Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises: The use of Delphi technique

Procházková, Petra Taušl; Nosková, Marta; Machová, Kristýna; Velíšková, Veronika Article Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises: The use of Delphi technique Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Procházková, Petra Taušl; Nosková, Marta; Machová, Kristýna; Velíšková, Veronika (2021) : Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises: The use of Delphi technique, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 22, Iss. 6, pp. 1396-1415, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.15629 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317529 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Business Economics and Management ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2021 Volume 22 Issue 6: 1396–1415 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.15629 DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INDICATORS FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISES: THE USE OF DELPHI TECHNIQUE Petra TAUŠL PROCHÁZKOVÁ , Marta NOSKOVÁ *, Kristýna MACHOVÁ , Veronika VELÍŠKOVÁ Department of Business Administration and Management, Faculty of Economics, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic Received 16 November 2020; accepted 27 April 2021 Abstract. Social enterprises have become a natural part of the economy. Their importance is significantly increasing, as well as the need to evaluate their performance. There are different points of view on the indicators and methods used to evaluate their performance and they often lack simplicity and are costly and time consuming. Thus, this study aims to identify and discuss performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises with particular focus on identifying a set of indicators that might be applied without placing high demands on each social enterprise. A two-phase approach was adopted and applied in the Czech social entrepreneurship environment. First, the Delphi technique was used to get a set of indicators for each of the areas of the triple bottom line principles. Consequently, an empirical examination of these indicators using a set of social enterprises was conducted. Final results were determined using Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). As a result, a set of twelve indicators that cover social, economic, environmental and local areas are proposed. These indicators reflect the opinions of experts in the field as well as their practical usefulness, which is discussed at the end of the paper. Keywords: social enterprise, performance indicators, Delphi method, development of indicators, triple bottom line, indicator proposal. JEL Classification: L25, L26, L21. Introduction It has been widely discussed among scholars that social entrepreneurship possesses a permanent and important position in an economy (Alarifi etal., 2019; Bacq & Janssen, 2011). There is a growing body of literature aimed at investigating various fields of social entrepreneurship with great attention placed on the public sector. However, there is a lack of a unifying paradigm in the field of social entrepreneurship (Bacq & Janssen, 2011) and from many Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1397 perspectives, despite the great attention, the level of knowledge on social entrepreneurship may be considered as still in its infancy (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Saebi etal., 2019). Research in social entrepreneurship remains fragmented and disorganized. There are several streams of interest. One of them concentrates on the evaluation, measurement, and the performance indicators of social enterprises. This scope has been attracting significant attention and presents very comprehensive and challenging questions (Bagnoli & Megali, 2011; Crucke & Decramer, 2016; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Irene etal., 2016; Kraus etal., 2017). In order to understand the importance of evaluation and setting performance indicators, it is essential to understand how social enterprises are understood and what kind of specifics are related to them. In a nutshell, social enterprises is a segment that follows social and/ or environmental missions while simultaneously fulfilling basic economic principles (AbuSaifan, 2012; Canestrino etal., 2020). The application of triple bottom line principle is well established (Elkington, 1998). However, across regions, there is a difference in understanding what kind of subjects may be considered as social enterprise. Bacq and Janssen (2011) discuss different schools of thought: American Social Innovation School, American Social Enterprise School, and European School. These schools follow different approaches to social entrepreneurship and social enterprises. For the aim of this study, the European approach is considered as the most significant. In Europe, attention is turned to the concept of social enterprise. A social enterprise is hence understood as per the conceptual and legal definition (Alegre etal., 2017; Bacq & Janssen, 2011; European Commission, 2020). While conceptual definition follows characteristic attributes such as pursuing explicit social/environmental missions for the community, profit distribution limits, involvement of stakeholders, independent governance related to ownership structure; the legal definition is related to