©istockphoto:Vaselena
European Economic and Social Committee
Recent Evolutions
of the Social Economy
in the European Union
STUDY
Recent evolutions of the
Social Economy in the European Union
by CIRIEC-International - Centre international de recherches et d'information
sur l'économie publique, sociale et coopérative
Directors: Jose Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
CES/CSS/12/2016/23406
The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee. The European Economic and Social
Committee does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study.
Neither the European Economic and Social Committee nor any person acting on the European Economic
and Social Committee’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword: Luca Jahier, President of the Various Interests Group of the European
Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Messieurs Krzysztof Balon and Alain Coheur,
Co-Spokespersons of the Social Economy Category of the EESC
Preface
1. Introduction and objectives
2. The social economy concept and the main theoretical approaches related to it
3. The social economy and related emergent concepts in Europe
4. Public policies towards the Social Economy at the European level in the recent period
(2010-16)
5. Public policies towards the Social Economy in Europe at the national and regional
levels in the recent period (2010-16)
6. A comparative analysis of the new national legislation on the Social Economy in
Europe
7. The weight of the Social Economy in the 28 EU Member States
8. Methods and indicators to evaluate the Social Economy and its impact
9. Conclusions
Bibliography
Appendix 1. Correspondents
Appendix 2. Questionnaires per country
Appendix 3. Glossary
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
3
FOREWORD by Luca JAHIER
It is with great pleasure that I welcome the publication of the study 'Recent Evolutions in the
Social Economy in the European Union', which was commissioned by the European Economic
and Social Committee (EESC) and carried out by CIRIEC. By publishing three successive
studies since 2008, we have proven our continued commitment to supporting and promoting the
social economy in Europe.
The study enables us to measure progress, by providing reliable and comparable data. What is
evident is that the social economy has emerged from the economic and financial crisis largely
unscathed. Today, the sector provides paid employment to 6.3% of the working population in
the EU-28, compared to 6.5% in 2012.
It is my firm belief that the social economy illustrates and defends the values on which the
European Union was built (Article 3 TEU). It is both an opportunity and a vehicle for citizen
participation, responsibility and ownership of our sustainable future. Moreover, it constitutes a
far-reaching instrument to enable the EU to move closer to its commitments under the UN 2030
Agenda on Sustainable Development.
For this reason, the increasing EU assistance provided to the social economy by the European
Social Fund (ESF) is crucial. I am also particularly pleased that over the last few years,
successive Presidencies of the Council of the EU have prioritised the social economy and have
welcomed the contribution of the EESC to their work.
Nonetheless, much still needs to be done, including in raising the visibility and recognition of
the sector. I sincerely hope that progress will be made in the near future towards developing
systematic statistics for the different social economy groups and in including the social
economy in the national statistical accounts. Undoubtedly, this would constitute a first
necessary step towards giving the social economy the credit that it is due. I also consider that
there is a great untapped potential for linking the EUs internal and external dimensions of the
social economy, particularly in relations with our neighbours during times of increasing
political, security and economic turbulence.
I call on all actors to join forces and to step up their activities. We have already made good
progress. Let us continue together along this path!
Luca JAHIER
President of the Various Interests Group
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
4
FOREWORD by Alain COHEUR
This is the third time that the EESC has published a study on Recent Evolutions in the Social
Economy in the European Union, following those carried out in 2008 and 2012. The study,
commissioned from the CIRIEC research centre, does not simply update the previous versions,
but focuses on three areas:
- the social economy and emerging concepts/movements,
- public policies in the broad sense that have been framed at EU level and in the Member
States in recent years to improve the social economy sector,
- the size of the social economy in each EU Member State.
In publishing this study, the EESC is boosting its commitment to the recognition and promotion
of the social economy, a sector that is an absolute cornerstone not only for jobs and social
cohesion throughout Europe but also for building and consolidating a European Pillar of Social
Rights.
The study highlights the important – and growing – role that the social economy plays in the
market economy, working with and alongside it. By ensuring that economic efficiency serves
social needs, the social economy creates genuine interdependence between economic and social
issues rather than making one subordinate to the other.
The social economy's potential for growth at a time of economic and social crisis has been
highlighted on many occasions. Indeed, the social economy is a model of resilience, and
continues to develop while other economic sectors are struggling. It is not a by-product: social
economy enterprises reflect the need for an economy that reconciles social, economic and
financial dimensions, that is able to create wealth and that is not measured solely in terms of its
financial capital, but also – and above all – by its social capital. The activities of social economy
enterprises are not driven solely by market or growth criteria. Development, double-digit
profitability and profits are not the ultimate objectives: the contribution to the general interest,
social cohesion and the well-being of our societies are.
This study shows that it is essential to continue the discussion on the concept of social
enterprise, as part of a broader, more comprehensive plan to support, promote and develop the
social economy, its principles and its governance. It is also essential to encourage the exchange
of good practice with other Member States with long experience in the social economy.
To support the growth of the social economy, it will be necessary to show political courage by
taking specific measures on taxation, loans and red tape and by taking practical action to support
the social economy – particularly for young people who want to engage in a more responsible
economy and to invest in people.
The EESC will continue to be a staunch ally to social economy enterprises.
Alain COHEUR
Co-Spokesperson of the Social Economy Category
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
5
FOREWORD by Krzysztof BALON
The current edition of the EESC study "Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the
European Union" confirms once again the important role of the Social Economy Sector in
creating employment, facilitating sustainable growth, matching services to needs and in
distributing fairer income and wealth. However, activities undertaken by Social Economy
entities have a much broader context, namely the building of both participatory democracy and
social capital. This applies in a special way to the Member States, which have joined the EU
since 2004. Most of them were until 1989/1990 socialist countries under the domination of the
Soviet Union with non-existing or very limited activities by civil society. The consequences of
these historical developments are, inter alia, a fragile financial situation in the NGO sector and a
low level of civil society engagement in creating local job opportunities. This is visible even in
the statistics: while the paid employment rate in the social economy is 6.3% in the EU as a
whole, the same rate in the "new" Member States amounts to an average of 2.5%.
Ex oriente lux: on the other hand, a lot of new ideas and approaches coming from these
countries contribute to the enrichment of the European Social Economy. From the experience of
the Polish Solidarność/Solidarity movement, to discussions on the implementation of the
principle of subsidiarity including the independence of the Social Economy from authorities, to
practical examples such as the Slovak model for municipal social enterprises.
A permanent dialogue between lawmakers/politicians and the social economy sector, at both the
national and European levels, which includes experiences of all Member States seems to be of
great importance for the creation of a long-term strategy for the development of the social
economy. All relevant actors are invited to work together with the EESC for the recognition of
the Social Economy as a crucial – perhaps a dominant – part of the future economic and social
model in Europe.
Krzysztof BALON
Co-Spokesperson of the Social Economy Category
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
Copyright “Jan Brenner, dbb”
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
6
PREFACE
The European Economic and Social Committee has commissioned this Report to CIRIEC, in
order to take stock of the Social Economy in the 28 member states of the European Union. The
purpose of this is highly practical: so that the Social Economy (SE) can be visualised and
recognised. Which and how many, where they are, how they have developed, how large or
important they are, how the public and governments see them and which were its recent
evolutions: these are the questions that the Report addresses.
The Report has mainly been written by two experts from the International Centre of Research
and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy (CIRIEC), the organisation
that the European Economic and Social Committee selected for this task. The directors and
writers, José Luis Monzón and Rafael Chaves, are both professors at the University of Valencia
(IUDESCOOP-UV) and members of CIRIEC International Scientific Committee for the Social
Economy. The Directors have had the permanent support and advice of a Committee of Experts
composed of the Directors and the following team: Marie Bouchard (President of the scientific
commission of CIRIEC), Cristina Barna (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Rumania),
Nadine Richez-Battesti (University of Aix-Marseille, France), Roger Spear (Open University,
Milton Keynes, the UK), Gordon Hahn (SERUS, Sweden), Alberto Zevi (LEGACOOP, Italy),
Jorge de Sa (University of Lisbon, Portugal). Dr. M. Bouchard and Dr. Gemma Fajardo
(IUDESCOOP, University of Valencia, Spain) have written specific chapters for this Report.
We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Social Economy Category of the
European Economic and Social Committee and of Social Economy Europe, who very kindly
discussed this document. Their information and observations have been most useful in carrying
out and concluding the work.
One of the central objectives of the Report, the comparative analysis of the current situation of
the SE by countries, would not have been possible without the decisive help of 89
correspondents – academics, sector experts and highly-placed civil servants – in the 28 EU
member countries.
Antonio González Rojas of CIRIEC-España played a decisive role in coordinating the network
of correspondents and collecting and organising the copious information received from them.
We are very pleased to acknowledge the excellent work he has done.
Ana Ramón of CIRIEC-España's administrative services and Barbara Sak and Christine Dussart
at the Liège office took good care of the administrative and secretarial work involved in
preparing the Report, which was written in Spanish and English and translated and revised
mainly by Gina Hardinge.
We feel privileged to have been given the opportunity to direct the preparation of this Report
which, we hope, will serve to boost the SE as one of the pillars of the construction of Europe.
Rafael Chaves and José Luis Monzón
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1. Objectives
The general objective of the Report is to study the recent evolution of the social economy (SE)
in the European Union (UE) and its 28 member states. It focuses in three areas: firstly, the social
economy and the emergent concepts/movements related to the space between states and
market/for profit businesses, secondly, the public policies in their large sense built both at the
EU and the Member countries in recent years to enhance the social economy sector and thirdly,
measuring the weight of the social economy in each EU Member country. This research is not
only an update of the studies entitled “The Social Economy in the European Union”, carried out
by CIRIEC and published in 2008 and in 2012 by the European Economic and Social
Committee, but also an analysis and assessment of recent evolution in this field in Europe. In
order to provide answers to the research topics, the project was structured around three areas. In
the first, the conceptual area, the research undertook an overview of the emergent concepts,
comparing them with the established EU concept of the social economy and identifying their
challenges.
In the second area, public policies, the research focused on the policies towards the social
economy deployed by governments, at the European level and at the national level, in the recent
period (2010-16). The environment and ‘ecosystem’ of the social economy is a major factor that
can facilitate the development of social economy entities or can constitute an external barrier to
them. The project formulated a framework to categorise all these policies. It provides for a
review of the main initiatives deployed at the EU and national levels, a comparative analysis of
the new national legislation on the Social Economy and an assessment of their impact in
Europe.
The third area is statistical. Its central goal was to provide quantitative data on the social
economy in the 28 Member States, following the same method used in the two former studies
carried out by CIRIEC for the EESC. It also studied the recent developments in statistics and the
available data around Europe.
1.2. Methods
The Report has been directed and mainly written by Rafael Chaves and José Luis Monzón of
CIRIEC, advised by a Committee of Experts who have discussed the entire work schedule,
methodology and proposed final Report with the directors and helped them to identify the
different classes of companies and organisations that form part of the SE in each of the
European Union countries.
With regard to the methods themselves, the first part of the Report takes the definition of the
business or market sector of the SE given in the European Commission Manual for drawing up
the satellite accounts of cooperatives and mutual societies as the basis for establishing a
definition of the SE as a whole that is intended to achieve wide political and scholarly
consensus.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
8
Concerning the second of the Report's objectives, a major field study was conducted in March
and April 2017 by sending out a questionnaire to the 28 member states of the EU. It was sent to
privileged witnesses with an expert knowledge of the SE concept and related areas and of the
reality of the sector in their respective countries. These experts are university researchers,
professionals working in the federations and structures that represent the SE and highly-placed
national government civil servants with responsibilities in relation to the SE. The results have
been highly satisfactory, as 89 completed questionnaires have been collected from the 28
countries in the EU (See Appendices 1 and 2).
As regards the third intermediate objective of the Report, identifying public policies, this was
done through consulting the Committee of Experts and sector experts, through information
supplied in the questionnaires and through discussions with the Committee of Experts.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
9
CHAPTER 2
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY CONCEPT AND THE MAIN THEORETICAL
APPROACHES RELATED TO IT
2.1. Present-day identification and institutional recognition of the Social Economy
The previous Report on the Social Economy for the EESC1
included an account of the historical
evolution of the concept of the social economy, from its origins in the 19th
century through to
the second half of the 20th
century.
Identification of the social economy as it is known today began in France, in the 1970s, when
the organisations representing the cooperatives, mutual societies and associations created the
National Liaison Committee for Mutual, Cooperative and Associative Activities (CNLAMCA).
From the end of the Second World War to 1977, the term 'Social Economy' had fallen out of
everyday use, even among the 'families' in this sector of economic activity. European
conferences of cooperatives, mutual societies and associations were held under the auspices of
the European Economic and Social Committee in 1977 and 1979 (EESC, 1986). In June 1980,
CNLAMCA published the Social Economy Charter, which defines the social economy as the
set of organisations that do not belong to the public sector, operate democratically with the
members having equal rights and duties and practise a particular regime of ownership and
distribution of profits, employing the surpluses to expand the organisation and improve its
services to its members and to society (Économie Sociale, 1981; Monzón, 1987).
These defining features have been widely disseminated in the economics literature and outline a
social economy sphere that hinges on three main families, cooperatives, mutual societies and
associations, to which foundations have recently been added.
The most recent conceptual definition of the social economy, drawn up by its own members,
can be found in the Charter of Principles of the Social Economy of Social Economy Europe2
,
the European-level association that represents the social economy. These principles are:
 The primacy of the individual and the social objective over capital
 Voluntary and open membership
 Democratic control by the membership (does not concern foundations as they have no
members)
 The combination of the interests of members/users and/or the general interest
 The defence and application of the principle of solidarity and responsibility
 Autonomous management and independence from public authorities
1
Monzón, J.L. & Chaves, R. (2012). The Social Economy in the European Union. Brussels: EESC
2
In Declaration finale commune des organisations européennes de l´Économie Sociale, CEP-CMAF, 20 June 2002.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
10
 Most of the surpluses are used in pursuit of sustainable development objectives,
services of interest to members or the general interest.
The rise of the social economy has also been recognised in political and legal circles, both in
Spain and in Europe. Six European countries have already passed social economy laws:
Belgium, Spain, Greece, Portugal, France and Romania. In 1989 the European Commission
published a Communication entitled "Businesses in the “Economie Sociale” sector: Europe’s
frontier-free market" In 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1995 the Commission promoted European
Social Economy Conferences in Paris, Rome, Lisbon, Brussels and Seville. Subsequently, a
number of European conferences have been held. In 1997 the Extraordinary European Council
meeting in Luxembourg (known as the Luxembourg jobs summit) recognised the part that social
economy enterprises play in local development and job creation. The Council of the European
Union has adopted a Resolution on ‘The promotion of the social economy as a key driver of
economic and social development in Europe’3
.
In the European Parliament too, the parliamentary Social Economy Intergroup has been in
operation since 1990. In 2006 the European Parliament called on the Commission “to respect
the social economy and to present a communication on this cornerstone of the European social
model"4
and in 2009 it adopted a Report on the Social Economy that recognised the social
economy as a social partner and as a key operator for fulfilling the Lisbon Strategy objectives
(Toia Report, 2009). The Intergroup has also asked the European Commission to implement an
Action Plan for the social economy in 2017.
For its part, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has published numerous
reports and opinions on the SE’s contribution to achieving different public policy objectives.
2.2. The Social Economy in national accounts systems
National accounts systems perform a very important function in providing periodic, accurate
information on economic activity, as well as in working towards terminological and conceptual
harmonisation in economic matters to enable consistent, meaningful international comparisons
to be drawn. The two most important national accounts systems currently in force are the United
Nations' System of National Accounts (2008 SNA) and the European System of National and
Regional Accounts (ESA 2010). The 2008 SNA gives national accounting rules for all the
countries in the world. ESA 2010 applies to the member states of the European Union and, apart
from minor differences, is fully in line with ESA 2008.
The thousands or millions of organisations (institutional units) that conduct productive activities
in each country are grouped into five mutually exclusive institutional sectors which comprise
the economy of each country: 1) non-financial corporations (S11); 2) financial corporations
(S12); 3) general government (S13); 4) households (as consumers and as entrepreneurs) (S14);
5) non-profit institutions serving households (S15). The organisations that make up the social
economy (SE) are spread throughout all these sectors except for general government.
3
Council conclusions of 07/12/2015
4
Report on a European Social Model for the future (2005/2248 (INI))
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
11
The European commission has prepared a Manual for drawing up the Satellite Accounts of
Companies in the Social Economy (co-operatives and mutual societies), and satellite accounts
of cooperatives and mutuals based on this manual have already been drawn up in Spain,
Belgium, Serbia and Macedonia, in the year 2011. The National Statistical Institute of Portugal
periodically prepares satellite accounts of the SE as a whole.
2.3. A definition of the Social Economy that fits in with the national accounts
systems
In order to quantify the aggregate data on the SE in an internationally consistent and harmonised
fashion and give them visibility, the definition of the SE that is used needs to fit in with the
national accounts systems. Such a definition needs to disregard legal and administrative criteria
and to centre on analysing the behaviour of SE actors, identifying the resemblances and
differences between them and between these and other economic agents. It also needs to
incorporate the historical principles and specific values of the social economy and the
methodology of the national accounts system in force in order to make it an operative definition
that achieves wide political and scholarly consensus.
The definition proposed, as already set out in the 2012 Report, is as follows:
"The set of private, formally-organised enterprises, with autonomy of decision and freedom of
membership, created to meet their members’ needs through the market by producing goods and
providing services, insurance and finance, where decision-making and any distribution of
profits or surpluses among the members are not directly linked to the capital or fees contributed
by each member, each of whom has one vote, or at all events are decided through democratic,
participatory processes. The SE also includes private, formally-organised entities with
autonomy of decision and freedom of membership that produce non-market services for
households and whose surpluses, if any, cannot be appropriated by the economic agents that
create, control or finance them”5
.
This definition is absolutely consistent with the conceptual delimitation of the SE reflected in
the CEP-CMAF Charter of Principles of the Social Economy. In national accounts terms, it
comprises two major sub-sectors of the SE: a) the market or business subsector and b) the nonmarket
producers’ subsector. This classification is very useful for drawing up reliable statistics
and analysing economic activities in accordance with the national accounts systems.
Nonetheless, from a socio-economic point of view there is obviously a permeability between the
two sub-sectors and close ties between market and non-market in the SE, as a result of a
characteristic that all SE organisations share: they are organisations of people who conduct an
activity with the main purpose of meeting the needs of persons rather than remunerating
capitalist investors.
According to the above definition, the shared features of these two sub-sectors of the SE are:
5
This definition is based on the criteria established by the European Commission's Manual for drawing up the
Satellite Accounts of Companies in the Social Economy and by Barea (1991), Barea and Monzón (1995) and Chaves
and Monzón (2000). It concurs both with the delimiting criteria established by the social economy organisations
themselves (CNLAMCA charter, 1980; SEE, 2000) and with the definitions formulated in the economics literature,
including Desroche (1983), Defourny and Monzón (1992), Defourny et al (1999), Vienney (1994) and Demoustier
(2005 and 2006).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
12
1) They are private, in other words, they are not part of or controlled by the public sector;
2) They are formally-organised, that is to say that they usually have legal identity;
3) They have autonomy of decision, meaning that they have full capacity to choose and
dismiss their governing bodies and to control and organise all their activities;
4) They have freedom of membership, in other words, they have voluntary and open
membership;
5) Any distribution of profits or surpluses among the user members, should it arise, is not
proportional to the capital or to the fees contributed by the members but to their activities
or transactions with the organisation.
6) They pursue an economic activity in its own right, to meet the needs of persons,
households or families. For this reason, SE organisations are said to be organisations of
people, not of capital. They work with capital and other non-monetary resources, but not
for capital.
7) They are democratic organisations.
A very important characteristic of social economy organisations that is deeply rooted in their
history is their democratic nature. The democratic criterion is considered essential for a
company to be considered part of the Social Economy, as the social utility of these companies is
based on their social purpose and on the democratic, participative values that they bring to the
running of the company.
However, the working definition of the Social Economy established in this report also accepts
the inclusion of voluntary non-profit organisations that are producers of non-market services for
households, even if they do not possess a democratic structure, as this allows very prominent
social action Third Sector organisations that produce social or merit goods of unquestionable
social utility to be included in the Social Economy.
2.4. The market or business sub-sector of the Social Economy
The market subsector of the social economy is made up, essentially, of cooperatives, mutual
insurance and mutual provident societies, company groups controlled by social economy
organisations and other similar enterprises and certain non-profit institutions at the service of
social economy enterprises.
As well as all the features shared by all SE entities, the definition in 2.3 above and in the
European Commission Manual emphasises three essential characteristics of market producer SE
companies:
a) They are created to meet their members’ needs through applying the principle of self-help,
i.e. they are companies in which the members and the users of the activity in question are
usually one and the same.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
13
The central objective of these companies is to satisfy and solve the needs of their members, who
are, basically, individuals or families.
In cooperatives and mutual societies, the members and the users of the activity in question are
usually (but not always) one and the same. The principle of self-help is a traditional principle of
the cooperative and mutual movement. The main objective of these companies is to carry out a
cooperativised or mutualist activity to meet the needs of their typical members (cooperativist or
mutualist members) who are mainly individuals, households or families.
It is the cooperativised or mutualist activity that determines the relationship between the user
member and the SE company. In a workers' cooperative, the cooperativised activity is
employment for its members, in a housing cooperative it is building homes for the members, in
a farming cooperative it is marketing the goods produced by the members; in a mutual society,
the mutualist activity is to insure the members, etc.
Table 2.1. Social economy operators by ESA 2010 institutional sector
ESA 2010 INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR
SE ENTERPRISES AND MICROECONOMIC
ORGANISATIONS
MARKETPRODUCERS
Non-financial corporations (S11)
 Cooperatives (workers, agrifood, consumers,
education, transport, housing, healthcare, social etc.)
 Social enterprises
 Other association-based enterprises
 Other private market producers (some associations and
other legal persons)
 Non-profit institutions serving social economy nonfinancial
organisations
 Non-financial corporations controlled by the SE
Financial corporations (S12)
 Credit cooperatives
 Mutual insurance companies* and mutual provident
societies
 Insurance cooperatives
 Non-profit institutions serving social economy nonfinancial
organisations
General government (S13) _____
NON-MARKET
PRODUCERS
Households (S14)**
 Non-profit institutions serving households that are not
very important
Non-profit institutions serving
households (S15)
 Social action associations***
 Social action foundations***
 Other non-profit organisations serving households
(cultural, sports, etc.)
(*) Excluding social security system management organisations and, in general, mutual societies of which
membership is obligatory and those controlled by non-social economy companies.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
14
(**) The Households sector (S14) includes sole traders and general partnerships without legal personality that are
market producers and do not belong to the social economy. It also includes nonprofit organisations of limited size
(“not very important”) that are non-market producers and do form part of the social economy.
(***) Non-profit organisations that are private non-market producers, with voluntary membership and participation
and strategic and operative autonomy, and whose purpose consists in achieving social welfare objectives through
supplying or providing goods and social or merit services, free of charge or at prices which are not economically
significant, to persons or groups of persons that are vulnerable, socially excluded or at risk of exclusion. These
organisations make up the Social Action Third Sector, which, obviously, forms part of the SE.
Naturally, in order to carry out the cooperativised or mutualist activity to serve the members an
instrumental activity needs to be conducted with other, non-member parties on the market. For
example, a workers' cooperative sells its goods and services on the market (instrumental
activity) in order to create or maintain employment for its members (cooperativised activity).
In the case of cooperatives, the member and user relationship is usual but is not always
indispensable. Some classes of 'ancillary members' may contribute to the company without
being users of the cooperativised activity. The examples include capital investors or former user
members who are no longer users for logical, justified reasons (retirement, among others); even
some public bodies may be contributing members of the company. Provided that the SE
enterprise characteristics established in the working definition hold true, including democratic
control by the user members, the companies that possess these other classes of non-user
contributing members will form part of the SE.
There may also be other SE companies, as is the case of social enterprises, where some
members may share their objectives without strictly speaking being permanent members,
although a transitory association nonetheless exists. This may even include certain volunteer
activities.
The beneficiaries of the activities of social economy companies also play a leading role in these
companies, which constitute reciprocal solidarity initiatives launched by groups of citizens to
meet their needs through the market.
b) SE companies are market producers, which means that their output is mainly intended for
sale on the market at economically significant prices. The ESA 2010 considers
cooperatives, mutual societies, holding companies, other similar companies and non-profit
institutions serving them to be market producers.
c) While they may distribute profits or surpluses among their user members, this is not
proportional to the capital or to the fees contributed by the members but in accordance
with the member's transactions with the organisation.
The fact that they may distribute profits or surpluses to their members does not mean that they
always do so. There are many cases in which cooperatives and mutual societies make it a rule or
custom not to distribute surpluses to their members. Here the point is only to emphasise that the
principle of not distributing surpluses to members is not an essential trait of social economy
companies.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
15
In some countries, certain association-based social economy enterprises take the form of public
limited companies or limited companies, founded by workers with the purpose of creating or
keeping their jobs or by professionals in order to self-manage the organisation of their provision
of services, which are frequently of a public nature.
Other social economy companies that also take a different legal form to a cooperative have been
formed to conduct activities to benefit groups that are vulnerable, excluded or at risk of social
exclusion. They comprise a wide spectrum of social enterprises that implement participative,
democratic processes.
Accordingly, the different groups of agents in the market sub-sector of the social economy, in
the financial corporations and non-financial corporations sectors, are as shown in Table 2.1.
2.5. The non-market sub-sector of the Social Economy
The great majority of this sub-sector is made up of associations and foundations, although
organisations with other legal forms may also be found. It comprises all the SE organisations
that the national accounts criteria consider non-market producers, i.e. those that supply the
majority of their output free of charge or at prices that are not economically significant.
