Позитивные изменения, Том 3 №1, 2023. Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 1 (2023)

Часть признаков носит содержательный и оценочный характер – например, обеспечение занятости сотрудников из социально уязвимых категорий[41], способствование реализации продукции, которую произвели такие сотрудники, или производство товаров для социально уязвимых групп. Действительно, деятельность в этом направлении сама по себе будет обладать ненулевой социальной полезностью, но её эффективность всё равно остаётся под вопросом. С другой стороны, группа критериев, на основании которой в реестр включено большинство предприятий, перечисляет сферы деятельности, действуя в которых предприятие автоматически считается социальным. Например, к таким сферам относятся услуги в сфере дополнительного образования, отдыха и оздоровления детей, культурно-просветительская деятельность. В этом случае без дополнительных оценок невозможно сказать даже о наличии самого факта социального воздействия.

Поскольку принципом социальных инвестиций является доказательность социальных изменений, представляется продуктивным учесть необходимость оценки на уровне законодательства. В частности, внедрить практики оценки социального воздействия для включения в реестр социального предпринимательства или подтверждения статуса в нём. Так законодательная среда позволит стимулировать более обоснованный и доказательный подход к социальным инвестициям на примере социального предпринимательства.

Обращаясь к отчёту Департамента политики в области экономики, науки и качества жизни Европарламента (Mackevičiūtė, R. et al., 2020) с обзором лучших практик социальных инвестиций, нужно сказать, что в России с разной долей успешности принята большая часть перечисленных в отчете мер обеспечения:

• создание государственных структур, ответственных за фасилитацию рынка импакт-инвестиций (ВЭБ.РФ как оператор проектов социального воздействия);

• обеспечение правовой базы и правового статуса социальных предпринимателей;

• наличие налоговых стимулов.

Однако в настоящий момент, за исключением механизма проектов социального воздействия, отсутствуют регуляторные меры – в частности в виде введения стандартизированных систем измерения социального воздействия и отчетности. Именно этот неотъемлемый элемент правового обеспечения социального инвестирования предлагается к внедрению в российских условиях.

Аналогичные практики оценки социального импакта важны в других российских правовых конструкциях в сфере социальных инвестиций – в проектах государственно-частного партнёрства, которые в настоящий момент не проходят оценку социального эффекта, и в проектах социального воздействия по модели SIB, в которых наблюдается потребность в оценке результатов проекта со стороны медиатора.

Подводя итог, нужно сказать, что и в России, и за рубежом оценка фактического воздействия в области социальных инвестиций, являясь неотъемлемым элементом определения этого вида инвестиций, постепенно начинает обретать свои очертания как в практиках, так и в законодательстве.

СПИСОК ИСТОЧНИКОВ

1. Mackevičiūtė, R., Martinaitis, Ž., Lipparini, F., Scheck, B. C., & Styczyńska, I. (2020). Social Impact Investment-Best Practices and Recommendations for theNext Generation. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament. Retrieved from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658185/IPOL_STU(2020)658185_EN.pdf. (accessed 07.02.2023).

2. Алексеева, М. (2017). Мониторинг в рамках институтов оценки регулирующего воздействия и оценки фактического воздействия в Российской Федерации. Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки, (2), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079–1690–2017–1–2–20–25.

3. Арзамасов, Ю. Г. (2019). Оценка регулирующего воздействия и риски в праве: опыт России и континентальной Европы. Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, (S5), 4–31. http://doi.org/10.17323/2072–8166.2019.5.4.31.

4. Бедняков, А. С. (2022). Государственно-частное партнёрство как модель развития публичной инфраструктуры. Вестник МГИМО Университета, 15 (1), 143–176. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071–8160–2022–1–82–143–173.

5. Голодникова, А. & Цыганков, Д. (2015). «Таргетирование» оценки регулирующего воздействия: международные подходы и российская практика. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления, (4), 7–40.

6. Голодникова, А., Ефремов, А., Соболь, Д., Цыганков, Д., & Шклярук, М. (2018). Регуляторная политика в России: основные тенденции и архитектура будущего. Доклады ЦСР, (1), 1–191.

7. Иванова, Н. (2020). Инвестиции социального воздействия: международный опыт. Информационно-аналитический бюллетень о развитии гражданского общества и некоммерческого сектора в России. 1(18).

8. Квон, Г. (2020). Оценка социального воздействия преобразующих инвестиций: проблемы и подходы. Вестник экономики, права и социологии, (4), 24–28.

9. Орехова, Н. (2022). Оценка регулирующего и фактического воздействия нормативных правовых актов: международный опыт и перспективы в России. Юридическая наука, (11), 169–175.

10. Умнов, В., Плюхина, А., & Матвеев, М. (2018). Анализ системы государственной поддержки социального предпринимательства в России. Вестник РГГУ. Серия «Экономика. Управление. Право», (3 (13)), 77–89. https://doi. org/10.28995/2073–6304–2018–3–77–89.

