The primary

data was collated by hand and I presented the results in Chapter Four.

319

In Chapter Four, I coded the primary data by my own hand without aid of

computerised packages. I drew out the codes from the responses to inform my

results. The findings did confirm that there was a threefold benefit of organisational

sustainability, community participation and individual wellbeing that is supported by

£326,408.32 of tangible time as a direct benefit of all stakeholders’ voluntary

contributions. Yet, none of these contributions are currently measured or reported on.

Chapter Five analysed, interpreted and reflected on the findings from the data from

the case study, together with the findings from the literature to inform my

contribution to knowledge.

I found that all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, and the resulting benefits, do

exist and I presented my conclusions in Chapter Six. I thought that it would be

interesting if there was a new all-encompassing model that included all stakeholders

and all their contributions, from the data that was found. I suggested that the

organisation may have been missing an opportunity to account for benefits of the

significant contribution made on an annual basis by all its stakeholders. I found that

it would be useful then, if the benefit, which is currently invisible, could be shown.

All the data from the initial thematic maps, the developed thematic maps and the

final thematic map culminated in a new ASVCB Augmentation Model to give a

fuller description of the SWWales Charity’s full performance. This new model could

therefore, take account of the whole picture of the value gained by stakeholders’

tangible and intangible contributions by making them visible. The augmentation that

I found, as a result of my research, goes far beyond what can be captured in the

financial terms by translating volunteers’ time to money. This is the only type of

320

voluntary activity that is measured and accounted for at present by the WCVA and

others. It is now important, through the augmentation that is brought by ASVCB, to

give a fuller description of what is actually contributing to an organisation’s

sustainability.

6.1 Findings

I am now able to demonstrate that ASVCB exists with the SWWales Charity and that

it contributed 20% on top of turnover during the year that this research was

undertaken. Not all of the SWWales Charity’s possible stakeholders were

respondents to this research, and if they were their contributions may have been even

higher than 20%. Now it can be captured, the information could be used to

benchmark against other organisations who may have more or less ASVCB annually.

It is also possible that all stakeholders have equal power and levels of interest in the

SWWales Charity, because their voluntary contributions could be withheld at any

time. As Freeman (2004) argues, stakeholders are vital to the survival of an

organisation. My findings suggest that their voluntary contributions are also vital to

the community and the individual stakeholders themselves.

I found that the SWWales Charity benefitted from ASVCB from the gift of the free

time that the consultants gave which enabled it to survive. The traditional volunteers

were involved by contributing their skills which enabled organisational outcomes by

targets being met, for example. I found that the paid employees helped sustainability

through their humility and pride in being associated with the organisation. I also

found that the board members enabled due diligence to be met through their altruism.

321

These are the benefits of ASVCB to the SWWales Charity that annually contributes

to its survival.

While the benefit to the community is that there are much needed services that

continue to be provided, as a result of ASVCB. I found that the consultants helped to

provide services and opportunities for the community as a result of their

contributions. Many of the examples included stakeholders volunteering when there

was a lack of paid employees to deliver courses. They helped to provide community

cohesion through the transfer of their knowledge. Alternatively, the paid employees

gained relationships through their occupation. The board members, through their

endeavours enabled achievement. All stakeholder categories stepped in and gave

their time for no financial benefits, yet I have shown that they did benefit

individually from wellbeing. This is, I suggest, helping participation in communities.

However, each category also received indirect benefits of their contributions back to

themselves, as individuals. For example, the consultants gained more work as a

result of their improved performance, for which they were gratified. The traditional

volunteers had more self-assurance as a result of their sense of belonging that led to

paid employment for some of them. The paid employees, through their development

and hard work, achieved recognition. This led to more pay, through promotion, for

some. While the board members benefitted from their enhanced reputations as a

result of their responsibility, both within the SWWales Charity and the community.

This is a direct benefit back to them, even though most said that they did not

contribute for their own gain. I suggest that it is the result of ASVCB that provided

all categories of stakeholder with personal wellbeing. The final aim of this thesis has

322

been met, because what has been found has been greater than just identifying the

voluntary contributions of stakeholders to a SWWales Charity.

The significance of my findings to organisations, communities and individuals

themselves is that there are a substantial amount of voluntary contributions that exist

but are not being reported on that now can be captured. The benefits of this activity

also exist but are not being fully reported on. I have discussed the benefits of all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions and what they mean to an organisation, also

what is different now that my research has taken place. It is now known that there is

no current way of reporting on the voluntary contributions of all the organisation’s

stakeholders and this is at least a business limitation.

ASVCB is a way to show all of an organisation’s activities and I could show other

organisations how the new approach works and consult with them on how they could

easily measure it themselves. This will give their stakeholders far greater insight into

how organisations are actually sustained, or otherwise. I can talk to other

practitioners and coach them on how to gather the information annually, using my

new approach. The transfer of this new knowledge has already been discussed with

the WCVA and IIP and could potentially be rolled out across the sector. My time

could be given voluntarily initially, but as it becomes larger a new organisation could

be formed that would attract funding for this kind of reporting.

The question now needs to be asked if there is any appetite for third sector

organisations to put themselves under the spotlight by undertaking an evaluation of

ASVCB in their organisations, communities through their individual stakeholders.

323

They could be part of a pilot and the results can now be identified both quantitatively

and qualitatively and benchmarked against for each county borough or region. It

must have the caveat that although I calculated a figure of a virtual 20% that could

be shown as an annual benchmark of the benefits of ASVCB to the SWWales

Charity’s annual turnover, it is not real money but is an indication of how the

organisation treats its stakeholders and a way of reporting on its existence. It could

also show growth. Conversely, if these contributions were provided commercially,

then organisations would have to pay £326,408.32 per annum, resulting in a loss of

20% in their annual reports that leads to organisational sustainability, community

participation and personal wellbeing. There has never been any concern raised by the

charity’s regulators, or the charity itself, to recommend providing an all-

encompassing model that takes the augmentation of ASVCB into account. Applying

and recommending the ASVCB model would merely capture the contribution of a

range of stakeholders to organisations.

I intend to recommend the application of the ASVCB model to the WCVA and IIP

as a new method of capturing voluntary contributions in the sector, as I found that

All Stakeholders’ Voluntary Contributions and the benefits it provides exist in the

SWWales Charity. ASVCB may also be found in any other sectors but the WCVA

has already shown some interest in my work and has accepted me as a partner. In

order to quantify the value of the work contributed to enable a more complete

picture, the unit of measurement for ASVCB to an organisation annually could be

time multiplied by the amount of money each stakeholder category contributes to

give it a tangible value. Alternatively, the amount of time contributed annually could

be gathered from all stakeholders and the value of each unit averaged out.

324

The annual value of ASVCB also has an intangible value to individuals that includes

their skills, knowledge and commitment, for example. The same method of

calculation could be used for the model, not only to the organisation but the

community and individual stakeholders too. Most of the benefits are intangible but

anecdotal evidence could also be testified in annual reports to support photographs at

meetings and events. Reporting on tangible and intangible ASVCB in this way

would fill the gaps in the current literature to show what is being contributed, as well

as its threefold benefit. The WCVA, for example, could then report it as an

additional unit of productivity that could be added to their existing method of

calculating volunteer hours to GDP. While IIP, as another example, could show how

ASVCB contributes to business growth. Once an organisation has this annual

measure then it would enable benchmarking with other organisations who could

undertake the same exercise as part of their annual reporting. The GDP figures could

be benchmarked nationally as well as internationally and also help to complete the

limitations of the existing literature on a greater scale.

As suggested, fully reporting on ASVCB may enhance any organisations’ turnover

and now there is a new model to show it. Converting the tangible measure of the

time that was contributed by ASVCB into virtual money resulted in an annual figure

of £326,408.32. This contribution may have been what has helped to augment the

sustainability of the SWWales Charity because without it, this sum would have been

a cost. As a result of the tangible benefits of time, I found that there were the benefits

of organisational sustainability, community participation and personal wellbeing as a

direct benefit of ASVCB. In order to frame this new contribution to knowledge I will

now present my work as two separate contributions to theory and practice.

325

6.2 The Contribution of this Thesis to Theory and Practice

I have combined my findings and shown all the data in my ASVCB Augmentation

Model. This model includes my interpretation of both the qualitative and quantitative

data, using each stakeholder category. This is how it could be implemented by the

SWWales Charity, but it could easily be adapted for other organisations in any

sector. Any sector could show how ASVCB contributes to organisational

sustainability annually. In theory, it can now be shown how ASVCB enables

community participation, while giving a level of personal wellbeing back to each

individual that contributes ASVCB. Each benefit is dependent on a degree of

voluntary activity and any organisations’ contribution can now be measured and

presented for competitive advantage in my new model. In order to apply my new

model, I recommend that a section of future annual reports includes an accurate

survey of the ASVCB brought by all its stakeholders and all their voluntary activity

throughout the year. I have shown that the value of this significant contribution has

enabled the organisation the sustainability to deliver its services in a time of

diminishing income from grants. The community has more participation as a result

of the value brought by such altruistic acts. At the very least, I found that individual

stakeholders enjoy contributing to the organisation and the community, as well as

receiving the benefit back to themselves of wellbeing.

As I have identified, in the theory that there was not one approach in the literature

that referred to all stakeholders, or all of their voluntary contributions to

organisations. I have highlighted that ASVCB exists and that it should be measured

and reported on in a new model, particularly as it amplifies or augments what is

326

happening in organisations. My new ASVCB model could be the subject of an

academic paper that would contribute to theory. It has implications for current ways

of reporting on the contribution of the third sector which could be piloted it the

WCVA, for example. The current literature has been developed by academics and

professionals in the world of practice in the social science field. Some of the

existing approaches such as quality marks, CSR, human capital and ROCE that I

analysed were found to have some limitations that ASVCB could help to complete.

If the ASVCB model was utilised as a method of calculating the annual voluntary

contributions to organisations, communities and individual stakeholders, then my

research would also contribute to practice.

In practice, this new model could be rolled out across other sectors that would

highlight the benefits to organisations, communities and individuals themselves. The

threefold benefit of ASVCB can now be written about alongside the existing

approaches from the literature. A new model has now been developed, which allows

the annual contributions from a range of stakeholders to be considered and

quantified. This can be used in other organisations, not only in the third sector but in

the public and private sector too. The organisation, the community and the

individuals themselves all benefitted from the benefits of ASVCB and reporting on it

is my contribution to practice. In practice, the ASVCB Augmentation Model could

be promoted to other organisations, as organisations may now want to do things

differently, as a result of my research. The model is a tool that can be used to

describe that the benefit of the existence of all stakeholders’ contributing their time,

skills and commitment to the sustainability of the organisation. This benefit can also

be shown to benefit the participation of the community and the potential wellbeing

327

of all its stakeholders. As a practitioner, reporting on ASVCB can augment the

business in the future and help to fill the void in current business reporting.

It would be relatively easy to survey all stakeholders to gather qualitative data from

standard questions around their contributions, aligned to additional scores for

participation and wellbeing annually. The tangible contribution of time could be

recorded in a similar way and the model in Figure 3 produced on one page in annual

reports with supporting information to substantiate it. It could even show where the

organisation is now, with a projection of where it wants to be in the future as part of

organisational ambition. This survey could be undertaken by paid employees and

recorded in a database set up for the purpose. The resources needed would include a

cost, but the return on the investment would be worth the effort. It could potentially

help to lever in more funding. It could be used to inform match funding requirements

of WEFO, for example. Organisations that are high performing in relation to

ASVCB could contribute to case studies or act as ambassadors to show others how it

could work in their organisations.