As mentioned in 2.3 above, they are private, formally-organised entities with autonomy of
decision and freedom of membership that produce non-market services for households and
whose surpluses, if any, cannot be appropriated by the economic agents that create, control or
finance them. In other words, these are non-profit organisations in the strict sense of the term,
since they apply the principle of non-distribution of profits or surpluses (the non-distribution
constraint) and, as in all social economy entities, individuals are the true beneficiaries of the
services they provide.
The national accounts have a specific institutional sector, S.15, called 'non-profit institutions
serving households' (NPISH), to differentiate them from other sectors. ESA 2010 defines this
sector as consisting of non-profit institutions which are separate legal entities, which serve
households and which are private other non-market producers. Their principal resources, apart
from those derived from occasional sales, come from voluntary contributions in cash or in kind
from households in their capacity as consumers, from payments made by general governments
and from property income.
The NPISH sector includes a variety of organisations, mostly associations, that conduct nonmarket
activities for their members (entities of a mutualist nature) or for groups of non-member
citizens (general interest entities). Most of these entities operate democratically and possess the
characteristic features of the SE. They include charities, relief and aid organisations, trades
unions, professional or learned societies, consumers' associations, political parties, churches or
religious societies and social, cultural, recreational and sports clubs.
As stated in section 2.3 above, certain voluntary non-profit organisations that are producers of
non-market services for households are included in the SE under the name of Social Action
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
16
Third Sector despite not possessing a democratic structure, because the services they provide
free of charge are social or merit goods of unquestionable social utility.
NPISH that do not possess legal personality or are not very large, which ESA 2010 places in the
Household sector (S.14), also form part of the SE.
Lastly, there may be other private, non-profit institutions (NPI), funded by non-financial
corporations or financial corporations, that produce cultural, recreational, social etc. services
which they provide free of charge to individuals. Although ESA 2010 conventionally considers
these to be serving the non-financial or financial corporations in question and therefore includes
them in the respective (market) institutional sectors, they form part of the non-market sub-sector
of the SE, always providing they meet the requirements set out in the definition.
NPISH that are market producers engaged in producing non-financial market goods and
services, financial intermediation, or auxiliary financial activities are excluded from this group,
as are business associations funded by voluntary parafiscal fees paid by non-financial or
financial corporations in return for the services they provide.
2.6. The Social Economy: pluralism and shared core identity
The SE has positioned itself in European society as a pole of social utility between the capitalist
sector and the public sector. It is certainly composed of a great plurality of actors. Old and new
social needs all constitute the sphere of action of the SE. These needs can be met by the persons
affected through a business operating on the market, where almost all the cooperatives and
mutual societies obtain the majority of their resources, or by associations and foundations,
almost all of which supply non-market services to individuals, households or families and
usually obtain most of their resources from donations, membership fees, subsidies, etc.
It cannot be ignored that the diversity of the SE organisations' resources and agents leads to
differences in the dynamics of their behaviour and of their relations with their surroundings. For
instance, volunteers are mainly found in the organisations of the non-market sub-sector (mostly
associations and foundations), while the market sub-sector of the SE (cooperatives, mutual
societies and similar companies) has practically no volunteers except in social enterprises,
which are an evident example of a market/non-market hybrid with a wide variety of resources
(monetary from the market, public subsidies and voluntary work) and of actors (members,
employees, volunteers, companies and public bodies).
This plural SE which is asserting and consolidating its place in a plural society does not signify
a hotchpotch with no identity or interpretative value. On the contrary, the shared core identity of
the social economy is fortified by a large and diverse group of microeconomic entities based on
free, democratic and voluntary and open membership, and created by civil society to meet and
solve the needs of individuals, households and families rather than to remunerate or provide
cover for investors or capitalist companies. Over the past 200 years, this varied spectrum of
organisations (market and non-market, of mutual interest or of general interest) has shaped the
Third Sector as identified here through the Social Economy approach.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
17
2.7. Main theoretical approaches related to the social economy
2.7.1. The Third Sector as a meeting point
Although the term 'third sector' has mostly been used in the English-speaking world to describe
the private non-profit sector that is largely composed of associations and foundations, 'third
sector' is also used in Continental Europe and in other parts of the world as a synonym for the
social economy (SE) described in the previous chapter.
In the United States of America, Levitt (1973) was one of the first to use the expression third
sector, identifying it with the non-profit sector6
. In Europe, the same term began to be used a
few years later to describe a sector located between the public sector and the capitalist sector,
far closer to the concept of the SE7
.
The Third Sector (TS) has become a meeting point for different concepts, fundamentally the
'non-profit sector' and the 'social economy', which, despite describing spheres with large
overlapping areas, do not coincide exactly. Moreover, the theoretical approaches that have been
developed from these concepts assign different functions to the TS in the economies of today.
2.7.2. The Non-Profit Organisation approach
The Non-Profit Organisation (NPO) concept
The main theoretical approach that addresses the TS, apart from the SE approach, is of Englishspeaking
origin, as mentioned above: literature on the Non-Profit Sector or Non-profit
Organizations (NPO) first appeared 40 years ago in the United States. In essence, this approach
only covers private organisations which have articles of association forbidding them to
distribute surpluses to those who founded them or who control or fund them8
.
The historical roots of this concept are linked to the philanthropic and charitable ideas that were
deeply-rooted in 19th century Britain and in the countries it influenced. The renown of the
British charities and US philanthropic foundations has given rise to terms such as the charitable
sector and the voluntary sector, which are included in the wider concept of the Non-Profit
Sector.
6
Coinciding with the start of research by the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs (the Filer
Commission) on the economic, social and political importance of the non-profit sector, sponsored by the Rockefeller
Foundation, which began in 1973.
7
It was Jacques Delors who first used it in this sense, in 1979, at the University of Paris–Dauphine. Subsequently, a
number of major studies on the SE (Jeantet, 2006) have been conducted under the name of the ‘Third Sector’
(Defourny and Monzón, 1992) or ‘Third System’ (CIRIEC, 2000).
8
See Weisbrod (1975, 1988).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
18
The modern concept of the non-profit sector has been more precisely defined and disseminated
widely throughout the world by an international research project which began in the early
1990s, spearheaded by Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, USA), to discover and quantify its
size and structure, analyse its development prospects and evaluate its impact on society9
.
The organisations that this project examines are those that met the five key criteria in the
'structural-operational definition' (Salamon & Anheier, 1999) of non-profit organisations. They
are, therefore:
a) Organisations, i.e. they have an institutional structure and presence. They are usually legal
persons.
b) Private, i.e. institutionally separate from government, although they may receive public
funding and may have public officials on their governing bodies.
c) Self-governing, i.e. able to control their own activities and free to select and dismiss their
governing bodies.
d) Non-profit distributing. Non-profit organisations may make profits but these must be
ploughed back into the organisation's main mission and not distributed to the owners,
founder members or governing bodies of the organisation.
e) With voluntary participation, which means two things: firstly, that membership is not
compulsory or legally imposed and secondly, that they must have volunteers participating
in their activities or management.
2.7.3. The Solidarity Economy approach
The concept of the solidary economy developed in France and certain Latin American countries
during the last quarter of the 20th century, associated to a large degree with the major growth
that the TS has experienced in the area of organisations that produce and distribute some of
what are known as social goods or merit goods. Merit goods are those on which there is a broad
social and political consensus that they are essential to a decent life and must therefore be made
available to the entire population, irrespective of income or purchasing power. Consequently, it
is considered that government should provide for the production and distribution of these goods,
whether ensuring that they are provided free of charge or subsidising them so that they may be
obtained at well below market prices.
During the height and consolidation of the Welfare State, universal enjoyment of the most
important of these merit goods, such as health services and education, has been guaranteed by
the governments of most of the developed societies in Europe. In recent decades, however, new
social needs have emerged that neither the public sector nor the traditional capitalist sector are
solving and which affect numerous groups at risk of social exclusion. These problems are
related to the living conditions of elderly people, mass long-term unemployment, immigrants,
ethnic minorities, people with handicaps, reintegration of ex-prisoners, abused women’s groups,
chronically ill people, etc.
9
See Salamon et al (1999).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
19
It is in these areas that some organisations which are typical of the SE (cooperatives and, above
all, associations) have seen considerable expansion. This sector simultaneously brings together a
set of new organisations and new fields of action. Compared to the classic SE agents, it presents
three distinctive features: a) the social demands it attempts to address, b) the actors behind these
initiatives and c) the explicit desire for social change (Favreau & Vaillancourt, 2001).
Based around these three aspects, the concept of the solidary economy developed in France
from the 1980s onwards. It corresponds to an economy in which the market is one component,
possibly the most important, but not the only one. The economy revolves around three poles: the
market, the State and reciprocity. These three poles correspond to market, redistribution and
reciprocity principles (Polanyi, 1983). The latter refers to a non-monetary exchange in the area
of primary sociability that is identified, above all, in associationism (see Laville, 1994).
In short, the economy is plural in nature and cannot be reduced to strictly commercial and
monetary terms. The solidary economy approach is an unprecedented attempt to hook up the
three poles of the system, so specific solidary economy initiatives constitute forms that are
hybrids between the market, non-market and non-monetary economies. They do not fit in with
the market stereotype of orthodox economics and their resources, too, have plural origins:
market (sales of goods and services), non-market (government subsidies and donations) and
non-monetary (volunteers).
As well as this concept of the solidary economy, which has its epicentre in France, another view
of the solidary economy with a certain presence in some Latin American countries sees it as a
force for social change, the bearer of a project for an alternative society to neo-liberal
globalisation. Unlike the European approach, which considers the solidary economy to be
compatible with the market and the State, the Latin American perspective is developing this
concept as a global alternative to capitalism.
2.7.4. Other approaches
Related to the approach described in the previous paragraph, other theoretical developments
directly propose replacing market economies where the means of production are privatelyowned
with other ways of organising the production system. These approaches include: a) the
alternative economy (Archimbaud, 1995), with roots in the anti-establishment movements that
developed in France after May 1968; and b) the popular economy, promoted in various South
American countries since 1980 with very similar views to the Latin American version of the
solidary economy, so much so that it is also termed the solidary popular economy. The popular
economy excludes any type of employer/employee relationship and considers labour the main
factor of production (see Coraggio, 1995, and Razeto, 1993).
2.7.5. Resemblances and differences between these approaches and the
Social Economy concept
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
20
Section 2.6 explained how the SE concept established in this report not only sees the SE as
being part of a plural economy and society but also as itself being composed of a great plurality
of actors. From this point of view, it may be asserted not only that the solidary economy
approach presents important elements of convergence with the SE approach, but also, from the
practical point of view, that absolutely all the organisations that are considered part of the
solidary economy are also unquestionably part of the SE. The same may be said of other theory
developments such as the social usefulness third sector (Lipietz, 2001), social enterprise
(Borzaga & Defourny, 2001) or new social economy (Spear, Defourny et al, 2001). In the same
way as most of the associative experiences included in the alternative economy or the popular
economy, all of these constitute partial elements of the same group, certainly multi-faceted but
possessing a shared core identity and a personality that differentiates it from the other
institutional sectors in the economic system.
Because of their importance, it is worth pausing to examine the main resemblances and
differences between the SE approach and concept and that of the NPO approach.
As regards the resemblances between the SE and the NPO approaches, of the five criteria that
the NPO approach establishes to distinguish the TS sphere (see 2.7.2.) four are also required by
the SE approach (section 2.3): private, formally organised organisations with autonomy of
decision (self-governing) and freedom of membership (voluntary participation).
However, there are three TS delimitation criteria where the NPO and SE approaches clearly
differ:
a) The non-profit criterion
In the NPO approach, all the organisations that distribute profits, in any way, to the persons or
organisations that founded them or that control or fund them are excluded from the TS. In other
words, TS organisations must apply the principle of non-distribution of profits or surpluses (the
non-distribution constraint) strictly (see section 2.7.2. above). As well as not distributing profits,
the NPO approach demands that TS organisations be not-for-profit, in other words, they may
not be created primarily to generate profits or obtain financial returns (NPI handbook, paragraph
2.16).
In the SE approach, the non-profit criterion in this sense is not an essential requirement for TS
organisations. Obviously, the SE approach considers many organisations which apply this nonprofit
criterion strictly to belong to the TS: a broad sector of associations, foundations, social
enterprises and other non-profit organisations serving persons and families that meet the NPO
non-profit criterion and all the SE organisation criteria established in this Report (section 2.3).
However, whereas cooperatives and mutual societies constitute a decisive nucleus of the SE, in
the NPO approach they are excluded from the TS because most of them distribute part of their
surpluses among their members.
b) The democracy criterion
A second difference between the NPO approach and the SE approach is the application of the
democracy criterion. The NPO approach's requirements for considering that an organisation
belongs to the TS do not include such a characteristic element of the SE concept as democratic
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
21
organisation. Consequently, in the NPO approach the TS includes many, very large non-profit
organisations that do not meet the democracy criterion and are consequently excluded from the
TS by the SE approach. Indeed, many non-profit institutions in the non-financial corporations
and financial corporations sectors that sell their services at market prices do not meet the
democratic organisation principle. These non-profit organisations, which are considered part of
the TS by the NPO approach and not by the SE approach, include certain hospitals, universities,
schools, cultural and art bodies and other institutions which do not meet the democracy criterion
and which sell their services on the market, while meeting all the criteria required by the NPO
approach.
The SE approach generally excludes any non-profit entities that do not operate democratically
from the TS although, as pointed out in section 2.3 of this report, it is accepted that voluntary
non-profit organisations which provide non-market services to persons or families free of charge
or at prices which are not economically significant can be included in the SE. These nonprofit
institutions justify their social utility by providing merit goods or services free to individuals or
families.
c) The criterion of serving people
Finally, a third difference lies in the intended recipients of the services provided by the TS
organisations, as their scope and priorities differ between the NPO and the SE approaches. In
the SE approach, the main aim of all the organisations is to serve people or other SE
organisations. In first tier organisations, most of the beneficiaries of their activities are
individuals, households or families, whether as consumers or as individual entrepreneurs or
producers. Many of these organisations only accept individuals for membership. On occasion
they may also allow legal persons of any type to become members, but in every case the SE's
concerns centre on human beings, who are the reason for its existence and the goal of its
activities.
The NPO approach, on the other hand, has no criterion that considers service to people a
priority objective. Non-profit organisations can be set up both to provide services to persons and
to provide them to the corporations that control or fund them (NPI Handbook, paragraph 2.21).
First-tier non-profit organisations can even be composed exclusively of capital-based
companies, whether financial or non-financial. As a result, the field analysed by the NPO
approach is very heterogeneously defined.
In short, the above resemblances and differences between the NPO and SE approaches, together
with the existence of a shared space composed of organisations included by both, make it
possible to appreciate important conceptual and methodological divergences which prevent the
TS from being formed by simply adding together the groups of organisations considered by the
two approaches.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
22
CHAPTER 3
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY AND RELATED EMERGENT CONCEPTS IN EUROPE
3.1. Social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and social innovation
A pioneering step in the European Union’s identification of social enterprises was the Opinion of the
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on Diverse forms of enterprise (INT/447 of
01/10/2009). This Opinion outlined the salient features of social enterprises, their relation to the social
economy (“social cooperatives and other similar enterprises, under many different legal forms”) and
their main areas of activity (“providing services such as healthcare, the environment, social services
and education … creating employment and integrate [sic] persons that are disadvantaged on the
labour market”) and urged the European Commission to “seriously consider drawing up a policy for
social enterprises”.
The Opinion of the EESC on Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise (INT/589 of 26/10/2011)
described the following shared characteristics of social enterprises:
• Primarily social objectives as opposed to profit objectives
• Surpluses principally being reinvested
• Variety of legal forms
• Producers of goods and services with social innovation
• Independent entities with participative co-decision and democratic governance. Stemming
from or associated with civil society organisations.
At the same time as the above Opinion, the European Commission not only provided a description of
the characteristics of social enterprises but expressly stated that these are an integral part of the
social economy: “A social enterprise is an operator in the social economy whose main objective is to
have a social impact rather than make a profit for their [sic] owners or shareholders. It operates by
providing goods and services for the market in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion and uses its
profits primarily to achieve social objectives. It is managed in an open and responsible manner and,
in particular, involve [sic] employees, consumers and stakeholders” (Communication from the
European Commission, Social Business Initiative, COM/2011/0682 final of 25/10/2011). This
Communication of the Commission also identifies the social enterprises’ main fields of activity: a)
businesses providing social services and/or goods and services to vulnerable persons and b)
businesses that pursue the employment integration of people with employability difficulties, but
whose activity may be outside the realm of the provision of social goods or services.
For its part, Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Employment and Social Innovation reiterated the concept of social enterprise set out in the European
Commission’s Opinion cited above, as did the Council of the European Union’s conclusions of 7
December 2015 on the promotion of the SE.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
23
Lastly, the report of the Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship (GECES) of October 2016 (General
Report GECES: 2016) highlights the European roots of social enterprises based on the concept of the
SE, reiterating that “Despite their wide variety, social enterprises share at least four common
features: a social or societal objective, entrepreneurial behaviour, democratic and/or participatory
governance, and the reinvestment of profits.”
Theoretical analyses of the social enterprise concept began to develop on both sides of the Atlantic in
the mid-1990s and have given rise to a variety of approaches that despite significant agreement, also
present a considerable conceptual diversity that makes it difficult to arrive at a definition of social
enterprises that all these approaches could share 10
.
The European research network EMES proposes nine criteria for identifying social enterprises,
grouped into three blocks: the economic and business dimension, the social dimension and the
participative dimension. They facilitates two objectives: easy recognition of social enterprises as an
integral part of the SE, and providing a comparative perspective on North American approaches to
social enterprises.
The three indicators of the economic and business dimension describe social enterprises as market
producers, to use the national accounts system term, and enable them to be differentiated from social
action third sector organisations, where the market is not the main funding source. Continuous
production of goods and services, a significant level of financial risk and a minimum amount of paid
work are the three indicators that differentiate social enterprises from social action entities, which the
national accounts systems classify as Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households (NPISH).
The main social dimension indicators are the explicit objective of benefiting the community and that
social enterprises are the result of collective dynamics, involving groups of people. The third indicator
of the social dimension has to do with profit, since the distribution of surpluses is allowed, although to
a limited extent, as in many cooperatives.
The participative dimension, related to the participatory governance requirement for social
enterprises, is probably one of the most significant differences between the EMES approach and the
North American approaches. The three indicators in this third dimension emphasise autonomous
management and governance by the group of persons who founded and developed the entrepreneurial
project, in relation both to the public authorities and to other private organisations. They also
expressly state that it is important for decision-making processes to be democratic and participative,
and not linked to ownership of the capital.
The three dimensions of social enterprises defined in the EMES approach make these enterprises an
integral part of the large set of agents that comprise the SE; they also shape the concept of social
enterprise that has prevailed in the documents of European Union institutions.
For their part, the different North American currents of thought concerning social enterprises may be
grouped into two main approaches: ‘earned income’ and the ‘social innovation’ school promoted by
the Ashoka Foundation set up by Bill Drayton in 1980.
The earned income approach emphasises the role of social enterprises as organisations that conduct a
business activity in order to generate revenue to fund social objectives. Within this approach, two
10
A detailed comparison of the continental European approach and the two main North American approaches to social
enterprises may be found in Defourny & Nyssens (2012) and in Monzón & Herrero (2016).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
24
developments may be distinguished: ‘commercial non-profit’ and ‘mission-driven business’. In the
commercial non-profit approach, social enterprises are placed in the non-profit sphere, since they do
not distribute their profits, which are devoted to fulfilling their social mission. Social enterprises can
conduct any kind of business activity, even if the only connection between their activities and their
social mission is the financial resources that the activities ensure. The mission-driven business
approach widens the scope of the social enterprises to any type of enterprise, including for-profit
companies, always providing they carry out a social mission.
The social innovation approach emphasises the individual role of the social entrepreneur, who
adopts a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), recognises and pursues new
opportunities to serve that mission, engages in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and
learning, acts boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand and exhibits a heightened
sense of responsibility and accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created
(Dees, 1998). In short, social entrepreneurs carry out a social mission and the impact related to the
mission (rather than creating wealth) is the core criterion for gauging a social entrepreneur. In the
social innovation approach, the form of ownership of the social enterprise (public, capital-based or
SE) is secondary and the key figure is the social entrepreneur, as the main person responsible for
entrepreneurship and social change.
The main differences between the North American and European approaches to social enterprises
have much to do with the different contexts in which they arose. In the United States, social
enterprises have been a business response to social challenges traditionally served by social action
non-profit organisations, which responded to cuts in public subsidies and private donations in the
1980s by developing business strategies to generate revenue to fund their philanthropic activities. In
Western Europe, social enterprises arose to help solve structural problems of unemployment and
groups with employability difficulties, as well as providing other social services targeting groups at
risk of social exclusion. In other words, generally they were not set up to fund social action non-profit
organisations but to solve problems of unemployment and social care for vulnerable social groups by
means of a variety of productive activities. In terms of the actors involved, whereas the protagonists
of social entrepreneurship in the United States have been social action associations and foundations,
in Europe it is the cooperative tradition, within the SE sphere, that has provided the basis for the
growth of social enterprises, as shown by the extraordinary development of Italian social cooperatives
since the mid-1990s. The main resemblances and differences between the different approaches to
social enterprises may be seen in table 3.1. To summarise: the EMES approach is the only one that
unequivocally places social enterprises within the theoretical and conceptual framework of the SE, in
the market producers sector, and is differentiated from the other approaches above all by the
collective dynamics of social entrepreneurship and the democratic and participatory dimension of the
governance system, which is absent or secondary in the North American approaches.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
25
Table 3.1 Similarities and differences between the concepts of social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation
Source: Monzón & Herrero (2016).
DIMENSIONS Emes approach Earned Income school Social Innovation school
Commercial Nonprofit Mission-driven Business
ECONOMIC AND
BUSINESS
DIMENSION
Nature of the economic activity closely
related to the social mission
Economic risk: financial sustainability
based on a mixture of market revenue
(commercial income) and non-market
revenue (grants, subsidies, donations)
Nature of the economic activity not related to the social mission
Sustainability based on commercial income
Nature of the economic activity
closely related to the social mission
Sustainability based on a mixture of
market and non-market revenue
SOCIAL
DIMENSION
Explicit objective of benefiting the
community or creating social value
Collective dynamics
Limited distribution of profits allowed
(non-profit and for-profit organisations)
Objective of benefiting the
community guaranteed by
reinvesting all profits
No mention of individual or
collective entrepreneurship
Profit distribution forbidden (nonprofit
organisations)
Objective of benefiting the
community is not guaranteed
No mention of individual or
collective entrepreneurship
Distribution of profits allowed
(non-profit and for-profit
organisations)
Explicit objective of benefiting the
community
Primacy of individual initiatives
Distribution of profits allowed (nonprofit
and for-profit organisations)
PARTICIPATIVE
DIMENSION
Autonomy
Democratic decision-making
Participative decision-making
Not specified, but autonomy from public organisations appears to
be guaranteed by self-sufficiency, though autonomy from the
private organisations that founded them is not.
Democratic decision-making is not a requirement
Participative decision-making is not a requirement
Not specified as such, but autonomy
is implicit
Democratic decision-making is not a
requirement
Participative decision-making is not
a requirement
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
26
3.2. The Collaborative Economy, related concepts, and the Social Economy
A new concept that has firmly established itself since the start of the 21st century is that of the
“collaborative economy”, which refers to very wide range of activities linked to the fields of
consumption, production, finance, education, and even governance. In its Communication called
“A European agenda for the collaborative economy” (COM/2016/0356 final - 02/06/2016), the
European Commission defines the collaborative economy as “business models where activities
are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the temporary
usage of goods or services often provided by private individuals”. The Communication
identifies three categories of actors involved in the collaborative economy: a) service providers
— private individuals or professionals; b) the users of these services, and c) intermediaries —
via an online platform — that connect providers with users and that facilitate transactions
between them (“collaborative platforms”). The Communication ends by noting that
collaborative-economy transactions do not involve a change of ownership and can be carried out
for profit or not for profit.
For its part, the European Economic and Social Committee has adopted various opinions on the
collaborative economy that do not always coincide when defining its scope. Thus, the Opinion
called “Sharing economy and self-regulation” (2016/C 303/05 - 25/05/2016) establishes that
“the final parties to these complex three-way transactions are primarily peers (P2P) and are
never part of a business to customer (B2C)
11
contractual relationship," The Committee's own
Communication on the "Collaborative economy" (COM/2016/356 final - 15/12/2016),
following the Commission's previously cited Communication, appears to distinguish different
types of collaborative economy, for which it proposes different legal regulations. The first of
these Opinions, using the most restrictive criteria, mentions various examples of collaborative
economy: Airbnb, Rentalia, Homeaway, Couchsurfing, and Bedycasa in the accommodation
sector; Blablacar, Uncoche, Liftshare, and Karzoo in the transport sector; or Zopa, Auxmoney,
Fundedbyme, Crowdcube, Kickstarter, or Indiegogo in the financial sector. The EESC Opinion
excludes from the concept of collaborative economy the following practices or entities: a) the
sharing of food or non-durable goods; b) mutual societies and cooperatives; c) social
entrepreneurship; d) philanthropy; e) the on-demand economy; f) the functional economy,
which has more to do with the circular economy; g) pure intermediation.
While they are not crucial to the collaborative economy's current boom, collaborative platforms
are playing a very important role. Their main functions are: a) creating the platform connecting
the supply and demand of goods; b) creating the mechanism allowing economic transactions to
be made electronically, and c) creating verification mechanisms that minimise the transaction
risks and costs associated with dealing with strangers. In summary, the collaborative economy
uses information technology to reduce information asymmetries and the transaction costs of the
goods and services exchanged or shared, as well as to broaden and deepen collaborative
markets.
There are many concepts related to the collaborative economy, one of the most widely known
being the sharing economy. This concept is a form of collaborative economy in which different
11
P2P: Peer-to-peer (private individuals interact though the platform)
B2C: Business-to-consumer (the company controls the platform that offers the service to the consumer)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
27
goods are shared without the need for any payment.