setting legal and institutional norms that are specially created in order to support social entrepreneurial subjects. To sum up the current legal status quo in Europe, social enterprises adhere to such legislation/statutes designed especially for social enterprises and/or via existing legal forms that establish social enterprise criteria. For studying the aspects of social enterprises, performance evaluation is important because social enterprises operate on the same market as other commercial enterprises that face similar situations. However, in comparison to these organizations, whose performances can be expressed relatively easily by using tangible and quantifiable indicators, it is much more complex to identify performance indicators for social enterprises. They might also be accountable to a greater number of stakeholders and expectations. Hence, the evaluation of a social enterprise’s performance remains a complicated issue in regard to stakeholder relations. Further, the majority of social enterprises are supported by governmental or other initiatives. Hence, despite the effort to reach financial independence, many social enterprises depend on multi-source financing. Thus, Crucke and Decramer (2016) argue, the proper evaluation of social enterprise performances may send a clear signal that social enterprises are managed well, the financial resources are used effectively, and the aim of the social enterprise is met. In this context, the attempts to construct performance evaluation indicators that might be applied on a large scale to social enterprises are considered as critical to the future development of social enterprises. 1398 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... This article aims to open up aspects of performance evaluation indicators of social enterprises by proposing a set of indicators using the Delphi technique and keeping in mind the requirement to optimally get and measure these indicators without requiring massive time and financial demands and also active cooperation from social enterprises themselves. To evaluate the indicators in practice a comparative analysis on a sample of social enterprises follows the Delphi technique. The next part of the study is as follows. Theoretical background in the context of various evaluation approaches of social enterprises’ performance is given in the first section. Next, the section describes data, methods, and the empirical approach. The following section, Results, presents results of the Delphi technique that are empirically applied and compared to a sample of social enterprises. The last section of the study discusses findings and potential implications on practice. It also provides suggestions for future research. 1. Theoretical background Despite all the concepts and suggestions that have been discussed regarding performance evaluation, research in this field still falls behind in practice (Rawhouser etal., 2019). Thus, the next part of the study concentrates on discussing the various approaches to the evaluation and the performance indicators of social enterprises. In addition, following section focuses on the review of empirical applications of evaluation tools in the Czech Republic in order to see how much has already been done in practice. The research in this rubric is processed in several ways. The first stream uses and modifies existing indicators and methods designed for the business sector (Emerson, 2003; Gray, 2001; Somers, 2005). A second stream is formed by scholars who formulate new models and indicators (Crucke & Decramer, 2016; McLoughlin etal., 2009; New Economics Foundation, 2007) and finally the third stream is trying to categorize and review current approaches in order to get feedback on them (Arena etal., 2015; Bagnoli & Megali, 2011; Chmelik etal., 2015). OECD (2015) mentions two main approaches to performance measurement. The first approach works with a set of indicators pre-defined for each triple bottom line perspective with limited consideration of the size or the sector of activity of the social enterprise. The second approach pays greater attention to individual metrics tailored to individual social enterprises. To sum up, the field of discussion is very open and broad. Individual indicators and methods are discussed in detail and a comprehensive approach with the ambition to classify these indicators to particular rubrics is on the agenda too. Table1 outlines a list of various categories that have been identified by several scholars with the ambition to classify approaches to social enterprises’ performance measurement. Even though the list is not totally comprehensive, it clearly demonstrates how wide the spectrum of this rubric is and how different (or similar) scholars understand the approaches, and upon a closer look at how demanding many of these approaches are. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1399 Table 1. Various identified categories of social enterprises measurement (source: Arena etal., 2015; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Reeder & Colantonio, 2013; Maas & Liket, 2011; New Economic Foundation, 2007) Author(s) Approaches Reeder and Colantonio (2013) Bottom-up perspectives: (a) Social audit, (b) SROI Statistical approaches to assessing changes: (a) Before and after comparison, (b) Randomized control trial, (c) Cost Effectiveness Analysis, (d) Cost Benefit Analysis. Collation of indicators of relevant results: (a) Balanced scorecard, (b) Multicriteria dimension analysis, (c) Rating system. Expert opinions: (a) Delphi method, (b) Standards – yes/no response whether a particular standard has been met. Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) Logic models based on the input-output-outcome-impact chain. Models using expected returns and cost effectiveness – e.g., (a)SROI, (b)The best available charitable option, (c) Benefit-Cost Ratio. Experimental methods – e.g., Randomized control trials. Integrative models – e.g., (a) Balanced scorecard, (b) Strategy maps, (c)Dashboards. Participatory and relationship-based methods – e.g., (a) Constituency feedback and perception reports, (b) Participatory rural appraisal and variants. Arena etal. (2015) Process-based models – e.g., (a) MIAA – Methodology for Impact Analysis and Assessment, (b) SIA – Social Impact Assessment. Dashboards and scorecards measuring different performance dimensions – e.g., (a) Balanced scorecard, (b) Public Value Score Card, (c) SIMPLE – Social Impact for Local Economy, (d) SAVE – Social Added Value Evaluation. Synthetic indicators – e.g., (a) SROI, (b) LM3 – Local Multiplier 3, (c) Gamma Model. New Economic Foundation (2007) Holistic methods – e.g., (a) SROI, (b) Social accounting and auditing, (c) Social reporting standard. Performance indicators and impact on local economic activities – e.g., (a) LM3, (b) Input-Output Analysis, (c) Eco-mapping. Quality improvement indicators of organization performance – e.g., (a) EFQM Excellence Model, (b) ISO 26000, (c) ISO 9000, (d) SA 8000. Methods oriented on strategic management – e.g., (a) Balanced scorecard, (b) SWOT. Maas and Liket (2011) Process methods – e.g., (a) Balanced scorecard, (b) SROI, (c) SCA – Social Compatibility Analysis, (d) Acumen Scorecard, (e) Measuring impacts toolkit, (f) SEAT – Socioeconomic Assessment Toolbox. Impact methods – e.g., (a) MIF – Measuring Impact Framework, (b) OASIS – Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts, (c) Robin Hood Foundation Benefit-Cost Ratio, (d) SIA – Social Impact Assessment. Monetarization methods – e.g., (a) Local multiplier, (b) SCEA – Social Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, (c) SVA - Stakeholder Value Added, (d) SROI, (e) SRA – Social Return Assessment, (f) BACO – Best Available Charitable Option. 1400 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... 1.1. Using performance indicators and methods in practice – current state Empirical application of concrete evaluation tools is driven by various circumstances, needs, and motivations, e.g., sector of activity, size of social enterprise, or stakeholder’s expectations. Thus, the aim of this section is to confront the theoretical background with practice in the social enterprise area in Czech environment. First, it has to be mentioned that social enterprises in the Czech Republic have not been legally defined yet and there are officially no accepted criteria determining social enterprises’ identification. However, a common (but not legally) accepted criteria of social enterprises are criteria listed on the website Czech Social Entrepreneurship (2020). There is also no official database of social enterprises, but again the most cited (and commonly accepted) list of Czech social enterprises can be found on the website Czech Social Entrepreneurship (2020). Even though the commonly accepted list covers approx. 230 entities, there is a rough estimation that the number of social enterprises might be significantly higher, around 3,800 subjects (Fraňková, 2019). There is a limited number of studies that have been applied to performance indicators. A majority of them are individual case studies and papers, some also show surveys conducted among social enterprises, while some are related to the requirement of financial support (mainly EU funds support) provided by institutional bodies. Concretely, Prochazkova and Noskova (2020) discuss the LM3 method (Local Multiplier 3 method) versus input-output analysis and apply it on a sample of 143 social enterprises; Asmalovskij etal. (2019) analyze indicators related to the financial performance of 112 social enterprises; Pelucha etal. (2017) apply a particular qualitative method using questionnaire investigating three levels of stakeholders (policy-makers, advisers, and social entrepreneurs). Further, Vyskočil (2014) proposes several indicators for evaluation, mainly financial, but also draws attention to social and environmental indicators but in a very limited scope and without empirical application. Bednarikova and Francova (2011) turn attention to SROI and LM3. SROI was calculated by choosing one social enterprise and LM3 was calculated too. In the case of both methods, it turned out that it is not possible to suggest using them on a large-scale under the current conditions of social entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic. There is very limited experience of their applicability and it demands time, financial resources and cooperation from stakeholders. Moreover, LM3 focuses only on the economic aspect. Another source of performance measurement is several surveys among social enterprises. These surveys are usually organized by individual scholars, institutional bodies, or non-governmental organizations (summary at Fraňková, 2019). A list of the most important ones is analyzed in Prochazkova and Machova (2020). The research reveals that only one research provided by Prochazkova (more in Prochazkova & Machova, 2020) concentrates on the topic of measurement and gets direct feedback from social enterprises. The findings give quite a clear hint about the situation. There is negligible experience with measurement from the side of social enterprises, and if there is any, it is in the form of individual indicators related to financial and social/environmental missions. SROI was actively computed by a few enterprises and occasionally another method was mentioned – e.g., Social Earnings Ratio, or cost-benefit analysis. Lastly, Fraňková (2019) mentions support measures specifically addressed to social enterprises, mainly supporting schemes on the level of EU funds. Within these programs, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1401 performance indicators are usually focused on the physical output (product/services) – e.g., total number of participants/offered services, number of innovative services, number of retrainings, total number of newly established social enterprises etc. The number of studies and attempts dedicated to social enterprises’ performance evaluation is limited and fragmented and there is definitely need for further examination. The reasons for that are several but the main limitations are (a) poor legislative background, (b) limited data availability in social enterprises’ mapping efforts, and (c) limited spectrum of generally accepted indicators/evaluation frameworks. 2. Materials and methods It is clear that there are many different approaches to the measurement of a social enterprise’s performance. One possibility is the use of the Delphi method, that has been widely used for the purpose of indicator development. For example, Musa etal. (2015) used it to develop environmental well-being indicators for the evaluation of urban sustainability in Malaysia. In the same country, Ahmad and Wong (2019) developed weighted triple-bottom line sustainability indicators for the food manufacturing industry. Sustainability development was also the main aim of Chang and Cheng (2019) who identified “key sustainability indicators that play a vital role in boosting the sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs” (Chang & Cheng, 2019, p.458). And at last, in Europe, Meijering etal. (2018) used the Delphi method to identify the most relevant components of urban sustainability. Very little was found on the use of Delphi method for the purpose of indicator development that would measure the performance of social enterprises. The exception is the work of Crucke and Decramer (2016), who proposed measurement instruments for organizational performance of social enterprises and in one phase of the research used the Delphi method. Also, Kraus etal. (2017) partly used Delphi method in order to measure social entrepreneurship orientation (thus, the aim of their paper was not to assess the performance of the enterprise). Also, Kavoura and Andersson (2016) applied the Delphi method in order to develop a strategy for an entrepreneurship counseling design, and according to the authors, their results may well apply to non-profit organizations (thus again, the aim of their paper was not to develop indicators). Figure 1. Design of the research •idenficaon of the research problem Preparaon •selecon of experts •1st round •2nd round •3rd round •proposed indicators Stage 1: Delphi method •idenficaon of the social enterprises •data availability verificaon Stage 2: Verificaon of proposed indicators •final rank of indicators using TOPSIS •final proposal Final proposal of indicators 1402 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... Given the positive experiences of these authors with the Delphi method, it was decided to base this research on the same method. This study has a two-stage design (see Figure1). In stage 1, the Delphi method was used and as a result, a set of proposed indicators was developed. Indicators are divided into 3 sections based on triple bottom line concept as the essential underpinnings of social entrepreneurship philosophy (see section Introduction, e.g. Abu-Saifan, 2012; Elkington, 1998; OECD, 2015). In stage 2, these indicators were tested in order to verify their usefulness empirically. Thus, in the next part, both stages will be described in terms of methodology as well as the method used for compilation of final proposal of indicators. 2.1. Delphi method The Delphi procedure is based on a multi-round controlled survey among a group of experts in order to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion (Dalkey & Helmer, 1962). The procedure makes it possible to work with a group of individuals as a whole, and thus, efficiently handle a given problem. Experts in the field are asked to participate in the survey that is focused on a specific problem (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). This type of research can be used, for example, to forecast the future, to help identify problems and their solutions, set goals and priorities, or to delineate differences among several reference groups (Delbecq etal., 1975). Modern usage was analyzed by Flostrand etal. (2020), who provided extensive bibliographic analysis of the methods’ use since 1975. The method assumes that the expert in the field is better oriented to the issue than a person who does not have a great knowledge of the