Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and apply the social enterprise balanced scorecard (SEBS) as an amended balanced scorecard technique for use evaluating UK social enterprises.

Design/methodology/approach

The study involved exploring the potential mainstream application of the balanced scorecard in UK social enterprises to learn how this process show the ways in which social enterprises can develop, and implement and track the performance of their socially driven strategies. Describes the development of an SEBS and its testing by 12 social enterprises in a pilot training programme (August 2004‐December 2004).

Findings

The results indicated that the SEBS had changed participant views about their organizations in terms of: increased employee understanding about their organization as a business; the usefulness as a business planning tool for social enterprises; the natural fit of the SEBS alongside the existing UK quality accreditation scheme of Investors In People; the power of the SEBS to be an effective means to engage staff and team members as an early‐warning system for potential problems; helping to redress the balance between purely financial gains and social purpose; and providing focus, clarity, and the ability to remove non‐essential detail from strategic planning. Concludes that: Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard is capable of being adapted to suit social enterprises; positive outcomes include creating a common language through which social entrepreneurs can share and compare experience, even if they operate in different industries; and the application of the SEBS can enable organizations to become better businesses, while demonstrating social value added to stakeholders.

Originality/value

Reveals the benefits of extending the balanced scorecard approach to the evaluation of social enterprises.

Citation

Somers, A.B. (2005), "Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises", Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610580000706