12
Other frequent expressions are
collaborative consumption, peer or P2P economy, gig economy, and access economy. All of
them, however, essentially lead back to the common denominator of the collaborative economy.
While it has previously been pointed out that cooperatives and other social-economy enterprises
are not in and of themselves examples of the collaborative economy, the latter does provide an
excellent opportunity for expanding the social economy. The above-cited EESC Opinion
(2016/C 303/05) highlights the social and environmental dimensions of the collaborative
economy, which contributes to strengthening ties of solidarity between people, boosting local
economies, creating jobs, rationalising household consumption by pooling the use of certain
goods, reducing energy footprints and promoting more responsible and sustainable
consumption. The EESC Opinion on “Collaborative or participatory consumption, a
sustainability model for the 21st century” (2014/C 177/01) points out that cooperatives can
become “the main ally of collaborative or participatory consumption, because they combine and
share principles and values”. The Committee of the Regions, in “The local and regional
dimension of the sharing economy”, considers that part of the sharing economy belongs to the
social economy (Opinion of 04/12/2015).
In the opinion of this report’s authors, the conclusion of EESC Opinion 2016/C 303/05 is rash.
The largest businesses in the collaborative economy belong to for-profit companies which
possess none of the virtues mentioned in the conclusion and which often lead to significant
social costs, precarious employment and low standards of labour rights.
The collaborative economy can include different business models, depending on the final parties
that take part in them, the functions performed by the platform, and the way in which its
ownership is controlled and the distribution of any profits is carried out.
In P2P, the quintessential model of the collaborative economy, relationships are established
between private individuals and the platform does not provide the underlying service. Peer
relationships can also be between professionals or companies, again without the platform having
to be the one providing the underlying service (B2B or business-to-business). There can even be
peer relationships in which the users of the platform are public entities (G2G or government-to-
government).
Two other business models, however, are not universally accepted as part of the collaborative
economy: B2C (business-to-consumer) and C2B (consumer-to-business). Depending on the
different cases, these could be considered part of the on-demand economy or the access
economy. In the B2C model, the service is provided based on the preferences of the
user/consumer who requests the service, and it is the service provider who adapts to the
user/consumer's preferences. This model can be categorised as belonging to the on-demand
economy or to the access economy (a business model that involves marketing the access to
goods and services, not their ownership. Something is temporarily rented, not definitively sold).
In the C2B model, it is private individuals or consumers that put some of their assets
(knowledge, loans...) at the disposal of companies on an occasional, non-professional basis.
For the most part, the collaborative economy is made up of platforms controlled by capitalist
enterprises, such as Amazon, Uber, Blablacar, or Airbnb. However, both in the United States
and in Europe collaborative-economy initiatives are emerging that are based on platforms of a
12
For more information regarding concepts related to the collaborative economy see Alfonso (2016).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
28
cooperative nature, the so-called platform cooperatives, which are collectively owned and
democratically controlled. These platforms adopt different forms that have been classified by
Scholz (2016) as follows: a) labour brokerages (such as Loconomics); b) cooperatively owned
online marketplaces (Fairmondo, for example); c) city-owned platform cooperatives (e.g.,
MinuBnB or AllBnb); d) cooperatives of “prosumer” communities (like Stocksy); e) labour
platforms (various examples linked to the taxi sector that are very successful in the US).
According to Scholz, platform cooperativism is characterised by 10 principles: collective
ownership of the platform; decent pay and income security; transparency and data portability;
appreciation and acknowledgement of the value generated; co-determined work, with collective
decision-making; a protective legal framework; portable worker protection and benefits;
protection against arbitrary behaviour in rating systems; rejection of excessive workplace
surveillance, and, lastly, the right of workers to log off.
Various cooperative platforms are also being developed in Europe. LAMA and Cooperatives
Europe conducted a study of 38 cases from 11 European countries and 3 initiatives from outside
the European Union.
13
In its conclusions, the study pointed out both the new opportunities for
expansion offered to cooperativism in the area of the collaborative economy and the obstacles
and barriers facing it, which include funding problems and the small size of cooperatives
promoting collaborative-economy initiatives, which cause them to lose part of their efficiency.
3.3. The economy for the common good and the social economy
The Economy for the Common Good ((ECG) (1) is a socioeconomic and political movement
founded by Austrian economist Christian Felber (2010). In Europe, the ECG movement enjoys
the support of more than 100 local groups, 2,000 companies, universities, local governments
and various social organisations.
14
The ECG model's central proposition is that the economy
should be at the service of people, i.e., of the common good. The ECG is based on the values
recognised by all people as universal: human dignity, solidarity, ecological sustainability, social
justice, transparency, and democratic participation. The ECG model is cross-disciplinary and
applicable to all kinds of companies and organisations.
The European Economic and Social Committee has drawn up an Opinion on the ECG. This
Opinion establishes the ECG model's relationship with other models, as shown in Table 3.2. It
should be noted that in this report, the values of solidarity/cooperation and democracy commonly
shared by the ECG and the collaborative economy - are only applicable to platform
cooperatives in the social economy.
15
13
Cooperatives Europe-LAMA (2016). “Cooperative platforms in a European Landscape: an exploratory study”,
ISIRC Conference, Glasgow.
14
EESC(2015). Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The Economy for the Common Good: a
sustainable economic model geared towards social cohesion (2016/C 013/16 of 17/09/2015)
15
EESC(2015). Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The Economy for the Common Good: a
sustainable economic model geared towards social cohesion (2016/C 013/16 of 17/09/2015)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
29
Table 3.2. Economy for the Common Good values present in other models
ECG VALUES
MODELOS
Human
Dignity
Solidarity/
Cooperation
Ecological
Sustainability
Social justice Democracy
Social Economy X X X X X
Circular Economy X
Collaborative Economy X X
Functionality Economy X X
Resource-Based
Economy
X X
Blue Economy X
Source: EESC (2015) Opinion of the EESC (2016/C 013/06)
In order to acknowledge the contribution to the common good of the companies and entities that
make up the economic system, a specific method is used based on the Common Good Balance
(CGB), the Common Good Matrix (CGM), the Common Good Report, and the Common Good
External Audit. The Common Good Balance assesses a company's annual results, not using
economic or financial criteria, but measuring the degree to which it has upheld the values of the
Common Good. The Common Good Balance measures the non-financial part of a company's
success. The Common Good Matrix defines and quantifies the values a company defends and
the social groups it addresses. The Common Good Matrix is the synthesis of a company or
organisation's Common Good Report, which explains in detail a company's degree of
compliance with each negative indicator or criterion. The Common Good Report offers an indepth
view of a company's activities for the common good and, together with the Common
Good Balance, forms the basis for the external audit that is performed by independent auditors
and awards the company a certificate indicating its compliance with the measurable Common
Good indicators using a score ranging from 0 to 1000 points.
The Economy of the Common Good is characterised by its criticism of aspects of today's
capitalist societies such as selfishness, individualism, the pursuit of profit, competitiveness,
indicators based exclusively on financial gain and GDP (gross domestic product), private
ownership of goods and services that are essential to democracy, negative effects on the
environment, etc. In contrast to these deficiencies, the Economy of the Common Good offers
the alternative concepts and values described above. The values of the Economy of the
Common Good undoubtedly coincide with the principles and values of the social economy,
something which the EESC Opinion could not fail to recognise, as shown in Table 3.2.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
30
3.4. The circular economy and the social economy
The circular economy model consists of replacing a linear economy, based on the take-makeuse-dispose
model, with a circular one in which waste can be transformed into resources so the
economy can become more sustainable and reduce its negative environmental impact through
improved management of resources and reducing extraction and pollution. At the same time, the
circular economy allows companies to achieve competitive advantages thanks to better
management of raw materials, offering new economic opportunities in new markets and
enabling new jobs to be created locally. The circular economy, the functional economy, the
resource-based economy and the blue economy (Pauli, 2010) are recent concepts in the
sustainable development field.
The linear production and consumption system is based on extracting raw materials (take),
manufacturing goods (make), consuming them (use) and generating waste (dispose). The
circular economy not only proposes converting waste into new resources, but also an innovative
change in the current production system, whereby the design of every stage of the production
process is guided by the idea of regeneration. This involves resources and products maintaining
their value by facilitating their reuse, based on using renewable energies and on designing
products to reduce their obsolescence and waste generation.
Theories of the circular economy go back to the work of Walter R. Stahel, who introduced the
concept of ‘cradle to cradle’ and in 1976 presented a pioneering report to the European
Commission
16
in which he developed a closed-loop economy approach, demonstrating the
impact that this would have in terms of competitiveness, job creation, resource savings and
waste reduction. In 1989, Pearce and Turner spread the idea of the circular economy
17
. Frosch
and Gallopoulos adopted the same closed-loop economy approach in their work, and in 1989
popularised the concept of ‘industrial ecology’
18
, which consists in moving from linear
industrial processes (open-loop; resources and capital investments become waste) to circular
processes (closed-loop; waste becomes inputs for new processes).
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has played an important role in placing the circular economy
on the European Commission’s agenda. In June 2015 this foundation presented a report
19
in
Brussels that had a considerable influence on the EU action plan for the circular economy
20
.
Introduction of the latter has been bolstered by the Paris agreement
21
, which insisted on the
need to rethink production and consumption systems, and the United Nations 2030 Agenda,
which includes sustainable development goals that coincide with circular economy proposals.
The EU action plan has been monitored closely by the Commission itself, which has published a
16
Stahel, W. and Reday, G. (1981). The Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy, Vantage Press
17
Pearce, D.W. and Turner, R.K.((1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Johns Hopkins
University Press
18
Frosh, R. and Gallopoulos, N. (1989). "Strategies for Manufacturing Scientific", in Scientific American Review
19
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015). Growth Within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe
20
European Commission: Communication COM (2015) 614 final, Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the
Circular Economy. In 2014 the Commission had already presented Communication COM (2014) 398, Towards a
circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe
21
The Paris Agreement (2015). Conference of the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
31
report on its application
22
. The European Economic and Social Committee has also paid
attention to the circular economy (Opinion 2016/C 264/14), as has the Committee of the
Regions (Opinion 2017/C 088/16).
The circular economy and the social economy meet at numerous major points
23
. Both models
place individuals and sustainable development at the centre of their concerns. In the circular
economy, as in the social economy, a key factor of its success consists in strengthening creative
and innovative capacity at local level, where relations of proximity constitute a decisive
component. In other words, values and principles of the cooperative movement and the social
economy, such as links with the local area, inter-cooperation, or solidarity, are decisive pillars
for guaranteeing sustainable development processes in their triple dimension: environmental,
economic and social. It is no accident that in Europe, the social economy was a pioneer of the
circular economy
24
in reusing and recycling waste, in energy and in agriculture. More recently,
cooperative platforms in the collaborative economy sphere are well-known examples of
initiatives that help to preserve and improve natural capital, optimise the use of resources and
foster system efficiency. The European Commission itself, in its EU action plan for the circular
economy, recognised that social economy enterprises will make “a key contribution to the
circular economy”.
3.5. Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship and the social economy
Although there were predecessors to the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) or
responsible business in the first half of the 20th
century, the concept of corporate social
responsibility is attributed to Howard R. Bowen, writing in 1953
25
. However, it did not erupt
onto the European political agenda until the beginning of the 21st
century, when the European
Commission published its green paper on Promoting a European framework for Corporate
Social Responsibility
26
and defined CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. The Green Paper states that CSR should not be viewed as a
substitute for public legislation or regulations concerning social rights and environmental
standards, describing two dimensions of CSR: a) the internal dimension within the company
(relations with salaried and other employees – investment in human capital, health and safety in
the workplace, socially responsible restructuring of production plants, environmentally
responsible practices), and b) the external dimension of CSR, which extends beyond the doors
of the company, the employees and shareholders, taking into account the local community and a
wide range of stakeholders and others affected by the business activity: business partners and
suppliers, customers, public authorities and NGOs representing local communities, as well as
the surrounding environment itself.
22
European Commission: COM (2017) 33 final, Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Circular
Economy Action Plan
23
Rebaud, A. (2016). "Economíe circulaire et ESS: complementarites et synergies", Pour la solidarite,
www.pourlasolidarite.eu
24
GECES (2016). General Report, European Commission's Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship.
25
Bowen, H.R. (2013). The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, University of Iowa Press.
26
European Commission (2001). COM/2001/0366 final
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
32
In 2006 the Commission proposed the creation of a European Alliance on CSR by members of
the business community, in addition to different steps to foster the spread of CSR practices and
to make Europe a “pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility
27
”. In 2011 a new
communication was produced by the Commission, proposing a renewed EU strategy for 2011-
2014 on corporate social responsibility and providing a new definition of CSR that includes “the
responsibility of enterprises
28
for their impacts on society”, such that “enterprises should have
in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer
concerns into their business operations and core strategy”. The EESC also commented on CSR
in opinions
29
issued in 2006.
One concept very much linked to CSR is Corporate Citizenship (CC). The theories on CC
30
suggest that a company should not only take on responsibilities towards shareholders and
stakeholders, but that the company itself should get involved with society. The company must
act like a “good citizen”. CC was inspired by the United Nations Global Compact of 2000,
which calls on companies’ civic responsibility, specified in ten principles related to human
rights, labour relationships, the environment and tackling corruption. More recently, corporate
volunteering and corporate alliances have become ways of expressing CC. Nevertheless,
although the initial definition of CSR was restricted to a company’s good practices directly
related to shareholders and stakeholders, the new definition of CSR from the European
Commission literally identifies with the 10 principles of the United Nations Global Compact
(COM (2006) 136 final, point 2), so the conclusion may be drawn that the two concepts are
equivalent, at least in the Commission’s agenda.
Without a doubt, it can be stated that companies and entities in the social economy have been
the first to apply the principles of CSR from the very moment such companies began to develop
in the 19th
century, since their operating rules and the values that inspire them make them
entities that are representative in applying the principles of CSR.
The principles of the social economy, inspired by the co-operative principles, are none other
than the application of CSR in all of its aspects. As for the internal dimension of CSR in
cooperatives, the partners’ twofold status as partner and user, together with the other cooperative
principles, bestow a leading role upon the workers and partners in the company. In
workers’ cooperatives, it is the worker members who manage the company with democratic
criteria, resulting in socially responsible behaviour when addressing difficult situations in the
markets, restructuring their production plants and making adjustments to their workforce. Since
these cooperatives’ main aim is to maintain stable employment, it is logical for such decisions
to be guided by compliance with this aim.
The cooperatives’ democratic functioning also explains why it is people, and as such citizens,
who control and lead the decision-making processes. As for the distribution of revenue and
profits, capital has no special economic rights, since it is the members and workers who are the
beneficiaries of the activity. The principle of education, expressed in rules guaranteeing a
27
COM (2006) 136 final
28
COM (2011) 681 final
29
EESC Opinions 2006/C 325 14 & 2012/C, 229/15
30
Logsdon, J. y Wood, D. (2005). Implementing Global Business Citizenship: Multi-Level Motivations, in J. Hooker
(ed). International Corporate Responsibility: Exploring the Issues. Carnegie Mellon, University Press.
* Schwab, K (2008). Global Corporate Citizenship. Working with Governments and Civil Society. Foreign Affairs
(87)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
33
provision of funds to invest in human capital, demonstrates the cooperatives’ socially
responsible dimension.
The co-operative principles, which are those of the social economy, also explain the external
dimension of CSR within social economy companies. The open door principle ensures that all
those who need cooperative services may have access to them, with no difficulties arising from
speculative criteria. Solidarity with the community and the environment is also diachronic in
nature, insofar as cooperative assets are generated in cooperatives in the form of reserves that
cannot be distributed among the members even if the entity is wound up. The capital gains
accumulated over time are not reimbursed to the members when they leave the cooperative, but
become assets belonging to subsequent generations. In other words, corporate social
responsibility has been applied by cooperatives since the moment when such companies began
to develop in the 20th
century.
Of course, the principle of social responsibility is very clear in other organisations in the social
economy whose behaviour is guided by a criterion of service to their members and to the
community. As for entities in the social action third sector, they not only apply responsibility
systematically but are also able to bring significant, non-monetary, solidarity-based resources to
their activities in the form of non-remunerated voluntary work.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the social economy has been a pioneer in applying CSR since
CSR is an integral part of the values and operating rules of the social economy.
3.6. National recognition of the concept of social economy and related emergent
concepts
In order to check the level of recognition of the concept of social economy in the different EU
countries, and also that of other related emergent concepts, information was gathered from
primary sources through semi-open questions targeted at the correspondents (see appendix), all
of whom are privileged witnesses and have expert knowledge of the concept of the social
economy and similar concepts and of the reality of this sector in their countries. The
questionnaire included semi-open questions on the social economy and similar concepts in the
different EU countries. The correspondents are academics, professionals from sector federations
and representative bodies in their countries, and top officials from the national civil services
with responsibilities in the field of the social economy. The degree of recognition was divided
into three relative levels across the different countries: (*) little or no recognition of this
concept; (**) a moderate level of recognition; and (***) a high level, denoting institutionalised
recognition of the concept in the country in question.
The results are shown in tables 3.3 and 3.4, which relate respectively to the level of recognition
of the concept of the social economy (and of this term) and to recognition of the related
concepts ‘social enterprise’, ‘non-profit sector’, ‘third sector’, ‘collaborative economy’,
‘economy of the common good’, ‘civil society and voluntary sector’, ‘corporate social
responsibility’, ‘social innovation’, ‘solidary economy’ and ‘circular economy’.
Even assuming that national conditions and ideas associated with the term ‘social economy’
differ markedly and may not be comparable, the data obtained in the field work make it possible
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
34
to divide countries into three groups depending on their level of recognition of the social
economy concept (see table 3.3.).
- Countries in which the concept of the social economy is widely recognised: In Spain, France,
Portugal, Belgium and Luxembourg, the concept of the social economy enjoys the greatest
recognition by public authorities and in the academic and scientific world, as well as in the
social economy sector itself. The first two countries stand out, as France is the birthplace of this
concept and Spain approved the first European national law on the social economy in 2011.
- Countries in which the concept of the social economy enjoys a moderate level of recognition:
These include Italy, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Malta, Poland, the United
Kingdom, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Romania and Slovenia. In these countries the
concept of the social economy coexists alongside other concepts, such as the non-profit sector,
the voluntary sector and social enterprises. In the United Kingdom, the low level of awareness
of the social economy contrasts with the government's policy of support for social enterprises.
- Countries where there is little or no recognition of the concept of the social economy: The
concept of the Social Economy is little known, emergent or unknown in the following countries:
Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Slovakia and Croatia. The related terms non-profit sector, voluntary sector and nongovernmental
organisations sector enjoy a relatively greater level of recognition.
Regarding related emergent concepts, the best-known in the EU countries are ‘non-profit’, ‘third
sector’, ‘civil society and voluntary sector’, ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘social enterprises’
and ‘social innovation’. Other concepts such as ‘circular economy’ or ‘collaborative economy’
show an upward trend in knowledge levels in most EU countries, while the concepts ‘economy
of the common good’ and ‘solidary economy’ have difficulty in making any way in many EU
countries, where they are barely known or not known at all.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
35
Table 3.3. National recognition of the concept of the ‘social economy’
Country Code By public authorities
By social economy
companies and
federations
By the
academic/scientific
world
AUSTRIA AT * ** **
BELGIUM BE *** *** **
BULGARIA BG ** ** **
CROATIA HR * ** *
CYPRUS CY ** ** **
CZECH REPUBLIC CZ * ** **
DENMARK DK ** ** **
ESTONIA EE ** ** *
FINLAND FI ** ** **
FRANCE FR *** *** **
GERMANY DE * ** **
GREECE EL ** ** ***
HUNGARY HU ** ** **
IRELAND IE ** *** **
ITALY IT ** ** **
LATVIA LV * ** **
LITHUANIA LT ** ** *
LUXEMBOURG LU *** *** **
MALTA MT ** * **
NETHERLANDS NL * * *
POLAND PL ** *** **
PORTUGAL PT *** *** **
ROMANIA RO ** ** **
SLOVAKIA SK * * **
SLOVENIA SI ** *** **
SPAIN ES *** *** ***
SWEDEN SE ** ** **
UNITED KINGDOM UK ** ** **
* Little recognition / ** Moderate recognition / *** High recognition
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
36
Table 3.4. National recognition of the new emergent concepts
Social
Enterprises
Non Profit
Sector
Third
Sector
Collaborative
economy
Economy
of the
Common
Good
Civil
society and
voluntary
sector
Corporate
social
responsibility
Social
Innovation
Solidary
economy
Circular
Economy
Austria ** *** * * * *** *** ** * *
Belgium ** *** * * * ** ** ** * **
Bulgaria ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** *
Croatia ** *** ** * . *** ** ** * *
Cyprus ** ** ** * * ** ** * . *
Czech Republic ** *** ** * . * ** * * .
Denmark ** * ** ** . ** *** ** . *
Estonia ** *** *** * . ** * . .
Finland *** ** *** * . *** *** ** * *
France ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** *
Germany ** ** *** * * ** *** ** ** *
Greece ** *** . . . ** * . . .
Hungary ** *** * * . *** ** ** * .
Ireland ** *** ** ** . *** *** ** . **
Italy ** *** *** * ** ** ** ** * **
Latvia * *** ** . . ** ** * . .
Lithuania * ** ** * . ** ** * * *
Luxembourg *** *** *** *** . *** *** *** * ***
Malta ** ** * * * ** ** . * *
Netherlands *** *** * ** * *** *** ** . ***
Poland *** *** *** * . *** ** * * .
Portugal ** ** *** . . ** * * * .
Romania ** ** ** . . ** ** * . *
Slovakia ** *** *** . . ** ** * . .
Slovenia ** ** * * . *** *** ** * **
Spain * * ** * * ** ** * ** *
Sweden *** ** ** * * *** ** ** . **
United Kingdom *** ** *** ** . *** *** ** . **
. No recognition / * Little recognition / ** Moderate recognition / *** High recognition
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
37
CHAPTER 4
PUBLIC POLICIES TOWARDS THE SOCIAL ECONOMY AT THE EUROPEAN
LEVEL IN THE RECENT PERIOD (2010-16)
4.1. Introduction31
Just after the outbreak of the economic crisis, the European Parliament published a Resolution on
the social economy (19 February 2009, OJ 25.3.2010) and the European Economic and Social
Committee published an opinion on the “Diverse forms of enterprise” (EESC 1454/2009). These
statements could be considered the most important texts to have issued from both European
institutions. The European Parliament resolution points out that “the Commission has repeatedly
recognised the concept of the social economy; asks the Commission to promote the social
economy in its new policies and to defend the social economy’s concept of ‘a different approach
to entrepreneurship’, which is not driven mainly by the profit motive but by social benefit, to
ensure that the particular features of the social economy are properly taken into account in the
framing of legislation; and takes the view that the European Union and the Member States should
recognise the social economy and its stakeholders – cooperatives, mutual societies, associations
and foundations – in their legislation and policies. (…)”. The EU Parliament called on the
Commission and the Member States to support social economy organisations in different ways.
Soon after, on 13 November 2010, more than 400 academic sent an Open Letter to the European
Commission calling for it to move “From words to action: Supporting cooperative and social
enterprises to achieve a more inclusive, sustainable and prosperous Europe”. Five years later, the
Council of the European Union issued its Conclusions on The promotion of the social economy as
a key driver of economic and social development in Europe (7.12.2015), inviting Member States
and the Commission to “establish, implement and further develop, as appropriate, European,
national, regional and/or local strategies and programmes for enhancing the social economy,
social entrepreneurship and social innovation. The various strategies and programmes should be
based on a constructive dialogue between European, national, regional and/or local authorities and
all relevant stakeholders” and, more generally, to promote and support the social economy. More
recently, on 23 May 2017, 11 government representatives from EU member countries signed the
“Madrid Declaration”, calling for a European action plan to boost the social economy in Europe.
Between 2009 and 2017, the European institutions have activated several initiatives for the social
economy or, more exactly, for social enterprises that are part of the social economy, opening a
new period of European public policies. The following analysis of the main developments in EU
institutions concerning the social economy (SE) during this period adopts the Chaves and
Demoustier (2013) public policy perspective. It examines, firstly, the soft policies, concerning the
institutional and cognitive environment or ecosystems where SE organisations operate, and
secondly, the hard policies, concerning the supply and demand side of the SE organisations’
activities.
31
A more extended version of this and the following chapters will be found in “Best practices of public policies
towards social economy entities”, CIRIEC/EESC, 2017, forthcoming.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
38
4.2 Rules: statutes and regulatory frameworks
Legal forms. The long march towards institutional recognition of the Social Economy and the
structuring of specific European policies started in the 1980s (see the CIRIEC/EESC, 2012, 2008
and CIRIEC, 2000 reports). It culminated in 1989 with the important Communication from the
Commission to the Council on “Businesses in the 'Économie Sociale' sector: Europe’s frontierfree
market”, which proposed the establishment, through Statutes, of a European legal basis for
cooperatives, associations and mutual societies, and with the creation of the Social Economy Unit
in European Commission Directorate-General XXIII. During the intervening decades, two
European institutions, the Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC),
have released a succession of reports, opinions and resolutions which highlight the social value
added of the Social Economy32
.
Traditionally, EU policy makers have faced two major issues when implementing policies for the
social economy. The first is its scanty legal base, with an absence of explicit references in the
basic European Union texts (Treaty of Rome and Treaty of Maastricht), so a major challenge is
therefore to approve specific EU legal forms for the social economy. Unfortunately, to date these
have had little success. The second issue is the conceptual definition of the social economy field
and the multiplicity of terms related to it (from the Third system, civil society and non-profit, used
in the 19070s, to social enterprises, collaborative economy and economy of the common good in
the present decade). These issues mask not only a lack of consensus on the designation to be
employed but also a hidden policy to not advance in this field.
In 2003 the EU adopted a Regulation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE).
