Date of submission: November 14, 2022; date of acceptance: March 31, 2023. * Contact information: echoj@umk.pl, Department of Financial Accounting, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Gaga- rina 13a Street, 87-100 Toruń, Poland, phone: +48 56 611 46 50, ORCID ID: https://orcid. org/0000-0002-7928-4725. ** Contact information: dgorecka@umk.pl, Department of Applied Informatics and Mathematics in Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Gagarina 13a Street, 87-100 Toruń, Poland, phone: +48 56 611 46 06; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0108-2215. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting e-ISSN 2300-3065 p-ISSN 2300-12402022, volume 11, issue 4 Chojnacka-Pelowska, E., & Górecka, D. (2022). Information Available from Mandatory Reports and the Possibility of Applying Ranking Methods: The Case of Polish Public Benefit Organiza- tions. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 11(4), 45–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ CJFA.2022.018 eWa chojnacka-peloWska* Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń dorota Górecka** Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń information available from mandatory reports and the possibility of applyinG rankinG methods: the case of polish public benefit orGanizations Keywords: Public Benefit Organization, Non-profit sector, Poland, MCDA, PRO- METHEE II, TOPSIS. J E L Classification: C44, C65, L31, M41. Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present the possibility of assessing the economic results of Public Benefit Organizations (PBOs) by using ranking methods. These meth- ods may be used not only by individual donors, but also by local or central government bodies, that decide on subsidies. Due to the lack of unified reporting system for non- http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2022.018 http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2022.018 Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka4646 profit organizations on a global scale, the additional aim of the paper is to present man- datory reports that must be prepared by Polish PBOs. The theoretical part of the paper is the result of critical review of the law regula- tions in Poland and the literature in the field of non-profit reporting. The case study part of the paper is based on the example of PBOs from one of Polish voivodeships, ope- rating in the field of ‘Sport and recreation’. In the analysis conducted an approach called MAMIMCA – Multiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Criteria Analysis – was used to determine the most suitable PBOs for co-funding. In the evaluation performed nineteen different criteria were taken into account, two well-known multi-criteria de- cision-aiding (MCDA) techniques were used (PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS) and two va- rious vectors of weights were applied. As a result, the ranking of ten selected PBOs was received allowing to obtain a comprehensive picture of entities considered.  Introduction Introduction The Public Benefit Organization (PBO) is a non-governmental organization, which obtained a special status introduced in 2003 into the Polish law by the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Volunteer Work. This status allows PBOs to obtain certain benefits, including additional sources of financing in the form of 1% of personal income tax (from 2023 it will be 1.5%). These organizations also have to fulfil additional requirements connected with mandatory annual reporting, which is an important source of information for different stakeholders. According to the Statistics Poland, in 2020, there were 95.2 thousand of registered non-profit organizations in Poland. Almost 10% of these organi- zations had the status of public benefit organization (9.3 thousand) (Statis- tics Poland, News Release 2021). Taking into consideration that the share of PBOs in non-governmental organizations in Poland is rather small, organiza- tions with this status may be perceived as the best organizations in the non- profit sector. Therefore, an important issue seems to be the purpose of this article, related to the indication of the possibility of assessing the economic effect of PBO using ranking methods. These methods may be used not only by individual donors, but also by local or central government bodies, that de- cide on subsidies. In 2020, 62.9% of the revenues of non-profit organizations in Poland were obtained in the form of non-market sources. In this category, 45.0% of the revenues came from public funds, including funds provided by central and local government administrative bodies (The non-profit sector in 2020, p. 26). information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 4747 The important role of non-governmental organizations in our world is in- disputable, even if we only consider the situation after the COVID-19 pandemic and refugees fleeing the war and military conflicts. Therefore, there is a great need to propose methods enabling the assessment of efficiency and effective- ness in these entities. In addition, it should be emphasized, that due to the lack of unified reporting system for non-profit organizations on a global scale, the presentation of mandatory reports that must be prepared by Polish PBOs may allow for the development of future research on both reporting of non-profit organizations and assessing the economic situation of these organizations in different countries. The article is organized as follows. In the next part, we indicate the research methodology and the course of the research process. In the third section, man- datory reports of PBOs in Poland are shown. Section four contains the case study based on the example of PBOs from one of Polish voivodeships, operat- ing in the field of ‘Sport and recreation’. In the analysis conducted an approach called MAMIMCA – Multiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Criteria Analysis (Górecka, 2020) – was used to determine the most suitable PBOs for co-funding. Finally, the last section provides a summary and conclusions. The research methodology The research methodology and the course of the research processand the course of the research process The theoretical part of the paper is the result of critical review of the law regu- lations in Poland and the literature in the field of non-profit reporting. The case study part of the paper is based on two well-known multi-criteria decision-aid- ing (MCDA) techniques (PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS). The following PBOs eval- uation procedure was used for the case study. To build a ranking of public benefit organizations, for example to determine entities for public co-financing, a procedure presented in Scheme 1 can be ap- plied. Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka4848 Scheme 1. Procedure applied for PBOs evaluation Source: own elaboration. The procedure proposed is based on the approach called MAMIMCA – Multiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Criteria Analysis (Górecka, 2020), in which various (at least two) multi-criteria decision-aiding (MCDA) methods and various (more than one) weighting coefficients for each evaluation criterion are used simultaneously to get a more comprehensive picture of the assessment. In this procedure two well-established and worldwide popular multi-criteria techniques are used, namely the PROMETHEE II method (Brans & Vincke, 1985; Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986) and the TOPSIS method (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). After weighing the pros and cons of different MCDA techniques (see Górecka, 2011; Górecka, 2012), these two were employed since they are considered user- friendly ones (understandable and mathematically uncomplicated). Moreover, they allow us to receive a complete pre-order of the alternatives (PBOs) to which the points are assigned in the final solution. It is important as the other form of the final solution (for example partial pre-order or graph) can be unconvincing for the potential users of the procedure. Below, two above-mentioned multi-criteria decision-aiding methods will be concisely presented. Let us assume that � � �𝑎𝑎�, 𝑎𝑎�, … ,𝑎𝑎�� is a finite set of 𝑚𝑚 alternatives (PBOs) defined by the decision-maker, � � �𝑓𝑓�,𝑓𝑓�, … , 𝑓𝑓�� is a set of 𝑛𝑛 evaluation criteria, � � �𝑤𝑤�,𝑤𝑤�, … ,𝑤𝑤�� is a vector of weights for 𝑛𝑛 evaluation criteria, where ∑ 𝑤𝑤����� � 1, and )( ik af is the assessment of alternative 𝑎𝑎� according to criterion kf . These assessments exist in original 1. Determination of the participants of the decision-making process 2. Selection of the evaluation criteria and measures for them 3. Determination of weights for criteria arbitrarily (e.g. equal weights) and using the CRITIC method 4. Collecting data and building evaluation matrix of PBOs taken into consideration 5. Building a ranking of the PBOs using the PROMETHEE II method and the TOPSIS method 6. Taking the final decision regarding the co-financing S o u r c e : own elaboration. The procedure proposed is based on the approach called MAMIMCA – Mul- tiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Criteria Analysis (Górecka, 2020), in which various (at least two) multi-criteria decision-aiding (MCDA) methods and various (more than one) weighting coefficients for each evalua- tion criterion are used simultaneously to get a more comprehensive picture of the assessment. In this procedure, two well-established and worldwide pop- ular multi-criteria techniques are used, namely the PROMETHEE II method (Brans & Vincke, 1985; Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986) and the TOPSIS meth- od (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). After weighing the pros and cons of different MCDA techniques (see Górecka, 2011; Górecka, 2012), these two were employed since they are considered user-friendly ones (understandable and mathematically uncomplicated). Moreover, they allow us to receive a complete pre-order of the alternatives (PBOs) to which the points are assigned in the final solution. It is important as the other form of the final solution (for example partial pre-order or graph) can be unconvincing for the potential users of the procedure. Below, two above-mentioned multi-criteria decision-aiding methods will be concisely presented. information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 4949 Let us assume that A = {a1, a2, …, am} is a finite set of m alternatives (PBOs) defined by the decision-maker, F = [ f1, f2, …, fn] is a set of n evaluation crite- ria, W = [w1, w2, …, wn] is a vector of weights for n evaluation criteria, where Source: own elaboration. The procedure proposed is based on the approach called MAMIMCA – Multiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Criteria Analysis (Górecka, 2020), in which various (at least two) multi-criteria decision-aiding (MCDA) methods and various (more than one) weighting coefficients for each evaluation criterion are used simultaneously to get a more comprehensive picture of the assessment. In this procedure two well-established and worldwide popular multi-criteria techniques are used, namely the PROMETHEE II method (Brans & Vincke, 1985; Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986) and the TOPSIS method (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). After weighing the pros and cons of different MCDA techniques (see Górecka, 2011; Górecka, 2012), these two were employed since they are considered user- friendly ones (understandable and mathematically uncomplicated). Moreover, they allow us to receive a complete pre-order of the alternatives (PBOs) to which the points are assigned in the final solution. It is important as the other form of the final solution (for example partial pre-order or graph) can be unconvincing for the potential users of the procedure. Below, two above-mentioned multi-criteria decision-aiding methods will be concisely presented. Let us assume that � � �𝑎𝑎�, 𝑎𝑎�, … ,𝑎𝑎�� is a finite set of 𝑚𝑚 alternatives (PBOs) defined by the decision-maker, � � �𝑓𝑓�,𝑓𝑓�, … , 𝑓𝑓�� is a set of 𝑛𝑛 evaluation criteria, � � �𝑤𝑤�,𝑤𝑤�, … ,𝑤𝑤�� is a vector of weights for 𝑛𝑛 evaluation criteria, where ∑ 𝑤𝑤����� � 1, and )( ik af is the assessment of alternative 𝑎𝑎� according to criterion kf . These assessments exist in original 1. Determination of the participants of the decision-making process 2. Selection of the evaluation criteria and measures for them 3. Determination of weights for criteria arbitrarily (e.g. equal weights) and using the CRITIC method 4. Collecting data and building evaluation matrix of PBOs taken into consideration 5. Building a ranking of the PBOs using the PROMETHEE II method and the TOPSIS method 6. Taking the final decision regarding the co-financing wk = 1 and fk(ai) is the assessment of alternative ai according to crite- rion fk. These assessments exist in original descriptions of alternatives, may be determined by the decision-maker or obtained from experts, reports, cat- alogues, etc. PROMETHEE II The PROMETHEE II method consists of the following steps (Brans & Mareschal, 2005): 1. Defining a generalized criterion { fk, Pk (ai, aj)} for each criterion k; for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that all criteria are maximized; fk is a criterion k and Pk (ai, aj) represents the preference function showing the strength of preference for alternative ai over alternative aj according to criterion descriptions of alternatives, may be determined by the decision-maker or obtained from experts, reports, catalogues, etc. PROMETHEE II The PROMETHEE II method consists of the following steps (Brans & Mareschal, 2005): 1. Defining a generalized criterion   jikk aaPf ,, for each criterion 𝑘𝑘; for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that all criteria are maximized; 𝑓𝑓� is a criterion 𝑘𝑘 and 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� ,𝑎𝑎�� represents the preference function showing the strength of preference for alternative ia over alternative 𝑎𝑎� according to