It may not ever be a mandatory or compulsory requirement for reporting to

regulators in practice. It could, if adopted, show them added value by reporting on all

the organisation’s activities through ASVCB, which is now visible and has a new

model to validate it. This new model frames the contribution to knowledge in

relation to the literature review along with my interpretation of the data. The results

support the work of the existing literature around the voluntary contributions of

stakeholders. The ASVCB Augmentation model has implications for practice by

reporting on the threefold benefit.

328

The practice of reporting by organisations as a method of calculating the benefits of

all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions can now be shown in annual reports. Using

the method of annually surveying stakeholders and analysing the results would show

exactly how much ASVCB is generated by individual organisations. The resulting

augmentation could be used as a benchmark against other organisations in any

sector. This could enhance the perception of the organisation’s work with all external

stakeholders such as funders and regulators, as well as potentially leading to

competitive advantage over organisations who do not have as much annual ASVCB.

In theory ASVCB has implications for current ways of reporting on the contribution

of all stakeholders. In future, it could be used to market the organisation in the

community to attract even more voluntary activity by stakeholders, giving them the

propensity to generate even more ASVCB. It would also allow internal stakeholders

such as staff and board members to fully appreciate the benefits of their own

altruistic contributions both in the organisation and in the community throughout the

year. It may further enhance their wellbeing and encourage more voluntary

contributions. However, as well as the benefits there may also be costs associated

with ASVCB.

6.2.1 The Costs of ASVCB

As well as the threefold benefit of ASVCB, there is also the argument about the costs

associated with volunteering which is also supported by Blackadder and Jackson,

(2011, p.2). They draw attention to the negativity associated with successful

329

volunteer programmes. They are however undertaking work with The TUC to turn

the negative perception of volunteering in austere times where volunteers may be

used to replace volunteers to the positive of the benefits, which were found in

ASVCB. I found that if a paid employee felt compelled to contribute then it cannot

be classed as volunteering. It must then be something else such as fear or pressure of

losing their job, which is a potentially negative payback on their volunteering. It

really matters if one of stakeholder did not feel good about volunteering and this is a

cost that should be highlighted. The organisation could then do something about it

such as better planning around deadlines or sharing workloads more evenly. As well

as the converse of ASVCB there were other limitations of this study.

6.3 The Limitations of this Study

The main limitation of my finding of ASVCB is that this work was undertaken on

just one organisation. There is also the limitation that some organisations may not

survive if they did not have high amounts of ASVCB. The 20% that I found may be

high, but unless other organisations are researched I do not know if the SWWales

Charity’s ASVCB is high or not. There were also limitations around the number of

approaches from the literature that could be used for my research, which were the

constraints of my time to read everything as there is a vast amount of literature

around volunteering. My study would have been more comprehensive to have

involved funders such as WG, WEFO, the local authority or other regulators of the

organisation. The data from the organisation’s reports found that they lacked any

evidence of the reporting of any ASVCB. I analysed each piece of data myself for

reliability and validity. On reflection, it would have been better to have had the same

330

number of respondents across the categories, but the staff list resulted in more people

coming forward to become involved. This, it is suggested, is because they are the

most confident at consultations, but is a limitation by not having equal numbers

across all the stakeholder categories.

I found that there is an incomplete picture in the current literature. It does not

acknowledge all stakeholders and their contributions to an organisation in one all-

encompassing study. ASVCB was found to exist in the SWWales Charity and many

examples of it were found in this research, but it was not acknowledged anywhere

within the organisation’s reports or in any of the literature that I examined. However,

ASVCB may exist in other organisations and this study was constrained by it only

being undertaken in one organisation. It would have been even better if I could have

undertaken the same research in at least one other organisation, so that I could have

compared the results. I found that the contribution of increased social capital during

difficult times is supported by the fact that during a recession, Taylor and McAdam,

(2003) more people are made redundant and paid work is scarce. During austere

times people may have more time to volunteer and the fact that volunteering is a

good thing for people and society is argued by Hof, (2005), Haldane, (2014) and

Kane, (2014). Now that this intangible contribution can be given a value, it could be

used as competitive advantage for all organisations, as advocated by Porter, (1985)

and cited by Thompson, (2001, p.343). The model could be positively promoted to

organisations that do not have as much augmentation that ASVCB brings. I found

that this augmentation may be what is supporting the SWWales Charity by shoring it

up in the present economic downturn. However, it is not used in any way to show

331

what could be a significant contribution to the GDP figures such as those presented

by the UK Civil Society Almanac, (2016) and the WCVA, (2016).

To illustrate my point, in their research, O’Donnel et al, (2014) suggest that the

current measure of economic success, GDP, does not tell the whole story. They

argue for a method that goes beyond the simple figures associated with GDP, for a

worldwide measure of success that includes ‘subjective wellbeing’. Their measure

uses, among other things, a wellbeing cost benefit analysis, as opposed to a financial

one and a framework to enable international standardisation. O’Donnel et al,

continue that, (p.54) “… governments should develop new methods of analysis

where wellbeing is taken as the measure of benefit”. However, the work of

O’Donnel et al, only partly concentrated on traditional volunteering activities that

enabled increased wellbeing. There was no acknowledgement of the voluntary

unpaid work given by employees through ASVCB, for example. However, in

fairness, they did not set out to examine paid employees. This is relevant to my

notion that a recession is not always a bad thing for organisations. It can be turned

into a positive if it is balanced out by more volunteers’ intangible contributions

because they have more time on their hands, Danes et al, (2009). These voluntary

contributions may well be helping to shore up the SWWales Charity during this

economic downturn through the augmentation that ASVCB brings. It may be

happening in other organisations as well but we do not know because no one has

tried to measure ASVCB in this way until now.

Another argument for measuring ASVCB is that some people work at a slower pace

than others. An example of this is a paid employee who starts work an hour before

332

they are paid and finishes an hour later than everyone else. She said it was so that,

‘everything would be perfect’ and her satisfaction is an example of her payback on

volunteering. Another employee spends most of his day talking to colleagues, but

completes his tasks, to an equally high standard in less time. They are both highly

regarded employees by the SWWales Charity. However, there may be limitations

and the converse of volunteering, where people receive benefits from the

organisation without giving anything in return because they are lazy or unmotivated.

There may be a downside to formalising ASVCB, as people may not be prepared to

be measured or counted. I propose that despite the high level of research into

stakeholders, not one of the authors identified the benefits of ASVCB in one

approach. However, a standardised model that could be used by the stakeholders

themselves to report on the limitation of not reporting their ASVCB is now crucial.

The aim of this research was to examine the contributions of all stakeholders and this

was found to be ASVCB. Its existence can now be publicised annually and the

results used as a benchmark of organisational success. It can also identify failures

too, before they become damaging to the organisation. There is also the opposite

effect if the stakeholders who did not respond and say that they did nothing to

contribute but, in fact, take resources from the organisation by not contributing.

Factors in this scenario include paid workers not performing, consultants not

marketing the organisation effectively or traditional volunteers being overly critical

and board members taking detrimental risks and could be the subject of a future

piece of research.

6.4 Future Research

333

There are many benefits of reporting on ASVCB, as has been shown and this

contribution to knowledge demonstrates how the added value of all stakeholders’

voluntary contributions can be captured and reported by organisations in the future.

In order to take this work forward, a paper has been submitted to the Welsh Council

for Voluntary Action, (WCVA) and the Welsh Institute of Social and Economic

Research, (WISERD). I have been contracted by IIP and have started their

practitioner development programme. Once qualified as a registered practitioner, I

may be able to take this work forward into organisations myself.

I suggest that the augmentation that ASVCB produces may occur more widely in the

third sector at present because of its association with traditional volunteering.

However, this new approach to measuring stakeholder contributions is positive and

significant in a period where much of the reform in public services is focused on co-

producing services with citizens. It would be an excellent piece of future research to

find out how the new model could be used to measure their voluntary contributions

to co-producing services, for example. Initially just one organisation, from the third

sector, could be examined. In that way at least it would identify if ASVCB exists in

other organisations. Using exactly the same methods, the results could be compared

with mine before rolling it out to all sectors.

My new ASVCB model shows that all categories of the SWWales Charity’s

stakeholders contributed a significant amount of time and effort which benefitted the

organisation, the community and themselves. This indicates that they may all have

equal power and levels of interest and has implications for all sectors, not just the

334

third sector and this could also be a piece of future research. There could be paid

employees working over and above their contracted hours in all organisations,

particularly in these austere times, that if it was withdrawn organisations may not

survive at all. There may, however, be some stakeholders, particularly those who are

paid such as employees, who do not even do the full day’s work that they are paid

for. Likewise, this would be an interesting piece of future research. I found that some

employees do over and above what they are paid for the organisation while others

never stay late or help out when there are deadlines. Perhaps the productive ones

balance the unproductive ones out? This may well negate ASVCB.

I suggest that reporting on ASVCB will definitely be useful in the SWWales Charity

because, as a practitioner, it would solve the business limitation of not accounting

properly for all the organisation’s activities. So much excellent work is going

unreported at present in the SWWales Charity and possibly other sectors. It could be

recommended for use to the Charity Commission, Companies House, WCVA and

other external bodies. It could potentially inform WG policies with regard to

regulating tackling poverty through accounting for ASVCB and the augmentation it

brings to organisations, communities and the wellbeing of the contributors. It could

also be applied to any sector as a method for capturing the contribution of a range of

stakeholders to organisations whether in the statutory, voluntary or commercial

sectors.

6.5 Conclusion

335

As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, I found that the literature around all

stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, and its benefits to organisations, communities

and individuals is limited, which is my contribution to theory. Secondly is that there

is presently no way of reporting on ASVCB which is my contribution to practice. I

also found that there were benefits to individuals and the community as well as the

organisation. My research set out to identify, through a literature review, whether or

not there were any approaches in the literature that referred to the contributions of all

stakeholders. I found that there were not any references made by any of the authors

of the approaches examined in the literature to ASVCB, or its augmentation of

organisations, communities or individuals, in one all-encompassing model. I also

found that all stakeholders of the SWWales Charity have equal power and levels of

interest, as opposed to the model presented by Mendelow, (1991). These are my

findings, which are the limitations of the literature and this is my contribution to

theory.

The second notion was to establish, through a case study, if there were any tangible

contributions, made by all stakeholder categories to an organisation. I found a virtual

contribution of £326,408.32, or an augmented virtual 20% on top of turnover. I also

found that as well as there being the augmentation that ASVCB brings that enables

organisational sustainability, there were benefits to the community of increased

participation. As a consequence of this I found that the individual stakeholders

themselves benefitted from their own wellbeing as a direct result of their ASVCB.

This was unexpected because the aim of my study was only really interested in the

benefit to the organisation at the outset, and the voluntary contributions of all

stakeholders.

336

I found, for example, that if there are economically inactive older people or young

mums they would not be contributing to the economy anyway in the measure for

GDP. But with my new ASVCB model, all their contributions, however small can

now be identified and this is my contribution to practice. This could be used to

inform external stakeholders of the SWWales Charity’s accomplishments annually,

alongside the statutory financial reports. By multiplying the £326,408.32

contribution per annum in the county borough alone by the number of charities, for

example, would give a virtual amount to the economy that is not presently being

captured or reported on. Translated across Wales, the UK and Europe that figure

could potentially be highly significant. The augmentation of ASVCB could be given

the status to inform an accurate account of the true state of any sector in the future.