Its aim was to foster this form of the social economy, not only by improving the European
cooperatives' possibilities of conducting transnational activities but also, above all, by developing
the sector in countries which lack cooperative legislation of their own, or where this legal form
had been increasingly losing social prestige through being considered a vestige of the old regime,
as in the new member states in Central and Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, a few years after this
regulation came into force, the results were not as expected (Cooperatives Europe, Euricse, Ezai,
2010)
33
. Over the same years, the initiative to establish a European Association Statute (SAE) did
not receive enough support from EU members.
More recently, two other legal initiatives have been promoted by the EU: the European Mutual
Society Statute and the Statute for a European Foundation (EF). Institutional reports such as
Panteia (2003) were published for the discussion on mutual societies. However, in the end these
initiatives were withdrawn, due to a lack of institutional support34
.
Since these legal setbacks, the European Parliament has taken the legislative initiative to work on
a Statute for social and solidarity-based enterprises (2016/2237.INL). In this context, a study
carried out for the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (European Parliament/FICI,
201735
) has just been published. It does not recommend a strategy of harmonising social
enterprise laws via EU directives because this appears unfeasible. Instead, it recommends
32
The Parliament has released reports such as those of Avgerinos on the contribution of the co-operatives to regional
development, of Mihr on the role of co-operatives in building Europe and of Trivelli on co-operatives and co-operation
for development, while the resolution proposed by Eyraud, Jospin and Vayssade (1984) invited the Council and the
Commission to examine the possibility of establishing a European Law of Associations. For its part, in 1986 the EESC
sponsored a European Social Economy Conference, together with the Coordinating Committee of the Co-operative
Associations of the Community (CCACC), and published the first European study on cooperatives, mutual societies and
associations (see EESC, 1986).
33
Report on the application of Regulation 1435/2003 (COM(2012)72 final.
34
For more details about these processes, see Stokkink and Perard (2015).
35
A European Statute for Social and Solidarity-Based Enterprise, 2017.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
39
adopting a European Social Enterprise (ESE) Statute. This statute should introduce an EU legal
qualification or status and a related EU label or mark, which could be “ESE”.
Finally, it should be highlighted that there is no initiative concerning a European legal form
covering the whole of the social economy. As explained in this report, social economy acts have
been passed in several EU countries in recent years, so there is national experience in this field
(see the following chapter).
Tax treatment. A specific tax treatment for social economy enterprises and entities exists in most
of the EU countries (see CIRIEC/EESC, 2012). Opponents of this specific treatment have long
argued that it could be considered unequal treatment that constitutes unlawful state aid in
contravention of the free competition rules. In 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union
36
ruled that the specific tax treatment is justified because social economy entities (cooperatives in
the case before it) are different in nature to for-profit companies. Rigorous conceptualisation and
legal recognition of social economy entities is needed to highlight the significant differences
between the different forms of enterprise.
Regulatory frameworks and legal barriers to the development of social economy entities. The
economic activity of SE entities is highly dependent on the institutional framework of the private
and public markets. Regulations on industries and services can raise barriers to their entering
markets and to their growth.
During the past decade, the Directives approved have paid insufficient attention to the specific
features of social economy organisations, e.g. to those of associations and foundations in the case
of social services and of mutual societies in the case of insurance. For instance, the application of
competition policy distinguishes between services of general economic interest, services of
general interest that are not of an economic nature and social services of public interest, and
consequently has had damaging effects on them (Vosec, 2010, Pezzini, 2000).
More recently, to mitigate this regulation framework, on 5 April 2012 the Commission adopted
the de minimis Regulation for the field of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI). This
new regulation introduces more flexibility for public authorities when providing state aid for
social economy entities in the area of public service compensation. Another regulatory framework
reform was the European procurement law. Traditionally, in application of competition policy, the
introduction of social clauses in public procurement was prohibited. In 2014, the public
procurement reform package modified this
37
. It now allows the public authorities to insert certain
social clauses in procurement procedures and terms of reference (European Parliament, 2017).
Other regulatory barriers to a SE business growth model remain. One key to the market success
and growth of social economy companies has been their capacity to form federations and
cooperative groups. However, these forms of association have been queried by the European
Court of Justice, having been interpreted as illicit agreements contrary to free competition.
Antitrust policies consider these activities by cooperatives to be ‘agreements’ that restrict
competition and must therefore be prohibited. Such an interpretation contrasts with the
permissiveness accorded to the concentration of wealth and finance in private capitalist holdings
(CIRIEC, 2000).
Finally, in the context of regulatory frameworks, an emergent barrier that has been developing is
considered a qualitative austerity policy. It concerns the manner in which public sector and SE
entities relate to each other, regarding not only the problem of increased bureaucracy but also
delays, application and implementation procedures and other requirements that complicate, or
36
Judgment of the Court 8.09.2011 (EU :C :2011 :550).
37
Directives 2014/23; 2014/24 and 2014/25.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
40
even preclude, collaboration between the third sector and the public sector (Chaves and Zimmer,
2017).
4.3. Government bodies, representative platforms and civil dialogue
The first civil service body inside the European Commission to specialise in the social economy
was the Social Economy Unit in Directorate-General XXIII, created by the European Commission
in 1989 during the Presidency of Jacques Delors. The Unit has been restructured several times. In
2000, its responsibilities were divided between two Directorates-General: the DG for Enterprise
and Industry, where DG Enterprise Unit B3 – "Crafts Small Enterprises, Co-operatives and
Mutuals" was created, concentrating particularly on the "enterprise aspects" of cooperatives,
mutuals, associations and foundations, and the DG for Social Affairs, with responsibilities for
associations and foundations. Currently there is a Clusters, Social Economy and Entrepreneurship
Unit inside DG GROW - the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
and SMEs. A major challenge for a government body with responsibility for the social economy
is to manage policies in a mainstreaming sense (Chaves, 2008, 2013).
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the European Parliament are at the
same time institutions for civil dialogue and public policy entrepreneurs in the European
institutions public policy field (see Chaves, 2013). The EESC is a consultative body whose Group
III brings together representatives of the social economy from all the EU countries. Within Group
III there is an active Social Economy Category that has issued numerous Opinions since the
1980s. Most of the matters related to the social economy and its challenges have been the subject
of opinions, from the social business initiative to the collaborative economy and the Opinion on
“building a financial ecosystem for social enterprises” in 201538
. Inside the EESC there is also a
“Permanent Study Group on Social Economy Enterprises”. Since 1990, the European Parliament
has regularly set up a Social Economy Intergroup, made up of members of the European
Parliament and the organisations that represent the social economy in Europe. As noted at the
beginning of this chapter, in 2009 the European Parliament approved the Toia Report on "Social
Economy", promoted by this Intergroup.
A third European institution is the Committee of the Regions, another consultative body. In 2002
it adopted an Opinion on “Partnerships between local and regional authorities and social economy
organisations: contribution to employment, local development and social cohesion”, in which it
called for recognition of the social economy in regional policy. More recently, on 4 December
2015, it adopted another Opinion on “The role of the social economy in restoring economic
growth and combating unemployment” (SEDEC-VI/004).
GECES (Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship) is a new consultative body set up directly by
the European Commission in the context of the Social Business Initiative (SBI). This group is
another multistakeholder group composed of representatives of practicians, public authorities,
consultants and academic institutions chosen directly by the European Commission. Its task is to
make twice-yearly recommendations, principally through a report, on matters related to the SBI
and the development of social entrepreneurship and the social economy in Europe
39
. GECES now
faces the challenge of enhancing its representative and consultative function.
38
See a detailed list of the main recent Opinions of the EESC in the Bibliography at the end of this report.
39
Three major milestones of the first phase of GECES were:
1. The expert sub-group it set up in 2012 to advise on a common methodology for measuring the social impact of
activities by social enterprises ("Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in European Commission legislation and in
practice relating to EuSEFs and the EaSI").
2. The Strasbourg Declaration (January 2014), “Empowering social entrepreneurs for innovation, inclusive growth and
jobs”. (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/conferences/2014/0116-social-entrepreneurs/docs/strasbourg-declaration_en.pdf)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
41
REVES is another body, in this case not linked to the European institutions but to regional and
local authorities around Europe and to several platforms of social economy institutions, mostly at
regional level. It is an organisation which is active in promoting a social- and solidarity-based
economy. One of its major missions is to establish dialogue with European and international
institutions in order to boost the social and solidarity economy (http://www.revesnetwork.eu).
Social Economy Europe is the main European platform that represents cooperatives, mutual
societies, associations, foundations and other social economy entities in Europe. It was set up in
2000 as a European platform to liaise with the European institutions in order to give its opinion on
the different matters concerning the promotion of the social economy at European Union level,
institutionalising civil dialogue at higher levels of the EU. Nevertheless, other European platforms
also compete in the European policy arenas, in a heterogeneous and atomised context (Zimmer &
Hoemke, 2016).
4.4. Visibility, training, research and participation by civil society
An enhanced cognitive dimension and the participation of civil society are key areas for
developing the social economy in Europe.
To increase their visibility and social receptiveness towards them, associations, voluntary
organisations, cooperatives and other social economy entities need to implement a systematic,
multilevel strategy in Europe. Efforts at European and national government level have taken
several forms, e.g. the European Conferences organised by Presidencies of the Council of the
European Union or within the framework of a Presidency, the successive EESC Opinions, the
initiatives and opinions of the European Parliament’s Social Economy Intergroup and in some
cases also those of the Committee of the Regions, or even of the Commission itself. The last
initiative, taken in Madrid (23.5.2017), was the adoption of the ‘Madrid Declaration’, which
achieved high media and social network impact. However, in order to increase social visibility
and social receptiveness it needs to move from the macro level to the micro level. In addition, in
this way the social fabric of societies, their social capital of networks, becomes a key factor. As
noted in previous reports (CIRIEC/EESC, 2008 and 2012), European programmes based on ESF
have had a wide-ranging structuring effect, both nationally and internationally, in joining up and
strengthening the European social economy in terms of federations, networks, research, culture
and policies (Demoustier et al, 2006). The projects included in these programmes include lectures
and debates, which are key factors for spreading the concept, the discourses and the networks. As
highlighted in Table 4.2, the perception of EU measures, conferences and networks built in this
context are crucial. However, as the TSI Report (Chaves and Zimmer, 2017) reveals, EU funds
and programmes encounter considerable difficulties in becoming accessible to local networks.
The other strategic domain is to enhance civic participation and implication in both private and
public initiatives, because this is at the core of social entrepreneurship and social initiatives. This
requires a holistic perspective that needs more development and will not be addressed in this
study40
.
As previously noted, another issue is the visibility and recognition of the conceptual definition of
the social economy field. The periodic deployment of ‘neoconcepts’ (see chapter 3 of this report)
3. The Rome Strategy “Unlocking the Potential of the Social Economy for EU Growth”, based on the Proceedings of
the Rome Conference, November (2014) -http://www.socialeconomyrome.it/files/Rome%20strategy_EN.pdf
40
See the study “Best practices in public policies towards social economy entities”, CIRIEC/EESC, 2017, forthcoming.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
42
does not help. In the 1970s the multiplicity of terms related to the social economy comprised the
third system, civil society and non-profit. In the context of the economic crisis, a new wave of
concepts has emerged, such as social enterprises, the collaborative economy and the economy of
the common good. We must emphasise that these issues mask not only a lack of consensus on the
designation to be employed but also a hidden policy to not advance in this field.
In the field of education, training and research, several initiatives have been introduced but need
to be improved (CIRIEC/EESC, 2012). The European Union's education systems are destined to
perform an important function in fostering entrepreneurial culture and democratising the economy
through training projects that stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives based on the values which
characterise the SE. In turn, the development of new products and innovative processes in SE
companies require these to boost initiatives for cooperation with the university centres that
generate and transmit knowledge. Research networks and information exchange networks
between these centres and SE professionals will contribute, as they have been doing in recent
years, to broadening the necessary SE-specific knowledge bases and disseminating this
knowledge throughout Europe. The universities and federations are usually in charge of
undertaking these functions. In some cases, like Sweden, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Spain and
France, specialised training and research centres organised into networks have appeared. The
CIRIEC International network, the EMES network and the ICA research network are among the
most active at the international level. There are inter-university networks in individual countries
(like the German network for cooperatives, the French social and solidarity economy interuniversity
network and the CIRIEC-Spain and Portugal network of researchers into the social
economy, among others)41
. Research institutes such as IUDESCOOP at the University of
Valencia or EURICSE in Italy undertake international research projects. All of these have helped
to spread the concept of the social economy and information about it throughout Europe. On the
teaching side, there are also post-graduate courses in the social economy. Several universities
offer specialised masters on the social economy and social enterprises, including the Universities
of Bologna, Roma Tre, Aix-Marseille, Coimbra, Le Mans or Valencia. Most of them are linked to
these networks. A current challenge is to create a European Higher Education Area specialising in
this field.
4.5. Hard policies: funds and policy fields
An important shift in the European Commission's political agenda regarding the social economy,
or more precisely, social enterprises, took place in 2011. The main raison was the application of
the Small Business Act (SBA). This Act was passed in 2008 and needed to be reviewed. During
the review process, a high level of interest in social businesses emerged for the first time, with a
simultaneous use of the terms ‘social economy’ and ‘social enterprises’. In 2011, an explicit
institutional concept was stated in the Social Business Initiative, which defines a social enterprise
as 'an operator in the social economy whose main objective is to have a social impact rather than
make a profit for their owners or shareholders. It operates by providing goods and services for the
market in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion and uses its profits primarily to achieve social
objectives. (…)'42
. Consequently, this new emergent field of European public policies is part of
the ‘market social economy’ in the CIRIEC definition, which excludes voluntary and non-profit
organisations that derive the majority of their income from non-market activities (grants,
donations, quotas, etc.).
The emergence of two new policy fields for the European Commission: social enterprises
and social innovation. On 23.2.2011 the Commission issued a Communication to the Council,
41
For further information, see CIRIEC (2000), Chapter 3.
42
Other European institutions and organization have stated that social enterprises are part of the social economy (e.g.
GECES, 2016).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
43
the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions that reviewed the SBA (COM(2011) 78 final). Its general aim was to take stock of the
application of the SBA and assess the new needs of European SMEs in the current economic
climate. This Communication specifically cited the "social economy" and pledged the
Commission to "adopt, by the end of 2011, a Social Business Initiative focusing on enterprises
pursuing social objectives."
As a result, on 25.10.2011 the Commission issued a new Communication named the "Social
Business Initiative (SBI). Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in
the social economy and innovation" (COM(2011) 682 final)43
. This SBI set out the policy
agenda44
of the European Commission, with 11 key actions in 3 axes (see following table)45
:
Table 4.1. Axis and key actions of the Social Business Initiative (2011)
Social Business Initiative (SBI): Axis and key actions
Axis 1. Making it easier for social enterprises to access funding
1: Proposal for regulations on European social investment funds
2: Improve microcredits
3: A European financial instrument (90 million €) for social enterprises
4: Investment priority for social enterprises in the structural funds; Common Strategic Framework
Axis 2. Improving the visibility of social enterprises
5: Mapping social enterprises; business models, economic weight, tax regimes, identification of
best practices
6: Data base of labels and certifications for social enterprises
7: Improve national and regional administrations’ capacity building to boost social enterprises
8: Electronic data exchange platform for social investors and entrepreneurs; access to EU
education and training programs
Axis 3. Making the legal environment friendly to social entrepreneurship
9: Working on legal forms suitable for social enterprises. Simplification of the regulation on the
Statute for a European Cooperative Society and regulation for a European foundation statute;
study on the situation of mutual societies
10: Enhancement of the element of quality and working conditions in awarding contracts in the
context of the reform of public procurement
11: Simplification of the implementation of rules concerning State aid to social and local services
43
The EESC published an Opinion on this matter titled: "Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise" (2011). See
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/index_en.htm
44
For further information, see http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises/
45
Other actions mentioned in the SBI were: proposal for regulations on European venture capital funds; reliable
statistics on social enterprises; communication on EU state aid modernisation; public consultation on the general block
exemption regulation; SMEs: consultation on the "Europe 2020" action plan.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
44
Following up on the SBI agenda, the EU developed several initiatives:
Improving private and public funding: To enhance the interest of private investors in social
enterprises, Regulation 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds (EuSEF) was
approved. It mainly established a new label (the EuSEF label) to identify European Social
Entrepreneurship Funds. The label highlights the social impact of the beneficiaries of the funds,
not their form or governance; a requirement is that at least 70% of the capital received from
investors should be used in support of social businesses.
A second measure is the Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI), which
established an EU-level financial instrument with a total budget of more than €170 million (2014
to 2020 period). It provides microcredits with risk-sharing guarantees. This axis builds on and
extends the existing European Progress Microfinance Facility, which now comes under the EaSI
programme (EPRS/European Parliament, 2017).
A third measure linked the EaSI to the European Investment Fund (EIF). As a result, the EIF
manages two financial instruments under EaSI: the EaSI Guarantee Instrument and the EaSI
Capacity Building Investments Window. They help financial institutions to expand their capacity
to lend to micro-enterprises and social enterprises.
The Social Impact Accelerator (SIA) is a fund of funds created in 2015 by the European
Investment Bank group and EIF that targets social enterprises. It invests funds in social
enterprises based on a new framework for quantifying and reporting on social impact metrics
developed by EIF. In this context, it is interesting to reflect on the direction of the mainstream
discourse on measuring social impact.
Public funds: investment priority in the structural funds. The European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) are traditional instruments of the EU cohesion
policy. They translate the goal of 'promoting social economy and social entrepreneurship' into a
variety of supporting actions selected by national authorities (awareness raising, workshops,
prizes, direct financing).
Finally, other financial instruments are available for social economy and social enterprises but not
exclusively for them. They include InnovFin (research and innovation investments for enterprises
under Horizon 2020), COSME (Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises) and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).
Awaiting an action plan to foster the social economy in Europe. A European budgetary policy
specifically for the social economy did not get off the ground and is still awaited. Since the 1990s,
several unsuccessful attempts have been made (see CIRIEC/EESC, 2012). The Declaration of
Madrid (23.5.2017) continues to call for it.
For the purposes of this report, our interest has centred on assessing the impact of these policies
on the development of the social economy in Europe. Our method has been to identify key
measures (the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, the LEADER
initiative, European rules – directives and legislation), trans-European congresses and networks
and the new tools established recently. Our correspondents (see Appendix 1), experts in this field
in each country, have rated the impact on a scale ranging from 1 star (*) for the least impact to 3
stars (***) for the most impact in relation to the country on which they were reporting. The results
are shown in table 4.2. The main conclusion is the importance of the main financial instrument,
the ESF. International congresses and networks, the LEADER initiative and European directives
and legislation have also proved key measures. Congresses and networks have been revealed as a
tool to generate structuring and cognitive effects such as coordinating the civil society of Europe's
social economy (as revealed in Demoustier et al, 2006). The LEADER initiative is of fundamental
importance in the rural world. The new tools established recently (EFSI, EaSI, COSME, etc.)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
45
have shown little or no impact, especially in Mediterranean and Eastern EU countries (though the
correspondents from Slovakia and Luxembourg generally score them highly). Studies to assess
the impact of the new policies are needed.
Finally, the social economy is linked to major public policy fields such as employment, social
services, rural development, the digital economy, local development and social cohesion, among
others. The EU institutions' interest in involving the social economy in these objectives constitutes
a fundamental advance, although it does reveal a narrow view of the SE's potential and the
benefits it could generate in the economy and society of Europe46
.
46
For more details see Chaves and Demoustier (2013) and the study “Best practices in public policies towards social
economy entities”, CIRIEC/EESC, 2017, forthcoming.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
46
Table 4.2. Perception of the impact of European policies towards the social economy
ESF EuSEF EaSI ESIF EFSI
Financial
instruments in
cohesion policy
LEADER
FEDER
(ERDF)
COSME
European
directives and
legislation
Conferences
and networks
Austria ** * * * * ** ** * * (-) (-)
Belgium ** * ** * * * * ** * ** **
Bulgaria *** ** *** ** * * ** * * *** **
Croatia *** ** ** * * ** ** * * * **
Cyprus ** * * ** * ** ** * * * *
Czech Republic *** * * ** * * * * * ** **
Denmark ** n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d ** n/d n/d
Estonia * * * * * * ** * * * *
Finland ** * * * * * ** ** * * **
France ** ** ** * * * ** ** * *** **
Germany ** * ** * * * * * * * **
Greece (-) * ** * * * *** * * *** **
Hungary ** * * * * ** ** * * ** **
Ireland ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** **
Italy *** * ** ** * * ** ** * ** ***
Latvia *** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Lithuania * * * * * * * * * * *
Luxembourg ** *** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ***
Malta ** * * ** * * ** * * ** *
Netherlands * ** ** ** ** * * * * * *
Poland *** * * * * * ** ** * ** **
Portugal ** * * * * * ** ** * ** **
Romania ** * ** ** * * * * * * **
Slovakia ** ** *** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** **
Slovenia ** * * * * ** ** ** ** ** ***
Spain ** * * ** * * * ** * ** **
Sweden *** * ** ** * * *** ** * ** **
United Kingdom ** * * *** ** ** *** * * ** **
(-) negative impact / * No impact / ** Moderately positive impact / *** Very positive impact
Notes: Questionnaire question: Which European Union policies do you think have had more impact on your country’s social economy during the last decade?
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
47
CHAPTER 5
PUBLIC POLICIES TOWARDS THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EUROPE AT THE NATIONAL
AND REGIONAL LEVEL IN THE RECENT PERIOD (2010-16)
5.1. Introduction
During the past decade, several institutions of the European Union have called for public policies to
boost the social economy at the European, national and regional levels. For instance: the Social
Economy Intergroup of the European Parliament in its public hearing Towards a European Action Plan
for the social economy, held on 28 September 2016 in Brussels47
; the Group of Experts on Social
Entrepreneurship with its latest report (2016), “Social enterprises and the social economy going
forward”48
; the reports of SOCENT on ‘maps’ of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe49
;
the report of the OECD/European Union on the Policy brief on social entrepreneurship50
; and the recent
Madrid Declaration (May 2017). Also, on 7 December 2015 the European Council approved
Conclusions on “The promotion of the social economy as a key driver of economic and social
development in Europe”. In this context, numerous national and regional governments within the
European Union have introduced public policies to boost the social economy or specific social economy
‘families’. Moreover, the interest that governments have devoted to the social economy seems to have
increased during the crisis, given the need to bring about new policies aimed at tackling the crisis
(reducing unemployment, providing new services, etc.) and implementing a new model of sustainable
and sustained development. Surprisingly, however, very few international studies have gone beyond this
propositional policy dimension and examined the real public policy practices implemented around
Europe, nor have they assessed them or identified which could be considered ‘best practices’51
, unlike
the abundant literature evaluating the impact of social organisations.
We have presented the results concerning periods before 2010 in previous studies (CIRIEC, 2000;
CIRIEC/EESC, 2008 and 2012) and another study currently being conducted by CIRIEC for the EESC
under the title of “Best practices in public policies regarding the European Social Economy after the
economic crisis” is also addressing this issue. In this Report we will therefore focus on some public
policy topics: a comparative analysis of new national legislation on the Social Economy, best new
public policies for the social economy, national and regional action plans, the creation of satellite
accounts, targeted financing and public procurement rules. Last but not least, we will consider the
dimension of institutional barriers to the development of the social economy, as a key factor in social
economy ecosystems. Two of these topics are addressed in depth in specific chapters of this report: the
challenge of preparing statistics (by Dr Marie Bouchard) and a comparison of new laws on the social
economy (by Dr Gemma Fajardo).
47
A few years ago, the European Parliament published a major Report: European Parliament (2009) Report on the Social
Economy, A6/0015/2009, Rapporteur Patrizia Toia.
48
GECES (European Union Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship). http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9024)
49
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=es&catId=89&newsId=2149
50
http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Social%20entrepreneurship%20policy%20brief%20EN_FINAL.pdf. Noya A., Clarence E.
(2013) Policy brief on social entrepreneurship, OECD/European Union 2013.
51
On this subject, CIRIEC published a major study in 2013: “The emergence of the social economy in public policies. An
international perspective”. It includes chapters on developments at the EU level and at national and regional levels.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
48
5.2. Eco-systems and public policy frameworks
Explicit policies promoting the social economy, understood in its broad institutional sector sense,
emerged during the eighties in pioneering countries such as France and Spain and have spread to other
European countries throughout the last decade. This does not mean that different groups of the social
economy in Europe have not been included in sectorial public policies for decades, such as agricultural
and rural development policies, including agri-food cooperatives; labour policies, including workers'
cooperatives, sheltered centres and other social enterprises; territorial planning policies and/or local
development policies, associating local social economy actors such as credit cooperatives or foundations
with social, health, cultural and housing policies involving non-profit and voluntary associations and
foundations. In other words, cross-cutting policies such as those aimed at the whole of the Social
Economy sector should be distinguished from sectorial policies such as those aimed at sub-fields of the
social economy, whether these be large families or sub-sectors, e.g. non-profit institutions or mutual
societies (CIRIEC, 2000; Chaves, 2010). In this sense, the emergent policies concerning social
enterprises, as part of the social economy, are sectorial policies, so if the national and European
governments focus on these there is a risk of excluding the rest of the social economy.
Another general element in assessing public policies conceived to boost the social economy is the
conception of this policy in itself and the policy makers’ vision of the social economy. The social
economy is a large field between the public sector and the private for-profit sector (Defourny and
Monzon, 1990). Its microeconomic organisations produce macroeconomic effects with social value
added. In this sense, policy makers may consider the social economy in two ways. On the one hand, they
may see it as a collective aim in itself, in the sense of constituting the materialisation of a socially and
economically desirable model. On the other hand, it may be understood as a suitable instrument for
achieving great collective aims such as territorial development, social cohesion, correction of labour
market imbalances, financial inclusion and social innovation. In both cases, development of this
business sector is a public aim, an end in itself in the first case and an intermediate goal in the second.
To pursue the first vision, a holistic conception of public policy is needed. The current focus on
measuring the social impact of social enterprises/the social economy reveals that mainstream policy
focuses on the second concept, the instrumental view of this social sector, disregarding its other areas of
potential.