criterion k : )],([),( jikkjik aadFaaP  ji aa , , where )()(),( jkikjik afafaad  and for which 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� , 𝑎𝑎�� � �0; 1�. In order to facilitate this definition, six types of generalized criteria have been proposed. They are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Types of generalized criteria Generalized criterion Preference function Parameters Type 1: usual criterion       0,1 0,0 )( k k kk dif dif dP none Type 2: quasi-criterion (u-shape criterion)       kk kk kk qdif qdif dP ,1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� Type 3: v-shape criterion            kk kk k k k kk pdif pdif p d dif dP ,1 0, 0,0 )( preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 4: level criterion           kk kkk kk kk pdif pdqif qdif dP ,1 , 2 1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 5: pseudo-criterion (v-shape with indifference criterion)              kk kkk kk kk kk kk pdif pdqif qp qd qdif dP ,1 , ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 6: Gaussian criterion          0), 2 exp(1 0,0 )( 2 2 k k k kk dif s d dif dP 𝑠𝑠� (defines the inflection point of the preference function) , where descriptions of alternatives, may be determined by the decision-maker or obtained from experts, reports, catalogues, etc. PROMETHEE II The PROMETHEE II method consists of the following steps (Brans & Mareschal, 2005): 1. Defining a generalized criterion   jikk aaPf ,, for each criterion 𝑘𝑘; for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that all criteria are maximized; 𝑓𝑓� is a criterion 𝑘𝑘 and 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� ,𝑎𝑎�� represents the preference function showing the strength of preference for alternative ia over alternative 𝑎𝑎� according to criterion k : )],([),( jikkjik aadFaaP  ji aa , , where )()(),( jkikjik afafaad  and for which 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� , 𝑎𝑎�� � �0; 1�. In order to facilitate this definition, six types of generalized criteria have been proposed. They are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Types of generalized criteria Generalized criterion Preference function Parameters Type 1: usual criterion       0,1 0,0 )( k k kk dif dif dP none Type 2: quasi-criterion (u-shape criterion)       kk kk kk qdif qdif dP ,1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� Type 3: v-shape criterion            kk kk k k k kk pdif pdif p d dif dP ,1 0, 0,0 )( preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 4: level criterion           kk kkk kk kk pdif pdqif qdif dP ,1 , 2 1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 5: pseudo-criterion (v-shape with indifference criterion)              kk kkk kk kk kk kk pdif pdqif qp qd qdif dP ,1 , ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 6: Gaussian criterion          0), 2 exp(1 0,0 )( 2 2 k k k kk dif s d dif dP 𝑠𝑠� (defines the inflection point of the preference function) and for which descriptions of alternatives, may be determined by the decision-maker or obtained from experts, reports, catalogues, etc. PROMETHEE II The PROMETHEE II method consists of the following steps (Brans & Mareschal, 2005): 1. Defining a generalized criterion   jikk aaPf ,, for each criterion 𝑘𝑘; for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that all criteria are maximized; 𝑓𝑓� is a criterion 𝑘𝑘 and 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� ,𝑎𝑎�� represents the preference function showing the strength of preference for alternative ia over alternative 𝑎𝑎� according to criterion k : )],([),( jikkjik aadFaaP  ji aa , , where )()(),( jkikjik afafaad  and for which 𝑃𝑃��𝑎𝑎� , 𝑎𝑎�� � �0; 1�. In order to facilitate this definition, six types of generalized criteria have been proposed. They are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Types of generalized criteria Generalized criterion Preference function Parameters Type 1: usual criterion       0,1 0,0 )( k k kk dif dif dP none Type 2: quasi-criterion (u-shape criterion)       kk kk kk qdif qdif dP ,1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� Type 3: v-shape criterion            kk kk k k k kk pdif pdif p d dif dP ,1 0, 0,0 )( preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 4: level criterion           kk kkk kk kk pdif pdqif qdif dP ,1 , 2 1 ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 5: pseudo-criterion (v-shape with indifference criterion)              kk kkk kk kk kk kk pdif pdqif qp qd qdif dP ,1 , ,0 )( indifference threshold 𝑞𝑞� preference threshold 𝑝𝑝� Type 6: Gaussian criterion          0), 2 exp(1 0,0 )( 2 2 k k k kk dif s d dif dP 𝑠𝑠� (defines the inflection point of the preference function) . In order to facilitate this definition, six types of generalized criteria have been pro- posed. They are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Types of generalized criteria Generalized criterion Preference function Parameters Type 1: usual criterion none Type 2: quasi-criterion (u-shape criterion) indifference threshold qk Type 3: v-shape criterion preference threshold pk Type 4: level criterion indifference threshold qk preference threshold pk Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka5050 Generalized criterion Preference function Parameters Type 5: pseudo-criterion (v-shape with indifference criterion) indifference threshold qk preference threshold pk Type 6: Gaussian criterion sk (defines the inflection point of the preference function) S o u r c e : Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all crite- ria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices π(ai, aj) for each pair of alternatives : Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (1) where π(ai, aj) shows the degree to which ai is preferred to aj over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ai: ■ the positive outranking flow: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (2) ■ the negative outranking flow: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow ɸ(ai) for each alternative ai: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows ɸ(ai) in descending order. Table 1. Types of generalized criteria information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 5151 TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (5) where: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (6) for i = 1, ..., m and k = 1, ..., n. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: Source: Brans, Vincke & Mareschal, 1986. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs the first type of generalized criterion (usual criterion) was used for all criteria taken into consideration. 2. Calculation of the aggregated preference indices ),( ji aa for each pair of alternatives ),( ji aa :    n k jikkji aaPwaa 1 ),,(),( (1) where ),( ji aa shows the degree to which ia is preferred to ja over all the criteria. 3. Defining two outranking flows for each alternative ia :  the positive outranking flow:      m j jii aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  , (2)  the negative outranking flow:      m j iji aa m a 1 ),( 1 1)(  . (3) 4. Calculation of the net outranking flow )( ia for each alternative ia : )()()( iii aaa    . (4) 5. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the net flows )( ia in descending order. TOPSIS The TOPSIS method is as follows (Roszkowska, 2011): 1. Construction of the normalized decision matrix: � � �𝑥𝑥��� (5) where: 𝑥𝑥�� � ������ �∑ ����������� (6) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and 𝑘𝑘 � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 2. Calculation of the weighted normalized matrix: � � �𝑣𝑣��� � �𝑤𝑤�𝑥𝑥��� (7) where 𝑤𝑤� is a weight of criterion 𝑘𝑘. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.  Positive ideal solution is as follows: (7) where wk is a weight of criterion k. 3. Determination of the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions. ■ Positive ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (8) where: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (9) for i = 1, ..., m and k = 1, ..., n. ■ Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (10) where: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (11) for i = 1, ..., m and k = 1, ..., n. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ide- al solution and negative ideal solution: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (12) Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka5252 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from , (13) where p ≥ 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that p = 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (8) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for critera which are maximized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, (9) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛.  Negative ideal solution is as follows: 𝐴𝐴� � �𝑣𝑣��, 𝑣𝑣��, … , 𝑣𝑣�� � (10) where: 𝑣𝑣�� � �max 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are minimized, min 𝑣𝑣�� for criteria which are maximized, (11) for � � 1, … ,𝑚𝑚 and � � 1, … ,𝑛𝑛. 4. Calculation of the separation measures (distances) from the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚, (12) 𝑑𝑑�� � �� �𝑣𝑣�� � 𝑣𝑣�������� ��/�, � � 1, 2, … ,𝑚𝑚 (13) where � � 1. In the evaluation procedure employed for the assessment of PBOs it was assumed that � � 2. 5. Calculation of the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution: 𝑆𝑆� � ��� ������� , (14) where 0 � 𝑆𝑆� � 1 and � � 1,2, … ,𝑚𝑚. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of 𝑆𝑆�. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance reports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet criteria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and publication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from (14) where 0 ≤ Si ≤ 1 and i = 1, 2, …, m. 6. Construction of the final complete ranking of the alternatives according to the descending order of Si. Mandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in PolandMandatory reports of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland The analysis of available information is presented on the basis of mandatory, annual, separate reports, such as financial statements and performance re- ports, which are dedicated to the external stakeholders. Taking into account the existing literature on PBOs, there are several studies that address the issue of its mandatory reporting. It should be noted, however, that generally only basic information is presented in English-language articles. This includes, for example, the general necessity that reports need to meet cri- teria of: completeness, accessibility, transparency, full disclosure and relevance (Dyczkowski, 2015b) or general obligations related to the preparation and pub- lication of annual PBO reports (Piechota, 2015). There are also papers in which the authors present various research results obtained on the basis of data from mandatory PBOs’ reports in Poland, but the scope and content of the reports are not examined (e.g.: Waniak-Michalak & Zarzycka, 2012; Dyczkowski, 2016; Chojnacka & Górecka, 2016; Chojnacka & Górecka, 2017; Chojnacka & Górecka, 2018; Chojnacka, 2020; Górecka & Chojnacka, 2017; Mamcarczyk & Zeniuk, 2020; Oliński & Szamrowski, 2020; Goldmann, 2021). Although in the literature it is possible to find publications that directly focus on the scope and content of PBO reporting (Żak, 2012), it should be emphasized that due to the introduc- tion of a new regulation on financial statements in 2016, some of the previous publications present regulations that are not up to date. In addition, most of the information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 5353 latest publications presenting applicable legal regulations are written in Polish (e.g.: Czaja-Cieszyńska, 2017; Chojnacka & Miścikowska, 2018; Nadolna & Ry- dzewska, 2021; Liżewski & Ostapowicz, 2022). As a result, the authors decided to present the general structure of mandatory PBOs reports in Poland as an ad- ditional purpose of this paper. According to Polish Accounting Law of 29th September 1994, all reports have to be prepared in the Polish language and in the Polish currency. Some- times the largest PBOs in Poland decide to prepare reports in a different lan- guage or currency, but this is an additional effort of the entity to be transparent and recognizable in the international society. PBOs are obliged not only to prepare mandatory reports, but also to publish these reports in the online database of the National Freedom Institute – Cen- tre for Civil Society (the Institute was established in 2017, before 2017 the Min- istry of Labour and Social Policy was responsible for this database) (www1). In Poland, PBO prepares annual financial statement in accordance with the legislation included in the Accounting Act of 29th September 1994. The annual financial statement consists of the balance sheet, profit and loss account, in- troduction to the financial statement and additional information. The scope of information reported in the financial statement of non-profit organizations is presented in Annex no 6 to the Accounting Act of 29th September 1994 (it was introduced in 2016). Table 2 presents the scope of balance sheet for non-profit organizations in Poland. Table 2. Balance sheet for Polish non-profit organizations Assets Funds and liabilities A. Non-current assets I. Intangible assets II. Tangible fixed assets III. Long-term receivables IV. Long-term investments V. Long-term prepayments B. Current assets I. Inventory II. Short-term receivables III. Short-term investments IV. Short-term prepayments C. Due payments to the statutory fund A. Own funds I. Statutory fund II. Other funds III. Retained earnings or accumulated losses of previous periods IV. Net profit (loss) B. Liabilities and provisions for liabilities I. Provisions for liabilities II. Long-term liabilities III. Short-term liabilities IV. Accruals and differed income Total assets Total funds and liabilities S o u r c e : Accounting Act of 29th September 1994, Annex no. 6. Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka5454 The balance sheet according to Annex no. 6 presents assets and sources of fi- nancing these assets. Both assets and funds and liabilities are divided into main groups, as a result of which, the scope of information is generally similar to that presented by profit-oriented entities. Table 3 contains the scope of profit and loss account for non-profit organizations in Poland. Table 3. Profit and loss account for Polish non-profit organizations A. Revenues from statutory activities I. Revenues from unpaid public benefit activity II. Revenues from paid public benefit activity III. Revenues from other statutory activity B. Statutory activity costs I. Costs of unpaid public benefit activity II. Costs of paid public benefit activity III. Other statutory activity costs C. Profit (loss) from statutory activity (A-B) D. Revenues from business activity E. Costs of business activity F. Profit (loss) from business activity (D-E) G. General and administrative costs H. Operating profit (loss) (C+F-G) I. Other operating income J. Other operating costs K. Financial income L. Financial costs M. Profit before tax (loss) (H+I-J+K-L) N. Income tax O. Net profit (loss) S o u r c e : Accounting Act of 29th September 1994, Annex no. 6. The scope of the profit and loss account applies to certain groups of revenues and costs, that are characteristic of the activities of non-governmental organ- izations. In Poland, the main statutory activities of the PBO are divided into unpaid, paid and other statutory activity. The unpaid public benefit activity is information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 5555 when PBOs do not receive remuneration for their activities, while the paid ben- efit activity occurs when PBOs obtain some remuneration from participants for realized activities. However, this remuneration or fee cannot be higher than the expenses connected with a given activity. The paid benefit activity also in- cludes: the sale of manufactured goods or delivering services in the field of so- cial and professional rehabilitation of people with disabilities or integration and professional and social reintegration of people with a risk of social exclu- sion as well as the sale of items, which were donated to organization (The Act of law of 24th April 2003 on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work, Article 7 and 8). PBOs are also required to prepare an annual performance report. The form and content of this report are specified in the Regulation of the Chairman of the Public Benefit Committee of October 24, 2018 on template of the annual perfor- mance report and the simplified annual performance report of PBOs. Smaller PBOs, whose revenues do not exceed PLN 100,000 may prepare a simplified an- nual performance report. Other organizations with PBO status must prepare the unabbreviated annual performance report. The scope of information in the annual performance report includes: 1. PBO’s data, among others, name of the organization, address, numbers of entries in National Court Register and in Statistics Poland, organiza- tion’s authorities, type of public benefit activity and type of business ac- tivity. 2. Characteristics of the PBO’s activity in the reporting period, territorial scope of statutory activities, number of recipients. 3. Revenues and costs of PBO in the reporting period: in comparison to the profit and loss account, an additional structure of financing sources is presented: ■ revenue from 1% of personal income tax (from 2023 it will be 1.5% of personal income tax), ■ revenue from public sources, such as European sources, central gov- ernment and local government sources, ■ revenue from private sources, such as membership fees, donations, public collection, heritage, revenues from property, from business ac- tivity, ■ revenue from other sources. This section of the report provides additional information on costs, such as expenses financed from the 1% personal income tax. Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka5656 4. The use by the organization of reliefs in the reporting period, e.g., tax exemptions for: corporate income tax, real estate tax, tax on civil law transactions, value added tax, stamp duty, court fee. 5. Staff of a PBO in the reporting period – number of employees, number of organization members, number of volunteers. 6. The value of salaries in the reporting period, among others, average monthly remuneration paid to the authorities of the organization, aver- age monthly salaries paid to organization’s employees. 7. Information on cash loans granted by a PBO in the reporting period. 8. Information on the tasks commissioned by central and local government bodies in the reporting period – information on the value of subsidies ob- tained from public sources and their tasks. 9. Information on public procurement carried out by a PBO in the reporting period. 10. Additional information, such as: list of companies in which the organiza- tion holds at least 20% of shares in the share capital or at least 20% of the total number of votes in the company’s governing body, list of foun- dations in which the organization is the founder, information on controls carried out in the organization by public administration authorities in the reporting period or information whether the organization had its fi- nancial statement audited. The content of the simplified annual performance report is broadly similar, but to some extent simplified comparing to an unabbreviated annual perfor- mance report. Case studyCase study The procedure described above was employed to assess ten PBOs from one of Polish voivodeships operating in the field of ‘Sport and recreation’. Criteria af- fecting the ranking of the PBOs, divided into two parts, namely financial as- pects and information and reputation aspects, have been determined through the literature review as well as based on the authors’ own ideas. They are pre- sented in Table 4 and Table 5. information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 5757 Table 4. PBOs performance assessment criteria: financial ratings and sources of information No. Criterion (min/max/value of); (previous studies) Measure – calculation formula Source of information fF1 Average amount of aid per beneficiary (max) cost of unpaid and paid statutory activities/number of beneficiaries profit and loss account, annual performance report fF2 Average revenue generated by people involved in organization’s activities (max) total revenue/number of people involved in PBO’s activities (employees, volunteers, members) profit and loss account, annual performance report fF3 Change in revenue (max); (a) (total revenue in current year – total revenue in previous year)/ total revenue in previous year profit and loss account, annual performance report fF4 Change in expenses of statutory activities (max) (total cost of unpaid and paid statutory activities in current year – total cost of unpaid and paid statutory activities in previous year)/total cost of unpaid and paid statutory activities in previous year profit