By Way of Law. Assessment of the Actual Impact of Social Investment Projects in Russia and Worldwide

Ivan Smekalin

DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2023–3–1–58–65

Social investment started to gain popularity all over the world in the last century, yet it still has not received a clear legislative support. This article reviews the practices of legal regulation of social investment, i.e. what legal structures have been created to formalize and regulate this sphere in Russia and worldwide, and identifies mechanisms and functions required to evaluate the actual impact, followed by identifying key areas for improvement.

Ivan Smekalin

Analyst, Factory of Positive Changes, master’s student at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris)

THE DEFINITION OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT

Social investment, also known as transformative investment, social impact investment, or impact investment (Kwon, 2020, p. 24; Mackevičiūtė et al., 2020; Center for Studies of Civil Society and Nonprofit Sector, NRU HSE, 2020), is aimed at maximizing the social value created by investees. This type of investment has become known worldwide in the 20th century, and even though the term is used increasingly often in Russia, it still has not received a definition in the Civil Code nor has a Federal Law “On Social Investment” been passed. Various legal constructs fall under the broad framework of social investment, such as the status of a social entrepreneur and tax incentives for socially beneficial activities.

Speaking about the importance of improving the mechanisms of state regulation of social investment, we can refer to the survey of employees of financial companies, banks and foundations, conducted by the Center for Studies of Civil Society and Nonprofit Sector of the National Research University – Higher School of Economics in 2019. According to the study, about a third of the respondents cite the legislative and regulatory framework that limits the application of social investment as a barrier to their development (Ivanova, 2020).

RUSSIAN AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN ASSESSING THE ACTUAL IMPACT IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT

Assessment of the actual impact of statutory regulations is an examination of a current legislative act, designed to eliminate ambiguous wording, identify provisions that result in excessive costs to businesses and investors, as well as the budget system of the Russian Federation.

The difference between the actual impact assessment (AIA) and the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is that the AIA is conducted after the regulatory document has been adopted and interprets the changes achieved, while the RIA takes place before the adoption. In other words, AIA, as an analysis of the consequences of the established regulation, is in fact ex post (after the fact) regulatory impact assessment (Alekseeva, 2017).

In Russia, the practices of actual impact assessment emerged in 2015 and are defined by subject matter experts as a legal mechanism for assessing the impact of regulations affecting the interests of businesses and investors (Arzamasov, 2019). AIA is mainly applied by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. Referring to the order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia on the approval of the methodology for assessing the actual impact of statutory regulations, the AIA analysis is based on such data as the costs for economic entities to comply with regulation; costs and revenues for the budget system related to the implementation of that regulation; and information on violations of the regulation. Proposals can be gathered via meetings of expert and working groups, as well as interviews with representatives of interested parties. Thus, in accordance with the methodology and according to the reports on the status of actual impact assessment, the assessment only covers the issues of business and investment activities. Social consequences of legal regulation are outside of the scope of impact assessment.

To illustrate the mechanism of actual impact assessment in Russia, you can refer to the “Regulatory Impact Assessment” portal[42]. There you can find a description of the AIA procedure, which includes such steps as a public discussion, a working group meeting of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the preparation of the report by the respective federal executive authority. It also lists best practices for assessing actual impact, which make it clear that the social aspect is only perceived in the context of minimizing risks rather than assessing effectiveness and positive impact.

Regulatory impact assessment practices appeared at the regional level first, before the federal level – for example, the Government of Moscow introduced AIA simultaneously with RIA, and started with conducting just actual impact assessment. The 2018 report by Golodnikova et al. cites assessment challenges such as the evasion opportunities through agencies, introduction of bills bypassing the government, insufficient information in the databases, and low levels of regulatory recipient engagement. The report authors note that the subject matter of the AIA was narrowed in 2015 by excluding statutory regulations that fall within the framework of national projects and initiatives. Resistance to the assessment procedure is also observed at the apparatus level.

For specific assessment practices, one can refer to the State Duma’s 2020 Analytical Bulletin[43]: the actual impact assessment of the legislation on development of small and medium-sized businesses uses an extremely formal approach that takes into account the wording of statutory regulations, reporting types, and the public awareness. The assessment includes neither economic calculations nor any empirical information about the socio-economic effect of the regulations.

In terms of foreign AIA practices, it may be noted that in the United States and Canada only legislative acts developed by the executive branch of the government are assessed. Meanwhile, in the United States there is a separate unit to monitor the implementation of laws and federal programs – the Congressional Budget Office (Golodnikova & Tsygankov, 2015). The European Commission’s methodology establishes the following criteria for impact assessment: impact on human rights, individual economic sectors, economic actors, population groups, culture and the environment (Ibid.). On the other hand, the European Union countries do not generally have a central nationwide system for assessing the social consequences of the adoption of statutory regulations in the field of social investment (Orekhova, 2022): in Germany, the assessment is conducted regionally with a focus on finding financial risks and setting up the legal environment; in France financial laws are subject to mandatory assessment, but only in the economic plane.