To assess public policies, they need to be categorised. The economic literature identifies two large
spheres of public economic action in relation to business promotion: on the one hand, the business
environment or eco-systems and on the other, entrepreneurial competitiveness (Chaves and Demoustier,
2013). The emergence and development of enterprises requires favourable external conditions, that is to
say, an environmental, institutional and cultural framework which favours their emergence. When these
factors cooperate with each other and feed back into territories, integrating public and private actors,
environments especially suitable for entrepreneurial dynamism are created. They have received attention
from the scientific community, with concepts such as dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems and territorial
systems of innovation, and also clusters, such as those of Mondragon or Anecoop (Gallego and Chaves,
2017).
This theoretical framework has been transferred to the social economy field by Chaves (2010) and
Chaves and Demoustier (2013). These authors conceive of two large groups of social economy
promotion policies: on the one hand soft policies, those aimed at establishing a favourable environment
(eco-system) in which these types of enterprise emerge, operate and develop, and on the other hard
policies, aimed at the enterprises themselves in their capacity as business units (see Table 5.1). The
policies analysed in this chapter are specific institutional measures (new laws in the social economy
field, government bodies and institutional barriers), supply-side measures (national and regional plans,
budget policies), and demand-side measures (public procurement).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
49
Table 5.1. Types of policies to promote social economy enterprises
1. ‘Soft’ policies. Policies aimed at creating a favourable environment for enterprises
1.1. Institutional measures
- measures aimed at the legal form, as a private player
- measures aimed at recognising the ability of social economy enterprises to operate
throughout the economic activity sector, removing any obstacles there may be
- measures aimed at recognising social economy enterprises as political players, as
interlocutors in the drafting and implementation of public policies
- public organisations promoting social economy enterprises
1.2. Measures of a cognitive kind
- measures for disseminating a knowledge of social economy enterprises in society
- measures for promoting training in social economy enterprises
- measures promoting research into the social economy
2. ‘Hard’ policies. Economic policies promoting enterprises
2.1. Supply-side measures, aimed at improving competitiveness among social economy
enterprises
- measures implemented through budgetary, fiscal and other financial support measures,
technical and training support measures, etc.
- measures distinguished according to the life cycle of the enterprise (depending on the
creation or stage of development of the business)
- measures distinguished according to the business role to be strengthened (financing,
consultancy/advice, training, employment and human resources management,
cooperation and networks, R &D and innovation, quality, new computing and
communication technologies, physical space, etc.)
2.2. Demand-side measures, aimed at the level of activity of social economy enterprises
- measures aimed at providing ease of access to public markets (such as social clauses)
Source: Adapted from Chaves (2010:164).
5.3. New national legislation on the social economy
Over the past seven years, most European countries have paid attention to law-making concerning the
social economy. Specific laws on the social economy have been passed at national level in Spain (2011),
Greece (2011 and 2016), Portugal (2013), France (2014) and Romania (2016) and at regional level in
Belgium (Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders) and in Spain (Galicia). A comparative analysis of them may
be found in a specific chapter of this report.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
50
Additionally, new bills, drafts and other institutional initiatives such as systems of accreditation, labels
and large national multiannual plans have emerged in this period, revealing an increasing interest in this
field among governments. Additionally, reforms for specific groups of the social economy (social third
sector, third sector social enterprises, cooperatives and others) have also been approved, in Italy and
Spain, for instance. A synthesis of the more relevant recent developments in national regulations may be
found in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Main recent developments in national regulations on the social economy in
European countries (2011-2016)
Country Type Name of the Law / Plan / Label
Bulgaria Draft law Specific national-level Draft Law on the Social Economy (2016)
Croatia Plan
Strategy for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship in the
Republic of Croatia for the period of 2015 – 2020 (April, 2015)
Denmark Law
Act. 711 “Lov om registrerede socialøkonomiske virksomheder” of
25/06/2014 on registration of social-economic enterprises (came
into force in January 2015).
France
Law
Loi n° 2014-856 du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l'économie sociale
et solidaire (National Law on Social and Solidary Economy)
Accreditation
Accreditation as ESUS, entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale –
solidarity enterprise of social utility. Social economy enterprises
whatever their legal form are eligible for ESUS accreditation if
they meet certain criteria defined in the law.
Greece
Law Social economy and social enterprises (2011)
Law
Law 4430/2016 on Social and Solidarity Economy (2016)
(National Law on the Social and Solidary Economy)
Italy
Law Law n. 106 – 6 June on Third Sector Reform (2016)
Draft law
New bill on social enterprises and new law on regulation of the
third sector (2017)
Poland
Draft law Social economy (2012)
Plan
Krajowy Program Rozwoju Ekonomii Społecznej (National
Program of Social Economy Development) adopted by the
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in 2014
Lithuania Law
Order no. 4-207 of the Minister of the Economy on the 'Concept of
Social Entrepreneurship'(April 2015)
Luxembourg Law
Law of 12 December 2016 regarding the creation of companies
with a social impact.
Malta
Draft Law
and Label
Malta issued a Draft Social Enterprise Act in June 2015, which
seeks to offer both a new legal form of ‘social enterprise company’
and a ‘social enterprise organisation’ label.
Netherlands Law Law on Social Enterprises (2012)
Portugal Law
Lei 30 May 8th de Bases da Economia Social e o Código
Cooperativo (2013) (National Law on the Social Economy)
Romania
Law Law 219/15 on the Social Economy, 23 July 2015
Ordinance
Methodological Norms for applying the Law of the Social
Economy were adopted by Government Decision no. 585, 10
August 2016
Slovenia Law Act on Social Entrepreneurship (2011)
Spain Law
Ley 5/2011, de 29 de marzo, de Economía Social (2011)
(National Law on the Social Economy)
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
51
Regulation of the social economy with new legal forms does not in itself constitute an advance in
fostering the social economy that goes beyond its institutional recognition (Noia, 2017). As with the
European Cooperative Statute or the Spanish Law on the Social Economy until recently, the effects
could be too limited if the law is not accompanied by other measures. Otherwise it risks becoming a soft
law instead of a hard law that promotes the social economy (Pérez de Uralde, 2016), and policy
narratives and discourses could move in a different direction to that of real public policies (Chaves and
Savall, 2017).
5.4. Public bodies in governments and administrations
Many countries in the EU have a high-level body within the national government with explicit,
acknowledged responsibility for matters relating to the social economy and a name that includes the
designation (brand name) of this social sector. It represents, in itself, the recognition and prioritisation of
the social economy policy field in a country’s policy agenda. Financial and human resources allocated to
these bodies by governments are crucial. In some countries, development agencies coordinated at
different territorial levels systematically foster social economy organisations. This is the case of the
Agences Conseil for the social economy created by the Walloon regional government in Belgium, for
instance. However, these public bodies in large measure are at the mercy of changes and reshuffles in
the governments of the respective countries, which is, de facto, an institutional barrier to the
development of the social economy.
The greatest public recognition of the social economy in Europe has been in France and Luxembourg. In
France, the socialist government had a Minister Delegate for the Social and Solidarity Economy within
the Ministry of the Economy, and a Minister for sport, youth, community education and associations. It
also had a Délégation interministérielle à l’économie sociale et solidaire. Luxembourg has a Ministry of
Labour, Employment and the Social Solidarity Economy. Slovenia has a Secretary of State for Dialogue
with Civil Society and Social entrepreneurship within the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. Poland has a Social
Economy and Public Benefit Department within its Ministry of the Family, Labour and Social Policy.
Portugal has a special body named CASES, closely attached to the Ministry of Labour and Social
Security. The United Kingdom has an Office for Civil Society (OCS) and the Welsh Government has a
Third Sector Unit. Spain has a Directorate General for self-employed workers, the social economy and
CSR52
.
These bodies should not be confused with the participative and consultative bodies and agreements that
involve social economy platforms with government representatives in policy-making processes. This is a
crucial issue but is not studied in this report.
5.5. National and regional action plans and targeted funding
National and regional action plans are key policies to boost the social economy. They constitute major
agreements between different actors, mainly between the government and social economy/third sector
representatives, but also including trade unions, universities and others, with the aim of improving their
mutual relationship for mutual advantage over a long-term period. They include generally stable funding
frameworks, participative and consultative schemes, strategic fields to develop and improvements in
relationships and societal change.
At the regional and local level, in the past decade good practices have been developed in the regions of
Andalusia and Murcia in the south of Spain, which have achieved the highest rates of development of
52
See CIRIEC/EESC (2012) for earlier bodies in European national governments.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
52
cooperatives in the country, and in several regions of France and Belgium (Chaves and Demoustier,
2013). During this decade, other good practices may be found in France, with the Territorial Pole of
economic cooperation (PTCE) recognised by the new French Law on the social economy, or in local
plans to foster social and solidarity enterprises, as in Barcelona (Spain).
At the national level, and generally in cooperation with European structural funds, several national
action plans have been established in recent years. These are cases in which the European funds’
operational programmes target social economy and social inclusion. Table 5.3 identifies the main
national plans. Three key factors for success are important: firstly, a multiannual and holistic
framework, secondly, the concept of partnership between government, the social economy and other
stakeholders, ensuring that real needs and priorities are met, and thirdly, the structuring and inclusive
effect of European structural funds around Europe. The latter is a key lesson for EU policy makers.
Table 5.3. National plans that boost the social economy in European countries (2011-2016)
Country National Plan
Bulgaria Action plan for the social economy (2014-2015; 2016-2017)
Poland National Programme for the Social Economy. Establishment of the National
Committee for the Development of the Social Economy
Portugal National Agreement between the government and the social sector
("Compromissos de Cooperação para o Setor Social e Solidário")
Romania Solidar - Support for consolidating the Social Economy programme, under
POCU - Human Capital Operational Programme
Spain National Programme to foster the social economy and POISES - Operational
Programme for social inclusion and the social economy - ESF 2014-2020.
Sweden Multiannual programme to support work integration social enterprises, by
the Department of Labour jointly with the Department of Enterprise.
United
Kingdom
The Compact, agreement between the government and the voluntary and
community sector. Established in 1998, it establishes a way of working that
improves their relationship for mutual advantage.
Targeted funding. Several funding frameworks exist around Europe. Some involve mostly public funds,
others private funds, and yet others are hybrid public-private schemes. Here we will focus on targeted
funding based on public regulations or funds.
Public funds targeting the social economy are the first financial pillar. The EU (e.g. structural funds) and
national and regional governments assign funds explicitly for the promotion and development of the
Social Economy. These are the traditional subsidy programmes to promote cooperatives and
employment in cooperatives, in Germany, Italy and Spain. There are many alternatives that can be
implemented.
In recent years, several governments around Europe have deployed these forms of funds. In Belgium,
the Brasero fund supports the development of worker cooperatives in the region of Wallonia. In Cyprus,
the Social Welfare Services policy offers annual grants for running expenses, subsidising organisations
that deliver welfare services (i.e. child care, long-term care and others). In France, the new Law on the
social economy has established new financial tools for the sector, including a social innovation fund
(FISO). In Italy, a fund for financing social enterprises and social cooperatives has been established.
In some cases, these are mixed funds, managed by the government and by social economy organisations:
some examples in France are the National Fund for the Development of Associative Life (FNDVA) and
the National Fund for the Development of Sport (FNDS). In various funds, the funding is off-budget.
Other schemes are based on personal income tax. A percentage of the tax payable can be assigned by
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
53
citizens to voluntary organisations. This is the case in Italy and Spain. In Spain these sums are paid into
a national fund for social third sector organisations, which receives more than €200 million annually.
Another traditional targeted resource is obtained from the revenue from games of chance (lotteries, slot
machines). This is the case of RAY and Oy Veikkaus AB in Finland or the ONCE — the national
organisation for blind people — in Spain.
The possibilities for public-private financing innovation are high. In Italy the Marcora Law established
targeted tools to finance cooperatives, France has policies to assist employment in associations and
employment by the cheque system, and Spain has found an innovative way to link a passive
employment policy with an active one by allowing unemployment benefits to be received as a lump sum
if the unemployed person decides to set up a cooperative or a sociedad laboral (labour company).
5.6. Public procurement rules
After a long period when protecting competition was the mainstream policy in public markets, the
review of the EU regulations on public procurement in 2014 (Directives 2014/23, 2014/24 and 2014/25)
opened up new opportunities for national, regional and local governments to foster the social economy
by facilitating its access to public sector supplier status. This is, therefore, a demand-side policy to boost
the social economy. Social clauses are now allowed in the procedures for awarding public contracts. The
member States are obliged to adapt their laws to comply with these Directives, which accept and
explicitly regulate the inclusion of social criteria in public procurement contracts. However, introducing
these social and environmental clauses into public contracts is a possibility, not an obligation, for
regional and local governments. At the beginning of 2016, only 10 of the 28 EU members had
transposed this Directive into their national legislation. The United Kingdom was one of the first, but
was more interested in simplifying procurement procedures than in social clauses53
. In 2011, the
European Commission published a Guide to Social Considerations in Public Procurements54
.
It is still too early to assess the implementation of this new EU regulation on public procurement.
However, several governments at national, regional and local levels have already applied these social
clauses, as in Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom. In the UK, the Social Value Act (Public
Services) of 2012 requires public bodies contracting for public services to consider how such services
might bring economic, social, and environmental improvements to the area where services will be
provided. In Spain, cities such as Zaragoza, Barcelona and Madrid have recently introduced social
clauses in their new public contracts.
5.7. Institutional barriers
In this report, we have also addressed what the professionals and representatives of the social economy
understand to be the main barriers to the development of this sector, focusing on institutional barriers. In
fact, this is a way of measuring the efficacy of the policies implemented, or not yet introduced. The
question in the questionnaire was very open. Many diverse answers have been received. They identify
53
See the EU website for studies, data and expert groups related to public procurement in the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement/studies-networks/. Germany, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom were the 10 first countries to transpose
the Directive.
54
“Buying Social A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement”
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6457&langId=en
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
54
four groups of barriers: firstly, visibility and awareness, secondly, leadership and government
administration, thirdly, financing and taxation and, finally, institutional barriers.
The first group of barriers concerns the lack of awareness and understanding of the concept of the social
economy, social enterprises and other related concepts, in society, in public debate and in academia.
This is a very significant barrier for eastern EU countries such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia or the
Czech Republic. The correspondents in these countries recognise that the main support for the social
economy (both financial and awareness raising) comes from EU programmes and initiatives.
Related to this lack of awareness and understanding is the low visibility of the social economy, in the
media and also in the statistics. A lack of databases, official statistics and reliable data about social
enterprises or the social economy emerges in many countries, from Austria and Slovakia to Sweden.
Additionally, there is a need for educational and training programmes in the field of the social economy
at all levels of education. In a few countries, like France, programmes such as training through scholar
cooperatives do exist for adolescents/young students.
A second group of barriers concerns leadership and government administration. Many correspondents
say that there is a lack of leading institutions with responsibility for the social economy, social
enterprises, volunteers and civil society that are able to develop policies and encourage the social
economy. Consequently, there is no national strategy for the social economy. This field is not
considered a policy priority. Correspondents from countries such as Germany and Malta consider that
most of the media and policy makers “do not see the necessity” for a social economy. In some cases,
they identify a lack of trust and a rejection of economic activities carried out by non-profit organisations.
Partly as a consequence of the foregoing, the government bodies are not adequate for attending to the
needs and efforts of the social economy. In some cases, the multilevel governments and the different
ministries are not coordinated in social economy matters. In other cases, the government bodies are
deeply dependent on political cycles, e.g. in 2015 the Danish governmental bureau for social economy
businesses was closed when the government changed. Last but not least, bureaucracy and qualitative
austerity policies (Chaves and Zimmer, 2017) are very high obstacles to social economy entities’
working with public authorities, e.g. in Italy, Spain and Slovenia.
A third group of barriers concerns specific financial and tax schemes for social economy entities. The
shift in funding is transforming the configuration of these entities themselves (see the TSI project, Pape
et al, 2017). In France, the increasingly mainstream idea is that the social economy has to be financed by
private funds (consumers, enterprises), not public funds, and there is a shift in the form of public
finance, especially for associations, from state subsidies to more public contracts. On the other hand, no
European-level tax reforms for social enterprises are under consideration.
Finally, the fourth group of obstacles is institutional barriers. Two types are considered.
The first is changes in sector regulations that constitute obstacles to the operations of social economy
entities. In France and Spain, government changes in complementary social protection regulation have
negatively affected mutual health entities in recent years, in some cases, leading them to change their
legal status to that of a for-profit entity. In Italy, the reform of people’s banks (DL 3/2015) provides that
those with assets greater than €8 billion must be transformed into joint stock companies. Also, the
reform of the credit cooperatives (L 49/2016) radically reorganised the whole cooperative banking
sector, with some problematic aspects. In Spain, changes in the social security treatment of sports
trainers have negatively affected sport associations. In the United Kingdom, the large procurement
contracts relegate social economy entities to sub-contracting for large private sector companies; also, the
tendency (despite the Social Value Act) is to award contracts on price rather than including added social
value. The recently amended legal status of charities is better adapted to this new institutional
environment. In Finland, the Directive on Public Procurement that allowed contracts to be reserved for
certain services is not being implemented, so cannot benefit social economy entities.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
55
The second type of institutional barriers concerns new laws and statutes. The first obstacle is nonimplementation
of the new regulations for social enterprises (which are therefore considered soft laws).
This is the case of the Spanish Social Economy law (2011), which has no implementing regulations
(Pérez, 2016).
The second obstacle in this second type of institutional barrier concerns new difficulties that have
emerged for other social economy entities due to new national legal forms of SE or changes in legal
forms. In Poland and Portugal, the recent changes in cooperative laws are not considered suitable for
cooperatives. In Hungary, the new SE law poses a risk for many social cooperatives, created by groups
of citizens, which might need to be transformed into another type of organisation (cooperative or nonprofit
limited company) when the law comes into force in 2018. In Slovenia and Bulgaria, the social
entrepreneurship law excludes different organisations that have been already been working as social
enterprises. In Bulgaria, currently, the law on social enterprises is considered restrictive, as it provides
this legal status for only one type of legal entity — cooperatives of and for people with disabilities and
specialised enterprises that have described themselves as “social”. For this reason, currently there are
still only national encouragement policies for cooperatives and specialised enterprises that class
themselves as priority “social” enterprises. Other types of legal entities, for example, non-profit legal
entities (associations, foundations, community centres), can receive financial support from European
funds or through private funding. In Germany, as social enterprises are characterised as working for the
common good, the German law on achieving charitable status (Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht) is no longer
appropriate as it prohibits enterprises with that status from trading in a considerable number of markets,
which is a big barrier for new social enterprises.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
56
CHAPTER 6
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NATIONAL
LEGISLATION ON THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EUROPE
55
European legislation on the social economy received a boost with the adoption of European Parliament
resolution of 19 February 2009 on Social Economy (2008/2250(INI)). This Resolution called on
member states to improve the visibility of the social economy through, among other measures, adopting
legislation to recognise and promote the SE. For this, the Parliament considered that such law needs to
be based on the specific shared values of the SE. It identifies these values with those proclaimed in the
Charter of the Social Economy adopted in 2002 by the organisations representing SE enterprises in
Europe, now known as Social Economy Europe (http://www.socialeconomy.eu.org/social-economy).
The social economy sphere has been forged over the years. Initially, the Commission’s Communication
on "Businesses in the “Economie Sociale” sector: Europe’s frontier-free market" (SEC(89) 2187))
included cooperatives, associations, mutual societies and foundations, but it was soon found that not all
the organisations included in these families wished to be considered part of the SE, while other actors
that did identify with the SE did not take these forms (Opinion of the EESC on The Social Economy and
the Single Market, (2000/C 117/11)). Unsurprisingly, therefore, the European Parliament’s 2009
Resolution on Social Economy included a further family within the SE: social enterprises (Whereas
clause H). This addition was ratified by the European Commission in its Communication Social
Business Initiative. Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social
economy and innovation, adopted on 25 Nov. 2011 (COM (2011) 682 final).
However, social enterprises have been regulated in various Member States without considering their
membership of a more general category such as the SE. This is the case of the social enterprise laws of
Finland (Law 1351/2003 of 30 December 2003), Italy (Law 118/2005 of 13 June 2005), Lithuania (Law
IX-2251/2004 of 1 June 2004), Slovenia (Law 20/2011 of 7 March 2011) and Denmark (Law 711/2014
of 25 June 2014), and of the Community Interest Companies Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1788 of 30
June 2005) in the United Kingdom.
Other Member States do include social enterprises in the SE model. This is the case of Belgium in
relation to Social Purpose Companies (Social Purpose Companies Law of 13 April 1995) and of
Luxembourg in relation to societal impact companies (Law introducing Societal Impact Companies of
12 December 2016).
Also, a number of laws regulating the SE in EU countries include social enterprises within this category.
This is the case of Spain (Law 5/2011 of 29 March 2011, on Social Economy), Portugal (Law 30/2013
of 8 May 2013, the Basic Law of the Social Economy), France (Law 2014-856 of 31 July 2014 on the
social and solidary economy), Romania (Law 219/2015 of 23 July 2015 on the social economy) and
Greece (Law 4430/2016 of 31 October 2016 on the social and solidary economy), as we will see below.
This is also the tendency followed by the EU and confirmed in the Conclusions of the Council of the
European Union of 7 December 2015 on The promotion of the social economy as a key driver of
55
Chapter by Isabel Gemma Fajardo.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
57
economic and social development in Europe (1507/15, SOC 711/EMPL 464), which as well as
cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations, also includes “newer forms of social
enterprises” as forms of organisation of the social economy.
The following pages give a comparison of the legal provisions concerning the SE in some of the
legislation enacted in Europe. We have chosen to reflect only national laws, which are shown in
chronological order, from the longest-standing (Spain) to the most recent (Greece). Consequently,
regional-level laws are not shown, although they cannot be ignored. Prominent among these are the SE
regulations of the Belgian regions of Wallonia (Decree 20 of November 2008), Flanders (Decree of 17
February 2012) and Brussels (Order of 26 April 2012), as well as the Social Economy Law of the
Spanish region of Galicia (Law 6/2016 of 4 May 2016). It will be seen that the laws outlined in the table
share many identifying features and it may be mentioned that although some employ only the expression
‘social economy’ while others add ‘solidary’, there are no major differences in their intended scope.
The aim of all these laws is to define and identify the SE and the enterprises that may be included in this
category, regulate the institutional organisation of the SE and establish measures to promote and foster
it. These laws see the SE as a particular form of entrepreneurship, characterised by the aims it pursues
and the way it organises itself and acts. The aims pursued are mainly of public or collective benefit and
are socially relevant. The other characteristics of this particular type of entrepreneurship are identified
with what are known as the principles and values of the SE, which are expressly stated in these laws:
priority of people over capital, convergence of the interest of the collective and public benefit,
democratic and participatory governance, economic management that is open and oriented towards
favouring the pursuit of the social objective rather than profit distribution (reinvestment of most of the
profits or indivisibility of mandatory reserves), autonomy and independence from the authorities, and
promotion of solidarity, both internally and with society, favouring local development, social cohesion,
integration of disadvantaged persons and/or environmental sustainability, among others.
Social economy enterprises are usually identified with cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and
foundations, which have a legal form that guarantees the aims and principles of the SE, as well as other
legal forms, normally partnerships or capital-based companies, which have provided proof of meeting
these aims and principles and have been accredited and registered as SE enterprises. All the jurisdictions
examined provide for an administrative body in charge of supervising and fostering the SE and a body,
composed mainly of representatives of the authorities and of SE enterprises, which is entrusted with
ensuring promotion of the SE.
As regards promoting and fostering the social economy (SE), some laws are more detailed while others
require supplementary legislation, such as the Spanish Social Economy Act, which was updated by Law
31/2015 of 9 September 2015 on promoting and fostering the SE. All the laws highlight the need to
remove the obstacles that hinder the creation or continuance of SE enterprises and the pursuit of their
activities; to incentivise training, research and dissemination of the SE; and to encourage funding and
entrepreneurship in this sector. They also usually include specific measures to favour work integration
social enterprises in particular, such as tax exemptions, reserved contracts or social clauses in public
procurement.
In adopting these measures, the member states are following the recommendations of the European
Parliament and helping to shape a more sustainable social and economic Europe.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
58
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
Legislative
text
Law no. 5 of 29.03.2011 on
the social economy
Basic law no.30 of 8.05.2013
on the social economy
Law no. 856 of 31.07.2014
on the social and solidary
economy
Law no. 219 of 23.07.2015
on the social economy
Law no. 4430 of 31.10.2016 on the social and solidary
economy and development of its entities
Purpose of
the law
Establish a common
framework and determine
measures to foster it (art. 1).
Establish the general basis
for the legal regime of the SE
as well as measures to
incentivise its activity
according to the principles
and purposes which are
proper to it (art. 1).
The law regulates the
principles and scope of the
social and solidary economy
(SSE) (arts. 1-3), its
organisation and promotion
(arts. 4-17), and devotes
certain provisions to the
transfer of companies to their
workers (arts. 18-22), to
modifying certain rules for
cooperatives, associations,
foundations and other SSE
organisations and to local
complementary currencies
(art. 16) and fair trade (art.
94).
The law regulates the SE by
establishing measures to
promote and foster it and
establishing the competences
of central and local
government in this matter
(art. 1).
Create the legal framework for the SE as an alternative
form of organisation of economic activities (art. 1),
establish measures to support the SSE (arts. 4-13), and
regulate cooperative social enterprises (arts. 14-23) and
workers cooperatives (arts. 24-34), mainly.
Definition/
Purpose of
the Social
Economy
Economic and
entrepreneurial activities
conducted in the private
sphere by entities that, in
accordance with certain
principles, pursue either the
collective interest of their
members, or economic or
social public benefit, or both
(art. 2).
The set of economic and
social activities freely carried
out by SE enterprises. These
activities have the aim of
pursuing the general interest
of society, whether directly
or by pursuing the interests
of their members, users and
beneficiaries, insofar as these
are socially relevant (art. 2).