and loss account, annual performance report fF5 Labour cost in relation to total revenue (min) gross salaries/total revenue profit and loss account, annual performance report fF6 Alternative labour costs (max); (b), (c) (number of volunteers*gross salaries)/employees annual performance report fF7 Administrative costs ratio (% of administrative costs) (value of 6,5%); (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) administrative cost/total cost profit and loss account, annual performance report fF8 Financial stability ratio (value of 73); (b), (c) cash and other short-term investments (in previous year)*365/total cost (in current year) balance sheet, profit and loss account fF9 Debt level (< 30%; min); (f) total current debt/total revenue balance sheet, profit and loss account fF10 Fiscal deficits (scale -1;0;1; max); (f) net profit/loss (within 2 years) profit and loss account fF11 Change in number of beneficiaries (max) (number of beneficiaries in current year – number of beneficiaries in previous year)/ number of beneficiaries in previous year annual performance report Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka5858 No. Criterion (min/max/value of); (previous studies) Measure – calculation formula Source of information fF12 Public and private revenue concentration ratio (% of public and private financing) (max) (revenue from public sources + 1% of personal income tax + revenues from private sources including individual and institutional donations)/total revenue annual performance report (a) Charity Navigator (b) Dyczkowski (2015a) (c) Dyczkowski (2015b) (d) Frumkin & Kim (2001) (e) Trussel & Parsons (2008) (f) Penley (2012). S o u r c e : own elaboration. Table 5. PBOs performance assessment criteria: information and reputation ratings and sources of information No. Criterion (min/max/value of); (previous studies) Measure – calculation formula Source of information fR1 Activity scope (value of 36); (b), (c) number of beneficiaries/ number of people involved in organization’s activities annual performance report fR2 Organization’s age (max); (e) the number of days an organization has PBO status annual performance report fR3 Statutory goals and activities or projects (max); (c) Do annual statements of an organization or its promotion materials define precisely statutory goals and activities or projects undertaken to achieve those objectives? (appraisal of the DM on scale 0-3) annual performance report, organization’s website fR4 Effects of activities (max); (c) Do annual statements of an organization or its promotion materials disclose accurately effects of activities undertaken by the organization in the recent period? (appraisal of the DM using scale 0-3) annual performance report, organization’s website Table 4. PBOs performance… information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 5959 No. Criterion (min/max/value of); (previous studies) Measure – calculation formula Source of information fR5 Beneficiaries of activities (max); (c) Do annual statements of an organization or its promotion materials characterize thoroughly beneficiaries of activities conducted by the organization in the recent period? (appraisal of the DM using scale 0-3) annual performance report, organization’s website fR6 Organization’s image (max); (c) Does the website of the organization help to produce a positive image of the PBO? (appraisal of the DM on scale 0-3) organization’s website fR7 Organization’s range of activity (max) Appraisal on scale 1-3 depending on the territorial scope of the conducted activity (there are 9 options in the report starting from the nearest neighbourhood and ending with abroad) annual performance report (b) Dyczkowski (2015a) (c) Dyczkowski (2015b) (e) Trussel & Parsons (2008). S o u r c e : own elaboration. Tables 6, 7 and 8 present the values of measures for each entity from the point of view of nineteen criteria considered as well as two vectors of weights: in the first one all criteria are equally important and the second one was deter- mined with the help of the CRITIC method (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayan- nakis, 1995). Table 5. PBOs performance… Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka6060 Table 6. PBOs performance assessment: weights and measurement data – part 1 fk fF1 fF2 fF3 fF4 fF5 fF6 fF7 fF8 Goal max max max max min max 0.065 73 Weights 1 (equal) 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 Weights 2 (CRITIC) 0.043 0.055 0.047 0.049 0.049 0.061 0.049 0.060 ORG 1 2602.01 49574.16 -0.557 -0.449 0.003 89803.89 0.129 101.46 ORG 2 63.26 38693.67 0.069 0.382 0.291 0.00 0.004 15.26 ORG 3 11552.54 57162.96 -0.056 -0.033 0.059 0.00 0.017 0.00 ORG 4 0.76 5649.49 0.003 -0.073 0.065 114258.43 0.000 36.16 ORG 5 323.07 10042.98 0.447 0.244 0.290 0.00 0.000 0.87 ORG 6 2027.91 22699.35 -0.118 -0.429 0.068 47620.13 0.000 16.06 ORG 7 5232.42 57779.21 0.293 0.155 0.136 0.00 0.119 0.00 ORG 8 1720.09 6882.93 0.395 0.193 0.031 13190.22 0.000 0.60 ORG 9 732.32 13895.57 0.186 0.192 0.484 20343.49 0.000 0.00 ORG 10 218.61 14448.5 0.536 0.62 0.323 4911.32 0.000 11.40 S o u r c e : own elaboration. Table 7. PBOs performance assessment: weights and measurement data – part 2 fk fF9 fF10 fF11 fF12 Goal min max max max Weights 1 (equal) 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 Weights 2 (CRITIC) 0.051 0.073 0.042 0.048 ORG 1 0.008 0 -0.699 0.257 ORG 2 0.002 0 -0.286 0.336 ORG 3 0.208 1 -0.352 0.357 ORG 4 0.036 0 0.071 0.289 ORG 5 0.002 0 -0.158 0.541 ORG 6 0.000 1 0.000 0.726 ORG 7 0.000 1 -0.968 0.811 information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 6161 fk fF9 fF10 fF11 fF12 Goal min max max max ORG 8 0.000 1 5.694 1.000 ORG 9 0.000 1 0.063 0.638 ORG 10 0.000 0 0.567 0.491 S o u r c e : own elaboration. Table 8. PBOs performance assessment: weights and measurement data – part 3 fk fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR5 fR6 fR7 Goal 36 max max max max max max Weights 1 (equal) 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 Weights 2 (CRITIC) 0.043 0.058 0.064 0.048 0.033 0.060 0.068 ORG 1 19.64 5008 3 3 1 3 1 ORG 2 628.57 5131 3 3 2 3 1 ORG 3 4.24 5078 1 3 1 3 3 ORG 4 7036.71 5359 1 1 1 3 2 ORG 5 28.48 4079 3 2 0 3 1 ORG 6 7.20 4406 3 3 1 2 1 ORG 7 8.92 3745 2 3 1 1 3 ORG 8 3.37 3020 2 2 1 2 3 ORG 9 18.15 1029 2 3 1 3 3 ORG 10 67.27 934 3 3 1 3 2 S o u r c e : own elaboration. Table 7. PBOs performance… Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka6262 Tables 9 and 10 as well as Graph 1 provide the results obtained by apply- ing the MAMIMCA approach with the PROMETHEE II method and the TOPSIS method. Table 9. MAMIMCA approach – results obtained using PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS for two vectors of weights No. PROMETHEE II TOPSIS Weights 1 (equal) Weights 2 (CRITIC) Weights 1 (equal) Weights 2 (CRITIC) PBO φ(ai) PBO φ(ai) PBO Si PBO Si 1 ORG 7 0.094 ORG 7 0.082 ORG 8 0.648 ORG 8 0.631 2 ORG 8 0.070 ORG 6 0.074 ORG 7 0.559 ORG 7 0.565 3 ORG 6 0.064 ORG 8 0.063 ORG 10 0.556 ORG 10 0.542 4 ORG 1 0.053 