Social impact assessment methods: A comparative analysis and application potential

UDC 316.4:042.3-005.33
DOI 10.20339/AM.04-26.087

Svetlana N. Vachkova, Doctor of Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Director of the Research Institute of Urban Studies and Global Education, Moscow City University (MCU), Moscow, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-3336, e-mail: svachkova@mgpu.ru

Anna G. Istomina, Junior Researcher, Moscow City University (MCU), Moscow, https://orcid.org/0000−0001−8094−7699, e-mail: istominaag@mgpu.ru

Tatiana Yu. Mysina, Junior Researcher, Moscow City University (MCU), Moscow, https://orcid.org/0000−0002−0473−6360, e-mail: mysinatyu@mgpu.ru

Valentina B. Salakhova, PhD in Psychology, Leading Researcher, Moscow City University (MCU); Leading Researcher, Centre for Security Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5056-6518, e-mail: vbsalakhova@mail.ru

The article is devoted to the analysis of contemporary social impact assessment methods of projects, programs, and initiatives. The relevance of the study is driven by the growing need for objective and transparent evaluation of social investment outcomes, the increasing requirements for substantiating the effectiveness of budgetary and extra-budgetary expenditures on social projects, as well as the development of management practices oriented toward evidence-based decision-making and the measurability of social impact.

The purpose of the study is to systematize tools for assessing social impacts, identify their key characteristics, areas of applicability, limitations, and potential for use in managerial practice. To achieve this aim, a purposive sample was formed to ensure maximum variation sampling of the approaches considered. The research sample comprises a systematized dataset containing descriptions of 22 social impact assessment methods and tools, presented in the form of a structured database.

The analysis shows that modern approaches to social impact assessment are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators, take into account the specifics of target groups, organizational resources, and the characteristics of implemented projects. The study identifies the advantages of the examined tools, including adaptability, versatility, transparency of criteria, and the possibility of application at various scales — from local projects to comprehensive programs. At the same time, the limitations are highlighted: the need for significant resources, dependence on expert capacity, difficulties in data collection, and variability in the interpretation of indicators.

The results of the study made it possible to formulate practical recommendations for the selection and use of social impact assessment methods, as well as to outline directions for the further improvement of tools for monitoring social initiatives.

Keywords: social impact assessment, social impact monitoring, social projects, social effectiveness criteria, social effectiveness indicators, social investments, stakeholders, managerial decision-making

References

1. Why Evaluate the Social Impact of Your Activities? [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.skolkovo.ru/expert-opinions/zachem-ocenivat-socialnoe-vliyan... (accessed on: 09.12.2025).
2. ‘Gold standard’ of impact. Best cases and practices for measuring the social impact of business [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3951953 (accessed on: 11.12.2025).
3. International approaches to impact assessment of social enterprises. Moscow: Charitable Foundation “Culture of Philanthropy”, 2023. 40 p.
4. Methodology for assessing social projects and solutions taking into account social significance [Electronic resource]. URL: https://vbudushee.ru/library/method/ (accessed on: 12.12.2025).
5. Methods for assessing social effects of projects: discussion at SPIEF-2024 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://nb-forum.ru/news/reportages/metodi-otsenki-sotsialnih-effektov-p... (accessed on: 09.12.2025).
6. Order of the Ministry of Labour of Russia No. 266н from 21 April 2025 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://mintrud.gov.ru/docs/mintrud/orders/3047 (accessed on: 09.12.2025).
7. Guide to Social Return on Investment (SROI) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60dc51e3c58aef413ae5c975/t/60f7fb... (accessed on: 11.12.2025).
8. What is ESG [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.sberegaem-vmeste.ru/publications/chto-takoe-esg-1 (accessed on: 12.12.2025).
9. Alomoto, W., Niñerola, A., Pié, L. Social impact assessment: a systematic review of literature. Social Indicators Research. 2022. No. 161. Pp. 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-021-02809-1
10. Atkisson, A., Hatcher, R.L. The compass index of sustainability: prototype for a comprehensive sustainability information system. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. No. 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333201000820
11. Best Available Charitable Option (BACO) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/toolkit/wayfinder-assessment-resources/INDIGO... (accessed on: 11.12.2025).
12. Bonner, S. Social Cost benefit analysis and economic evaluation. Brisbane: The University of Queensland, 2022. 322 p. https://doi.org/10.14264/2c7588c
13. Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Manti, A., Iannaci, D. Mapping social impact assessment models: a literature overview for a future research agenda. Sustainability. 2021. No. 9 (13). 4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094750
14. Feor, L., Clarke, A., Dougherty, I. Social impact measurement: a systematic literature review and future research directions. World. 2023. No. 4 (4). Pp. 816–837. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4040051
15. Making better investments at the base of the pyramid [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://hbr.org/2009/05/making-better-investments-at-the-base-of-the-pyr... (accessed on: 11.12.2025).
16. Measuring impact framework methodology: understanding the business contribution to society (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, 2009. 74 p.
17. Meynhardt, T., Gomez, P., Schweizer, M. The Public Value Scorecard: what makes an organization valuable to society? Performance. 2014. No. 1 (6). Pp. 1–8.
18. Social entrepreneurship [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/project-result-content/ad5b... (accessed on: 12.12.2025).
19. The balanced scorecard measures that drive performance [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-perfo... (accessed on: 12.12.2025).
20. The new Guide to Social Accounting and Audit [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/_files/ugd/076a83_15fd95474c324c00... (accessed on: 11.12.2025).
21. The social footprint method [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.sustainableorganizations.org/social-footprint-method/ (accessed on 11.12.2025).
22. Weinstein, M. Measuring success: how robin hood estimates the impact of grants. NY: Robin Hood Foundation, 2009. 130 p.
23. What is social impact assessment? [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://arran.no/evaluating-ethical-guidelines/?Article=120 (accessed on: 11.12.2025).