The SSE is a form of
entrepreneurship and
economic development
adhered to by private legal
persons that meet the
following conditions:
1. The aim pursued is not
only profit distribution;
2. Democratic governance,
defined and organised by the
enterprise’s statutes, which
provides for information to
members, workers and
stakeholders in the aims of
the enterprise, and for
participation, which is not
linked to capital or financial
contributions alone;
3. Management in
accordance with the
following principles:
a) Profits mainly devoted to
the aim of sustaining or
*The SE represents all the
activities organised outside
the public sector that aim to
serve the public interest, the
interests of the community
and/or private non-financial
interests, increasing the
percentage of employees
from vulnerable groups or
producing and supplying
goods, services and/or work
(art. 2)
*The aim of the SE is to
strengthen social and
economic cohesion,
employment and the
development of social
services, which it pursues
principally through activities
of public interest such as: a)
providing goods, services
and/or work to the
community, thus contributing
The social and solidary economy (SSE) is the set of
economic activities that are based on an alternative
organisation of production, distribution, consumption and
reinvestment relations, founded on the principles of
democracy, equality, solidarity and collaboration and on
respect for the environment and for human beings (art.
2.1).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
59
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
Definition/
Purpose of
the Social
Economy
developing the activity of the
enterprise;
b) Mandatory reserves set
aside, which are indivisible
and non-distributable,
although the statutes of the
enterprise may authorise the
General Meeting to assign
part of the reserves set aside
to increasing the value of the
shares or to a distribution of
free shares. In the event of
dissolution or liquidation, the
liquid assets shall be
assigned either to another
SSE enterprise or as
indicated by special
provisions regulating the
entity being dissolved or
liquidated (art. 1 I).
to the welfare of the
community or of its
members; b) promoting
activities that can generate
work for persons from
vulnerable groups and
providing social services and
vocational training
programmes that improve the
employability of persons in
these groups (art. 4).
Social
economy
entities
The following form part of
the social economy:
cooperatives, mutual
societies, foundations and
associations that conduct
economic activities, labour
companies, integration
enterprises, special
employment centres,
fishermen's associations,
agricultural transformation
companies, and certain
singular entities established
by law.
Entities that conduct
economic and business
activities whose operating
rules answer to the principles
of the SE and which are
included in the catalogue of
entities may also form part of
the SE (art. 5).
*The SE principles are:
The social economy is made
up of cooperatives; mutualist
associations; misericordias
(charitable associations);
foundations; private social
solidarity institutions;
associations with altruistic
aims acting in the cultural,
recreational, sporting and
local development spheres;
entities included in the
community and selfmanagement
subsectors and
other legal persons that
respect the principles of the
social economy and are
recorded in the SE database
(art. 4).
*The SE principles are:
1. Primacy of the individual
and of social objectives,
2. Free and voluntary
membership and
*The activities that make up
the SSE are conducted by:
1. Private legal persons
established as cooperatives,
mutual societies, foundations
or associations.
2. Commercial companies
that by their articles of
association also:
a) pursue a social utility
(such as contributing through
their activity to supporting
persons in delicate situations;
helping to fight social,
economic and cultural
inequalities and exclusions;
contributing to civic
education, to preserving and
developing social
relationships or maintaining
or strengthening territorial
cohesion, or contributing to
sustainable development in
SE activities are carried out
by social enterprises (art. 6).
*Any legally constituted
legal person whose activity is
based on SE principles and
pursues the objectives set out
in art. 4 may acquire the
status of social enterprise
(art. 8).
*The SE principles are:
The social economy is based
on the following principles:
1. Priority of social and
individual aims rather than
increasing gains.
2. Solidary and collective
responsibility.
3. Convergence of the
interests of the members, the
public interest and/or the
interest of the community.
4. Democratic control by the
members of the activities
The SSE entities are:
*Co-operative social enterprises (Law 4430/2016, arts. 14-
23); limited responsibility social cooperatives (Law
2716/1999, art. 12); workers cooperatives (Law
4430/2016, arts. 24-34); and
*any other entity with legal personality, particularly
farming cooperatives (Law 4384/2016); urban
cooperatives (Law 1667/1986) and civil societies (Civil
code art. 741) that meet the following conditions:
1. Carry out common good and social benefit activities
(meeting general needs or needs shared by their members;
conducting sustainable development, social services or
social inclusion activities).
2. Provide information to their members, who participate
on the principle of one person one vote.
3. The entity’s statutes provide for limitations on profit
distribution (at least 5% must be allocated to the reserve
fund and the rest to expanding the productive activity and
creating new jobs; however, 35% may be allocated to the
entity’s workers unless a 2/3 vote by the general meeting
decides to allocate this sum to the previous point).
4. A remuneration system by which the maximum net
salary may not be greater than three times the minimum
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
60
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
Social
economy
entities
1. Primacy of the individual
and the social objective over
capital; autonomous, open,
democratic and participative
management.
2. Profits and losses from the
economic activity allocated
mainly according to the work
contributed and the service or
activity performed by the
members and, where
applicable, to the social
objective.
3. Promotion of solidarity,
both internal and with
society, encouraging
commitment to local
development, equal
opportunities between men
and women, social cohesion,
inclusion of persons at risk of
social exclusion, generating
stable, high-quality
employment,
work/life/family balance and
sustainability.
4. Independence from the
public authorities.
(art. 4).
participation.
3. Democratic control of the
governing bodies by the
members.
4. Reconciliation between the
interests of the members,
users or beneficiaries and the
public interest.
5. Respect for the values of
solidarity, equality and nondiscrimination,
social
cohesion, justice and
fairness, openness and shared
individual and social
responsibility, and
subsidiarity.
6. Autonomous management,
independent from public
authorities and from any
other entity outside the SE.
7. Surpluses allocated to
pursuing the aims of the SE
enterprise in accordance with
the public interest, subject to
respecting the specific
surplus distribution proper to
the nature and substrate of
each SE entity, as
constitutionally enshrined.
(art. 5)
its economic, social,
environmental and
participative dimensions, to
energy transition or to
international solidarity, in
accordance with Art. 2);
b) allocate at least 20% of
their profits to constituting a
‘development fund’ reserve
mandated by their articles of
association, and 50% to
mandatory reserves, and are
forbidden to redeem the
capital or to reduce it except
due to losses, unless such an
operation ensures the
continuity of their activity
(art. 1.II).
*Special reference is made
to solidary enterprises of
social utility such as
integration enterprises, social
assistance services, special
employment enterprises or
associations and foundations
recognised as being of public
utility; and similar
enterprises (financial
organisations where at least
35% of the assets are
composed of securities
issued by SSE enterprises; or
credit establishments where
at least 80% of the overall
loans and investments are to
or in solidary enterprises of
social utility (art.11.III).
carried out.
5. Voluntary and free
association in specific SE
forms of organisation.
6. Distinct personality and
legal status, self-management
and independence from the
public authorities.
7. Allocation of part of the
profits or the financial
surplus to achieving the aims
of sustainable development
and/or providing services of
interest to the community.
(art. 3).
*The law regulates a new
form of social enterprise:
social integration enterprises
(art.11).
*Others which are
considered social enterprises
include: co-operative
societies (Law 1/2005);
credit cooperatives (Order
99/2006); associations and
foundations (Order
26/2000); mutual assistance
housing (Laws 122/1996 and
540/2001); and agricultural
companies (Law 36/1991);
and their associations and
federations (Olivia Rusandu,
2016).
net salary a 2/3 vote by the general meeting decides
otherwise.
5. The aim of strengthening its economic activities and
maximising its social profit by producing through
horizontal cooperation with other SSEs.
6. Not set up or directed, directly or indirectly, by public
law legal persons (art.31).
Certification
or
registration
Catalogue of social economy
entities. Catalogue of
different types of entities
making up the SE, bearing in
mind the SE principles (art.
6).
The government draws up
the permanent SE database,
publishes it and keeps it up to
date (art. 6).
Enterprises that meet the
conditions of art. 1 and
commercial companies that
are registered with the
Commercial and Companies
Register with the mention of
* Certification as social
enterprise (art. 9).
* Social Label for social
inclusion enterprises (art. 13-
15).
* Single registry for social
*The General Registry of SSE entities department is
entrusted with accreditation of social and solidary
economy entities. The General Registry of SSE entities is
the database in which these entities and their acts are
entered (art. 4).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
61
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
SSE accreditation (art. 1. III)
may publicise their status as
SSE enterprises.
enterprise inventory (arts. 26-
27)
Institutional
organisation
Institutional
organisation
*The Council for Fostering
the Social Economy, made
up of representatives of the
government, the SE
organisations and the unions,
is an advisory and
consultative body for
activities related to the SE
that acts as the organ of
collaboration, coordination
and dialogue between the
social economy and the
national government. Its
functions include
collaborating on preparing
legislative projects; reporting
on social economy
development and promotion
programs; conducting studies
and writing reports, and
ensuring promotion and
respect for the SE principles
(art. 9).
*CASES is the Cooperativa
Antonio Sergio para la
Economía Social, a public
interest cooperative
composed of the State and
organisations representing
the SE sector. Its purpose is
to promote the strengthening
of the SE sector through
closer cooperation between
the State and SE
organisations.
*The High Council of the
SSE is entrusted with
ensuring dialogue between
SSE actors and the national
and international authorities.
It is consulted in relation to
legislative projects that
concern the SSE and social
entrepreneurship; contributes
to defining the national
strategy for SSE
development (art. 4); and
adopts the guidelines
defining the conditions for
continual improvement of
good practices in SSE
enterprises (art. 3).
*The French SSE Chamber
ensures national-level
representation and promotion
of SSE enterprises (art. 5)
and the regional SSE
Chambers ensure their
representation and promotion
at local level (art. 6).
*Social Economy
Department (Employment
Directorate of the Ministry of
Labour, Family, Social
Protection and the Elderly)
(art. 23).
*Department for the Social
Economy in the National
Employment Agency
(coordinates and supervises
the activity of employment
agencies in the SE sphere)
(art. 24).
*National Commission for
the SE (representatives of
government, SE entities and
social inclusion enterprises).
*National Commission for the Social and Solidary
Economy, comprising representatives of government, the
universities and organisations representing people with
handicaps, workers, cooperatives and other SSE entities.
Its brief is to promote civil dialogue in order to formulate
policies for developing social and solidary activities, and
to give its opinion on implementation of the National Plan
for the Social Economy (art. 12).
*SSE Coordination Committee. Made up of
representatives from different ministries, it rules on
matters related to the National Strategy for the SSE;
monitors and assesses the application and updating of the
said Strategy and makes proposals to the Ministry of
Labour regarding studies and programs to promote
application of the Strategy (art. 13).
Promoting
and
fostering
the Social
Economy
*Promoting, stimulating and
developing SE enterprises
and their federations is a task
of public interest.
*The SE promotion policies
of the public authorities shall
have the following aims:
1. Removing obstacles that
hinder the SE’s exercise and
conduct of economic
activities.
2. Facilitating the different
social economy initiatives.
3. Promoting the SE
principles and values.
*The State must stimulate
and support the creation and
activity of SE enterprises;
ensure the principal of
cooperation; develop
supervision mechanisms, in
agreement with the
organisations representing
SE entities, that ensure a
transparent relationship
between these enterprises and
their members; and guarantee
the necessary stability of
relations established with SE
enterprises (art. 9).
*The regional Chambers
promote SSE enterprises by
supporting their creation and
continuance, and training for
their managers and workers;
and contributing to the
collection and treatment of
economic and social data on
the SSE and to establishing
relations with other
enterprises in this sector in
other EU member states (art.
6).
*Each region, in agreement
with the regional Chamber
*The central and local
government promote SE
activities by recognising the
role of SE enterprises,
awarding them an SE
Certificate; recognising the
role of social integration
enterprises by awarding them
the Social Label; developing
support mechanisms for
social inclusion enterprises;
promoting and supporting the
development of human
resources in the SE sphere;
taking part in SE activities,
*SSE enterprises have access to the SE Fund (which has
the aim of funding programmes and actions to strengthen
SSE enterprises, art. 10.2) and to the National
Entrepreneurship and Development Fund; they qualify for
programmes to support entrepreneurship and can be
assigned assets (immovable and otherwise) by local public
bodies to support their public and social interest activities
(art. 5).
They can also enter into contracts with the public
authorities to design and carry out social interest projects
and may receive European Union or national or regional
funding and be assigned goods, installations, machinery,
etc. (art. 6).
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
62
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
Promoting
and
fostering
the Social
Economy
4. Promoting professional
training and retraining in the
SE sphere.
5. Facilitating access to
technological and
organisational innovation
processes by SE
entrepreneurs.
6. Creating an environment
that encourages the
development of social and
economic initiatives within
the SE framework
7. Involving SE enterprises
in active employment
policies, particularly to
favour the sectors most
affected by unemployment:
women, young people and
the long-term unemployed.
8. Include references to the
SE in the curricula for the
different stages of education,
9. Encourage the
development of the social
economy in areas such as
rural development, dependent
care and social integration.
(art. 8).
*The public authorities must
promote the principles and
values of the SE; encourage
the creation of mechanisms
that make it possible to
strengthen the economic and
financial self-sustainability
of SE enterprises; facilitate
the creation of new SE
entities and support the
diversity of this sector’s own
initiatives, enhancing it as an
instrument of innovative
responses to the challenges
that face communities in the
local, regional, national or
any other sphere, removing
the obstacles that prevent SE
enterprises from setting up
and conducting economic
activities; incentivise
research and innovation in
the SE and vocational
training in this sphere, as
well as supporting these
enterprises’ access to
technological innovation and
organisational management
processes; and deepen the
dialogue between public
bodies and the
representatives of the SE at
national and European Union
level, thus promoting mutual
knowledge and the spread of
good practices (art. 10).
*SE enterprises benefit from
a more favourable fiscal
regime defined by law
according to their nature (art.
11).
and the SSE organisations,
draws up a regional SSE
strategy and can agree the
implementation of strategies
with the departments,
municipalities and public
inter-municipal cooperation
organisations with separate
tax identity (art.7).
*The SSE regional
conference held every two
years debates the
orientations, resources and
results of the local SSE
development policies and
enables proposals to be made
for implementing territorial
public policies for the SSE
(art. 8).
*As regards public
procurement, contractors
whose purchases exceed a
certain volume must adopt a
plan to promote socially
responsible public
purchasing that aims for
social and occupational
integration of workers with
handicaps or who are
disadvantaged (art. 13).
collaborating in different
ways in accordance with the
law, and setting up SE
information and advice
centres (art.7).
*Funding and support for
social inclusion enterprises:
social inclusion enterprises
enjoy tax exemptions (art.
17).
*The purchasing authority
may establish contract
reserves in favour of
integration enterprises, or
may introduce social criteria
to be met when executing the
contract, or take social
criteria into account when
awarding the contract (art.
18).
*Integration enterprises may
benefit from free advice from
the SE departments of the
Employment Agencies (art.
19).
*They may also benefit from
state aid (approved by law)
(art. 21) and from local
authority support measures
such as allocation of loan
contracts, establishments,
public land, activities for
which they were awarded the
social label; support in
promoting the products and
services they provide in the
community and in
identifying markets where
they may be sold; supporting
the promotion of tourism and
related activities by
capitalising the local cultural
and historical heritage;
awarding micro credits or
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
63
Spain Portugal France Romania Greece
other services provided by
local authorities (art. 20).
*Declaration of the month of
May as social economy
promotion month, dedicated
to organising events to
publicise the SE and ensure
local development, active
citizenship, cooperation and
social solidarity (art. 22).
Competent
body
Ministry of Labour (art. 6). The government (art. 6) Ministry in charge of the
social and solidary economy
Ministry of Work, Family,
Social Protection and the
Elderly (art. 23)
Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Solidarity
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
64
CHAPTER 7
THE WEIGHT OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE 28 EU MEMBER STATES
7.1. Introduction: the need for statistics on the social economy
Providing reliable and comparable statistics is a strategic challenge for the social economy in
Europe. This is well recognised by the European institutions. The European Parliament’s Toia
Report (2009) called on the Commission and the Member States to “support the creation of
national statistical registers for social economy enterprises, to establish national satellite
accounts for each institutional sector and branch of activity and allow for this data to be
included in Eurostat, also by making use of competences available in universities”. More
recently, the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on The promotion of the social
economy as a key driver of economic and social development in Europe (7.12.2015) invited
Member States and the Commission to “make efforts to further document the effective
contribution of the social economy to the major macro-economic aggregates. As all policies
should be evidence-based, Eurostat and national statistical authorities should consider
developing and implementing satellite accounts in their respective statistics aimed at
establishing the effective contribution of the social economy to economic growth and social
cohesion in the European Union”.
Efforts have been made during the last two decades, both in the academic field and by national
statistical institutes and governments. In 2006, CIRIEC drew up a method for the European
Commission, the Manual for drawing up the Satellite Accounts of Companies in the Social
Economy, in parallel with the UN Handbook for Satellite Accounts on Non-profit Institutions
and the Manual on the measurement of volunteer work of the International Labour Office. Other
methods have also been developed to prepare statistics (see Chapter 5). Some countries have put
a great deal of work in recent years into providing reliable data on various social economy
groups. The statistics institutes of France and the Ministry of Labour of Spain supply time series
on employment in cooperatives and the social economy. Other countries such as Italy and
France have built specific statistics using methods such as barometers and new indicators. Italy,
Bulgaria, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic and Hungary have made serious improvements in
the statistics published by their national statistics institutes, in some cases using the satellite
account methodology for non-profit organisations. Special mention should be made of Portugal,
Poland and Romania. These three EU countries have developed regular, systematic statistics for
the social economy as a whole in recent years. In Portugal this is mandated by the country’s
Law on Social Economy (2013) and in Poland it is a consequence of an agreement with the ESF
(European Social Fund). Despite this, much effort needs to be made to systematise the statistics
for the different social economy groups over the coming years.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
65
7.2. Purpose and methodology: challenges
The purpose of this part of the study is to provide an overview of the main figures for the social
economy in the European Union, by country and globally, differentiating three groups of
organisations: cooperatives and similar accepted types, mutual societies and similar types; and
finally associations, foundations and other related non-profit types.
Drawing up statistics from field studies and verifiable accounts is essential. However, for
reasons of cost and time it exceeds the scope of this study and must be tackled at a later stage.
The statistical information provided in this study has been drawn from secondary data supplied
by our correspondents in each country (see Appendix, correspondents). The reference period is
2014-2015. However, for reasons of availability and of the quality of statistical reporting, the
information for some countries is some years old, particularly in the case of associations,
foundations and similar organisations. The figures sought were the number of persons employed
and, where possible, the full-time equivalent, number of members, number of volunteers and
number of entities or companies. For some countries and groups in the social economy, data on
turnover were also available but were not comparable. For purposes of comparability with the
data from the previous studies carried out by CIRIEC for the EESC on the state of the social
economy in the 25-member European Union in 2002/3 and in 2009/10, particular attention has
been paid to the 'employment' variable. Specific tables have been drawn up to compare the main
figures in these studies.
In the course of this work we had to face several challenges concerning the data. The first
challenge concerns the availability of data on the social economy as a whole. Serious statistical
gaps have appeared in the data for various countries, particularly the new EU Member States but
also in countries such as The Netherlands. The gaps have been remedied, where possible, on the
basis of the information available from the scholarly studies cited in the bibliography, the
ICMIF, Cooperatives Europe key figures for 2014-15 and studies by other umbrella
organisations. These sources have been cited systematically in the tables for the different
countries. For some other countries we found different data for the same year depending on the
source and on the concept of the social economy group. Decisions have been taken based on
prudence.
A second challenge concerns the comparability of the available data. This challenge includes
several difficulties. Firstly, the scope of each group considered in the social economy field. This
scope is not always the same, not only among the different countries but also for the same
country over a long period of time. Secondly, the method used to account for variables in each
system of statistics has not always been homogeneous. It has been very difficult to find
countries with reliable data from the same source (e.g. the Labour Ministry) and the same
variable for a long period of time (2008-2015). The situation in the countries with better sources
has been to find discontinuous data, with no homogeneous methodology. Thirdly, not all the
data were available for the period considered (2014-15). Fourthly, there is a risk of double
accounting of the ‘families’ within a single country.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
66
Finally, a third challenge concerns the reliability of the data. Based on prudence we have
prioritised the information from national statistical bodies, from governments and from research
centres. But these more reliable data were only available for some countries. Due to all these
difficulties, the statistical information provided in this report should be treated with caution.
Three main reasons were given by the experts to explain this statistical situation for the social
economy: lack of knowledge about specific harmonised methods for preparing statistics (e.g.
defining the field examined and preparing satellite accounts), lack of funds (including at
national statistic institutes) and, finally, a lack of institutionalisation of bodies or agreements
enabling regular, robust statistics to be prepared.
7.3. Overview of the statistical results
The following aggregates underline the fact that the European social economy is very important
in both human and economic terms and is a reality which should be considered by society and
by policy makers.
The European social economy provides:
- over 13.6 million paid jobs in Europe
- equivalent to about 6.3% of the working population of the EU-28
- employment of a workforce of over 19.1 million, including paid and non-paid
- more than 82.8 million volunteers, equivalent to 5.5 million full time workers
- more than 232 million members of cooperatives, mutuals and similar entities
- over 2.8 million entities and enterprises
Map 7.1. Paid employment in the social economy relative to total paid employment in
each European Country, %, 2015
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
67
The panorama varies among EU countries. While employment in the social economy
accounts for between 9% and 10% of the working population in countries such as
Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands, in the new EU Member
States such as Slovenia, Romania, Malta, Lithuania, Croatia, Cyprus and Slovakia the
social economy remains a small, emergent sector, employing under 2% of the working
population.
Another conclusion concerns the evolution of the social economy workforce during the
economic crisis. The social economy workforce has revealed resilience to the economic crisis,
as it has dropped only from 6.5% to 6.3% of the total European paid workforce and from 14.1
million jobs to 13.6 million, partially explainable by the quality of the statistical data available.
The reduction in the paid workforce is bigger in cooperatives and similar forms than in
associations, foundations and other similar forms.
Finally, measured in terms of employment, as other measures of economic impact such as
contribution to GDP are not readily available, associations, foundations and other similar forms
remain the main social economy ‘family’, comprising most of the social entities / enterprises
and about 66% of the employment in this social sector.
The tables below are self-explanatory in terms of the state of the social economy in each EU
country and of international comparison.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
68
Table 7.1. Paid employment in cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, foundations
and similar entities. European Union (2014-15)
Country
Cooperatives
and similar
Mutual Societies
Associations &
Foundations
Total
Austria 70,474 1,576 236,000 308,050
Belgium 23,904 17,211 362,806 403,921
Bulgaria 53,841 1,169 27,040 82,050
Croatia 2,744 2,123 10,981 15,848
Cyprus 3,078 (n/a) 3,906 6,984
Czech R. 50,310 5,368 107,243 162,921
Denmark 49,552 4,328 105,081 158,961
Estonia 9,850 186 28,000 38,036
Finland 93,511 6,594 82,000 182,105
France 308,532 136,723 1,927,557 2,372,812
Germany 860,000 102,119 1,673,861 2,635,980
Greece 14,983 1,533 101,000 117,516
Hungary 85,682 6,948 142,117 234,747
Ireland 39,935 455 54,757 95,147
Italy 1,267,603 20,531 635,611 1,923,745
Latvia 440 373 18,528 19,341
Lithuania 7,000 332 (n/a) 7,332
Luxembourg 2,941 406 21,998 25,345
Malta 768 209 1,427 2,404
Netherlands 126,797 2,860 669,121 798,778
Poland 235,200 1,900 128,800 365,900
Portugal 24,316 4,896 186,751 215,963
Romania 31,573 5,038 99,774 136,385
Slovakia 23,799 2,212 25,600 51,611
Slovenia 3,059 319 7,332 10,710
Spain 528,000 2,360 828,041 1,358,401
Sweden 57,516 13,908 124,408 195,832
U. Kingdom 222,785 65,925 1,406,000 1,694,710
TOTAL EU-28 4,198,193 407,602 9,015,740 13,621,535
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
69
Table 7.2. Paid employment in the social economy compared to total paid employment.
