The bright side of social economy sector’s projectification: a study of successful social enterprises

Reviewed by: Understanding the Social Economy: A Canadian Perspective Allyson Hewitt Understanding the Social Economy: A Canadian Perspective by Jack Quarter, Laurie Mook, and Ann Armstrong. University of Toronto Press, 2009, 344 pp. Paper $35.00, Cloth $80.00 If the term social economy sounds like an oxymoron, then this is probably not the book for you. If, however, you have an interest in social enterprises, co-operatives, and social purpose business, then this book provides a comprehensive guide to understanding this robust and emerging sector. Practitioners will be pleased to see the social economy portrayed as a legitimate field of scholarly study and appreciate this book’s thorough and thoughtful analysis. Social economy organizations are established primarily for social reasons, but they also make a significant contribution to the economy. Although most parts of the social economy are not readily [End Page 279] captured by an easily accessible data set, here is an indication of the sector’s impact: not-for-profit organizations are reported to contribute approximately 7.1 percent of GDP (Statistics Canada 2006), employ over 1 million staff, and engage volunteers in providing over 2 billion hours of service annually. The authors, Jack Quarter, Laurie Mook and Ann Armstrong, all University of Toronto professors at the time of publication, describe the social economy as “an umbrella concept for the many types of organizations created to meet a social need but also involving economic aspects … and in some cases, the exchange of services in the market” (p. vii). It is a very broad category, and the authors try—with varying degrees of success—to present a framework for understanding it. Although there are many books that deal with components of the social economy, this one is uniquely Canadian and aims to “create an appreciation of the many contributions of the vast array of social economy organizations and to understand the challenges they may face” (p. xi). Again, this is not a particularly new topic, but the authors here are also targeting a historically unusual audience: business students. To remain relevant to these readers, the book offers not only historical analysis but also discussion questions and both high-level and in-depth case studies. This approach is obviously the work of experienced educators. The case examples are all good, as current as possible, and go a long way to making the experience of this nebulous sector relevant to a new audience. The challenge lies in the distinctions the authors attempt to make between the rapidly blurring lines associated with creating both social and economic value, or what many of us in the sector call blended value, which builds on the work of Jed Emerson and more recently Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, who use the term shared value. The authors present a typology that involves five categories: social economy businesses, community economic development, social enterprises, public sector non-profits, and civil society organizations. But as the authors themselves point out, the distinctions between these categories, and in fact between social economy organizations and traditional for-profit enterprises engaged in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), are “one of degree rather than one of dichotomy” (p. x), and the boundaries between the sectors are currently blurred and increasingly fluid. Therefore, the distinctions feel a bit forced and arbitrary, making them challenging to follow as clearly as one would have hoped. The authors provide great detail on each of the categories. But some organizations, for example the YM-YWCA, which the authors identify as a social economy business, could fall under any category. Organizations in the social economy are complex, and an effort to find similar underlying characteristics, rather than differences, is probably a more useful exercise. The authors identify these shared, similar characteristics as having social objectives, social ownership, volunteer/social participation, and civic engagement. Those who use the term social economy, primarily in Quebec where the term is frequently used, are probably comfortable with this characterization, but we at MaRS have begun to think about this work slightly differently. We are faced with a growing range of social innovators who are choosing some form of private ownership (not social ownership) in order to achieve a social or environmental outcome— valuing...

Institutional structures impeding forest-based social innovation in Serbia and Slovenia

The social economy sector in Croatia has been neglected for a long time and has not been recognized as a space for sustainable jobs and the development of a more inclusive and cohesive society, as is the case in many Eastern and Central European countries. On the other hand, social entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon established in this century. The aim of this paper is to assess the trends and challenges of social economy development in Croatia as the newest, last EU member state. On the basis of a secondary data analysis, the paper scrutinizes trends in social economy development. Social entrepreneurship is analysed as a part of the social economy that is strengthening, as well as the economic activity of associations that tends to turn into a social economy or a solidarity economy. The paper will also give an overview of the instances of the institutional context of the development of cooperatives and social enterprises, such as the recent legislative and policy changes, as well as the institutional framework with some insights into recommendations how to promote the development of the social economy sector in Croatia. Keywords: social economy; cooperative sector; social enterprises; Croatia.

In periods of recession, private sector of economy does not develop entrepreneurial action, due to limited demand which implies limited profits. This results in reduction in employment and increase in unemployment. Public sector of economy should proceed to public investments and enhance development. However, in the present economic crisis, public sector does not develop initiatives, due to budget deficit; to the contrary public sector is confined and contributes to the maintenance of recession. Social sector of economy does not aim at profit making but at job creation, mainly for the vulnerable groups of population. It intervenes by taking actions of mild economic growth and contributes to economic recovery. For this reason, national legislations in Europe provide the establishment of social economy enterprises. Local government, which, in a sense, belongs to the social sector of economy, has the possibilities to reinforce both social economy enterprises and actions of social entrepreneurship aiming for the enhancement of local economy.