Thus, social impact assessment of social investment projects is not a common practice during actual impact assessment, neither in Russia nor in the EU.

However, legally established practices of AIA in the field of social investment can still be found. They are related to social impact bonds. For example, in Great Britain, a social investor, in order to get a refund of their investment, must prove a positive social effect, which is evaluated by an independent agency (mediator). It is worth noting that this practice is at the junction of all the positive tools we discussed earlier:

• a separate state institution in charge of social investment;

• presence of an independent organizational evaluator;

• focus on income and tax benefits for the investor;

• using the methodology to investigate social impact[44].

One of the major social impact operators in Russia, VEB.RF state corporation, presents the following list of stakeholders: the contractor, investor, public authority, independent evaluator, and operator[45]. This list correlates with the “stateinvestor-contractor” triangle plus the two mediators described by the Urban Institute[46]. Thus, in the Russian model, the mediator’s role is somewhat limited compared to the traditional expert mediators – nowhere does it say he/she is to conduct expert review or assist in the project design before the project launch. The Russian model also does not allow for a participant to guarantee the investor’s interests, other than by the investors themselves.

THE KEY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE RUSSIAN MECHANISM FOR ASSESSING THE ACTUAL IMPACT IN SOCIAL INVESTMENT

When discussing the Russian experience of social investment, it is worth focusing on three ways in which they can be legally formalized:

• social impact projects;

• the status of a social entrepreneur;

• public-private partnerships for investment projects to establish social institutions.

In Russia, experts call one of the legislative initiatives to introduce social investments a pilot testing of social impact bonds (SIB). Within the corresponding state program[47], funds are raised from investors to finance social projects. The costs will be later compensated by the state if the projects successfully achieve the intended social impact.

The second tool being considered for the legal registration of social investment in Russia is the status of a social entrepreneur. A review of the existing benefits of social entrepreneur status examines the set of benefits conferred by this status (Umnov, Plyukhina & Matveev, 2018). In particular, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes a preferential tax regime for organizations that carry out socially beneficial activities (exemption from value added tax or profit tax in different areas of activity). Social entrepreneurs are in the focus of a number of government programs (such as the “Social Support for Citizens” program), which are created specifically so that social entrepreneurs can be engaged in their implementation. In the final part of the article, the authors consider the peculiarities of the Russian social entrepreneur’s status in great detail, as one of the key areas for improvement.

The third way to legally formalize social investment is public-private partnership for the development of social infrastructure. Andrey Bednyakov, an expert at the National Center for Public-Private Partnerships and the Rosinfra platform, points out that only 8 % of the funding in Russian PPP projects go to the social sector (Bednyakov, 2022). At the same time, the share of private investment into infrastructure in Russia is 2 % of the total volume. He draws a general conclusion about the low evolutionary state of the respective development institutions, as well as the lack of an effective regulatory system in the form of transparent competitive procedures. The lack of an effective project evaluation methodology (for example, such efficiency metrics as Return on Investment are seldom used) can be identified as a fundamental quality of the Russian case. In contrast, the expert cites Canada, where PPP projects are legally required to have an evaluation methodology and an independent evaluator. The importance of metrics for the development of social investment will also be discussed below.

One major difference between social investment and mere charity is the mandatory measurement of the social results achieved.

One major difference between social investment and mere charity is the mandatory measurement of the social results achieved. This condition is used in a small share of publicly funded social projects. In particular, neither the status of a social entrepreneur, nor the public-private partnership mechanism for support of investment projects to create social institutions involves measuring social impact. This is the main disadvantage of the current mechanisms.

Social investment can be defined as investing into a positive social result. If an entrepreneur invests money and expects to generate revenue or even profit (as in the case of public-private partnerships), this is not social investment, but rather traditional commercial investment in the social sector. Social investment is different from investment in that the returns are not primarily economic but social, which must be proven through the assessment of social impact of the project. The absence of an evaluation mechanism creates a confusion between impact investment and commercial investment, as is the case in the Russian models of social entrepreneurship and public-private partnerships.

According to current legislation, these models interpret the very fact of working in the social sphere as, first, a socially oriented activity, and second, a successful activity. Turning to the Federal Law No. 245-FZ of 26 July 2019 “On Amendments to the Federal Law On the Development of Small and Medium Entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation”, which defines the concepts of “social entrepreneurship” and “social enterprise”, you can see that inclusion in the register of social entrepreneurs is possible on several equally important grounds.