Therefore, ASVCB enables the augmentation of the organisation, the community and

the individuals who contribute it. Augmentation brings it all together and shows that

the individual sums can be greater than the individual parts for synergy. This is my

contribution to knowledge and what can now be presented in annual reports. It is the

full account of what may have been the augmentation or the shoring up of the

SWWales Charity. This augmentation is a direct result of ASVCB. The benefits of

ASVCB are the result of the goodwill of all the SWWales Charity’s stakeholders and

their altruistic contributions. It may be that the people who contributed it have more

time on their hands during the recent recession. However, I suggest, it is something

that is intrinsic to them because as a result of their contributions they gain positive

outcomes back to themselves as well.

337

So, who would want to know this? There may be a downside to formalising ASVCB,

as people may not be prepared to be measured or counted on. The stakeholders want

to do it on their terms and not be depended on for an annual measure. 35.8% of

people in the community where the SWWales Charity is based are claiming some

kind of income related benefit and this may have a negative effect on the number of

permitted hours they are able to contribute. So, there are real reasons why some

people may not want to be acknowledged, but it would be completely confidential.

They said that measuring their contributions would have a negative effect because it

would detract from the true altruism of their acts. They also thought that there would

be a problem if people were claiming state benefits. However, a standardised model

that could be used by the stakeholders themselves to report on their altruistic

activities may be worth pursuing in future. Of course it would be completely

confidential, in the same way as the WCVA and IIP publishes their data.

One of the aims of this research was to address the limitations of the literature and

report on the benefits of ASVCB, which is augmentation. Its existence can now be

publicised annually and the resulting augmentation used as a benchmark of

organisational success. It can also identify the dangers of not having as much

ASVCB as others, before they become damaging to the sustainability of the

organisation and its stakeholders in the community.

The question now needs to be asked if there is any appetite for third sector

organisations to put themselves under the spotlight by undertaking an evaluation of

ASVCB in their organisations and communities by surveying individuals. The result

would be various levels of augmentation, which can now be identified both

338

quantitatively and qualitatively. There has never been any concern raised by the

charity’s regulators, or the charity itself, to recommend providing an all-

encompassing model that takes the benefits of ASVCB into account, but reporting on

it will now give a true state of an organisation’s sustainability through community

participation and individual wellbeing.

Finally, all stakeholders’ voluntary contributions, ASVCB and the augmentation it

brings can now be shown. It was not shown in any of the current literature that was

examined, or in any of the organisational documentation previously. If it does exist

in one organisation, it may well exist in others and that would be a satisfying piece

of work to undertake in the future. It could even inform a quality mark to benchmark

against other organisations. It definitely could be shown as part of GDP, because a

value can now be placed upon ASVCB. These contributions and benefits have been

largely undiscovered, unreported on and unmeasured until now. However, the

augmentation that it produces in organisations, communities and individuals

themselves can now be fully demonstrated. Identifying ASVCB shows where it

exists and it can now be mapped in other organisations too. This is the true value and

the ASVCB Augmentation Model completes the missing piece of the jigsaw that

tangible financial accounting and the literature on intangibles such as pride,

commitment and loyalty currently ignore. My new approach to measuring

stakeholder contributions, and its benefits, is positive and significant in a period

where much of the reform in public services is focused on co-producing services

with stakeholders from all sectors, and this is my contribution to knowledge.

339

Bibliography

Abeysekera, I. (2013). ‘A Template for Integrated Reporting.’ Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14 (2), 227-245.

AccountAbility, (2011, pp. 4, 23) ‘AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011 – final exposure draft.’ Accountability 2008 Publication. www.accountability.org (Accessed 12th December 2012 at 5.30pm).

Accounting for Management. ‘Return on Capital Employed Ratio (ROCE Ratio).’ http://www.accounting4management.com/return_on_capital_employed.htm. (Accessed 7th November 2012 at 2.30 pm).

Adamson, D., (2012). ‘Regeneration 2012: NPT Third Sector Regeneration Forum’. Conference paper, Monday 15th November 2012. Centre for Regeneration Excellence Wales, (CREW). www.regenwales.org

Ajjawi, R. and Higgs, J., (2009, pp. 614,625). ‘Using Hermeneutic Phenomenology to Investigate How Experienced Practitioners Learn to Communicate Clinical Reasoning.’ The Qualitative Report. Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 612-638.

Allen, T., (13th March 2012, pp.1-7). ‘Regional GDP Per Capita in 2000: Seven Capital Regions in the Ten First Places.’ Eurostat-pressoffice@ec.europa.eu. (Accessed 13th March 2012 at 10.00am).

Aparaschivei, L., Vasilescu, M.D. and Cataniciu, N., (2011, p.210). ‘The Impact of Investments and Gross Value Added upon Earnings.’ Theoretical and Applied Economics Volume XVIII (2011), No. 2(555), pp. 207-218.

Baines, D., (2004, p.267). ‘Caring For Nothing: Work Organisation and Unwaged Labour in Social Services.’ Work, Employment and Society. Volume 18 (2). SAGE Publications, pp.267-295. (Accessed 7th November 2012).

Balser, D. and McClusky, J., (2005, p. 302). ‘Managing Stakeholder Relationships and Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership; Spring 2005, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p295-315, 21p, 1 Chart.

Banks, J., (2016). ‘Annual Voluntary Sector Conference.’ Conference paper. https://www.mvsc.co.uk/blog/khadiru-mahdi/annual-voluntary-sector-conference-2016 (Accessed 24th May 2016 at 3.45pm).

Bart, C. and Bontis, N., (2003, p.361) ‘Distinguishing between the Board and Management in company mission.’ Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol.4. No. 3. pp.361-381.

Bassi, L., Creelman, D. and Lambert, A., (2015, p.73). ‘Advancing the HR Profession: Consistent Standards in Reporting Sustainable Human Capital Outcomes.’ People Strategy Journal, Volume 38, Issue 2, Spring 2015.

viii

Bazeley, P., (2009, p.10). ‘Analysing Qualitative Data: More Than Identifying Themes’. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, Vol. 2, No. 2.

Beale, B., (2003, p.235). ‘Teamwork, the Key to Staff Development.’ Career Development International. Vol. 8. Issue 9.

Bell, E., Taylor, S., and Thorpe, R., (Dec, 2002). ‘Organisation Differentiation through Badging: Investors in People and the Value of the Sign.’ Journal of Management Studies. Issue 8.

Ben-Ner, A. And Ren, T., (2010, pp.625, 626). ‘A Comparative Study of Allocation of Decision-making Across Stakeholder Groups: The Case of Personal Care Industries’. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics; Dec 2010, Vol. 81 Issue 4, p611-630, 20p

Bennis, W., Parikh, J. and Lessom, R., (1994). ‘Beyond Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology’. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. As cited by Clarke, T. and Clegg, S., (1998, p.50). ‘Changing Paradigms’. Harpers Collins Publishers, Great Britain.

Berry, C. and Grieves, J., (2003, p.302). ‘To Change the Way We Do Things is More Important than the Certificate on the Wall: Does Investors in People Represent an Effective Intervention Strategy for Organisational Learning?’ The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 Iss 5 pp. 294 – 304. Emerald Insight.

Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organizations in the Third Sector: Challenges of practice, policy and theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Birnberg, J., (2011, p.594). ‘Memorial – Robert N. Anthony: A Pioneering Thinker in Management Accounting.’ American Accounting Association DOI: 10.2308/acch_50025. ‘Accounting Horizons. Vol. 25, No. 3 2011. Pp.593-602.

Blackadder, L., (May 2011, p.1-6). ‘Staff Replacement by Volunteers’ and ‘Dispelling the Myths Around Job Substitution by Volunteers.’ Conference paper.

Blackadder, L. and Jackson, R., (August 2011, p.2). ‘Dispelling the Myths Around Job Substitution by Volunteers’. Voluntary sector network. 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Blagden, J., (1973) "Information Services to Management Consultants", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 25 Issue: 11, pp.459-464, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb050435

Blake, A., (2005, p.11). ‘The Economic Impact of the London 2012 Olympics’. Crystel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, Nottingham University Business School. http://www.notingham.ac.uk/ttri (Accessed 20th March 2013 at 6.45pm).

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003, p.37, 40). ‘A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks’. University of Exeter Review Document.

ix

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D., (1992, p.2). ‘An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Branco, M. C., and Rodrigues, L. L., (2007, p.7). ‘Positioning Stakeholder Theory within the debate on Corporate Social Responsibility.’ Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies. Vol.12, No. 1.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., (2006 p.77-101). ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.’ Research in Psychology. 3 (2), ISSN 1748-0887.

Braun, V. and Wilkinson, S., (2003, pp. 28-42). ‘Liability or Asset? Women talk about the vagina. Psychology of Women Section Review, 5 (2).

Brooks, S., (2005, p.403). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategic Management: the Prospects for Converging Discourses.’ Strategic change 14:401-411. Published online in Wiley InterScience. www.interscience.wiley.com DOI 10.1002/jsc.731.

Brooks, S. and Evans, S., (2005, p.139). Contemporary Wales, ‘The role of Government in Corporate Social Responsibility among SMES in Wales.’ Strategic Change, November 2005.

Browne, J., Jochum, V. and Paylor, J., (November 2013, pp.117,65). ‘The Value of Giving a Little Time – Understanding the Potential of Micro-volunteering’. Research project results. The Institute for Volunteering Research and The NCVO.

Bryman, A., (2012, pp. 4,5,6,8,27,30,52,210,252,263,289,714,715), ‘Social Research Methods’. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England. Fourth Edition.

Bullen, M. L. and Flamholz, E. G., (1967, pp. 947-954). ‘Human Resource Accounting: A historical perspective and future implications.’ Management Decision, Vol. 40. Issue: 10, pp. 947-954.

Bullen, M. L. and Eyler, K., (2009, p.2). ‘Human Resource Accounting and International Developments: Implications for Measurement of Human Capital.’ Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies. Human Resource Accounting. Pp.1-16.

Cameron, R. and Miller, P., (2010, pp.1,7,8,11). ‘Introducing Mixed Methods in Applied Business Research Training.’ Paper presented to Managing and marketing organizations in an era of global economic uncertainty and environmental complexity: Academy of World Business, Marketing and Management Development Conference, Oulu, Finland 12-15 July.

Carpenter, J. and Knowles Myers, C., (September 2007, pp. 1-27). ‘Why Volunteer? Evidence on the Role of Altruism, Reputation and Incentives.’ Middleburg College and The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany. Discussion paper No. 302.

x

Carruthers, I. (24th February 2015), ‘Presentation to Welsh Government Integrated Reporting Steering Group. <IR> and the Public Sector’. CIPFA, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Cha, M., (2013, p.1). ‘What’s Missing from GDP?’ The Explainer, DĒMOS 220 FIFTH AVE, FL 2 NEW YORK, NY 10001 P: (212) 633-1405

Chamberlain, E., (2010, p.4). ‘The NCVO Briefing on the ‘Big Society’. NCVO http://ncvo-vol.org.uk (Accessed 11th November, 2012 at 2.15 pm).

Chigona, W., Roode, D., Nabeel, N. and Pinnock, B., (2010, p. 41). ‘Investigating the Impact of Stakeholder Management on the Implementation of a Public Access Project: The Case of Smart Cape.’ South African Journal of Business Management; Jun 2010, vol. 41 issue 2, pp. 39-49.

Chorley, M., The Mail online, (7th January 2013, p.1). ‘Your Big Society Dream is ‘Dead’, Charities Warn David Cameron after ‘Crippling’ Cuts Leave Them Unable to Provide Services’. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258310 Published 9.00. Updated 12:55pm. (Accessed 8th January 2013 at 5.45pm).

Chowdhury, S., (2007, p.1). ‘Return on Talent’. QFinance. http://www.qfinance.com/human-and-intellectual-capital-best-practice/return-on-talent?full U.S. (Accessed 11th November 2012 at 2.30pm).