ORG 1 0.060 ORG 2 0.514 ORG 9 0.521 5 ORG 10 0.047 ORG 10 0.031 ORG 9 0.511 ORG 6 0.505 6 ORG 9 0.023 ORG 9 0.029 ORG 5 0.504 ORG 2 0.500 7 ORG 3 0.018 ORG 3 0.023 ORG 6 0.492 ORG 5 0.496 8 ORG 2 -0.012 ORG 2 -0.025 ORG 3 0.489 ORG 3 0.484 9 ORG 5 -0.129 ORG 5 -0.136 ORG 1 0.464 ORG 1 0.475 10 ORG 4 -0.228 ORG 4 -0.202 ORG 4 0.424 ORG 4 0.453 S o u r c e : own elaboration. Table 10. MAMIMCA approach – rankings obtained using PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS for two vectors of weights PBO Place in the ranking SumPROMETHEE II (equal weights) PROMETHEE II (CRITIC weights) TOPSIS (equal weights) TOPSIS (CRITIC weights) ORG 1 4 4 9 9 26 ORG 2 8 8 4 6 26 ORG 3 7 7 8 8 30 ORG 4 10 10 10 10 40 ORG 5 9 9 6 7 31 information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 6363 PBO Place in the ranking SumPROMETHEE II (equal weights) PROMETHEE II (CRITIC weights) TOPSIS (equal weights) TOPSIS (CRITIC weights) ORG 6 3 2 7 5 17 ORG 7 1 1 2 2 6 ORG 8 2 3 1 1 7 ORG 9 6 6 5 4 21 ORG 10 5 5 3 3 16 S o u r c e : own elaboration. Graph 1. Results of the MAMIMCA approach with PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS and two vectors of weights Table 10. MAMIMCA approach – rankings obtained using PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS for two vectors of weights PBO Place in the ranking Sum PROMETHEE II (equal weights) PROMETHEE II (CRITIC weights) TOPSIS (equal weights) TOPSIS (CRITIC weights) ORG 1 4 4 9 9 26 ORG 2 8 8 4 6 26 ORG 3 7 7 8 8 30 ORG 4 10 10 10 10 40 ORG 5 9 9 6 7 31 ORG 6 3 2 7 5 17 ORG 7 1 1 2 2 6 ORG 8 2 3 1 1 7 ORG 9 6 6 5 4 21 ORG 10 5 5 3 3 16 Source: own elaboration. Graph 1. Results of the MAMIMCA approach with PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS and two vectors of weights Source: own elaboration. As a result of the whole analysis conducted it turned out that the rankings obtained are to some extent sensitive to changes in the weights of evaluation criteria and to selection of the multi-criteria decision-aiding method. An attempt to determine a compromise solution for both methods and both vectors of weights has led us to conclude that the best entity for donation, taking into account its efficiency, effectiveness and reputation, is ORG 7 (it takes 4 4 9 9 8 8 4 6 7 7 8 8 10 10 10 10 9 9 6 7 3 2 7 5 1 1 2 22 3 1 1 6 6 5 4 5 5 3 3 PROMETHEE II (equal weights) PROMETHEE II (CRITIC weights) TOPSIS (equal weights) TOPSIS (CRITIC weights) ORG 1 ORG 2 ORG 3 ORG 4 ORG 5 ORG 6 ORG 7 ORG 8 ORG 9 ORG 10 S o u r c e : own elaboration. As a result of the whole analysis conducted it turned out that the rankings ob- tained are to some extent sensitive to changes in the weights of evaluation criteria and to selection of the multi-criteria decision-aiding method. An at- tempt to determine a compromise solution for both methods and both vectors Table 10. MAMIMCA approach… Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka6464 of weights has led us to conclude that the best entity for donation, taking into account its efficiency, effectiveness and reputation, is ORG 7 (it takes first place in the rankings of PROMETHEE II and second place in the rankings of TOPSIS). The second organization that can be considered for support is ORG 8 (it takes first place in the rankings of TOPSIS and either second or third place in the rankings of PROMETHEE II). On the other hand, the results obtained point out that the least preferred organization for co-financing is ORG 4 (which occupies the last spot in all rankings), the second worst for support is ORG 5, and the third worst one is ORG 3. The outcome of the research process and conclusionsThe outcome of the research process and conclusions Assuming that the assessment of PBOs requires a structured approach, a func- tional framework for such evaluation was developed and presented in this ar- ticle. The analysis performed used two appropriately selected multi-criteria techniques, namely: PROMETHEE II (Brans & Vincke, 1985; Brans, Vincke & Mare- schal, 1986) and TOPSIS (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). They were combined within the MAMIMCA approach – Multiple Assessment Multiple Importance Multiple Crite- ria Analysis (Górecka, 2020). Considering the pros and cons of various MCDA techniques, two above-men- tioned methods were employed since, first of all, both of them are considered to be user-friendly ones and, furthermore, they allow us to obtain not only a rank- ing of the alternatives (PBOs) but also scores for them (net outranking flows or relative distances from the weighted ideal solution, depending on the method). On the other hand, PROMETHEE II method requires from its users determi- nation of the type of preference function for each criterion, as well as the values of the parameters associated with a particular type of preference function (for example indifference and/or preference thresholds). This may present some challenges for decision-makers. The problem can be solved by using the first type of generalized criterion, in which there are no parameters (as it was done in the conducted study). Nevertheless, in that case, differences between the as- sessments of alternatives are not fully taken into account – it does not matter by how much one assessment is better than another with respect to a given cri- terion. This is the price to pay for simplicity and the ability to be quickly under- stood by decision-makers who often have a minimal mathematical background. information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 6565 According to the TOPSIS method, the most preferred alternative should have a profile which is nearest to the ideal solution and farthest from the anti-ideal solution. This approach is very intuitive and thus understandable for decision- makers. However, its weakness is the need to normalize the decision matrix, as different normalization formulas can lead to different final results (rankings). The research conducted has shown that the best PBO in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and reputation is ORG 7. In turn, the worst entity for co-funding turned out to be ORG 4.  References References Accounting Act of 29th September 1994 (Journal of Laws of 1994, no 121, item 591 with amendments). Brans J.P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE Methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehr- gott [Eds.]. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer: New York, 163–195. Brans, J.P., & Vincke, P. (1985). A preference ranking organization method: the PRO- METHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making. Management Science, 31, 647–56. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228–38. Charity Navigator – A Guide to Charity Navigator’s Ratings Framework and Method- ology, https://www.charitynavigator.org/about-us/our-methodology/ratings/ (ac- cessed: 10.11.2022). Chojnacka, E. (2020). One percent of personal income tax as a source of revenue in pub- lic benefit organisations. Ekonomia i Prawo, 19, 449–465. https://doi.org/10.12775/ EiP.2020.030. Chojnacka, E., & Górecka, D. (2016). Evaluating public benefit organizations in Poland with the EVAMIX method for mixed data. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 11, 36– 50. https://doi.org/10.22367/mcdm.2016.11.03. Chojnacka, E., & Górecka, D. (2017). Application of MCDA methods in the performance evaluation of Public Benefit Organisations. Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.15290/ose.2017.03.87.07. Chojnacka, E., & Górecka, D. (2018). Ranking charities using Multi Actor Multi Crite- ria Analysis methodology: the case of Public Benefit Organizations in Poland. In C. Macharis & G. Baudry (Eds.). Decision-making for Sustainable Transport and Mobil- ity: Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, 211–231. Chojnacka, E., & Miścikowska, D. (2018). Sprawozdanie z działalności jako uzupełniające źródło informacji o fundacji: zakres i ocena przydatności w rozpatrywanych fun- dacjach. (Performance report as a supplementary source of information about foun- dation: scope and assessment of usefulness in the surveyed foundations). Prace Nau- Ewa Chojnacka-Pelowska, Dorota Górecka6666 kowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.15611/ pn.2018.533.06. Czaja-Cieszyńska, H. (2017). Sprawozdanie finansowe organizacji pozarządowych w Polsce w latach 1994–2017. (The financial statement of non-governmental organ- izations in Poland in the years 1994–2017). Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, 341, 99–109. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H. Dyczkowski, T. (2015a). Mierniki dokonań organizacji pożytku publicznego. Możliwo- ści i ograniczenia stosowania. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wro- cławiu, 398, 146–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.15611/pn.2015.398.13. Dyczkowski, T. (2015b). Financial and non-financial information in performance as- sessment of public benefit organizations. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicz- nego we Wrocławiu, 398, 134–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.15611/pn.2015.398.12 Dyczkowski, T. (2016). Applying Text Mining to Analyze the Performance of PBOs on the Basis of Their Obligatory Annual Activity Statements. Problemy Zarzadzania, 14(4 (63)), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.63.9. Frumkin, P., & Kim, M.T. (2001). Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?, Public Ad- ministration Review, 61(3), 266–275. Goldmann, K. (2021). Sectoral analysis of Polish sports clubs with the public benefit or- ganization status. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 21, 2769–2775. https:// doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.05368. Górecka, D. (2011). On the choice of method in multi-criteria decision aiding process concerning European projects. In T. Trzaskalik & T. Wachowicz (Eds.). Multiple Cri- teria Decision Making ’10–11. Publisher of The University of Economics in Katowice: Katowice, 81–103. Górecka, D. (2012). Applying multi-criteria decision aiding techniques in the process of project management within the wedding planning business. Operations Research and Decisions, 22, 41–67. Górecka, D. (2020). Selecting the right football club to sponsor: multi-criteria analy- sis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20 suppl. 5, 2867–2874. https://doi. org/10.7752/jpes.2020.s5389. Górecka, D., & Chojnacka, E. (2017). Organizations of public benefit: performance eval- uation using MCDA approach. Croatian Operational Research Review, 8, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.17535/crorr.2017.0040. Hwang, C.L., & Yoon K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applica- tions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Liżewski, S., & Ostapowicz, E. (2022). Finanse i sprawozdania organizacji pozarządowych. (Finances and reports of non-profit organizations). C.H. Beck. Mamcarczyk, M., & Zieniuk, P. (2020). Funding of Public Benefit Activity with 1% of Per- sonal Income Tax Scheme: Empirical Research. Central European Management Jour- nal, 28(4), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.36. information availaBlE from mandatory rEPorts… 6767 Nadolna, B., & Rydzewska, M. (2021). Rachunkowość i podatki w organizacjach pozarzą- dowych. (Accounting and taxes in non-profit organizations). Wolters Kluwer. Oliński, M., & Szamrowski, P. (2020). Entrepreneurial activities of public benefit or- ganizations. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 853–867. http://doi. org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(57). Penley, P. (2012). Nonprofit performance evaluation: financial management. Alliance Magazine, http://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/nonprofit-performance-evalua- tion-financial-management-part-2-of-6/ (accessed: 10.01.2017). Piechota, G. (2015). Legislation on Financing Public Benefit Activities from Tax Desig- nation in Poland. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 17(1), 86–91. Regulation of the Chairman of the Public Benefit Committee of October 24, 2018 on specimen of the annual performance report and the annual simplified performance report for public benefit organizations, (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 2061). Roszkowska, E. (2011). Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. In T. Trzaskalik & T. Wachowicz (Eds.). Multiple Criteria Decision Making ’10–11. Publisher of The University of Economics in Kato- wice: Katowice, 200–230. Statistics Poland, News Release (2021). Activities of associations and similar social or- ganizations, foundations, faith-based charities, country housewives associations as well as business and professional associations in 2020 – preliminary results, https://stat.gov.pl/en (accessed: 8.11.2022). The Act of law of 24th April 2003 on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work, (Journal of Laws of 2003, no 96, item 873 with amendments). The non-profit sector in 2020. Associations, foundations, faith-based charities, busi- ness and professional associations, Statistical Analyses, Statistics Poland 2022, stat.gov.pl (accessed: 3.11.2022). Trussel, J.M., & Parsons, L.M. (2008). Financial reporting factors affecting donations to charitable organizations. Advances in Accounting, 23, 263–285. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0882-6110(07)23010-X. Waniak-Michalak, H., & Zarzycka, E. (2012). Performance Measurement of Public Ben- efit Organizations on the Basis of Information from Financial Statements and Its Influence on Their Results. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 68(124), 147–160. Żak, P. (2012). Public Benefit Status in Poland. Review of existing legislation. Nation- al Federation of Polish NGOs. Public Benefit Status in V4 countries and Germany – conference in Prague 21.09.2012. Available at: http://ofop.eu/sites/ofop.eu/files/ biblioteka-pliki/pzak_public_benefit_and_ngo_in_poland_20120921.pdf (accessed: 27.06.2016). (www1) https://niw.gov.pl/opp/sprawozdania-opp/ (accessed: 4.11.2022).