European Union (2014-15)
Country
Employment
in SE (A)
Total employment
* (B)
%
A / B
Austria 308,050 4,068,000 7.6%
Belgium 403,921 4,499,000 9.0%
Bulgaria 82,050 2,974,000 2.8%
Croatia 15,848 1,559,000 1.0%
Cyprus 6,984 350,000 2.0%
Czech R. 162,921 4,934,000 3.3%
Denmark 158,961 2,678,000 5.9%
Estonia 38,036 613,000 6.2%
Finland 182,105 2,368,000 7.7%
France 2,372,812 26,118,000 9.1%
Germany 2,635,980 39,176,000 6.7%
Greece 117,516 3,548,000 3.3%
Hungary 234,747 4,176,000 5.6%
Ireland 95,147 1,899,000 5.0%
Italy 1,923,745 21,973,000 8.8%
Latvia 19,341 868,000 2.2%
Lithuania 7,332 1,301,000 0.6%
Luxembourg 25,345 255,000 9.9%
Malta 2,404 182,000 1.3%
Netherlands 798,778 8,115,000 9.8%
Poland 365,900 15,812,000 2.3%
Portugal 215,963 4,309,000 5.0%
Romania 136,385 8,235,000 1.7%
Slovakia 51,611 2,405,000 2.1%
Slovenia 10,710 902,000 1.2%
Spain 1,358,401 17,717,000 7.7%
Sweden 195,832 4,660,000 4.2%
U. Kingdom 1,694,710 30,028,000 5.6%
TOTAL EU-28 13,621,535 215,722,000 6.3%
* Paid employment, ages between 15 and 65 years, Eurostat, 2015.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
70
Table 7.3. Evolution of paid employment in the social economy in Europe
Employment in the social economy
Country 2002/2003 2009/2010 2014/2015
Δ%
2010-2015
Austria 260,145 233,528 308,050 31.9%
Belgium 279,611 462,541 403,921 -12.7%
Bulgaria (n/a) 121,300 82,050 -32.4%
Croatia (n/a) 9,084 15,848 74.5%
Cyprus 4,491 5,067 6,984 37.8%
Czech R. 165,221 160,086 162,921 1.8%
Denmark 160,764 195,486 158,961 -18.7%
Estonia 23,250 37,850 38,036 0.5%
Finland 175,397 187,200 182,105 -2.7%
France 1,985,150 2,318,544 2,372,812 2.3%
Germany 2,031,837 2,458,584 2,635,980 7.2%
Greece 69,834 117,123 117,516 0.3%
Hungary 75,669 178,210 234,747 31.7%
Ireland 155,306 98,735 95,147 -3.6%
Italy 1,336,413 2,228,010 1,923,745 -13.7%
Latvia 300 440 19,341 (n/p)
Lithuania 7,700 8,971 7,332 -18.3%
Luxembourg 7,248 16,114 25,345 57.3%
Malta 238 1,677 2,404 43.4%
Netherlands 772,110 856,054 798,778 -6.7%
Poland 529,179 592,800 365,900 -38.3%
Portugal 210,950 251,098 215,963 -14.0%
Romania (n/a) 163,354 136,385 -16.5%
Slovakia 98,212 44,906 51,611 14.9%
Slovenia 4,671 7,094 10,710 51.0%
Spain 872,214 1,243,153 1,358,401 9.3%
Sweden 205,697 507,209 195,832 -61.4%
U. Kingdom 1,711,276 1,633,000 1,694,710 3.8%
TOTAL EU-28 11,142,883 14,137,218 13,621,535 -3.6%
Source: CIRIEC/EESC
(n/a) not available; (n/p) not pertinent
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
71
Table 7.4. Evolution of paid employment in the social economy in Europe (disaggregated by group of social economy entities)
Jobs in 2002/2003 Jobs in 2009/2010 Jobs in 2014/2015 Δ% 2010-2015
Country Cooperatives
Associations
Foundations
Cooperatives
Associations
Foundations
Cooperatives
Associations
Foundations
Cooperatives
Associations
Foundations
Austria 62,145 190,000 61,999 170,113 70,474 236,000 13.7% 38.7%
Belgium 17,047 249,700 13,547 437,020 23,904 362,806 76.5% -17.0%
Bulgaria (n/a) (n/a) 41,300 80,000 53,841 27,040 30.4% -66.2%
Croatia (n/a) (n/a) 3,565 3,950 2,744 10,981 -23.0% 178.0%
Cyprus 4,491 (n/a) 5,067 (n/a) 3,078 3,906 -39.3% (n/a)
Czech R. 90,874 74,200 58,178 96,229 50,310 107,243 -13.5% 11.4%
Denmark 39,107 120,657 70,757 120,657 49,552 105,081 -30.0% -12.9%
Estonia 15,250 8,000 9,850 28,000 9,850 28,000 0.0% 0.0%
Finland 95,000 74,992 94,100 84,600 93,511 82,000 -0.6% -3.1%
France 439,720 1,435,330 320,822 1,869,012 308,532 1,927,557 -3.8% 3.1%
Germany 466,900 1,414,937 830,258 1,541,829 860,000 1,673,861 3.6% 8.6%
Greece 12,345 57,000 14,983 101,000 14,983 101,000 0.0% 0.0%
Hungary 42,787 32,882 85,682 85,852 85,682 142,117 0.0% 65.5%
Ireland 35,992 118,664 43,328 54,757 39,935 54,757 -7.8% 0.0%
Italy 837,024 499,389 1,128,381 1,099,629 1,267,603 635,611 12.3% -42.2%
Latvia 300 (n/a) 440 (n/a) 440 18,528 0.0% (n/a)
Lithuania 7,700 (n/a) 8,971 (n/a) 7,000 (n/a) -22.0% (n/a)
Luxembourg 748 6,500 1,933 14,181 2,941 21,998 52.1% 55.1%
Malta 238 (n/a) 250 1,427 768 1,427 207.2% 0.0%
Netherlands 110,710 661,400 184,053 669,121 126,797 669,121 -31.1% 0.0%
Poland 469,179 60,000 400,000 190,000 235,200 128,800 -41.2% -32.2%
Portugal 51,000 159,950 51,391 194,207 24,316 186,751 -52.7% -3.8%
Romania (n/a) (n/a) 34,373 109,982 31,573 99,774 -8.1% -9.3%
Slovakia 82,012 16,200 26,090 16,658 23,779 25,600 -8.9% 53.7%
Slovenia 4,401 (n/a) 3,428 3,190 3,059 7,332 -10.8% 129.8%
Spain 488,606 380,060 646,397 588,056 528,000 828,041 -18.3% 40.8%
Sweden 99,500 95,197 176,816 314,568 57,516 124,408 -67.5% -60.5%
U. Kingdom 190,458 1,473,000 236,000 1,347,000 222,785 1,406,000 -5.6% 4.4%
TOTAL EU-28 3,663,534 7,128,058 4,551,959 9,221,038 4,198,173 9,015,740 -7.8% -2.2%
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
72
Table 7.5. Volunteers in Europe
Country
% of adult
population
volunteering
(1)
% of
volunteers in
association (2)
FTE
Volunteers
(3)
Total
volunteers
(4)
Austria 37% 29% 331,663 2,000,000
Belgium 26% 35% 84,903 1,165,668
Bulgaria 12% 12% 38,710 93,096
Croatia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 45,955
Cyprus 23% (n/a) (n/a) 24,000
Czech R. 23% 30% 41,304 1,215,363
Denmark 43% 36% 110,041 1,477,000
Estonia 30% 17% (n/a) 285,000
Finland 39% 36% 67,890 1,300,000
France 24% 25% 935,000 13,200,000
Germany 34% 21% 1,211,474 23,000,000
Greece 14% 38% 7,323 (n/a)
Hungary 22% 15% 24,600 412,893
Ireland 32% 29% 78,367 1,570,408
Italy 26% 24% 80,600 4,758,622
Latvia 22% 21% (n/a) 477,000
Lithuania 24% 12% 15,673 100,000
Luxembourg 35% 30% 9,537 107,000
Malta 16% 26% 1,891 29,956
Netherlands 57% 49% 480,637 5,300,000
Poland 9% 12% 20,473 5,912,500
Portugal 12% 13% 67,342 1,040,000
Romania 14% 10% 49,417 900,000
Slovakia 29% 47% 1,156 304,094
Slovenia 34% 27% 7,125 96,822
Spain 15% 17% 591,017 1,272,338
Sweden 21% 54% 280,062 3,000,000
U. Kingdom 23% 43% 1,004,228 13,800,000
TOTAL EU-28 26% 27% 5,540,433 82,887,715
(1) Source: Eurobarometer/European Parliament 75.2: Voluntary work (2011).
(2) Percentage of population who volunteer in at least one association, except for trade unions and
political parties. Source: Volunteering in the EU, by GHK (2010). Based on European Values Study
(Bogdan & Mălina Voicu 2003).
(3) FTE – Full Time Equivalent volunteers. Source: Volunteering in the EU, report by GHK (2010).
(4) Current report data (CIRIEC/EESC, 2017), except for Czech Rep. (data from Czech Statistical Office,
2010) and for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Romania and Sweden (data from GHK report, 2010).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
73
EU COUNTRIES
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN AUSTRIA
2015
Cooperatives and other
similar accepted forms
Mutual Companies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations and other
similar accepted forms
- Cooperative Banks
(2015: 35,527 jobs
2,388,839 members
542 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives
(2015: 3,143 jobs
52,048 members
89 enterprises)
- Housing Cooperatives,
Tourism and others
(2015: 31,409 jobs
859,471 members
16,960 enterprises)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2015: 250 jobs
5,454 members
11 enterprises)
- Worker cooperatives
(2015: 145 jobs
2 enterprises)
- Mutual insurances
(2015: 1,576 jobs
1,108,397 members
6 enterprises)
Associations, foundations and other
nonprofit and civil society and
voluntary organisations that
produce and sell goods and
services.
(2013: 236,000 jobs
2,000,000 volunteers
11,005 entities)
70,474 jobs
17,604 enterprises
3,305,726 members
1,576 jobs
6 enterprises
1,108,397 members
236,000 jobs
11,005 entities
2,000,000 volunteers
Source: J.,Brazda (University of Wien) & Markus Lehner (University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria)
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
74
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN BELGIUM
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Companies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations and other
similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives
(2015: 7,260 jobs
183 enterprises)
- SFS Sociétés à finalité sociale
(2015: 16,644 jobs
352 entities)
Among them:
SFS Santé humaine et action sociale
(2015: 9,051 jobs
82 entities)
- Mutual Insurances
(2015: 668 jobs
32 enterprises)
- Health mutuals
(including Federations)
(2015: 16,543 jobs
72 enterprises)
- Associations ASBL & AiSBL*
(2015: 351,830 jobs
15,443 entities)
Among them:
AiSBL Social and health entities
(2015: 243,305 jobs
4,764 entities)
- Foundations
(2015: 10,976 jobs
182 entities)
- All of the AiSBL and Foundations
1,165,668 volunteers (1)
23,904 jobs
535 enterprises
17,211 jobs
104 enterprises
362,806 jobs
15,625 entities
Source: Sébastien Pereau (CONCERTES) based on Office National de Sécurité Sociale (ONSS) – as
compiled by the Observatoire de l’Economie Sociale.
(1) Sybille Mertens based on Social enterprises and their eco-systems: A European mapping report:
Belgium, European Commission, 2014.
* ASBL: Association sans but lucratif; AiSBL: Association internationale sans but lucratif
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
75
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN BULGARIA
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- Credit unions & coop banks (1)
(2015: 28 enterprises
32,073 jobs)
- Non-financial enterprises, including
companies, specialised enterprises
and cooperatives of and for people
with disabilities, worker producers
cooperatives and other similar
cooperatives, registered in the
Commercial Registry and classifying
themselves as “social” enterprises (1)
(2015: 21,768 jobs
2,713 enterprises)
- Among them:
All Cooperatives (2)
ca. 149,528 members
- Consumers cooperatives (4)
(2015: 7,965 jobs
764 enterprises
129,710 members)
- Workers cooperatives (4)
(2015: 7,800 jobs
212 enterprises)
- Agricultural cooperatives (4)
(2015: 10,292 jobs
811 enterprises)
- Mutual Savings & Loan
(2015: 10 enterprises
1,169 jobs
200,000 members) (3)
- Non-profit legal entities,
including associations,
foundations and community
centers, carrying out
activities in all community
fields, that produce and sell
goods and services as
additional economic activity (1)
(2015: 27,040 jobs
3,841 entities
1,897,207 members)
- Associations, foundations and
other non-profit and voluntary
organisations
Social and health sector:
(2015: 22,000 jobs
41,700 associations) (4)
- (2015: 93,096 volunteers) (5)(1)
53,841 jobs
2,741 enterprises
ca. 149,528 members
1,169 jobs
10 entities
200,000 members
27,040 jobs
1,897,207 members
(1) Source: Youmerova, A., based on National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria.
(2) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Only data from cooperatives that are represented
directly or indirectly by Cooperatives Europe through its national and European sectoral members are
included.
(3) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(4) Zaimova, D. (Trakian University), based on data from Federations.
(5) Total number of volunteers working for non-profit legal entities, carrying out activities in all
community fields
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
76
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN CROATIA
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Cooperatives (1),(3):
(2015: 2,744 jobs
1,302 enterprises
21,462 members)
Among them:
Agricultural cooperatives
(2015: 1,397 jobs
572 enterprises
21,462 members)
- Mutual Societies (2)
(2015: 4 entities
2,123 jobs
700,000 members)
- Associations, foundations and other
nonprofit and civil society and voluntary
organisations that produce and sell goods and
services:
(2015: 43,185 entities
10,981 jobs)
Among them:
Social and health entities: 4,572
Sport entities: 13,459
Culture entities: 5,335) (1)
Volunteers: 45,955 (1)
2,744 jobs
1,302 enterprises
21,462 members
2,123 jobs
4 entities
700,000 members
10,981 jobs
43,185 entities
45,955 volunteers
(1) Gojko Bežovan & Danijel Baturina, (3) Teodor Petričević
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN CYPRUS
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2015: 3,078 jobs
76 enterprises)
Among them:
- Banking cooperatives: (2)
(2015: 2,707 jobs
19 cooperatives
509,388 members)
- Others (Industrial & services): (2)
(2009: 343 jobs
32 cooperatives)
- n/a - (Entities registered:
2014: 4,800 associations
320 foundations) (1)
(2015: for 595 entities
3,906 jobs)
Among them:
Social and health entities: 135
1,381 jobs
Sport entities: 134
1,037 jobs) (3)
24,000 volunteers (4)
3,078 jobs
76 enterprises
509,388 members
- n/a 3,906 jobs
5,120 entities
24,000 volunteers
(1) Source: Zoe Andreou. (2) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15.
(3) Thomas Gregoriou, based on the Statistical Business Register; (4) Pavlos Kalosinatos
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
77
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- Cooperatives (1):
- Housing Cooperatives:
(2015: 2,267 jobs
629 enterprises
653,000 members)
- Consumers Cooperatives:
(2015: 13,412 jobs
48 enterprises
142,134 members)
- Production Cooperatives:
(2015: 13,631 jobs
201 enterprises
3,729 members)
- Agricultural Cooperatives:
(2015: 21,000 jobs
520 enterprises)
- Financial Cooperatives:
(2015: 11 enterprises
54,185 members)
- Mutual Societies (3):
(2015: 8 entities
5,369 jobs
4,500,000 members)
- Nonprofit organisations:
(2014: 107,243 jobs
129,061 entities) (2)
(2014: 26,414 volunteers FTE)
(2)
50,310 jobs
1,409 enterprises
851,005 members
5,369 jobs
8 entities
4,500,000 members
107,243 jobs
129,061 entities
(*) Source: Petra Francova and Katerina Legnerova & Marie Dohnalova based on:
(1) Source: Cooperative Association of the Czech Republic, data of cooperatives associated in CACR
(2) Source: Czech Statistical Office, data refer to 2014
(3) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
78
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN DENMARK
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Companies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations and other
similar accepted forms
- Cooperatives (1)
49,552 jobs
139 enterprises
315,710 members
Among them:
-Agricultural cooperatives:
(2015: 28 cooperatives
45,710 members)
- Consumer cooperatives:
(2015: 38,000 jobs)
- Banking cooperatives:
(2015: 4,052 jobs
270,000 members)
- Industrial cooperatives:
(2015: 111 cooperatives
7,500 jobs)
- Cooperatives (3)
(2014 23,360 jobs
2,040 enterprises
Among them (3):
-Agriculture, producer and
provision cooperatives:
(2014: 841 cooperatives
9,866 jobs)
- Consumer cooperatives:
(2014: 8,655 jobs
557 coops)
- Mutual companies and
other forms: (2)
(2015: 38 entities
4,321 jobs
8,000,000 members)
- Associations and foundations (3)
(2014: 105,081 jobs
13,766 entities)
Among them (3):
- Education and health entities
(2014: 44,188 jobs
2,378 entities)
- Culture, leisure & other services
(2014: 30,306 jobs
5,731 entities)
49,552 jobs
139 enterprises
315,710 members
4,321 jobs
38 entities
8,000,000 members
105,081 jobs
13,766 entities
(*) Source: Jakobsen, G. (Copenhagen Business School & Center for Social Entrepreneurship, Roskilde
University).
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Only data from cooperatives that are represented
directly or indirectly by Cooperatives Europe through its national and European sectoral members are
included.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2014. Global Mutual Market Share 2014.
(3) Note: Danmarks Statistik publishes data based on legal forms. Concerning cooperatives, there are
more cooperatives than legal cooperative registered, e.g. to be taxed as a cooperative it is not necessary to
be legally registered as a cooperative.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
79
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN FINLAND
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2015: 93,511 jobs
5,051 enterprises
4,663,239 members)
Among them:
- Agricultural Cooperatives
(2015: 16,288 jobs
23,451 members
29 enterprises)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2015: 42,732 jobs
2,474,685 members
30 enterprises)
- Cooperative Banks
(2015: 12,130 jobs
1,517,658 members
207 enterprises)
- Worker Cooperatives
(2015: 1,074 enterprises)
- Other coops (housing, electricity..)
(2015: 2,800 jobs
3,565 enterprises)
-Mutual insurance companies
and other forms: (2)
(2015: 6,594 jobs
5,500,000 members
37 enterprises)
- Associations, foundations and
other nonprofit and civil society
and voluntary organisations that
produce and sell goods and
services.
(2015: ca. 140,700 entities
ca. 82,000 jobs)
Among them:
Social and health entities
(2015: 12,000 entities
1,500,000 members)
Culture entities
(2015: 28,000 entities
5,000,000 members)
Volunteers: 67,890 FTE
93,511 jobs
5,051 enterprises
4,663,239 members
6,594 jobs
37enterprises
5,500,000 members
82,000 jobs
140,700 entities
67,890 volunteers FTE
(*) Source: Pekka Pättiniemi
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
80
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN FRANCE
2014
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Cooperative Banks & credit un.
(2014: 167,297 jobs
*331,650 jobs,
including subsidiaries
15,424 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives
(2014: 160,000 jobs
2,750 co-ops
11,545 Cuma
350 693 members)
- Worker Cooperatives
(2014: 51,500 jobs
27,330 members
2,274 enterprises)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2014: 6,200 jobs
750,000 members
350 enterprises)
- Housing Cooperatives - HLM
(2014: 1,087 jobs
60,462 members
175 enterprises)
- Scholar Cooperatives
(2014: 115 jobs
5,026,832 members
55,000 enterprises)
- Health Mutuals
(2014: 86 531jobs
453 enterprises)
- Mutual Insurance companies
(2014: 50,192 jobs
131 enterprises)
ca. 20,000,000 members
Associations, foundations and other
nonprofit and civil society and
voluntary organisations that
produce and sell goods and services:
(2014: 1,927,557 jobs
186,078 entities
21,000,000 members)
Among them:
- Social and Health Associations
(2014: 1,148,510 jobs
38,682 entities)
- Sport, Culture and Leisure Assocs.
(2014: 128,152 jobs
58,444 entities)
- Other: Educational, environment, etc.
(2014: 378 455 jobs
24 841 entities)
- Non classified associations
(2014: 272 440 jobs
66 111 entities)
Volunteers:
13,200,000 people
(680 000 FTP jobs***)
- Foundations
(2014: 83,010 jobs
476 entities)
308,532 jobs
8,714 enterprises **
26,106,829 members
136,723 jobs
792 enterprises
20,000,000 members
1,927,557 jobs
186,078 entities
21,000,000 members
Source: N.Richez-Battesti and D. Demoustier, based on INSEE et CNCRESS and
http://www.entreprises.coop/images/documents/outilscom/panorama2016/coopfr-panorama-2016-
web.pdf
** Enterprises not establishments, an enterprise may have many establishments.
*** INSEE
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
81
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN GERMANY
2015
Cooperatives and other
similar accepted forms
Mutual Companies
and other similar accepted
forms
Associations and other similar
accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2015: 860,000 jobs
7,490 enterprises
22,200,000 members)
Of which (5):
- Cooperative Banks
(2015: 187,498 jobs
18,293,000 members
1,038 enterprises)
- Agrifood Cooperatives
(2015: 95,338 jobs
2,218 enterprises)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2015: 14,948 jobs
27 enterprises)
- Housing Cooperatives
(2015: 23,824 jobs
2,805,000 members
1,925 enterprises)
- Mutual Companies
(2015: 102,119 jobs
1,178 entities
98,500,000 members)
(2)
- Non-statutory Welfare Associations
(2012: 1,673,861 jobs
727,694 full-time; 946,167 part-time)
105,295 entities) (3)
ca. 23,000,000 volunteers
860,000 jobs
7,490 enterprises
22,200,000 members
102,119 jobs
1,178 entities
98,500,000 members
1,673,861 jobs
105,295 entities
23,000,000 volunteers
Source: Andreas Kappes, G. Lorenz & K. Birkhölzer, A.Zimmer.
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(3) BAGFW - Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege e. V. Data for 2012.
Other sources give the following data: for Associations and similar, ziviz.info (2013) gives 2.284.410 jobs
and 104.855 entities for the “Dritter Sektor”.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
82
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN GREECE
2011-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives
(2010: 14,983 jobs
7,197 enterprises)
Of which:
- Social cooperatives enterprises
(2014: 1,800 jobs
1,200 enterprises
6,100 members)
- Cooperative Banks (1)
(2015: 867 jobs
166,061 members
9 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives (2)
(2013: ca. 2,383 jobs
764,000 members
550 enterprises)
- Mutual Companies
(2015: 1,533 jobs
6 entities
1,200,000 members) (3)
- Associations
(2010: 100,000 jobs
50,000 entities
1,500,000 members)
- Foundations
(2010: 1,000 jobs
600 entities)
14,983 jobs
7,197 enterprises
1,052,785 members
1,533 jobs
6 entities
1,200,000 members
101,000 jobs
50,600 entities
1,500,000 members
Source: Nasioulas, I (University of the Aegean) and Klimi-Kaminari, O. (Institute of Co-operation).
Based on Nasioulas (2012).
(1) European Association of Co-operative Banks, Key statistics 12.2015.
(2) COGECA, 2014, Development of agriculture cooperatives in Europe.
(3) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
83
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN HUNGARY
2009-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2009: 85,682 jobs
2,769 enterprises
547,000 members)
- Cooperative banks (2)
(2015: 7,326 jobs
84,000 members
105 enterprises)
- Agriculture cooperatives (3)
(2015: 1,116 enterprises
31,544 members
- Housing cooperatives
(2014: 714,000 members
1,269 enterprises)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 30 entities
6,948 jobs
3,900,000 members) (4)
- Nonprofit entities (5):
(2015: 62,152 entities
142,117 jobs
3,799,171 members
Among them:
- Social and health entities
(2015……8,371 entities
32,146 jobs
483,777 members)
- Sport entities
(2015……8,865 entities
9,335 jobs
532,175 members)
- Culture entities
(2015……8,830 entities
13,985 jobs
202,972 members)
(2015: 412,893 volunteers)
85,682 jobs
2,769 enterprises
547,000 members
6,948 jobs
30 entities
3,900,000 members
142,117 jobs
62,152 entities
3,799,171 members
412,893 volunteers
(1) Source: Performance Report of Cooperatives Europe, 2009.
(2) European Association of Co-operative Banks, Key statistics 12.2015.
(3) Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15.
(4) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(5) Sebestény,I. & Kisss,J., Hubai,L., Nemeth,L., Mihaly,M., Ruszkai,Z., based on Hungarian Central
Statistical Office (Nonprofit sector, 2015)
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
84
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN IRELAND
2005
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Agricultural Cooperatives (1) (2)
(2015: 35,742 jobs
53 enterprises
108,850 members)
- credit unions & coop. banks (1)
(2015: 3,000 jobs
367 enterprises
3,100,000 members)
- Others: wholesale coops,
other (1)
(2015: 1,193 jobs
27 enterprises)
95,000 members)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 10 entities
455 jobs
3,200,000 members) (3)
- Nonprofit sector
(2005: 40,003 jobs full time
14,754 jobs part-time
1,570,408 volunteers)
25,000 entities) (4)
Of which:
- Social enterprises
(2005: ca 1,500 enterprises)
39,935 jobs
447 enterprises
3,303,850 members
455 jobs
10 entities
3,200,000 members
54,757 jobs
25,000 entities
1,570,408 volunteers
(1) Source: McCarthy,O. (Centre for Cooperative Studies)
(2) Cooperative members of Irish Cooperative Organisation Society (ICOS) employ ca. 12.000 staff in Ireland and ca
26.000 abroad (source: COGECA, 2014, Development of agriculture cooperatives in Europe).
(3) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(4) Donaghue et al (2006).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
85
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN ITALY
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms (1) (2) (7)
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Agri-food Cooperatives (4)
(2014: 90,542 jobs
771,017 members
4,722 enterprises)
- Cooperative banks and
subsidiaries (3)
(2015: 117,779 jobs)
2,610,308 members
434 enterprises)
- Social cooperatives
(2014: 392,278 jobs
ca. 420,000 members
14,342 enterprises
- Other cooperatives
(2014: 667,004 jobs
8,600,000 members
40,925 enterprises)
Among them:
Consumer-commerce
cooperatives
(2014: 91,520 jobs)
3,381 entities)
- Mutual Savings & Loan
and other mutuals (5)
(2015: 1,000 jobs
996 enterprises
1,685,000 members)
- Mutual Insurances
(2015: 19,531 jobs
6 enterprises
1,640,000 members)
- Associations, foundations and other
non-profit and civil society and
voluntary organisations that produce
and sell goods and services. (6)
(2011: 635,611 jobs
3,148,647 members
288,931 entities)
Volunteers: 4,758,622 (2011)
1,267,603 jobs
60,423 enterprises
13,180,000 members
20,531 jobs
1,002 enterprises
3,325,000 members
635,611 jobs
288,931 entities
3,148,647 members
4,758,622 volunteers
Source: A.Zevi; and A.Bassi; C.Carini.
Based on: Istat (agriculture census 2010, census not profit institutions 2011, permanent industry and
services census 2014); Association of cooperative banks; Federazione italiana delle banche di credito
cooperativo- casse rurale e artigiane; Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies (Osservatorio
della cooperazione Agricola 2016); Research departments of Agci, Confcooperative, Legacoop.
(1) Include active cooperatives and companies owned by the cooperatives (Insurance excluded). Based on
Istat and Research Department of the Alliance of Italian Cooperatives data.
(2) Include workers employed in the agricultural sector - 2010 - not considered in subsequent research.
(3) Includes Popular and cooperative banks and subsidiaries,
(4) The figures are for the coops belonging to the Alliance of Italian Cooperatives and Unicoop.