Chowdhury, S., (2002, p.1). ‘The Talent Era: Achieving a High Return on Talent’. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall. http:// www.qfinance.com (Accessed 19, November 2012. 2.45 pm).

Chum, A., Mook, L., Handy, F., Schugurensky, D. and Quarter, J., (2013, pp.410,411,412,413,422,423,424). ‘Degree and Direction of Paid Employee/Volunteer Interchange in Nonprofit Organizations.’ NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP, vol. 23, no. 4, Summer 2013 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Churchill, N. C. and Lewis, V., (1983). ‘The Five Stages of Small Business Growth’. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1983. Boston, M.A.

CIPD, (Spring 2013, p.p.2,3). ‘Employee Outlook.’ Publication. Issued April 2013, reference 6205 © Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2013. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/engagement/employee-outlook-reports (Accessed 12th November 2013 at 12.30pm).

Clarke, T. and Clegg, S., (1998, pp.50, 152,153,164,299,300). ‘Changing Paradigms, The Transformation of Knowledge into the 21st Century’. Harper Collins publishers Great Britain.

Cornforth, C., and Edwards, C. (1999). ‘Board roles in the Strategic Management of Nonprofit Organizations: Theory and Practice. Corporate Governance: An International Review’, 7, 346-362.

xi

Cornforth, C., (2012, pp.1116,1117,1120,1123,1129). ‘Nonprofit Governance Research: Limitations of the Focus on Boards and Suggestions for New Directions.’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6) 1116 –1135. Sage Publishing.

Cornforth, C., (2015, pp.775,778,779,792,793). ‘Nonprofit–Public Collaborations: Understanding Governance Dynamics.’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2015, Vol. 44(4) 775 –795. Sage Publishing.

Cots, E. G., (2011, pp. 329,334). ‘Stakeholder Social Capital: A New Approach to Stakeholder Theory’. Business Ethics: A European Review; Oct 2011, vol. 20 issue 4. Pp. 328-341.

Cox, D and Street, D., (2011, pp.25, 103). ‘Limited Company Accounts’. Osborne Books. London.

Curtin, D., Mair, P., and Papadopoulos, Y., (2010) Positioning accountability in European governance: An introduction. West European Politics, 33, 929-945.

Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G. and Amarapurkar, S. S, (2009, p.211). ‘Family Capital of Family Firms. Bridging Human, Social and Financial Capital.’ Family Business Review. Vol. 22, no. 3. Pp.199-215.

Day, G., Dunkerly, D., and Thompson, A. (2006, pp.1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11,112). ‘Civil Society in Wales, p. Policy, Politics and People’. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.

Deloitte Analytics, (2014, pp.1,4,12). ‘What Price Talent? ‘Introducing A New Metric to Understand the Return on Investment in Talent.’ https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/deloitte-analytics/what-price-talent.pdf (Accessed June 1st 2016 at 12.41pm).

Deloitte Global Services Limited, IAS Plus. (2013, p.1). ‘IAS 38 – Intangible Assets’. www.IASPlus (Accessed 2nd April 2013 at 6.30pm).

De los Salmones G. and Del Bosque, R., (2011, p.211). ‘Corporate Social responsibility and loyalty in services sector.’ January - April 2011 ESIC Market Vol. 138, pp. 199-221.

De Vaus, D.A., (1993, p.54). ‘Surveys in Social Research’. Third Edition, London: UCL Press.

De Waal, A., (Feb 2015), ‘Why Some Organisations Are Better at Everything’. https://www.investorsinpeople.com/resources/more-about-investors-people/dr-andre-de-waal-%E2%80%93-hpo-white-paper (Accessed 27th June 2016 at 13.08pm).

De Waal, A., (2016, pp.665,673,678). ‘Does Investors in People Affect Organisational Performance: A Relevant Question?’ Employee Relations, Vol. 38 Iss 5 pp. 665 – 681. Emerald Insight.

Denscome, M., (2008, pp.5,7,45,91,116,128,129,174). ‘Ground Rules for Good Research a 10 point guide for social researchers’. Open University Press. England.

xii

Denscombe, M., (2007, p.5,75). ‘The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research Projects’. Third edition. McGraw Hill Education, Open University Press, England.

De Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L. and Unerman, J., (2014, p.1,3), ‘Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research’. Accounting Auditing and accountability Journal, 06 2014, pp. 1-47.

Devoy, P., (2015, p.9). ‘A New Framework, A new High Standard. Introducing the V1generation’https://www.investorsinpeople.com/sites/default/files/FrameworkVbrochure (Accessed 27th June 2016 at 12.22pm).

Diamond, J. and Liddle, J. (2005, p.9), ‘The Management of Regeneration: Choices, Challenges and Dilemmas’, Routledge, London.

Dolan, C. S. and Opondo, M., (2005, p.92). ‘Seeking Common Ground, Multi-Stakeholder Processes in Kenya’s Cut Flower Industry’. Journal of corporate citizenship; Summer 2005, issue 18. Pp.87-98.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E., (1995, p.87). ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No 1. Academy of Management. pp. 65-91.

Driscoll, C. and Starik, M., (2004, p. 55). ‘The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment’. Journal of Business Ethics. No. 1, Vol. 49: 55-73. Printed in the Netherlands.

Drucker, P., (2012, p.1). ‘Rank Favouritism’. The Drucker Exchange. Daily Blog by the Drucker Institute. http://thex.druckerinstitute.com Quote from, Drucker, P., (1990, p. 107). ‘Managing the Non Profit Organisation’. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. (Accessed 25/02/13 at 12.18pm).

Drucker, P., (2005) ‘The Peter F. Drucker Award for Non-profit Innovation.’ Drucker Innovation Award – 2005. http://thex.druckerinstitute.com (Accessed on 7th

March 2005).

Drucker, P., (Spring 2000), ‘Managing Knowledge Means Managing Oneself.’ http://www.drucker.org/leaderbooks/121/spring 2000/drucker.html Leader to Leader, No. 16, Spring 2000. (Accessed 7th March 2005).

Drucker, P. (1990, p.107) ‘Managing the Non-profit Organization’. Butterworth Heinemann. Oxford.

Drucker, P., (Winter 1998), ‘Civilizing the City.’ http://www.drucker.org/leaderbooks/121/winter98/drucker.html Leader to Leader, no.7. Winter 1998. (Accessed 7th March 2005).

DWP publication, (2010). ‘Volunteering While Getting Benefits’. Published in the UK.

xiii

Eisenhardt, K. M., (1989, pp. 548-549). ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research.’ Academy of     Management Review, 144,.

Enyi, P. E., (2005, p.1). ‘How Useful is the Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) as a Performance Indicator.’ http://financialanalyst.org/Enyi%20Reearch%Paper.htm (Accessed 2nd October, 2012 at 12.30pm).

Esposito, C. C., (2011, p.3) ‘SWW Charity’s Communities First Partnership’s Response to the Welsh Assembly’s 2nd Communiqué on the Draft Budget, November 2010.’ Paper to Carl Sargeant, Minister for Social Justice and Community Regeneration.

Esposito, C. C., (2005, p.61) ‘Exploring the Consequences of the Value Gained by Stakeholders and How its Effect on Non-profits May be Used as Competitive Advantage by Means of the Introduction of an Enhanced Quality Mark’. MBA dissertation, (distinction).

European Commission (2006), ‘Implementing the Partnership for Growth and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility,’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:en:PDF (Accessed 2nd October 2012 at 1.00pm).

Evans, K., (2011, p.164-171). ‘Big Society’ in the UK, p. A Policy Review. Children and Society, 25, p. 164-171. DOI, p. 101111/j.1099-0860.2010.00351.x. Copyright 1999-2012 John Wiley and Sons, inc. all rights reserved. First published online 1st

Feb 2011. Children and Society. Vol. 25, Issue 2, March 2011.

Field, S., (January 2009, p.2). ‘An Approach to Investigating the Potential Impact of Mass Collaboration on the Design and Delivery of Public Services.’ Submitted as part of DBA coursework to The University of Glamorgan.

Figge, F. and Schaltegger, S., (2000, p.18). ‘What is “Stakeholder Value”? Developing a Catchphrase into a Benchmarking Tool’. Pictet andCie. Published in association with the United Nations Environment Programme. University of Lueneburg, Germany. Geneva 2081190. 59 pages.

Flamholtz, E. G., Bullen, M.L. and Wei Hua., (2002, pp.947). ‘Human Resource Accounting: a Historical Perspective and Future Implications.’ Journal of Management History. Vol. 40 Issue: 10, pp.947 – 954 MCB UP Ltd conceptional paper.http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=00251747&volume=40&issue=10&articleid=865361&show=abstract (Accessed 17th July 2012 at 2.00pm).

Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P, Roos, G. and Pike, S., (2003, p.505) ‘Mapping Stakeholder Perceptions for Third Sector Organizations.’ Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol. 4 No. 4.

Fontaine, C., Haarman, A. and Schmid, S., (2006, p.15). ‘The Stakeholder Theory’. Stakeholder theory of the MNC. pp. 3-36.

xiv

Freeman, R. E., (1984, pp.12,42,46). ‘Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach’. Pitman: London. pp.vi, 42, 46. Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., (1984) ‘Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.’ Boston, MA: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., (2001, p.42). ‘Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation’. Perspectives in Business Ethics. Volume 3. 144 pages.

Fujiwara, D., (2012, pp. 1, 2 and 9). ‘Valuing the Impact of Adult Learning.’ Niace designed and typeset by Book Production Services. Leicester, England.

Garrahan, P. and Stewart, P., (1992, p.116). ‘The Nissan Enigma: Flexibility at work in a Local Economy’. Continuum International Publishing. 18 June 1992.

Government Audit Office, (GAO), (2012, p.9). ‘Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program’. GAO Reports; 7/25/2012, preceding p1-59. U. S.

Gaskin, K., (2011, p.1). ‘VIVA – The Volunteer Investment and Value Audit.’ Second edition. Institute for volunteering research. Birkbeck University of London.

Gibbons, B., (January 2008, p.3). ‘The Third Dimension: A Strategic Action Plan for the Voluntary Sector Scheme.’ A Welsh Assembly Government publication. Crown Copyright.

Gomes, R. C., Liddle, J. and Gomes, L. O. M., (2010, p.708). ‘A Five-Sided Model of Stakeholder Influence’. Public Management Review; Sept 2010, Vol. 12 Issue 5, pp. 701-724, 24p, 3 Diagrams.

Goodijk, R., (2003, p.236). ‘Partnership at Corporate Level: The Meaning of the Stakeholder Model’. Journal of Change Management; Feb 2003, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p225–241, 17p, 6 Diagrams, 1 Chart.

Gordon, T. P. Khumawala, S. B. Kraut, M. and Neeely, D. G., (2010, p.213). ‘Five Dimensions of Effectiveness for Nonprofit Annual Reports’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership; Winter 2010, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p209-228, 20p, 7 Charts.

Gov.UK, (2013). ‘National Minimum Wage Rates.’ http://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates (Accessed 22nd July 2013 at 9.47am).

Green, C. D., (2000, p.1). ‘Classics in the History of Psychology’. An Internet Resource Developed by Christopher D. Green. York University, Toronto, Ontario Pages 1-16. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca./Maslow/motivation.htm (Accessed 14th March 2013 at 2.00pm).

Greiner, L. and Ennsfellner, I., (2007, p.5). ‘Management Consultants as Professionals, or Are They?’ Centre for Effective Organizations. CEO Publication, University of Southern California. T 08-10 (546). http://ceo-marshall.usc.edu (Accessed 27th March 2013 at 1.30 pm).

xv

Gregg, M and Marazzi, C, (2012, pp.875-9). ‘Work Under Communicative Capitalism.’ Work, Employment and Society. Volume 26 (5). Pp.875-878. http://journals.sagepub.com/home/wes (Accessed on October 30, 2012).