topic. Therefore, the selection of participating experts is crucial for the successful conduct of the Delphi method. Opinions on the optimum number of experts also differ, Landeta (2006) report the ideal range between 7 and 30, Gordon (1994) suggests 15–35 people and Witkin and Altschuld (1995) suggests below 50 people. When addressing experts, it is important to count on a limited rate of return, which should be between 35–75% (Gordon, 1994). Ensuring anonymity and consensus among participants is an important element of this approach. The Delphi method is processed in several rounds, usually three, with two rounds being considered as a minimum (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Ludwig (1997) and Crucke and Decramer (2016) warn that 3 rounds are sufficient to find the desired answers and no longer distort data. The actual processing of the Delphi results may vary. The most common tool for obtaining a characteristic of group judgment is processing the results through basic descriptive statistics (median, modus, mean or standard deviation). Also, the Wilcoxon test or the Kendall coefficient of conformity is commonly used (Egerová & Mužík, 2010; García-Uceda etal., 2017). For the processing of the Delphi method presented in this study the procedure described and used by Egerová and Mužík (2010), García-Uceda etal. (2017) was applied. 2.1.1. Delphi research – description The investigation itself took place in January and February 2018. At this stage, a research problem was identified, a suitable group of experts was selected, and a small group of Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1403 experts was used for pilot research. The task of the experts was to propose indicators for each triple bottom line area – social, economic, and environmental/local (more in the section Results). The basic criterion of the expert selection was the fact that the respondent must know the area of social entrepreneurship, have knowledge of this area, be oriented in it, and have either work or expertise in it. Managers and owners of social enterprises were excluded from the selection. Finally, several expert groups were identified. Representatives from the areas shown in Table 2 were involved. In total, 70 experts were identified. The first round was attended by 30 experts (43% return), the second round was attended by 22 of the 30 experts, and the third round was attended by 19 people. Overall, the sample was very satisfactory and sufficient. In the first round, experts were asked to identify 2–5 indicators for each area of triple bottom line principle that they consider as appropriate for social enterprises to report in order to measure their performance. The second round was based on the answers from the first round. The experts involved were asked to determine the importance of proposed indicators. The expert assigned 1 to 5 points to each indicator, where the value of 5 corresponded to the highest degree of importance. Indicators for the third round were sorted according to the results from the second round and only eight indicators for each area were used. If more factors are used, there is a risk of confusion or unwillingness to cooperate by experts in the next round. Table 2. Groups of experts (source: own, 2020)  •representatives from the state sphere dealing with the field of social entrepreneurship •e.g. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Group 1 –State sphere •academic researchers interested in social entrepreneurship Group 2 –Academic •associations •professional associations •clusters dealing with social entrepreneurship Group 3: Nonprofit Representatives •professional consultants specializing in social counseling •experts in the field of program project support intended for social entrepreneurship Group 4: Private sector 1410 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... Criterion A (weight 0.33) Criterion B (weight 0.67) Empirical results Rank Delphi points results Rank TOPSIS Score Final Rank EN5 31 4.5 81 5 0.381 5 EN6 6 8 75 6 0.243 7 EN7 31 4.5 72 7 0.314 6 EN8 13 7 49 8 0.059 8 4. Discussion The set of proposed indicators, that should improve reporting of social enterprises’ performance, is the main output of this study. In the social area, the first four indicators are as follows: S4, S7, S1, and S2. Indicators S1, S2, and S4 are closely related, all of them are dealing with work integration topics that naturally support the structure of social enterprises in the Czech environment. Indicators S1 and S2 are easily reachable, easy to report, and should be considered as a necessary and natural part of social enterprise reporting philosophy. Credit for these indicators is also given to numerous EU operational programs and/or national support schemes that usually ask for these indicators too. Indicators S7 and S4 have a more descriptive character, and are closely related to the essentials/principles of social entrepreneurship. Reporting all the social indicators is not difficult and could be presented in a very simple way by applying both approaches, qualitative and quantitative. Even though they cannot be collected without active cooperation from social enterprises, their reporting requires the minimum amount of effort and can be easily standardized, especially in situations when country specifics of social enterprises will be officially set. In the economic area, the indicators are