Application of the balanced scorecard and the cost-benefit model for evaluate of social projects

Social initiatives are not always considered in the context of efficiency the solution of certain tasks often prevails, without taking into account the necessary investments or generated results. In the current crisis, when access to financial resources is extremely limited, the issue of efficiency is of particular relevance both for the state and for private investors implementing social projects. One of the most common methods for their evaluation is the balanced scorecard and the cost-benefit model. The purpose of this work is to study the features of the practical application of these tools for evaluating the effectiveness of social projects, the rationale for specific metrics, approaches to their integration into a single system, as well as consideration of some features of the calculations, for example, the justification of the social discount rate. The work used such scientific methods as analysis, comparison, generalization and modeling. The author adapts the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of social projects, explains its structure and offers a typical model that can be used regardless the field of application (health, education, sports, etc.). Today the presence of a fair evaluation system will become an important competitive advantage that makes this study interesting for government agencies at the federal and regional levels, government corporations and businesses, as well as charitable foundations.

1. Fischer S., Stanak M. Social return on investment in child and adolescence health: Outcomes, methods, and economic parameters. LBI-HTA Project Report. 2017;(96). URL: https://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/1142/1/HTA-Projektbericht_Nr.96.pdf

2. Perrini F., Costanzo L. A., Karatas-Ozkan M. Measuring impact and creating change: A comparison of the main methods for social enterprises. Corporate Governance. 2021;21(2):237–251. DOI: 10.1108/CG-02–2020–0062

3. Kaplan R. S., Norton D. P. The balanced scorecard — measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. 1992;70(1):71–79. URL: https://steinbeis-bi.de/images/artikel/hbr_1992.pdf

4. Namadov V. D., Solntsev I. V. Development of a system performance targets for a professional football club. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Menedzhment = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management Series. 2021;20(4):559–580. (In Russ).

5. Moore M. H. The public value scorecard: A rejoinder and an alternative to “Strategic performance measurement and management in non-profit organizations” by Robert Kaplan. The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University. Working Paper. 2003;(18). URL: https://cpl.hks.harvard.edu/files/cpl/files/workingpaper_18.pdf

6. Arena M., Azzone G., Bengo I. Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2015;26(2):649–672. DOI: 10.1007/s11266–013–9436–8

7. Somers A. B. Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises Social Enterprise Journal. 2005;1(1):43–56. DOI: 10.1108/17508610580000706

8. Bagnoli L., Megali C. Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2011;40(1):149–165. DOI: 10.1177/0899764009351111

9. Mamabolo A., Myres K. Performance measurement in emerging market social enterprises using a balanced scorecard. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 2020;11(1):65–87. DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2018.1561499

10. Clark C., Rosenzweig W., Long D., Olsen S. Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures: Methods catalog. 2004. URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80n4f1mf

11. Ziller А., Phibbs Р. Integrating social impacts into cost- benefit analysis: A participative method: Case study: The NSW area assistance scheme. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2003;21(2):141–146. DOI: 10.3152/147154603781766365

12. Egorova L. G. Mathematical methods for decision analysis in economics, business and politics. Moscow: HSE Publ.; 2018. 64 p. URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2018/12/06/1144003117/WP7_2018_03______.pdf (In Russ.).

13. Harrison M. Valuing the future: The social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Productivity Commission Visiting Researcher Paper. 2010;(April). URL: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/cost-benefit-discount/cost-benefit-discount.pdf

14. Andreeva E. I., Gorshkova I. D., Kovalevskaya A. S. Recommendations for assessing the socio-economic efficiency of social programs: Definitions, approaches, practical experience. Moscow: Prospekt; 2014. 72 p. (In Russ.).

15. Freeman M. C., Groom B. How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2016;79:152–168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2016.06.004

16. Weitzman M. L. Gamma discounting. American Economic Review. 2001;91(1):260–271. DOI: 10.1257/aer.91.1.260

17. Gollier C. Discounting an uncertain future. Journal of Public Economics. 2002;85(2):149–166. DOI: 10.1016/S0047–2727(01)00079–2

18. Mulgan G. Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2010;8(3):38–43.

19. de Nooij M., van den Berg M., Koopmans C. C. Bread or games? A social cost-benefit analysis of the World Cup bid of the Netherlands and the winning Russian bid. Journal of Sports Economics. 2013;14(5):521–545. DOI: 10.1177/1527002511429825