Gronroos, C., (1990, pp.6-14). ‘Service Management: A Management Focus for Service Competition’. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol. 1. Issue 1.

Gronroos, C (1990). ‘Service Management and Marketing’. Lexington, MA: Lexington books.

Guba, E. G., (1990, pp.17-27). ‘The Paradigm Dialog’. SAGE Publications. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi.

Haldane, A. G., (2014, p15). ‘In Giving, How Much Do We Receive? The Social Value of Volunteering.’ Speech given by Andrew Haldane, Chief Economist, Bank of England. A pro bono economics lecture to the Society of Business Economists, London 9 September 2014. All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx ( Accessed on Friday 18th January 2015 at 2.15pm).

Handy, F., L. Mook, and J. Quarter. 2008. ‘Interchangeability of Paid Employees and Volunteers in Nonprofit Organizations.’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37 (1): 76–92. doi:10.1177 /0899764007303528.

Hann, D. And Teague, P., (2012, p.623). ‘Individual Employment Rights and the Renewal of Economic Citizenship: Lessons from the Rights Commissioners in Ireland’. Work, Employment and Society, Issue 24 (4). Pp.623-637. SAGE, http://journals.sagepub.com/home/wes at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT. (Accessed on October 30, 2012 at 6.30pm).

Hebson, G., Grimshaw, D. and Marchington, M., (2003, pp. 481-501). ‘PPPs and the Changing Public Sector Ethos: Case Study Evidence from the Health and Local Authority Sectors’. Work, Employment and Society. Volume 17 (3). SAGE publications, London, thousand Oaks and New Delhi. BSA Publications Ltd.

Herman, R. And Renz, D. O., (1998, p. 32). ‘Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: Contrasts Between Especially Effective and Less Effective Organizations’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership; Fall 98, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p23, 16p. Pp. 23-32. Copyright 2003 EBSCO Publishing.

Hesketh, A., (2014, p.p. 3-7). ‘Valuing your Talent: Managing the Value of your talent: A New Framework of Human Capital Measurement.’ A Research Report - key findings and conclusions, July 2014. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, http://ww.cid.co.uk/hr-resources/research/managing-value-talent-framework-human-capital.aspx (Accessed 1st June 2016 at 11.07am).

Heskett, J. L., (2002, p.355) ‘Beyond Customer Loyalty.’ Managing Service Quality. Vol. 12 No. 6.

xvi

Hof, R.D., (2005, p.1). ‘The Power of Us: Mass Collaboration on the Internet is Shaking up business.’ Business Week Website www.businessweek.com (Accessed 24th May 2016 at 12.15pm).

House of Commons – Public Administration – Twelfth Report, ‘The Citizens Charter’. Parliamentary Copyright 2008. (Accessed 22nd July 2012 at 12.30pm).

Hoque, K. (2003). ‘All In All, It’s Just Another Plaque on the Wall: The Incidence and Impact of the Investors in People Standard’. The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 543-571.

Hoque, K. (2008). ‘The Impact of Investors in People on Employer-provided Training, the Equality of Training Provision and the ‘Training Apartheid’ Phenomenon’. Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 43-62.

Hoque, K and Bacon, N., (2008, pp.451-482). ‘Investors in People and Training in the British SME Sector’. Journal: Human Relations – HUM RELAT, vol. 61, no. 4.

Huang, R. Y., (2011, p.117). ‘Value, Interest and Power: A Three Dimensional Model for Mobile Marketing Stakeholder Analysis.’ International Journal of Mobile Marketing; Jun2011, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p109-119, 11p, 7 Diagrams, 1 Chart.

Hutt, J., (2000, p.1). ‘Voluntary Sector at the Heart of Policy Making,’ Welsh Assembly Government Press release, 00202, 1 March 2000.

Ingliss, J., (2012, p.2). ‘Public Sector Commissioners: How to Include Social Value in Contracts – The Policy Hub from Public Leaders’ network’. www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/blog/2012/jul/19/training-commissioners-social-value? (Accessed 19th July 2012 at 3.30pm).

Johnson, G. and Scholes, K., (2006, p.437). ‘Exploring Corporate Strategy’. Eighth Edition, FT Prentice Hall, © Simon and Shuster Europe Ltd 1998, © Pearson Education Ltd 2002, 2006.

Johnson G. and Scholes, K., (2002, p.209). ‘Exploring Corporate Strategy’. Prentice Hall. Sixth edition, Harlow, England.

Jones, C., AM First Minister for Wales (2011). ‘Foreword - Programme for Government’. WG manifesto publication. Crown Copyright WG 13124.

Jones-Evans, D., ‘Wellbeing in the Workplace Will Be One of the Big Business Issues of 2018’.Wales online article 12:35, 5 JAN 2018Updated12:38, 5 JAN 2018. (Accessed February 2nd 2018 at 2.00pm).

Jones-Evans, D., (2nd February 2008) ‘More Thought Needed to put Community First; Anti Deprivation Programme is not Meeting its Potential.’ The Western Mail Cardiff, Wales.

xvii

Kallio, B. and Hudson, G., (Spring 2004, pp. 1-5) ‘Governance Gumbo.’ Advancing Women in Leadership journal. webmaster@advancingwomen.com (Accessed 12th

March 2013. 12.10pm).

Kane, D., (2014). ‘The Voluntary Sector in the National Accounts’. Blog. http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2014?05/30/voluntary-sector-in-the-national-accounts/

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., (1996). ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.’ Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kennedy, R. (1968). Cited by Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D. and Layard, L., O’Donnel, G. (2014). ‘Wellbeing and Policy’, Report of the Commission on Wellbeing and Policy (Commissioned by the Legatum Institute).

Kisby, B., ( 2010, pp.484-491). ‘The Big Society: Power to the People?’ Article first published online 2nd Nov 2010. Copyright The Author 2010. The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2010. Vol. 81, Issue 4. October/December 2010.

Knight, K. (2009, p.1) on discussing Comte, A., (1851). ‘Positive Polity, Bridges’, London, 1875-9. Catholic Encyclopaedia: Altruism. Copyright © 2009, p.1 by Kevin Knight.

Krishnan, R. And Yetman, M. (2011, p.1015). ‘Institutional Drivers of Reporting Decisions in Nonprofit Hospitals’. Journal of Accounting Research; Sept 2011, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p1001-1039, 39p.

Law, H., (5th April, 2011, p. 1). ‘Employee Engagement in the Third Sector’. People Management Magazine Online. www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/201301/29/employee-engagement-in-the-third-sector-2011-04.aspx (Accessed 23rd April 2013 at 2.30pm).

Lederer, Albert L. and Mendelow, Aubrey L., (Dec 1988, pp.525-534) ‘Convincing Top Management of the Strategic Potential of Information Systems.’ MIS Quarterly. Vol. 12, No. 4 . Dec., 1988, pp. 525-534.

Leitch Review of Skills, (2006, pp.1,20,25). ‘Prosperity for All in the Global Economy – World Class Skills’. Final report. London: HMSO,2006.

Leahy, J., (2004, pp. 1-28). ‘Using Excel for Analyzing Survey Questionnaires’. University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Extension Madison, Wisconsin.

Leaman, R., (2015, p.1). ‘The Payback You Get From Volunteering’. Article, York Press.http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/search/?search=the+payback+you+get+from+volunteering (Accessed 26th May 2016 at 7.31pm).

Lee, M., (2004, p.180). ‘Public reporting. A Neglected Aspect of Nonprofit Accountability’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Vol. 15, No. 2. Wiley periodicals, Inc. 1 chart. pp. 169-185.

xviii

Liddle, J. in Ongaro, E. and van Thiel, S., (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. https//doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_49

Liddle, J., (2003, pp.34,41). The Significance of Culture, Tourism and Leisure Services in Social and Economic Development in the NE of England. Teaching Public Administration, Autumn 2003, Vol.23, No.2, pp.34-47.

Locality Charity, (December 2012, p.3) ‘Locality Response to Call for Evidence, The Work Programme’. Paper - Point 6.2. London.

Lorelli S. Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules, (2017, pp 2,11). ‘Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods Volume 16: 1–13 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

McClean, J., (2004, p.16) ‘Management Matters’. British Journal of Administrative Management. Jan/Feb 2004 Issue 39, p. 16, 1p.

McCracken M and Wallace, M., (2000, pp.425,458,464). ‘Exploring Strategic Maturity in HRD – Rhetoric, Aspiration or Reality? Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 Iss 8 pp. 425 – 426. Emerald Insight.

McGregor, D., (1960, p.3). ‘The Human side of Enterprise,’ McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Singapore.

McNamara, A. (2013, p.2). ‘SWW Charity’s IIP Report’. On behalf of IIP Wales 30th November 2013.

McNamara, A. (2011, p.2). ‘SWW Charity’s IIP Report’. On behalf of IIP Wales 30th

March 2011.

McNeil, P., (1989, pp.10,26,37,119,120,123). ‘Research Methods’. Social Studies Review. Routledge, London.

Mahdi, K., (2016). ‘Annual Voluntary Sector Conference.’ Conference paper. https://www.mvsc.co.uk/blog/khadiru-mahdi/annual-voluntary-sector-conference-2016 (Accessed 24th May 2016 at 3.45pm).

Maheshwari, G. C. and Pillai, B. Ravi Kumar, (2004, p.71). ‘The Stakeholder Model for Water Resource Projects’. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers; Jan-Mar2004, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p63-81, 19p, 5 Diagrams.

Marshall, G. and Murdoch, I., (2005, pp.7, 25). ‘Service Quality in the Marketing of Consulting Engineers.’ http://www.brookes.ac.uk/other/IJCM/vol3-1/vol3-paper5htm (Accessed 7th March 2012 at 3.45pm).

xix

Maslow, A., (1943, pp.370-396). ‘A Theory of Human Motivation,’ Journal of Psychological Review. 50. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm (Accessed 14th March 2012 at 4.15pm). Maturana, H., (1970) ‘The Biology of Cognition,’ Urbana IL: University of Illinois Biological Computer Laboratory Research Report 9.0.

Maturana, H., and Varela, F.J., (1987, 272 pages). Afterword (1992) by Varela, F.J. ‘The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding’, Boston, Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston Massachusetts. 02115.

Meadows, R. R., Lesmeister, M. K. and Norman, N. N., (2006, pp. 1, 4). ‘Managing Volunteer Programs: Reporting Volunteer Contributions’. University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu (Accessed 16th March 2013 at 2.30pm).

Meissner, H. I., (2010, pp. 23, 24). ‘Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences’. Commissioned by the, (U. S.) Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR). November 2010.

Mendelow, A. L, (1991, p.159). ‘Proceedings of the second International Conference on Information Systems,’ Exhibit 4.5 Stakeholder Mapping: The Power/Interest Matrix. Cambridge, MA.

Milbourne, L., (2009, p.294). Remodelling the Third Sector: Advancing Collaboration or Competition in Community-based Initiatives? Journal of Social Policy 38 (2). London, Birkbeck ePrints. (Accessed on 11th July 2012 at 9.00am).

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J., (2013, p. 119). ‘Qualitative Data Analysis, A Methods Sourcebook.’ Sage publications, Europe.

Miles, S., (2011, p.1). ‘Stakeholder definitions: Profusion and confusion’. EIASM 1st

interdisciplinary conference on stakeholder, resources and value creation’. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.

Miles, S., (2012, pp. 285-298). ‘Stakeholders: essentially contested or just confused?’ Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 108. No. 3.

