Though golf courses utilize many of the same resource inputs as agriculture, including water, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy, the outputs of production are not physical goods like in agriculture. Instead, golf courses are part of the service industry, where the output of production is an experience. Eco-efficiency studies in the service industry, specifically the tourism industry, commonly use economic impact as the output of production. We hypothesize that for golf courses, which are most commonly independent small businesses, the output of production is best defined by the number of rounds hosted by the course or as the profit made by the course. The number of rounds quantifies the recreational utility that the golf course provides, while profit quantifies the economic output of the golf course. In this study, the ratio of rounds of golf played to water, energy, fertilizer, and pesticide use is referred to as social eco-efficiency, while the ratio of profit generated to water, energy, fertilizer, and pesticide use is referred to as economic eco-efficiency. Climate normalized eco-efficiency scores were also developed so that eco-efficiency scores could be compared across golf courses in different climates. Both climate normalized and non-climate normalized social and economic eco-efficiency scores within each resource category were weighed equally to generate social and economic eco-efficiency indices for each golf course in the study. The climate normalized mean social and economic eco-efficiency indices were higher on average on golf courses in Europe than golf courses in the US. Public golf courses had higher mean social eco-efficiency indices than private golf courses, and resort courses had the highest mean economic eco-efficiency indices. The eco-efficiency framework holds promise as a tool to help golf course managers reduce inputs that do not support the social or economic benefits of golf.