Over the past few decades, the concern for civil society of China has emerged at home and outside. It has become theoretical and empirical interests in the backdrop of national and international turbulence, such as China’s reform and opening up, Tiananmen incident, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1980s and early 1990s. It has also expanded to include applying the concept of western civil society to China, argument for the existence and possibility of Chinese civil society, and detailed activities and social function of civil society actors. By the way, there is something new in Chinese civil society. In the past, while Chinese civil society actors are referred to as NGOs, NPOs, Non-profit sector, or private organizations, etc., current Chinese regulations define them as ‘Social Organizations’, ‘People-Run Non-Enterprise Units’, or ‘Foundation’. In addition, the term ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ are added to the definitions lately. While the ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ have been around for several decades in some countries, it is a new concept in China. It has only just begun to emerge since the mid of 2000s. Nevertheless, the term ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ have spreaded rapidly over the academic communities, civil society, and governmental organizations in China over the past few years. What is the background of spread of the term ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ in China? For this, firstly, Chinese government’s new understanding on the civil society is noteworthy. The Chinese government seems to expand the social role of civil society as a governance by combining the government-led and private sector-participated. From the government’s standpoint, collaborative governance with the civil society is a very attractive alternative for the economic and social development because the government-private sector partnership may complement the lack of government and market to create public service. Therefore, the government may accept easily the concept of ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ as a governance by the collaboration between government and private sector. On the contrary, such changes from the top-bottom level will help the Chinese civil society enhance their social participating ability and survival capacity. That’s why many Chinese civil society actors are seeking for transformation toward ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’. Indeed, ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ in China are being shaped by the strategic cooperative framing between private sector and the government. This paper interprets the concept of ‘Social Economy’ and ‘Social Enterprise’ in China, and examines private-governmental interaction toward the collaborative governance in Chinese Social Economy.

The article analyzes certain theoretical aspects of the development of «the third sector» and subjects of social economy. The terms «social economy» and «third sector» have long been in circulation in Western economic science, legislation and business practice and today are an important component of the developed countries’ economies. However, for Ukraine they are relatively new, uncommon and insufficiently researched, which, in turn, creates obstacles for their active development. Therefore, the analysis of existing approaches in European economic science and the development of theoretical aspects of the «third sector» and social economy development in Ukraine is a very relevant and important scientific task. The peculiarities of use of the term «social economy» in two different meanings have been established. The first is related to the general theoretical aspects of macroeconomics and certain theoretical and political economic concepts of the «improvement» of capitalism. The second is related to practical embodiment of the idea of mutual aid in the form of a special type of enterprises (organizations) that have a «non-capitalist nature» (do not want to make a profit) and form a separate, special sector of the market economy, consisting of real business entities whose activities are based on the idea of mutual assistance and has a clear social direction. Within the social economy sector, another term stood out and became widespread, which is «solidarity economy» – as a part of the social economy at grassroots level (in individual territorial communities and on the basis of other stable groups of people united by a certain sign of solidarity). Therefore, in the literature, the terms «social» and «solidarity» economy are found both separately and together when it comes to organizations or enterprises of social (solidarity) economy (SSE organizations or ESS). The terms «social economy» and «third sector» are quite close in meaning, because they unite specific non-state, non-profit, socially oriented organizations. However, «the third sector» is a category that includes, but is not limited to, social economy entities. In other words, «social economy» is the largest and most important part of «the third sector». The social economy subjects traditionally include cooperatives, mutual societies, fund associations and social enterprises. All of them have non-profit economic nature and specific legal regulation. In the article, significant attention is paid to the disclosure of these features, common features and differences of various subjects of the social economy.

he European Commission directs its financial instruments to the broadly understood social economy sector, including the development of social entrepreneurship. In 2011, the European Commission presented the Social Business Initiative (SBI), defining the activities of the European Union to support the development of social enterprises (key stakeholders of the social economy). According to the assumptions of the European Commission, social enterprises are specific organisations that combine social objectives with initiatives promoting entrepreneurial attitudes, focusing on achieving wider social goals or exerting social impact. Financial support is also intended to generate changes in a broader time perspective in the coming years of the EP’s activity. Since Poland’s accession to the European community in 2004, the social economy (including social enterprises) has received financial support in many areas of its activity. The beneficiaries of the funds covered not only social economy entities (PES), but also institutions supporting the development of the social economy, mainly social entrepreneurship, such as Social Economy Support Centers (OWES). It is mainly these key entities of the social economy – social enterprises have become places of new jobs and motivators of civic activity. The aim of the article is to quantify the financial support received from the European Social Fund in the years 2004–2016 for activities aimed at the development of social entrepreneurship (SE).