Mills, R. W and Robertson, J., (2000, p.p.388,430). ‘Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting and Finance.’ Mars Business Associates Ltd. Bookcraft fourth edition. U. K.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J., (1997, pp. 853-886). ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’. Academy of Management Review 1997, Vol. 22, No. 4, 853-886.

Moretti, E., (2005, p.1). ‘Social Returns to Human Capital.’ – The National Bureau of Economic Research. Spring 2005. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138; 617-868-3900

Morgan, D. L., (2014, pp.1045,1049,1051). ‘Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research’. Qualitative Inquiry 2014, Vol. 20(8) 1045 –1053 Sage.

xx

Morgan, J., Robinson, O. and Thompson, T., (2015, p.544). ‘Happiness and Age in European Adults: The Moderating Role of Gross Domestic Product per Capita.’ Psychology and Ageing © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 30, No. 3, 544–551.

Morgan, R. and Jones, I. W., (2007, p.26). ‘One Wales. A progressive agenda for the government of Wales. An agreement between the Labour and Plaid Cymru Groups in the National Assembly, 27th June 2007’. Welsh Assembly Government publication.

Nafukho, F. M., Graham, C. M. and Muyia, M. A., (2010, p.648). ‘Harnessing and Optimal Utilization of Human Capital in Virtual Workplace Environments’. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 12(6) 646-664. © 2010 SAGE Publications.

National Survey. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., and Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491–1498.

O’Donnel, L., Kramer, R. And Dyball, M. C., (2009, p.362). ‘Human Capital Reporting, Should it be Industry Specific?’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Volume 47 (3). SAGE Publications, (Los Angeles, London, New Deli, Singapore and Washington DC). Pp.358-373.

O’Donnel, G., Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D. and Layard, R., (2014, pp. 2,44,54). ‘Wellbeing and Policy’ Report 2014. Commissioned by the Legatum Institute, Mayfair, London. Pp. 1-92.

Office for National Statistics. ‘Guide to Social Capital’. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/social-capital-guide (Accessed 2nd August 2013 at 2.26pm).

Parasuraman, A. Berry, L.L. and Ziethamal, V.A., (Winter 1991, pp.420-450.). ‘Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions.’ Journal of Retailing.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R., (1982 and 2004, pp.9, 14,110,241,323) ‘In Search of Excellence’. New York: Warner Books Ltd. and HarperBusinessEssentials.

Podnar, K. And Jancic, Z., (2006, p.301). ‘Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups: An Empirical Verification of a Three‐Level Model’. Journal of Marketing Communications; Dec2006, Vol. 12 Issue 4, p297-308, 12p, 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart.

Popper, K. R., (1979), ‘Objective Knowledge.’ Oxford University Press. Revised Edition first published by Oxford University Press 1972.

Popper, K. R., http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/hd.php ‘OpenCourseWare on critical thinking, logic and creativity.’ (Accessed 27th November 2012 at 1.45pm).

Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.

xxi

Putnam, R.D., (1995, pp.65-78). ‘Bowling Alone: Declining Social Capital.’ Journal of Democracy, January 1995. CR: Copyright Heldref Publications 1995.

Putnam, R. D., (2001, p.66). ‘Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences’. In J. F. Helliwell (Ed.), The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-being. Human Resources Development Canada: Ottawa.

Raelin, (2003) as cited by Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003, p.37, 40). ‘A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks’. University of Exeter.

Rajesh and Bajpayee (2009, p.2). ‘Improving Returns on Talent’. Business Standard News, New Delhi, April 28th, 2009.

Recklies, D. (2001, pp.2, 3) ‘Stakeholder Management’. Reckies Management Project GmbH www.themanager.org. (Accessed 13th February 2013 12.30).

Richards, L., (2005, pp. 85-105). ‘Handling Qualitative Data, a practical guide.’ Sage publications, London.

Riley, J., (23rd Sept 2012, p.1). ‘Accounting – Introduction to stakeholders’. http://tutor2u.net/business/accounts/stakeholder_theory.htm (Accessed 17th October, 2012 at 3.15pm).

Rowley, J., (2002, pp.17,22). ‘Using Case Studies in Research’. Management Research News, Volume 25 Number 1.

Rowley, T. And Moldoveanu, M., (2003, p.204). ‘When Will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest and Identity Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilisation’. Academy of Management Review; Apr 2003, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p204-219, 16p.

Ruger, S. (2013, p.17). ‘How to Write a Good PhD Thesis and Survive the Viva’. Knowledge Media Institute. The Open University UK. VO.87 – 12th July 2013.

Saad, L., (2005, p.3). ‘Most Workers are Positive, but one Third Love their Jobs. Private Sector Workers Lag in this Assessment’. Gallup. August 25th 2005. www.gallup (Accessed 20th March 2013 at 6.50am).

Sargeant, C., AM and Thomas, G., AM (2012, p.25). ‘Tackling Poverty Action Plan 2012-2016’. Crown Copyright WG 14688.

Sargeant, C. (5th July 2011). BBC Wales Politics, ‘The Welsh Government Has Promised its Flagship Regeneration Programme Will Have a Stronger Emphasis on Tackling Poverty’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14034383 (Accessed 6th July 2012 at 11.20 am).

Saxton., (2004, p.188). ‘The Achilles Heel of Modern Nonprofits.’ International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. Vol. 9 No. 3. Pp. 88-190.

xxii

Scramm, W., (1973, p.12) ‘Men, Messages and Media: A look at Human Communication.’ New York. Harper and Row.

Seitanidi, M. M., (2009, p.91). ‘Missed Opportunities of Employee Involvement in CSR Partnerships’. Corporate Reputation Review; Summer 2009, Vol. 12 Issue 2, abstract and p90-105, 16p, 1 Chart.

SEUK and Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP, (2012) ‘Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 A Brief Guide.’ Published by Social Enterprise UK. February 2012. Copyright 2012 Social Enterprise UK.

Singh, j. and Yadav, P., (2013, pp.1,3). ‘Return on Capital Employed – A Tool for Analysing Profitability of Companies.’ International Journal of Techno-Management Research. Volume 01, Issue 01, June 2013.

Skinner, H., (2004, p.3). ‘Towards a Typology of Virtuous Marketing: Applying Marketing Principles and Practices to Community Development Work’. University of Glamorgan Conference paper.

Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Schwabsky, N., (2006, p.453). ‘Market orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organisational performance’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Sage Publications http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/453 (Accessed 26th April 2013 at 3.10pm).

Shortt, S. E. D., (2004, p.11-22). ‘Making sense of social capital, health and policy’. Science Direct. Ontario, Canada. Health Policy 70. www.elsevier.com/locate/healthopol (Accessed 7th November 2012, at 7.30pm).

Siggelkow, N., (2007, p.20). ‘Persuasion with Case Studies’ Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 20-24.

Slatten, L. A. D., (2010, p.48). ‘An Annual Publication for those Concerned with Developing Excellence in Nonprofit Management.’ Journal for nonprofit management. Leadership and Management. Support centre for nonprofit management. Vol.14. No. 1, 2010.

Spence, L. J. and Rutherford, R. (2001, pp. 533-522.). ‘Social Responsibility, Profit Maximisation and the Small Firm Owner-manager’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vo. 8, Iss:2, pp. 126-139.

Spitzeck, H. and Hansen, E., (2010, pp.378-391). ‘Stakeholder Governance: How Stakeholders Influence Corporate Decision Making. Corporate Governance. Vol. 10, No 4. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Smith, A., (2006, p.3 first published in 1759). ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments.’ Dover Publications. This Dover edition, first published in 2006 is an unabridged replication of the sixth edition, published by A. Millar, London 1790. The work was originally published in 1759.

xxiii

Smith, J. D., Gaskin, K., Ellis, A. and Howlett, S. (2015). ‘Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit: A practical guide for assessing the difference that volunteering makes.’ The Institute for Volunteering Research is part of NCVO. Volunteering England © 2016.

Smith, S.M, Stokes, P. And Wilson J.F, (2014, pp.266,274,275). ’Exploring the Impact of Investors in People.’ Employee Relations, Vol. 36 Iss 3 pp. 266 – 279. Emerald Insight.

Strauss, A., (1987, pp.27,28). ‘Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists’. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A. And Waddock, S., (2010, p.463). ‘Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible Resources.’ Strategic Management Journal Strategic Management, 31, p. 463-490 (2010).

Takala, T and Aaltio, I., (2004, p.5). ‘Charismatic Leadership and Ethics from Gender Perspective.’ Ejbo Vol.9, No.2. Pp.10-23.

Tan W., Tan T. and Williams, J., (2005, pp.353-365). ‘Defining the ‘Social’ in ‘Social Entrepreneurship’: Altruism and Entrepreneurship.’ International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., (2003, p. 713). ‘Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research’. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Dehli.

Taylor, A., (2011, pp. 1,2) ‘Volunteers are a Neglected Resource.’ http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Resources/Fundraising/Article/1084651/Anna-Taylor Volunteers-neglected-resource (Accessed 12th March 2013. 11.25am).

Taylor, S. and McAdam, R., (2003, p.382) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Business improvement Models: Cross Purposes or Congruity?’ Managing Service Quality: An International Journal Vol. 13. Iss: 5. Pp. 382-398.

Teasdale, S., McKay, S., Phillimore, J. and Teasdale, N., (2011, p.71). ‘Exploring Gender and Social Entrepreneurship: Women’s Leadership, Employment and Participation in the Third Sector and Social Enterprises.’ The Policy Press. Voluntary Sector Review, Volume 2. No. 1. 2011. pp.57-76.

The Denver Foundation, (2012, p.1). Canada. ‘Nonprofit Inclusiveness’. www.nonprofitinclusiveness.org (Accessed 8th October 2012 at 2.50pm).

The Economic and Social Research Council, (ESRC), (2010 Updated September 2012, (p.2)). ‘ESRC Framework for Research Ethics’ (FRE).

The International Labour Office, Geneva. Department for Statistics. (2011, p.16). ‘Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work’. Department for Statistics, International Labour Office Publication.

xxiv

The NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac, (2016, p. 2), Introduction. https://data.NCVO.org.uk/almanac16/introduction-5/

The NCVO (2012) – Knowhow Non Profit ‘Philanthropic Capital.’ http://knowhownonprofit.org/funding/social-investment-1/investmenttypes/philanthropic-capital (Accessed 12th October 2012 at 10.30am).

The NCVO/CAF (2010/11, p. 25). ‘UK Giving 2011: An Overview of Charitable Giving in the UK, 2010/11’. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/who-we-are/services/opinions-omnibus-survey/classificatory-variables/index.html (Accessed 3rd December 2013 at 12.10pm).

The Pensions and Investments Research Consultants, (PRIC) (2015, p.7). ‘Valuing Your Talent: Human Capital Reporting: Investing for Sustainable Growth’. Research Report January 2015. www.valuingyourtalent.co.uk (Accessed 1st June 2016 at 10.30am).

‘The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012’. Chapter 3. Published by TSO@Blackwell. www.tsoshop.co.uk. 8th March 2012.

The SROI Network (2012, p.6). ‘Guide to commissioning for Maximum Value.’ A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Matter&Co, www.matterandco.com London. ISBN 978-0-9562274-0-9.

‘The SWW Charity’s Ethics Policy’. (2006), Version 1. Internal organisational document.

The UK Cabinet Office, Quarter 2, 2012 ‘Community Life Survey’ www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk (Accessed 16th March 2013 at 2.00pm).

‘The UK Civil Society Almanac 2010: Workforce’. www.skills-thirdsector.org.uk (Accessed 21st December 2012 at 2.00pm).

The Valuing Your Talent Partnership, (May 2016, pp.4,19,47). ‘Reporting Human Capital – Illustrating Your Company’s True Value’. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, (CIPD). Issued May 2016, Reference: 7187 © CIPD 2016.