Some of the attributes are of a substantive and judgmental nature – for example, providing employment to people from socially vulnerable categories[48], facilitating the sale of products produced by such workers, or producing the goods for socially vulnerable groups. It is true that any activity in this area would have above-zero social effect per se, but the question of its effectiveness would remain. On the other hand, the criteria used for including most businesses in the register, specify the areas of operations that automatically make your enterprise a social one. For example, these areas include services in the field of additional education, recreation and health improvement for children, cultural and educational activities. In this case social impact cannot even be confidently stated without further evaluation.

Since social investment requires proof of social impact, it seems reasonable to consider including the requirement for evaluation into the legislation. In particular, to introduce practices of social impact assessment for inclusion in the register of social entrepreneurs or confirmation of the status of a social enterprise. This way the legislative environment will stimulate a more informed and evidence-based approach to social investment using social entrepreneurship as an example.

Going back to the report by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies (Mackevičiūtė, R. et al., 2020) with an overview of best practices in social investment, we must mention that most of the measures listed in the report have been adopted in Russia, with varying degrees of success:

• creation of state structures responsible for the facilitation of the impact investment market (VEB.RF as the SIB project operator);

• providing a legal framework and legal status for social entrepreneurs;

• availability of tax incentives.

However, at the moment, with the exception of the SIB project mechanism itself, there are no regulatory measures – particularly in the form of the introduction of standardized systems for measuring social impact and reporting. It is this indispensable element of the legal foundation of social investment that is proposed for implementation in the Russian context.

Similar practices of social impact assessment are important in other Russian legal constructs in the field of social investment – such as public-private partnership projects, which do not currently undergo social impact assessment, or the social impact bonds projects, which need a mediator to evaluate the project results.

To summarize, it must be said that actual impact assessment in the field of social investment both in Russia and abroad, being an integral element of the definition of this type of investment, is gradually beginning to take shape in both practice and legislation.

REFERENCES

1. Mackevičiūtė, R., Martinaitis, Ž., Lipparini, F., Scheck, B. C., & Styczyńska, I. (2020). Social Impact Investment – Best Practices and Recommendations for the Next Generation. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament. Retrieved from: https://www. europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658185/ IPOL_STU(2020)658185_EN.pdf. (accessed 07.02.2023).

2. Alekseeva, M. (2017). Monitoring in the Framework of the Institutions of Regulatory Impact Assessment and Evaluation of Actual Exposure in Russian Federation. State and Municipal Administration. Scientific Notes, (2), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079–1690–2017–1–2–20–25.

3. Arzamasov, Yu. G. (2019). Regulatory Impact Assessment and Risks in Law: Experience of Russia and Continental Europe. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, (S5), 4–31. http://doi.org/10.17323/2072–8166.2019.5.4.31.

4. Bednyakov, A. S. (2022). Public-Private Partnership as a Model of Public Infrastructure Development. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 15 (1), 143–176. https:// doi.org/10.24833/2071–8160–2022–1–82–143–173.

5. Golodnikova, A. & Tsygankov, D. (2015). Regulatory Impact Assessment Targeting: International Approaches and Russian Experience. Public Administration Issues, (4), 7–40.

6. Golodnikova, A., Efremov, A., Sobol, D., Tsygankov, D., & Shklyaruk, M. (2018). Regulatory Policy in Russia: Key Trends and the Architecture of the Future Center for Strategic Research (CSR) Reports, (1), 1–191.

7. Ivanova, N. (2020). Social Impact Investments: International Experience. Information and analytical bulletin on the development of the civil society and the nonprofit sector in Russia. 1(18).

8. Kwon, G. (2020). Assessing the Social Impact of Transformative Investment: Issues and Approaches. Bulletin of Economics, Law and Sociology, (4), 24–28.

9. Orekhova, N. (2022). Assessment of the Regulatory and Actual Impact of Statutory Regulations: International Experience and Prospects in Russia. Legal Science, (11), 169–175.

10. Umnov, V., Plyukhina, A., & Matveev, M. (2018). Analysis of the State Support System for Social Entrepreneurship in Russia. Bulletin of the Russian State University of Humanities. “Economics. Management. Law” series, (3 (13)), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073–6304–2018–3–77–89.

Кейс выпуска / The Case of the Issue

Как устроен лучший грантовый конкурс социальных проектов 2022 года. Опыт фонда «Дорога к дому»

Алена Богомолова

DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2023–3–1–66–79

В 2022 году грантовый конкурс Благотворительного фонда «Дорога к дому» был признан лучшей программой, способствующей устойчивому развитию с помощью конкурсных механизмов. Он одержал победу в проекте Форума Доноров «Лидеры корпоративной благотворительности». В номинации «Лучший грантовый конкурс» соревновались 12 заявок. Рассказываем в нашем материале, как проходит конкурс социальных проектов и что помогло ему завоевать признание профессионального сообщества.