The evidence of the effectiveness of public support aimed at social enterprises is limited and rare. This paper explores the impact of government public support offered to social enterprises. The empirical research focussed on the case of Poland. Individual In-depth Interviews have been used to explore opinions on public support of social enterprises. Ten interviews were organised, covering two groups: social entrepreneurs and stakeholders’ social economy sector. The study contributes to social enterprise theory and the literature on public policy implementation by identifying factors limiting the effectiveness of government support for social enterprises.

Bulgarian Abstract: Социалната икономика заема сериозен дял от европейската икономика. Като ключов компонент на европейския социален модел социалните предприятия са устойчиви и ефективни в условията на криза. Социалните ползи от тях се измерват главно с интеграцията и реинтеграцията на хората в неравностойно положение в обществения живот, а икономическите и финансовите резултати - със спестяването на значителни публични средства, отделяни за социални помощи и обезщетения. В последните години ЕК започна създаването на политическа рамка в подкрепа на социалната икономика и социалното предприемачество, която намери израз в редица политически документи, очертаващи границите и възможностите за тяхното развитие. Във всички европейски документи социалното предприятие е припознато като ключов компонент на гражданското общество и на Европейския социален модел. Подчертава се, че социалните предприятия са неразделна част от широкото гражданско общество и основен компонент на сектора на социалната икономика, които трябва да бъдат подкрепени политически и финансово в своята цялост. При анализирането на инициативите, насочени към социалното предприемачество, се смята за необходимо то да бъде разгледано в контекста на по- широкото понятие за социално предприятие, тъй като са необходими мерки на всеки етап от неговия жизнен цикъл. Тъй като определенията в отделните страни се различават, социалното предприятие следва да се опише въз основа на общи характеристики като социални цели, реинвестиране на печалбите, многообразие от правни форми и начини на участие на заинтересованите страни. Приоритети за социалните предприятия са осигуряването на по-добър достъп до капитал и специално пригодени финансови инструменти. Комисията и държавите-членки следва да насърчават създаването на специфични програми за подкрепа за развитие на социалните предприятия и следващото поколение социални предприемачи. English Abstract: The social economy takes a substantial share of the European economy. As a key component of the European social model social enterprises are sustainable and effective in conditions of crisis. The social benefits of them are measured primarily by the integration and reintegration of disadvantaged people in society and economic and financial results - a significant saving of public funds allocated for social benefits. In recent years, the European Commission began setting a policy framework for the social economy and social entrepreneurship, which found expression in a number of policy documents outlining the limits and opportunities for their development. In all European documents the social enterprise is identified as a key component of civil society and the European social model. It is stressed that social enterprises are an integral part of the wider civil society and a major component of the social economy sector, which must be supported politically and financially in its entirety. When exploring initiatives promoting social entrepreneurship, it is considered necessary for it to be viewed in the context of the wider notion of social enterprise since actions are needed at every stage of its life cycle. Since the definitions in different countries vary, social enterprise should be described on the basis of shared characteristics such as social objectives, reinvestment of profits, a variety of legal forms and ways of stakeholder participation. Priorities for social enterprises are providing better access to capital and tailored finance instruments. The Commission and member states should encourage the creation of specific programs to support the development of social enterprises and the next generation of social entrepreneurs.

In Europe 160 million people are members of social economy enterprises and mutual societies. Members that work at social enterprises usually are bound with an employee relationship with their organization; on the other hand participating in a social enterprise could be their only chance to find a job, especially for economies that face a long-term recession such as the Greek economy. Social enterprises and entrepreneurs invest in reciprocity which represents that positive actions will inspire reciprocal positive actions. The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of reciprocity on members’ decision either to invest in social enterprises or to work for them acquiring in both cases the necessary shares. For this reason, a survey was conducted among Greek members of social enterprises listed in the Greek Social enterprises directory, to investigate their aspects about reciprocity and if these aspects affect their decision to work in a social enterprise or support financially them. The survey process returned 142 fully completed questionnaires. The analysis identified a sub group (5 over 27 items) of the questions used to measure reciprocity that can be used to classify participants into shareholders - members (investors) and shareholders - workers in social enterprises. It is worth mentioning that sex or other demographic characteristics of the respondents do not affect this classification while there are only aspects of positive reciprocity that have either positive or negative effect on the possibility to work in social enterprises. Social entrepreneurs and the Greek state could use these findings in order to direct and manage their expansion efforts.