The Voluntary Sector Workforce – ‘New Almanac Chronicles a Decade’s Growth’. (25th October 2012, pp.1-5). info@skills-thirdsector.org.uk Skills Third Sector, UK. (Accessed 28th September 2012 at 7.15pm).

The Welsh European Funding Office, (WEFO), (2014, p.1,7). ‘Using Volunteer’s Time as Match Funding’. Factsheet. Updated March 2014.

The Welsh Government’s, ‘Programme for Government’, (2011, Foreword). Publication. Crown Copyright 2011. WG13124.

xxv

The Welsh Government’s, ‘Tackling Poverty Action Plan, (2012-2016, p.5). Welsh Government Publication. Crown copyright 2012. WG 14688. www.cymru.gov.uk (Accessed on 20th December 2012 at 12.30pm).

The Welsh Government’s, (2012, p.1) ‘Shared Purpose – Shared delivery’. Consultation paper on the 10th January 2012.

The Welsh Government’s, (2013, p. preface) ‘Continuity and Change – Refreshing the Relationship between Welsh Government and the Third Sector in Wales’. Consultation paper, 16th May 2013.

Thompson, J., (2001:193,342,343,345,423,449,451,549). ‘Strategic Management’. Fourth edition. London: Thomson Learning.

TimeBank UK. ‘How to Set up Your Own Timebank’. http://timebanking.org.uk/ (Accessed 4th June 2016 at 11.05am).

Trades Union Congress, (TUC), (2012, p.4). ‘A Charter for Strengthening Relations Between Paid Staff and Volunteers: Agreement between Volunteering England and the TUC’. Conference paper. London 12th October 2012.

Trafford, V and Leshem, S., (2012 p. 170). ‘Stepping Stones to Achieving your Doctorate by Focussing on Your Viva from the Start.’ Open University Press. McGraw Hill Education. Berkshire, England.

Tucker-Drob, E.M, Cheung, A.K. and Briley, D.A., (2014, pp.2047,2049). ‘Gross Domestic Product, Science Interest, and Science Achievement: A Person × Nation Interaction.’ Psychological Science 2014, Vol. 25(11) 2047 –2057. Sage Publishing.

Tryggestad, K., Jutesen, L. and Mouritsen, J., (2013, pp. 69,70). ‘Project Temporalities: How Frogs Can Become Stakeholders’. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Vol. 6. No. 1. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 69 – 87.

Tsai, P. C. F., Yeh, C. R., Shu Ling, W. and Ing-Chung H., (2005, p.1871). ‘An Empirical Test of Stakeholder Influence Strategy Models: Evidence From Business Downsizing in Taiwan’. International Journal of Human Resource Management; Oct 2005, Vol. 16 Issue 10, p1862-1885, 24p, 5 Diagrams, 6 Charts.

Warshaw, D., (2004, p.3). ‘Building Non-Profit Capacity Through Workplace Volunteering.’ Vistas Volunteer Management Solutions, Conference Paper. Sheraton Waterside December 15th 2004.

WCVA, (2016). ‘Third Sector Statistical Resource. Published in July 2016. (Accessed 1st May 2018 at 10.00).

WCVA, February, (2015). ‘State of the Sector Survey 14 – Interim Results’. www.WCVA.org.uk (Accessed 27th May 2016 at 11.45am).

xxvi

WCVA, (March 2014, p.1). ‘Basic Statistics on the Third Sector in Wales’. Publication.

WCVA, (May 2013, p.1). ‘The Economic Value of Volunteers’. Publication. WCVA Third Sector Statistical Resource. 4. Volunteers, 4.19 Updated 03/05/2013. WCVA, (2012, p.3). Report. ‘The Third Sector in Wales: State of the Sector Survey September 2011 and January 2012 Results’.

WCVA, (May 2011). ‘The Third Sector Contribution to Business, Enterprise and Technology’. Briefing Paper, Publication.

Weisbrod, B. A., (1966, p.6). ‘Investing in Human Capital’. The Journal of Human Resources’. Vol. 1, No. 1. Summer, 1966. Pp. 5-21.

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 anaw 2. Crown Copyright 2015. Printed and published in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited.

Werr, A., (1999, p. 357). ‘The Language of Change. The roles of methods in the work of management consultants’. EFI, Stockholm School of Economics. Box 6501, SE-I13 83 Stockholm, Sweden. www.hhs.se. (Accessed 27th March 2013 at 1.00 pm).

Whyte, W. H., (1956, p.8-9). ‘The Organisation Man’. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Wiley, (2010, pp. 1-2). ‘Contemporary Issues in Social, Arts, Museum and Nonprofit Marketing’. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing; Feb 2010, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p1-2, 2p.

Williams, W. and Lewis, D., (2008, p.659). ‘Strategic Management Tools and Public Sector Management’. Public Management Review; Sept 2008, vol. 10 issue 5. Pp. 653-671.

Vanderstraeten, R., (June 2000, pp. 581-98) ‘Autopoiesis and Socialization: on Luhmann’s Reconceptualization of Communication,’ British Journal of Sociology Volume 51 Issue No. 2.

Van Der Wiele, T., Boselie, P. and Hesselink, M., (2002, p.184). ‘Empirical evidence for the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Business Performance.’ Managing Service Quality. Vol. 12 No. 3.

Van Teijlingen, E. R., and Hundley, V., (2001, p.2). ‘The Importance of Pilot Studies’. Social Research Update. Winter 2001. Issue 35. University of Surrey.

Volunteering England, (2011). ‘Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit’ (VIAT).Excerpt.https://ecommerce.volunteering.org.uk/PublicationDetails.aspx?ProductID=V311 (Accessed 21/09/2011 at 2.30pm).

Volunteering England, (2012). ‘A Guide to Avoiding Job Substitution.’ In Partnership with Locality, NAVCA and NCVO. UK Publication.

xxvii

Vroom, V., (1964 and 1970, pp.39, 230). ‘Work and Motivation’, Wiley, also published by Kreiger 1982.

Wang, L., Mook, L. and Handy, F., (2016, pp.3,4,5,6,8,9,20,21). ‘An Empirical Examination of Formal and Informal Volunteering in Canada.’ International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, May 2016. International Society for Third-Sector Research and the Johns Hopkins University 2016.

Williams, C., (2003, pp 531-541). ‘Developing Community Involvement: Local and Regional Participatory Cultures in Britain and their Implications for Policy.’ Regional Studies, 37 (5).

Yin, R. K., (2012, pp.3,19,91,104). ‘Applications of Case Study Research’. Sage Publications, California.

Yuen, P., (2004, p.6). ‘Current Issues in Health Services Management (MM566)’. Group Report, Managing SARS Outbreaks – The Stakeholders’ Model. pp. 1-36.

Zeithaml, V. A., (1988, p.2-22) ‘Customer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.’ Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, July 1988.

xxviii

Appendices

xxix

Appendix 1 – Suggested Questions for the Pilot Questionnaire

Appendix 2 – Pilot Questionnaire

Appendix 3 – Covering Letter to all Stakeholders

Appendix 4 – Consultant Questionnaire

Appendix 5 – Traditional Volunteer Questionnaire

Appendix 6 – Paid Employee Questionnaire

Appendix 7 – Board Member Questionnaire

Appendix 8 – Follow-up Interview Questions

xxx

Appendix 1

Suggested Questions for the Pilot Questionnaire

xxxi

Appendix 1

Suggested Questions for the Pilot Questionnaire

In order to commence the research, stakeholders were first identified and potential

questions were outlined, aligned to the appraches in the literature.

Consultants:

Quantitative - How many hours are you involved in quality marks?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of reputation, goodwill and branding, in your opinion that

is not being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Traditional volunteers:

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in formal volunteering?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of people volunteering their help in our activities, in your

opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual

reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in meetings?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of everyone working together for the benefit of the

community, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual reports?

xxxii

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in informal volunteering?

Qualitative – Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of volunteer time, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in learning?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of volunteers’ knowledge, in your opinion, that is not

being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Paid employees:

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in increasing your knowledge of

new technology or ways of working?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of improved technology, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in work that you are not paid for?

Qualitative – Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of paid employees working over and above the hours they

are paid for, in your opinion, that are not being reported on currently in the

SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in developing new management

systems?

xxxiii

Qualitative – Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of the improvement to our human resources, in your

opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual

reports?

Board members:

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in promoting the work of our

organisation?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of peoples’ social intangible contribution, in your opinion,

that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in governance training?

Qualitative – Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of increased knowledge, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual reports?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in the delivery of services?

Qualitative - Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

Mixed - What is the value of money saved by people giving freely to our

organisation, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual reports?

xxxiv

Appendix 2

Pilot Questionnaire

xxxv

Pilot questionnaire (piloted on 27th February 2014 with a selection of

stakeholders):

Dear Stakeholder,

I am currently studying for a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) at the

University of South Wales. As part of my research I have to complete a thesis. I have

decided to undertake my study on a sample of SWW Charity’s stakeholders and their

intangible contribution to our organisation’s success. Part of the research involves

collecting data by means of a questionnaire to gain views and opinions and I would

be grateful if you would spend some time completing it for me. The timeframe for

your answers is for a year from 1st April 2013 to the present day. If you need any

help in completing it, please do not hesitate to contact me. All information will be

treated in complete confidence, unless you have anything that you particularly want

to draw my attention to. Adding your name is optional but I will also be conducting

follow-up interviews with some stakeholders to gather further data. I look forward to

sharing the results with you at a future Stakeholder Day.

Thank you, Christine Esposito.

Name (optional)………………………………………………………………………

Please enter your name if you are prepared to give more information or be

interviewed.

1. Status – as a stakeholder of the SWWales Charity, please tick the box if you

are:

xxxvi

1.1 A Consultant/Assessor? If you have ticked this box please answer

questions 2.1, 2.12, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

1.2 B Community member/resident/voluntary group/partner? If you

have ticked this box please answer questions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3, 4, 5

and 6.

1.3 C Staff member? If you have ticked this box please answer questions

2.1, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.12, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

1.4 D Board member? If you have ticked this box please answer questions

2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

2. Do you undertake any voluntary work at the SWWales Charity that

includes any of the following?

All categories:

2.1 How are you involved in Quality Marks:

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in quality marks?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

xxxvii

Mixed - What is the value of reputation, goodwill and branding brought by our

achievement of quality marks, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently

in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

Category B only:

Category B only:

2.2 How do you contribute to social/community benefit (Altruistic Capital):

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in formal volunteering, doing

things for social/community benefit?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of people volunteering their help in our community

activities, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual accounts?

xxxviii

2.3 How are you involved in partnership working/meetings (Mass

collaboration)?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in meetings?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of everyone working together for the benefit of the

community, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual accounts?

2.4 How many voluntary hours do you contribute informally, as a third sector

stakeholder?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in informal volunteering?

xxxix

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of volunteer time, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

2.5 How many hours are you involved in learning to benefit the organisation

(Payback on volunteering/Volunteer Investment and Value Audit)?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in learning?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

xl

Mixed - What is the value of volunteers’ knowledge, in your opinion, that is not

being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

Category C only:

2.6 How do you improve your performance (Human Capital/Virtual Human

Resource Development)?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in improving your performance,

through technology or new ways of working?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

xli

Mixed - What is the value of improved technology, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

2.7 Do you spend working that you’re not paid for (Voluntary labour of paid

employees)?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in work that you’re not paid for?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of paid staff working over and above the hours they are

paid for, in your opinion, that are not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual accounts?

2.8 How are you involved in new management systems (Human Resource

Accounting)?

xlii

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in improving new management

systems?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of the improvement to our human resources, in your

opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual

accounts?