EC1, EC3, EC4, EC5. EC1 shows how successful the company is in terms of their sales, and in the Czech Republic, this indicator can be easily found in the publicly available profit and loss statements. The second indicator EC3 shows the overall ability to manage resources. As in the previous case, this indicator can be easily found at the end of the profit and loss statements (in the Czech financial statements). As for the third indicator (EC4), it could be pointed out, that this indicator is pointless when there is a legal obligation to publish the statements. However, from the verification of proposed indicators research resulted, that not all social enterprises publish them (only 168 out of 319), and thus, it was proposed rightfully. The last proposed indicator is the Mission, vision, or strategy existence (EC5). All of them (mission, vision, and strategy) have slightly different meanings, however, together they express the enterprises’ ability to see itself in the present as well as in the future. The importance of their existence and the actual importance for an enterprise’s success was proven many times (e. g. by Collins & Porras, 2002 or Liker, 2004). Social enterprises publish their strategic ideas in 165 cases, which is more than half of the cases. The quality of statements differs. While some publish only their reasons for existence some publish their plans for the future (in different levels of details). To conclude, for the End of Table 9 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1411 economic area, most of the proposed indicators can be easily found in the financial statements (except for EC5), which should be published obligatorily. At the environmental/local area, the proposed indicators are EN2, EN1, EN3, EN4. All these indicators have local characteristics, some of them might be understood in an environmental way additionally. EN2, EN1, and EN3 show the level of interaction with local environment/stakeholders. This involves highlighting interaction with the community expressed in a quantitative but also a qualitative way. Further, indicator EN4 should be understood as indicator that follows previously mentioned indicators and deals with long-term impact. Evaluation of this parameter makes it difficult to identify the effect on the whole community. It should be understood as an indicator recognizing the secondary effect accompanying the work of a social enterprise. The practical application of this indicator might be seen in different ways. There are methodologies dealing with that in very sophisticated ways, however, these would not fulfill the criteria of research for this study (easy to provide, limited financial/time demands, widely applicable). Thus, another option of EN4 indicator is that it could be provided with a close relation to EN1, EN2, and EN3 by, e.g., measuring satisfaction of related stakeholders. All proposed indicators can be easily applied in practice. With regards to the current state of using performance indicators (see section 1.1) some of these indicators correspond to Asmalovskij etal. (2019), Pelucha etal. (2017) and Vyskočil (2014), additionally to some indicators addressed to social enterprises within supporting schemes on the EU level. However, none of these approaches is so comprehensive and respecting current limitations of social enterprises (financial, time limitations etc.). Thus, proposed scheme of indicators opens the possibility for unifying and clear evaluation scheme. Conclusions To conclude, the proposed indicators answer a universal set of questions that can cover the standard needs of several stakeholders. As given in the theoretical background of this study, two basic approaches might be applied in social enterprise performance measurement – specific and tailored or more generalized and standardized. This study aims to confront the second one, the standardized approach, because of its possibility to be used widely, easily, to answer basic stakeholder’s expectations, and without massive demands on social enterprises. Furthermore, as mentioned in chapter 1, research in this field is processed in several ways. Research proposed in this paper confronts first and second stream and further respects 3 main perspectives that social entrepreneurship is based on (local, social and economic). With regard to these facts, proposed set of indicators respect and complete ongoing research debate. The results of the research provide a more clearly articulated path for future research. The main task for the future research is to discuss model of involvement of selected stakeholders (e.g. governmental institutions, representatives of social enterprises and other important stakeholders) in process of adopting the proposed evaluation scheme to a greater extent and to empirically confirm the possibility of applying these indicators under the circumstances as stated in the aim of this article. 