PurposeSocial economy employees focus on personal fulfillment and social good rather than economic gains. They prefer to work in a sector that promotes satisfaction and makes them feel worthy. The purpose of this paper is to investigate employees’ motivations to engage in the social economy sector, especially in a period of financial downturn in Greece. Furthermore, the impact of specific demographic characteristics on employees’ work motivation is examined.Design/methodology/approachThe research participants included 200 employees of worker cooperatives and social cooperative enterprises. A survey was conducted by collecting primary data and using a close-ended type questionnaire.FindingsAccording to the findings, intrinsic forces motivate the employees to a greater extent toward social economy sector than economic ones. However, the replacement of the profit motivation from the main concern, it does not mean that the employees are not interested in financials. The survey also indicated that the most important barrier for starting to work in the social economy sector is the difficulty in finding partners. Finally, the findings showed that demographic characteristics partially influence work motivations of Greek employees on the social economy sector.Originality/valueThe results of this study may interest employers in finding new ways to motivate employees toward social economy sector under economic crisis conditions.

PurposeThis paper critically assesses Western views on the social economy in contrast to everyday realities in a low-income country, and challenges ethnocentric epistemologies in the discourse of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship that is prevalent in international development. It charts the changing trajectory of the social economy and different influences.Design/methodology/approachQualitative data is used to explore views of members of social enterprises in Northern Cambodia. Three enterprises with different characteristics were selected. Semi-structured interviews and a group discussion took place in each case, exploring motivation, values, empowerment, participation, equity, innovation and risk appetite.FindingsThe important roles social enterprises play in rural community development are sometimes at odds with the reasoning of Western development agencies. The social economy in Cambodia is undergoing change with the advancement of capitalist market forces. This suits formal businesses but could exacerbate the exclusion of various community actors.Research limitations/implicationsThree case studies are in close proximity in Northern Cambodia, and the situated dynamics may not transfer well to other contexts. Some limitations are offset by the selection of different types of social enterprises.Practical implicationsThe study gives insights of value to the designers of programmes or projects to support social enterprise who work within international development agencies and non-government organisations. For academics, it offers critical insight into assumptions about social enterprise that emanate from Western management literature.Originality/valueThis paper meets the need for close-up inter-disciplinary work on social enterprise development in under-represented contexts.

This Thematic Issue seeks to explore critical perspectives of an international nature on social innovation (SI), social enterprise (SE) and/or social solidarity economy (SSE). The aim is to examine the grand narrative, explore the ontological assumptions of the field, challenge the normative and present alternatives that draw attention to political economy, critical theory and critical management studies. Critical perspectives emerged in social innovation (SI) literature as a concerted effort sometime in 2008. A few voices sounded from the edges of the field much earlier. Ash Amin, Professor of Geography at Durham University, inspected the new favourite of public policy way back in 2002, discarded it as a "a poor substitute for a welfare state" and never returned to the subject. There were heated debates that challenged the grand narrative of SI at the International Social Innovation Research Conferences (ISIRC) (once called the Social Enterprise Research Conference before becoming ISIRC with the involvement of the social innovation theme from Skoll Centre). The Voluntary Sector Studies Network (VSSN) conferences picked away at the promise of unlimited performance and achievement of the upstart SE in a mature voluntary and charity network (

Social enterprises play a key role in addressing social, environmental, and educational challenges by leveraging social capital to create high-impact solutions. Examples of social enterprises in Ukraine and Poland demonstrate how innovative approaches combined with social initiatives contribute to solving pressing issues and fostering sustainable development in local communities. The study examines the dynamics of social entrepreneurship development in Ukraine within the context of institutionalizing this form of economic activity to increase employment. It has been established that the development of social entrepreneurship in Ukraine remains insufficient and requires both government support and public recognition. The conceptual foundation of social entrepreneurship is based on understanding the social responsibility of businesses to society. This activity combines entrepreneurial spirit with a non-profit character, directing all income toward reinvestment. The research identifies development pathways for social entrepreneurship in Ukraine and Poland, outlining prospects for its institutional establishment. Analysis reveals that the diversity of statuses, forms, and sectoral specifics of social enterprises in Ukraine is shaped by the quality of social capital. The institutional structure and organizational-economic functionality of social enterprises in Poland were analyzed. It was emphasized that classic social enterprises are virtually absent in Ukraine due to a lack of specific institutional and legal regulations. Instead, hybrid structures such as social cooperatives or farming enterprises for veterans operate in line with certain social entrepreneurship criteria. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive institutional support for social entrepreneurship in both countries, contributing to its effective development and increasing social and economic benefits.

This paper aims to examine the motivations, values, and job satisfaction among the people employed in the sector of social entrepreneurship that were obtained through a qualitative study of ten Croatian social cooperatives. In our analysis, we interpreted the experiences of working in a social enterprise from the employee perspective. Our findings suggest that the participants/employees of social enterprises favour intrinsic motivation and values related to their jobs, that they describe their working conditions in social enterprises positively, and that they share a perceived increase in the quality of life since having started working at a social enterprise. The described relations between motivation, job experiences, and participatory management allowed us to build upon and extend the existing body of research on motivation and job satisfaction in the social economy sector.