Category D only:

2.9 How do you actively promote our organisation (Return on Capital

Employed)?

xliii

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in actively promoting the

performance of our organisation?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of peoples’ promotion, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

2.10 How are you involved in governance training?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in governance training?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

xliv

Mixed - What is the value of increased knowledge, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

2.11 How are you involved in social clauses to enable us to deliver contracts and

services (Social value)?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in the delivery of services?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of money saved by people giving freely to our

organisation, in your opinion, that is not being reported on currently in the SWWales

Charity’s annual accounts?

xlv

All categories:

2.12 How are you involved in safeguarding the environment?

Quantitative – How many hours are you involved in ensuring that our natural

environment is safeguarded?

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4+hours

Qualitative - Why, in your opinion, does this benefit the SWWales Charity?

Mixed - What is the value of good CSR, in your opinion, that is not being reported

on currently in the SWWales Charity’s annual accounts?

3. Do you think that the organisation is supported by voluntary contributions?

Yes No

Why?

xlvi

4. Do you think that your voluntary activity should be acknowledged?

Yes No

Why?

5. Do you think that the organisation would be less successful if it was not for

voluntary contributions?

Yes No

Why?

6. Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. I will be contacting you again

shortly, if you have put your name on this questionnaire, to inform you of my

findings and ask you if you would like to take part in a follow-up interview.

xlvii

Appendix 3

Covering Letter to all Stakeholders

xlviii

Dear Stakeholder,

Re: Doctoral research aim - ‘To identify the tangible and intangible voluntary

contributions made by all stakeholders of a third sector organisation – a case

study of a SWWales charity.’

I am currently studying for a Doctorate in Business Administration, (DBA) at the

University of South Wales. As part of my research I have to complete a thesis. I have

decided to undertake my study on a sample of SWWales Charity’s stakeholders’ that

include you and your contribution to our organisation.

Part of my research involves collecting data by means of a confidential questionnaire

to gain your views and opinions. I would be grateful if you would spend some time

completing the attached for me. I will ensure that you have plenty of support to

complete it, if needed. If you are willing to have a face to face follow-up interview

with me, please ensure that you add your name to the questionnaire. All results will

be anonymous and there will be no way of knowing who gave a particular answer or

comment. I will share all my findings with you as I analyse the data but in the

meantime, if there’s anything you’re not sure of please do not hesitate to let me

know.

Thank you,

xlix

Christine Esposito, Director.

Appendix 4

Consultant Questionnaire

l

Consultant Questionnaire

Name (optional)………………………………………………………………………

Please enter your name if you are prepared to give more information or be involved

in a follow-up interview.

1.0 How are you involved with the SWWales Charity?

1.1 Do you contribute any time to the SWWales Charity, that you’re not paid for?

Yes No

1.2 If you ticked, ’yes’ to 1.1, approximately how many hours do you contribute per

month?

0 hours 10 hours 20hours 30+hours

2.0 Are you involved in Quality Marks or continuous improvement?

li

Yes No

2.1 How many hours per month are you involved in quality marks or continuous

improvement for the SWWales Charity that you’re not paid for?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.2. Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

2.3. What is the value of reputation, goodwill and branding brought by our

achievement of quality marks and continuous improvement?

Category B only:

3.0 How are you involved in safeguarding the SWWales Charity’s

environment?

3.1 How many hours per month are you involved in ensuring that our natural

environment is safeguarded?

lii

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

3.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

3.3 What is the value, in your opinion, of good Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR), being considerate of the environment?

4.0 Do you think that the organisation is supported by voluntary your

contributions?

Yes No

4.1 Why?

liii

5.0 Do you think that your voluntary activity should be measured in some way?

Yes No

5.1 Why?

6.0 Do you think that the organisation would be less successful if it was not for

your voluntary contributions?

Yes No

6.1Why?

7.0 Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. I will be contacting you again

shortly, if you have put your name on this questionnaire, to inform you of my

findings and ask you if you would like to take part in a follow-up interview.

liv

Appendix 5

Traditional Volunteer Questionnaire

lv

Traditional Volunteer Questionnaire

Name (optional)………………………………………………………………………

Please enter your name if you are prepared to give more information or be involved

in a follow-up interview.

1.0 How are you involved with the SWWales Charity?

1.1 Do you contribute any time to the SWWales Charity, that you’re not paid for?

Yes No

1.2 If you ticked, ’yes’ to 1.1, approximately how many hours do you contribute per

month?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.0 Are you involved in Quality Marks?

lvi

Yes No

2.1 How many hours per month are you involved in quality marks?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.2. Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

2.3. Do you think that there is a value of reputation, goodwill and branding brought

by our achievement of quality marks, if so why?

3.0 How do you contribute to social/community benefit?

3.1 Do you give any hours per month doing things for community benefit?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

lvii

3.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

3.3 Do you think that there is a value of people volunteering their help in our

community activities?

4.0 How are you involved in partnership working/meetings?

4.1 Are you involved in SWWales Charity meetings, if so how many hours?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

4.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

lviii

4.3 Do you think that there is a value of everyone working together for the benefit of

the community?

5.0 How many voluntary hours do you contribute informally?

5.1 Are you involved in informal volunteering, if so how many hours?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

5.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

5.3 What is the value of your volunteer time?

6.0 How many hours are you involved in learning to benefit the organisation?

6.1 Are you involved in learning, if so how many hours?

lix

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

6.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

6.3 What is the value of volunteers’ gaining knowledge?

7.0 How are you involved in safeguarding SWWales Charity’s environment?

7. Are you involved in ensuring that our natural environment is safeguarded, if so

how many hours?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

7.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

lx

7.3 Do you think that good Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), being considerate

of the environment, has a value?

8.0 Do you think that the organisation is supported by your voluntary

contributions?

Yes No

8.1 Why?

9.0 Do you think that your voluntary activity should be acknowledged?

Yes No

9.1 Why?

10. Do you think that the organisation would be less successful if it was not for

your voluntary contributions?

lxi

Yes No

10.1Why?

11. Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. I will be contacting you again

shortly, if you have put your name on this questionnaire, to inform you of my

findings and ask you if you would like to take part in a follow-up interview.

lxii

Appendix 6

Paid Employee Questionnaire

lxiii

Paid Employee Questionnaire

Name (optional)………………………………………………………………………

Please enter your name if you are prepared to give more information or be involved

in a follow-up interview.

1.0 How are you involved with the SWWales Charity?

1.1 Do you contribute any time to the SWWales Charity, that you’re not paid for?

Yes No

1.2 If you ticked, ’yes’ to 1.1, approximately how many hours do you contribute per

month?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.0 Are you involved in Quality Marks?

Yes No

lxiv

2.1 How many hours per month are you involved in quality marks?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.2. Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

2.3. What is the value of reputation, goodwill and branding brought by our

achievement of quality marks, in your opinion?

3.0 How do you improve your performance?

3.1 How many hours per month are you involved in improving your performance,

through technology or new ways of working?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

lxv

3.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

3.3 What is the value of improved technology, in your opinion?

4.0 Do you spend any time working that you’re not paid for?

4.1 How many hours per month are you involved in work that you’re not paid for?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

4.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

4.3 What is the value of paid staff working over and above the hours they are paid

for, in your opinion?

5.0 How are you involved in new management systems?

lxvi

5.1 How many hours are you involved in improving new management systems?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

5.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

5.3 What is the value of the improvement to our human resources, in your opinion?

3. 2.12 How are you involved in safeguarding the environment?

6.0 How are you involved in safeguarding the SWWales Charity’s

environment?

6.1 How many hours per month are you involved in ensuring that our natural

environment is safeguarded?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

6.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

lxvii

6.3 What is the value, in your opinion, of good Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR), being considerate of the environment?

7.0 Do you think that the organisation is supported by your voluntary

contributions?

Yes No

7.1 Why?

8.0 Do you think that your voluntary activity should be measured in some way?

Yes No

8.1 Why?

lxviii

9.0 Do you think that the organisation would be less successful if it was not for

voluntary contributions?

Yes No

9.1Why?

10.0 Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. I will be contacting you again

shortly, if you have put your name on this questionnaire, to inform you of my

findings and ask you if you would like to take part in a follow-up interview.

lxix

Appendix 7

Board Member Questionnaire

lxx

Board Member Questionnaire

Name (optional)………………………………………………………………………

Please enter your name if you are prepared to give more information or be involved

in a follow-up interview.

1.0 How are you involved with the SWWales Charity?

1.1 Do you contribute any time to the SWWales Charity, that you’re not paid for?

Yes No

1.2 If you ticked, ’yes’ to 1.1, approximately how many hours do you contribute

overall per month?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.0 Are you involved in Quality Marks?

Yes No

lxxi

2.1 How many hours per month are you involved in quality marks?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

2.2. Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

2.3. What is the value of reputation, goodwill and branding brought by our

achievement of quality marks, in your opinion?

Category B only:

3.0 Do you ever talk to/explain to external people or organisations about the

work of the SWWales Charity?

3.1 How many hours are you involved in actively promoting the performance of our

organisation?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

lxxii

3.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

3.3 What is the value of peoples’ promotion, of the SWWales Charity, in your

opinion, that is not being reported on currently?

4.0 How many hours are you involved in governance training?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

4.1 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

4.2 What is the value of increased knowledge, in your opinion, that is not being

reported on currently?

lxxiii

4.3 What is the value of money saved by people giving their knowledge freely to our

organisation in your opinion?

5.0 How are you involved to enable us to deliver contracts and services?

5.1 How many hours are you involved in the delivery of services?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

5.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

5.3 What is the value of money saved by Board members giving freely to our

organisation?

lxxiv

6.0 How are you involved in safeguarding the SWWales Charity’s

environment?

6.1 How many hours per month are you involved in ensuring that our natural

environment is safeguarded?

0 hours 10 hours 20 hours 30+hours

6.2 Do you think that this benefits the SWWales Charity? If so why?

6.3 What is the value, in your opinion, of good Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR), being considerate of the environment?

7.0 Do you think that the organisation is supported by your voluntary

contributions?

lxxv

Yes No

7.1 Why?

8.0 Do you think that your voluntary activity should be measured in some way?

Yes No

8.1 Why?

9.0 Do you think that your voluntary activity should be acknowledged?

Yes No

9.1Why?

lxxvi

10.0 Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. I will be contacting you again

shortly, if you have put your name on this questionnaire, to inform you of my

findings and ask you if you would like to take part in a follow-up interview.

lxxvii

Appendix 8

Follow-up Interview Questions

lxxviii

Follow-up Interview Questions

Consultants:

1. If you knew the benefit to the organisation of your contribution, would you still

give it freely?

2. How has your personal recognition and reputation been enhanced by your

involvement with the SWWales Charity?

3. How do you think that community members benefit from your contribution?

Traditional Volunteers:

1. If you knew the benefit to the organisation of your contribution, especially in your

support of paid employees, would you still give it freely?

2. Has your personal satisfaction, (knowledge, confidence, development and meeting

new people) increased through your voluntary work?

3. What do you think is the value to others of you passing on your skills?

Paid Employees:

1. If you knew the benefit to the organisation of your contribution, would you still

give it freely?

lxxix

2. Have you benefitted personally through your voluntary activity or has there been a

detrimental effect?

3. What is the value to others of you working over and above your contracted hours?

4. Have community members benefitted from your voluntary contribution?

Board Members:

1. If you knew the benefit to the organisation of your contribution, how would you

feel about still giving it freely?

2. Do you feel powerful by being a member of the Board of the SWWales Charity, if

so, please explain in which ways?

3. What exactly is it that you get personally by contributing to the community?

lxxx