1412 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... Of course, it has limitations. The first limitation was already mentioned. When a specific stakeholder expectation needs to be met or for other specific requirements, a more tailored method/indicators should be applied (see chapter 1). But, it must be noted that specific requirements ask for specific information. Thus, it has to be used when a situation asks for it, but not seen as a general effort to evaluate social enterprise performance at a glance. The second limitation dwells in data availability which is a common problem. However, the proposed set of indicators minimize such problems due to the easy accessibility of this data through publicly available sources. Social enterprises rubric is still developing with increasing importance. It is necessary to track their development and support it by giving proper information to all subjects in their ecosystem about their usefulness. The way to do it is multifold and each approach has its pros and cons. The fact is that the rubric of performance indicators for social enterprises is dealing with the question of how to prove tangible and intangible aspects, and in the majority of situations, how to get data for such measurement. This article proposes a multidimensional system that could be elaborated upon and used for implementation. These variables could be integrated for various purposes and fields of analysis and could be used for the ex-post evaluation of the research. Author contributions PTP and MN conceived this study and were responsible for its conceptual design. PTP wrote the literature review. MN was responsible for research design and method. KM and VV collected the data and MN was responsible for data processing, statistical analysis and for data interpretation. PTP and MN wrote the section Conclusion. Disclosure statement Authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties. References Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/523 Ahmad, S., & Wong, K. Y. (2019). Development of weighted triple-bottom line sustainability indicators for the Malaysian food manufacturing industry using the Delphi method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.399 Alarifi, G., Robson, P., & Kromidha, E. (2019). The manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the social entrepreneurship context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1541015 Alegre, I., Kislenko, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2017). Organized chaos: mapping the definitions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1371631 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1413 Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Bengo, I. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8 Asmalovskij, A., Sadílek, T., Hinčica, V., & Mizerová, M. (2019). Performance of social enterprises in the Czech Republic. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1521865 Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6), 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242 Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009351111 Bednarikova, D., & Francova, P. (2011). Studie infrastruktury sociální ekonomiky v ČR. Nová ekonomika. https://ceske-socialni-podnikani.cz/images/pdf/Studie_infrastruktury_TESSEA_plna_verze_ podzim2011.pdf Canestrino, R., Ćwiklicki, M., Magliocca, P., & Pawełek, B. (2020). Understanding social entrepreneurship: A cultural perspective in business research. Journal of Business Research, 110, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.006 Chang, A., & Cheng, Y. (2019). Analysis model of the sustainability development of manufacturing small and mediumsized enterprises in Taiwan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 458–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.025 Chmelik, E., Musteen, M., & Ahsan, M. (2015). Measures of performance in the context of international social ventures: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2014.997781 Chráska, M. (2017). Metody pedagogického výzkumu. Grada Publishing. https://www.grada.cz/metody-pedagogickeho-vyzkumu-8365/ Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperCollins. http://assets.globalchange.gov/j7f7/05-prof-aracely-kuphal-jr-1/rGpgorDu7-built-to-last-successful-habits-of-visionary-com.pdf Crucke, S., & Decramer, A. (2016). The development of a measurement instrument for the organizational performance of social enterprises. Sustainability, 8(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020161 Czech Social Entrepreneurship. (2020). Principy a definice. http://www.ceske-socialni-podnikani.cz/ Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1962). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM727z1.html Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Scott Foresman Company. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118 Egerová, D., & Mužík, J. (2010). Aplikace metody Delphi při expertním stanovení faktorů ovlivňujících efektivnost e-learningu ve vzdělávání pracovníků v malých a středních podnicích. E+M. Ekonomie a Management, 13(2), 137–151. http://www.ekonomie-management.cz/download/1331826760_1072/13_egerova.pdf Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106 Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187 1414 P. Taušl Procházková et al. Development of performance evaluation indicators for social enterprises... European Commission. (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe – Comparative synthesis report. Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8274 Flostrand, A., Pitt, L., & Bridson, S. (2020). The Delphi technique in forecasting – A 42-year bibliographic analysis (1975–2017). Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 150, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119773 Fraňková, E. (2019). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Ceske socialni podnikani. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://ceske-socialni-podnikani.cz/images/pdf/Social_enterprises_ and_their-_ecosystems_in_Europe_Updated_country_report_Czech_Republic_final.pdf García-Uceda, E., Murillo-Luna, J. L., & Asín-Lafuente, J. (2017). Application of the Delphi method for the analysis of the factors determining social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business, Universidad del Pacífico, 9(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.21678/jb.2017.823 Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00207 Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi method. Futures research methodology. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from http://www.gerenciamento.ufba.br/downloads/delphi_method.pdf Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems: Vol.186. Multiple attribute decision making (pp.58–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3 Irene, B., Marika, A., Giovanni, A., & Mario, C. (2016). Indicators and metrics for social business: A review of current approaches. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2015.1049286 Kavoura, A., & Andersson, T. (2016). Applying Delphi method for strategic design of social entrepreneurship. Library Review, 65(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-06-2015-0062 Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Halberstadt, J., Shaw, E., & Syrjä, P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship orientation: Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(6), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0206 Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002 Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way. McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/ content/book/9780071392310 Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). Introduction, In Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp.3–12). Addison-Wesley. https://www.worldcat.org/title/delphi-method-techniques-andapplications/oclc/1883540 Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology. Journal of Extension, 35(5), 1–4. http://158.132.155.107/posh97/private/research/methods-delphi/future.pdf Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R.Burritt, S.Schaltegger, M.Bennett, T.Pohjola, & M.Csutora (Eds.), Eco-efficiency in industry and science: Vol.27. Environmental management accounting and supply chain management (pp.171–202). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1390-1_8 McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodagar, B., Khan, S., Harris, R., Arnaudo, G., & Mc Brearty, S. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises: The SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610910981734 Meijering, J. V., Tobi, H., & Kern, K. (2018). Defining and measuring urban sustainability in Europe: A Delphi study on identifying its most relevant components. Ecological Indicators, 90, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.055 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2021, 22(6): 1396–1415 1415 Musa, H. D., Yacob, M. R., Abdullah, A. M., & Ishak, M. Y. (2015). Delphi method of developing environmental well-being indicators for the evaluation of urban sustainability in Malaysia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 30, 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.044 New Economics Foundation. (2007). Measuring real value: A DIY guide to social return on investment. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from http://www.neweconomics.org OECD. (2015). Policy brief on social impact measurement for social enterprises. Policies for social entrepreneurship. Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from https://www.oecd.org/social/PB-SIM-Web_FINAL.pdf Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Pelucha, M., Kourilova, J., & Kveton, V. (2017). Barriers of social entrepreneurship development – A case study of the Czech Republic. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1313303 Prochazkova, P. T., & Machova, K. (2020). Social enterprises in the Czech Republic: Selected aspects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability (pp.622–633). Oeconomica. https://dspace5.zcu.cz/handle/11025/37046 Prochazkova, P. T., & Noskova, M. (2020). An application of input-output analysis to social enterprises: A case of the Czech Republic. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2019-0114 Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718 Reeder, N., & Colantonio, A. (2013). Measuring impact and non-financial returns in impact investing: A critical overview of concepts and practice (EIBURS Working Paper 2013/01). London School of Economics and Political Science. European Investment Bank Institute. https://lsecities.net/wp-content/ uploads/2013/10/Measuring_Impact-full-length-Oct-2013.pdf Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196 Somers, A. B. (2005). Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610580000706 Vyskočil, M. (2014). Podklad pro koncepci politiky vlády vůči NNO do roku 2020. Sociální podnikání. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.vlada.cz/assets/ppov/rnno/dokumenty/studie_vyskocil_ pro_web.pdf Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessment: A practical guide. Sage Publications. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002087289603900316