(5) Gross premium. Includes coops (1), Mutuals (3) and traditional companies (2) owned by coops.
(6) Does not include the social cooperatives.
(7) Total data of members is overestimated. Many persons are in fact members of a cooperative, a mutual
or an association.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
86
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN LATVIA
2009-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2009: 440 jobs
74 enterprises)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 3 entities
373 jobs) (2)
- Associations
(2015……16,173 entities)
- Foundations
(2015……1,225 entities)
- Religious organisations
(2015: 1,299 entities)
- Associations and foundations
(2015…… 18,528 jobs)
Volunteers: 7% of population
440 jobs
74 enterprises
17,330 members
373 jobs
3 entities
18,528 jobs
19,534 entities
Source: Zongerba,K & Ivane,A.
(1) Performance Report of Cooperatives Europe, 2009.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN LITHUANIA
2007-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Cooperatives (1):
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2014: 3,803 jobs
37 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives
(2015: 402 enterprises
12,900 members)
- Banking cooperatives
(2015: 598 jobs
142,601 members)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 5 entities
332 jobs) (2)
- Nongovernmental organisations
(2007……ca. 22,000 entities) (3)
Volunteers: ca. 100 000
7,000 jobs
439 enterprises
160,000 members
332 jobs
5 entities
n.a. jobs
22,000 entities
100 000 volunteers
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Refers only to those which are affiliated to
Cooperatives Europe.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(3) Based on Non-Governmental Organisations’ Information and Support Centre (NISC).
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
87
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN LUXEMBOURG
2012-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives
(2012: 77 enterprises
2,941 jobs)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 15 entities
406 jobs) (2)
- Non Profit, Cultural and Sport
Associations
(2012: 15,399 jobs
753 entities)
- Charitable organisations:
(2012: 6,599 jobs)
2,941 jobs
77 enterprises
406 jobs
15 entities
21,998 jobs
753 entities
Sarracino,F. & Peroni,C. (2015): Report on the social economy in Luxembourg, STATEC, Luxembourg.
Report Statec for 2012.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN MALTA
2011-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2014: 768 jobs
4,461 members)
54 enterprises )
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 2 entities
209 jobs) (2)
- Voluntary Organisations: (3)
(2011: 394 institutions)
- Sports Clubs:
(2011: 236 institutions)
- Band Clubs:
(2011: 63 institutions)
(2014: 29,956 volunteers) (3)
768 jobs
54 enterprises
4,461 members
209 jobs
2 entities
1,427 jobs
693 entities
29,956 volunteers
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Refers only to those which are affiliated to
Cooperatives Europe.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(3) Farrugia,L. & Social Enterprises Project, MFEI 2012. Deguara Farrugia Adv. & APS Consult
Limited.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
88
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE NETHERLANDS
2014-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2014: 126,797 jobs
70 enterprises
19,831,156 members)
Among them:
- Banking Cooperatives
(2014: 48,507 jobs
2 enterprises
1,959,589 members)
- Agriculture Cooperatives
(2014: 40,578 jobs
37 enterprises
99,884 members)
- Consumers Cooperatives
(2014: 5,395 jobs
1 enterprise
1,034,000 members)
- Mutual Societies (2)
(2010: 124 entities
2,860 jobs)
- Nonprofit sector:
1995: 669,121 jobs (3)
All Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms (with at least 1 employee)
(2002: 60,000 entities)
9,192,817 members and donors
(TSI Ulla and Bradsten)
5,300,000 volunteers (4)
126,797 jobs
70 enterprises
19,831,156 members
2,860 jobs
124 entities
669,121 jobs
60,000 entities
9,192,817 members/donors
5,300,000 volunteers
(1) Source: Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Refers only to those which are affiliated to
Cooperatives Europe.
(2) ICMIF figures for 2010
(3) Source: Burger & Decker (2001)
(4) GHK (2011) http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/national_report_nl_en.pdf
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
89
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN POLAND
2014-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- Cooperatives
- Agri-food Cooperatives:
(2015: 68,600 jobs
2,600 enterprises
253,900 members)
- Cooperative banks & credit unions:
(2015: 34,600 jobs
616 enterprises
3,095,900 members)
- Workers Cooperatives:
(2015: 40,000 jobs
800 enterprises
19,000 members)
- Housing Cooperatives:
(2015: 55,900 jobs
3,300 enterprises
3,250,400 members)
- Other Cooperatives:
(2009: 91,900 jobs
4,800 enterprises
3,358,300 members)
- Mutual Insurance
companies
(2015: 8 entities
1,900 jobs)
(2015:
5,800,000 members)(1)
- Social and health entities
(2014: 46,900 jobs
1,627,900 members
25,200 entities)
- Sport entities
(2014: 9,100 jobs
1,921,000 members
25,700 entities)
- Culture entities
(2014: 4,200 jobs
782,500 members
11,000 entities)
- Education and research entities
(2014: 40,800 jobs
829,900 members
9,100 entities)
- Other entities
(2014: 5,912,500 volunteers)
(2010:
37,700 volunteers FTE)(2)
235,200 jobs
8,700 enterprises
6,346,600 members
1,900 jobs
8 entities
5,800,000 members
128,800 jobs
100,700 entities
11,290,200 members
5,912,500 volunteers
Correspondant: Les,E. (University of Warwaw. Institute of Social Policy).
Data in the table compiled by the Central Statistical Office of Poland, mainly based on the reporting of
individual types of entities, are not comparable to the data of Social Economy in Poland in 2010
published by CIREC due to the differences between the data sources used.
The data about number of enterprises, jobs and turnover in non-financial cooperatives were collected with
the use of the following statistical reports CSO of Poland: SP – annual report of enterprise’s activity in
2015, F-02 – statistical financial report (31.12.2015). The survey covered entities keeping the accounting
ledgers or the revenue and expense ledger, with 10 and more persons employed by their state as of
30.11.2015. The data about number of enterprises, jobs and turnover in cooperatives with 9 or fewer
persons employed has been estimated based on Statistical Units Database and Social Insurance
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
90
Institution. The data about membership of cooperatives other than financial and housing have been
estimated on the basis of the results of survey the National Co-operative Council “Social dimension of
cooperative activity 2012”. The results of SOF surveys carried out by CSO of Poland in 2014 include:
associations and similar social organisations, foundations, faith-based charities, professional and business
associations, employers’ organisations, trade unions, political parties. The data from representative
population survey CSO of Poland are from the Social Cohesion Survey conducted in the first half of
2015.
(1) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(2) In Associations and similar org, Foundations and Faith-based charities.
NOTE: The Central Statistical Office of Poland, in cooperation with Ministry of Family, Work and
Social Policy, since 2016 has been carrying out a project aimed at “Integrated monitoring system for the
social economy sector”, co-financed by the European Union.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN PORTUGAL
2013
Cooperatives and other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies and other
similar accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- All cooperatives
(2013: 24,316 jobs
2,117 enterprises)
(1,500,000 members)(1)
- Mutual Societies
(2013: 4,896 jobs
111 entities)
(1,100,000 members)(1)
- Non-profit associations
(2013: 140,050 jobs
57,196 entities
- Misericórdias:
(2013: 35,469 jobs
389 entities)
- Foundations:
(2013: 10,871 jobs
578 entities)
- Community entities (SCA):
(2013: 361 jobs
877 entities)
Volunteers: 1,040,000 (2012)
24,316 jobs
2,117 enterprises
1,500,000 members
4,896 jobs
111 entities
1,100,000 members
186,751 jobs
59,040 entities
3,650,000 members
Source: INE/CASES, Conta Satélite da Economía Social 2013 (2016). FTE jobs.
(1) Jorge de Sá, José Pitacas & Manuel Belo, estimate.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
91
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN ROMANIA
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- Cooperative Banks
(2015: 1,937 jobs
67 enterprises)
- Craft Cooperatives
(2015: 17,850 jobs
885 enterprises
members)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2015: 5,244 jobs
925 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives
(2015: 426 enterprises
members)
- Credit unions
(2015: 5,948 jobs
2,631 enterprises
3,028,000 members)
- Mutual Societies
(2015: 9 entities
5,038 jobs
700,000 members/
PH) (1)
- Associations, foundations
and other nonprofit and civil
society and voluntary
organisations that produce and
sell goods and services:
(2015: 99,774 jobs
42,707 entities)
Among them:
- Social and health entities:
(2015: 36,406 jobs
11,317 entities)
- Sport entities:
(2015: 12,171 jobs
8,107 entities)
- Cultural entities:
(2015: 7,036 jobs
5,310 entities)
31,573 jobs
4,934 enterprises
3,032,000 members
5,038 jobs
9 entities
700,000 members/P.H.
99,774 jobs
42,707 entities
Source: Cristina Barna & Stefania Andersen , Data processed by Civil Society Development Foundation
based on aggregate data provided by the National Institute of Statistics of Romania for 2015, other
secondary data as per methodological note..
Methodological Note: All figures above count exclusively what CSDF defines as “active”
organisations/entities, namely the ones that submit yearly fiscal statements (balance sheet, profit and loss
account as per legal requirement) to the Ministry of Finances. Data from the Ministry of Finances are
further communicated and included in the Statistics Registry (REGIS) of the National Statistics Institute.
They represent the micro-data in the accounting balance sheets for 2015 for the respective types of
organisations. The following specific points should be considered as well:
* The employees’ credit unions that are members of the National Union of Credit Unions for Employees
in Romania do not submit an individual balance sheet, but the National Union submits a consolidated one.
Thus, the data for 1644 credit unions were provided by the National Union mentioned before. Of the 2631
credit unions, 2412 were credit unions for employees and 219 were credit unions for retired people.
** The classification of the associations, foundations and other non-profit organisations (A&F) in a
certain field of activity was based on the NACE Codes (as declared by the entities in the accounting
balance sheet) and by the reclassification of those A&F which did not provide a NACE Code in their
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
92
balance sheet form or chose the NACE code “other associative activities”. The reclassification was done
based on the key words specific to each field to be found either in the names of the organisations, or in
the description of their mission available in the NGO Register from the Ministry of Justice. The NACE
codes were organised by the same fields of activity used in the 2010 Edition of the Atlas of Social
Economy. Other fields of activity include: educational, professional, religious, civic, agricultural,
development/tourisms, commons/forestry, and environment.
*** As an exception, the number of members of credit unions is provided for 2012 (latest data available),
according to Atlas of Social Economy 2014 Edition.
(1) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015. / P.H.= policy holders.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN SLOVAKIA
2015
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives (1)
(2014: 23,799 jobs
303 enterprises
433,328 members)
Among them:
- Agricultural Cooperatives:
(2014: 6,066 jobs
133 enterprises) (1)
- Housing Cooperatives:
(2009: 1,492 jobs
85 enterprises
256,243 members) (1)
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2014: 158,319 members
31 enterprises) (4)
- Mutual Societies (2)
(2010: 10 institutions
2,158 jobs
360,000 members)
- All non-profit organisations (3)
(2010: 44,176 entities
25,600 FTE jobs)
Among them:
26,991 associations
(2015: 304,094 volunteers) (3)
23,799 jobs
303 enterprises
433,328 members
2,212 jobs
8 entities
360,000 members
25,600 jobs
44,187 entities
304,094 volunteers
(1) Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-15. Only data from cooperatives that are represented directly
or indirectly by Cooperatives Europe through its national and European sectoral members are included.
(2) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015.
(3) Strečanský,B (2012). The Situation of the third sector in Slovakia. The impacts of crisis, trends,
mainstreams and challenges, Civil Szemle, 3, 75-93.
(4) Korimova,G. (Matej Bel University – Centre of Social Economics and Social Entrepreneurship)
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
93
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN SPAIN
2008-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- All Cooperatives:
(2015: 378,735 jobs
22,766 cooperatives)
Among them:
- Worker Cooperatives:
(2015: 200,730 jobs
16,205 cooperatives)
- Credit cooperatives:
(2015: 20,451 jobs
67 cooperatives)
- Agro-food cooperatives:
(2015: 78,777 jobs
3,438 cooperatives)
- Consumer cooperatives:
(2015: 30,299 jobs
296 cooperatives)
- Other cooperatives:
(2015: 48,478 jobs
2,760 cooperatives)
Other similar structures:
- Labour societies:
(2015: 75,317 jobs
10,213 societies)
- Special disability employment centres:
(2015: 71,327 jobs
1,885 enterprises)
- Work integration enterprises:
(2015: 2,750 jobs
181 enterprises)
- Other social economy enterprises:
(2015: 173,449 jobs
3,811 enterprises)(3)
Mutual Societies:
(2015: 2,360 jobs
347 mutual societies)
- Associations and foundations
active in social action: (2)
(2013: 644,979 jobs
29,739 entities
1,272,338 volunteers)
Among them:
-3 Singular entities (ONCE,
Red Cross and Caritas):
(2013: 77,579 jobs
289,045 volunteers)
- Other third sector entities:
(1)
(2008: 183,062 jobs
124,380 entities)
528,000 jobs
35,045 enterprises
8,028,998 members
2,360 jobs
374 entities
828,041 jobs
154,119 entities
1,272,338 volunteers
Source: (1) CIRIEC-España (Observatorio Español de la Economía Social), CEPES, (2) Report of the NGO platform
for social action (2015). (3) CEPES. Not included in the total
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
94
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN SWEDEN
2013-15
Cooperatives and
other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies
and other similar
accepted forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted forms
- All cooperatives
(2014: 57 516 jobs
7 505 enterprises
4,355,350 members) (1) *
- Worker/new cooperatives (2) *
(2013: 15 529 jobs
1 864 enterprises)
- Agricultural Cooperatives (3)*
(2014: 13,635 jobs
19,439 members
50 enterprises)
- Consumer Cooperatives (4) *
(2015: 22,847 jobs
191 enterprises)
- Housing Cooperatives (5) *
(2014: 5,505 jobs
5,400 enterprises)
Mutual Societies
(2015: 13,908 jobs
48 enterprises) (6)
- Totally (7) *
124 409 jobs
62 624 entities with economic
activity
- Non-profit associations *
(2013: 71 694 jobs
47 635 associations)
- Religious communities *
(2013: 29 256 jobs
1 296 entities)
- Foundations *
(2013: 23 459 jobs
13 693 entities)
57 516 jobs
7 505 enterprises
4,355,350 members
13,908 jobs
48 entities
124 409 jobs
62 624 entities
(*) Source: Gordon Hahn (Serus) based on several sources: (1) Cooperatives Europe Key figures 2014-
15. Refers only to those which are affiliated to Cooperatives Europe. (2) SCB (National statistics of
Sweden (www.scb.se) and Sweden company registration office (www.bolagsverket.se). Although
Cooperatives may be in the form of limited company (AB) (with restrictions in the statutes) or limited
company with asset clause (SVB) this figure only includes registered economic associations (which is the
juridical form that a majority of Swedish cooperatives are using), only those who have any kind of
economic activity and only those of new/worker cooperatives. (3) Figure from professor Jerker Nilsson at
the National Agricultural University focusing on the agri-food sector. (4) Employer organisation KFO
member list consisting of 38 consumer cooperatives directly connected to KF and another 153 small
consumer cooperatives affiliated to and members of KFO. These have in total 22,847 employees. (5)
Cooperative Europe – housing cooperatives affiliated to main cooperative housing associations HSB and
Riksbyggen. SCB (National Statistics of Sweden (www.scb.se) shows that in 2013 there were 22,808
housing cooperatives in Sweden (but not employing more than in total 5,600, many are very small
independent housing cooperatives. (6) ICMIF Figures for 2015. Global Mutual Market Share 2015. (7)
SCB (National statistics of Sweden (www.scb.se) from 2015 concerning 2013.
Foundations with economic activity; 13,693 with 23,459 employees. Summarising, the total number of
associations, foundations and religious communities with economic activity had 124,409 employees in
2013.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
95
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
2015
Cooperatives and other similar
accepted forms
Mutual Societies and
other similar accepted
forms
Associations, foundations
and other similar accepted
forms
- All cooperatives
(2015: 222,785 jobs
6,797 enterprises
17,500,000 members)(1)
Of which:
- Consumer Cooperatives
(2015:114,969 jobs
16,110,000 members
13 major enterprises)(2)
- Cooperative Banks (3) &
Credit unions and Insurance
(2015: 521 Credit Unions
2,370 jobs
1,758,000 members) (4)
- Worker Cooperatives
(2010: 2,056 jobs, 411 enterp.
2,048 members) (5)
- Social cooperatives
(2015: 1,706 jobs, 88 enterp.
4,607 members) (6)
- Mutual entities –
building societies
(savings and loans) (7)
(2015: 44 enterprises
40,566 jobs
24,972,000 members)
- Insurance mutuals
(including Friendly Societies)
(2015: 79 enterprises
26,956 jobs.
30,900,000 members) (8)
- Broad view of Third Sector
(2008: 1,406,000 jobs)
ca. 870,000 entities
Of which:
- Charities
(2013/4: 827,000 jobs
162,965 entities) (10)
- Housing associations (9)
(2013/4: 146,000 jobs
1,862 entities) *
(residents: 6491340)
13,800,000 volunteers (11)
222,785 jobs
6,797 enterprises
17,400,000 members
65,925 jobs
144 enterprises
54,500,000 members
1,406,000 jobs
870,000 entities
13,800,000 volunteers
Source: Roger Spear (Open University) based on several sources: (1) Coops UK Report http://reports.uk.coop/economy2016/ NB
Many small societies have been included for the first time in this survey report (and there may be some overlap with BVS data). (2)
There are 13 consumer retail coops in UK’s top 100 coops, with turnover > £13m. p.a. but there are over 400 consumer retail coops
in total, as many are small rural shops, pubs, etc. (3) The Co-operative Bank, after a financial crisis, was taken over by US hedge
funds in 2014. Its stake in Unity Trust Bank (trade union-founded) was largely bought back by the latter in 2014, when Unity Trust,
which was majority TU owned, issued new shares and is now publicly traded, but still has a large proportion of its market with
social economy. (4) Civil Society Databank 2013/14. NCVO; (5) Co-ops UK Co-operative Economy 2010. After 2010, Co-ops UK
reclassified some large organisations such as John Lewis from employee owned to “worker owned co-operatives”. (6) Co-ops UK
Report http://reports.uk.coop/economy2016/; (7) Building Society Association Yearbook 2016/17, data for 2015. Members
comprise borrowers and investor/savers; (8) ICMIF (2014) Market InSights UK 2014; (9) Civil Society Databank 2013/14. NCVO.
(10) Data for broad view of Third Sector is from National Survey of Third Sector Organisations in England (NSTSO) 2008 (see
Geyne-Rajme & Mohan, 2012)56
. FTE from that survey for England only was 1,179,000 jobs in 2008. In that year England was
83.87% of UK population, thus scaling up for UK gives: 1,406,000 FTE jobs. Data for general charities (narrow view) is from
2013/14 survey, published in NCVO Civil Society Almanac 2016. Note: The narrow third sector (NTS) includes all organisations
in the BTS – broad view of third sector, less organisations not traditionally thought of as being part of the voluntary sector in the
U.K. This is primarily because they are seen as effectively being part of the state despite their constitutional status, and/or because
they are thought not to be sufficiently altruistic or public benefit oriented. Excluded on this basis are all universities, schools, sports
and social clubs, and trade union and business associations (*). (11) People formally volunteering at least one a month. Source: UK
Government Community Life Survey 2014/15, as reported by NCVO.
56
Geyne-Rajme, F. & Mohan, J. (2012). The regional distribution of employees in the third sector in England:
estimates from the NSTSO. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper, 80.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
96
CHAPTER 8
METHODS AND INDICATORS TO EVALUATE
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY AND ITS IMPACT57
8.1. Introduction
There is a growing interest in statistics about the social economy. However, given that the
social economy is a relatively new concept in the field of national statistics, it faces many
challenges. Among these are the identification of the statistical population as well as the use of
appropriate methodologies and indicators. That said, the current production of social economy
statistics does succeed in conveying certain aspects of the output of the social economy.
A statistical portrait is intended to represent the scope of a phenomenon, to highlight its main
components and their relative importance, to document some of its branches or sub-sectors, to
follow its evolution over time and allow comparison with other phenomena. Statistics on the
social economy are needed in order to quantify the relative weight of this type of economy,
counteract its lack of visibility and improve overall knowledge and recognition of the field.
Quantification and evaluation are crucial steps for gaining a better understanding of the social
economy and its place and role. Statistics also have a pragmatic function in that they allow
development and assessment of public policy concerning the social economy at different
territorial, national and international levels. Today, statistics on the social economy are
produced on most continents. This chapter
58
explains some aspects of how statistics on the
social economy are generally being produced, highlighting how social economy entities are
identified and how the data is collected. It concludes by emphasising some of the
methodological issues that arise when producing statistics on the social economy.
8.2. Defining and identifying entities of the social economy
The first task in any production of statistics is to define the “object” or the “beings” to be
measured, namely by defining the rules for building the statistical population. This is what will
allow the components and the boundaries of the statistical population to be determined. It also
makes it possible to identify the different types of entities that belong to a statistical field under
study.
57
Chapter by Marie Bouchard.
58
This chapter uses information from the work edited by M J. Bouchard and D. Rousselière (2015), namely the
chapter by M. J. Bouchard, P. Cruz Filho and M. St-Denis, “Mapping the field of the social economy. Identifying
social economy entities”; and the chapter by A. Artis, M. J. Bouchard and D. Rousselière, “Does the social economy
count? How should we measure it?”. These are based on the examination of statistical work on the social economy in
10 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom) between 2005 and 2012. In addition, research on Europe conducted in the framework of international
projects coordinated by the United Nations and the CIRIEC network were taken into account.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
97
The development of a statistical definition of the social economy that is reliable and relevant to
policy makers and to the actors of the movement is generally based on the definition that is
currently in use and that is institutionalised (in the sense of being generalised) in society. One of
the difficulties is that the social economy, while part of a broader global movement, remains
fundamentally rooted in the needs of the people and the communities in which it is embedded.
Subsequently, its reality may differ significantly from one national context to another. In
addition, apart from a few exceptions (e.g. France), national statistical agencies have no markers
for clearly identifying or distinguishing this subset of the economy within the national statistical
accounts.
Identifying the entities that make up the social economy generally includes three main groups of
tasks: 1) the identification of entities in the economic sectors and activity sectors most likely to
contain social economy organisations; 2) the selection of entities by their legal status; 3) the
sorting out of entities that match a set of qualification criteria in order to identify, from entities
that either have or do not have the legal status of social economy organisations, those that
belong to the social economy according to the institutional definition used.
1) In the system of national accounts (SNA 2008), social economy organisations belong
mainly to the sectors of non-financial firms, incorporated financial firms and non-profit
institutions serving households. In many countries, for historical reasons, certain
activity sectors ‒ professional associations, employer groups, political parties, religious
organisations and unions ‒ are generally excluded from the definition of the social
economy and from the statistics that measure the sector. These excluded activity sectors
can be identified by referring to the International Standard Industrial Classification of
All Economic Activities (ISIC) and other corresponding national or regional
classifications.
2) The legal statuses that are generally recognised as belonging to the social economy are
those of cooperatives, mutual societies and associations (or non-profit organisations),
and sometimes also foundations.
3) However, not all of the entities that hold such a legal status are social economy
enterprises. This is especially the case with non-profit organisations (NPOs) and
foundations. In addition, some businesses with other legal statuses may have the
features of a social economy enterprise. This can be the case for example with work
integration social enterprises (WISEs). A set of criteria can be used to distinguish
entities that belong to the social economy field from those that do not. A set of four to
five criteria can serve as a filter:
- The social mission, a principle that overrides all other criteria and the
manifestation of which is ensured through the verification of other criteria.
- The limited or prohibited distribution of surpluses, which manifests mainly in
particular in an organisation’s legal personality (cooperative, mutual societies,
association, foundation), or by the presence of such a restriction in the
enterprises’ bylaws.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
98
- The organised production of goods or services, which can be verified, among
others, through the reported sales of goods or services or the presence of
salaried employees or volunteers. Thus, organised production may be entirely
subsidised or realised by volunteers, and subsequently is not always
synonymous with commercial activity, even though market-based organisations
do meet this criterion.
- The decision-making process of the organisation remains autonomous and
independent from other organisations, including government.
- Democratic governance involves the right of stakeholders (users, workers,
members) to oversee decisions in the organisation.
Screening methods can be applied in various (non-exclusive) ways, namely: selection based on
administrative data; selection based on registers kept by government; validation of one or more
lists of government agencies and social economy umbrella organisations; and the use of
screening questions in a qualification questionnaire.
 Administrative data are shaped by the sources they come from, such as statutory tax
returns, for example. Moreover, statistical institutes enrich these administrative data
with mandatory or voluntary surveys. Two indicators that are frequently operationalised
using administrative data are legal status and sector of activity. The use of
administrative data is conditional on the presence, in the territory where the study is
conducted, of a national statistical organisation (NSO) with the necessary means to
process that data. In addition, it requires a certain degree of institutionalisation of the
components of the social economy, often through the form of legal statuses. It also
requires that the NSO considers these administrative data as a potential source of
information for statistical purpose. The same applies to the different public agencies
that often possess and analyse considerable amounts of information on certain sectors of
the social economy.
 Statistics obtained from registers kept by government agencies can typically be
produced on the number of registered entities (cooperatives, mutual societies,
associations and/or other recognised legal forms), and also on jobs and disaggregated
data on employees, members, contributing family workers, as well as production,
expenditures and assets. The quality and coverage of these registers will typically
depend on the level of statistical development in the country. In any case, national
registers cannot reliably estimate the number of persons who are members or the
number of workers engaged in the social economy because of double-counting.
 Using lists is conditional on the existence of social economy organisations that are
recognised in the territory under study. This way of screening allows for a more
exclusive focus on organisations that are within the scope of social economy networks.
However, lists kept by associations and federations will, by definition, only cover
member entities. The lists are not necessarily up to date, as registration onto and
deregistration from these lists are often not mandatory. The proportion of uncovered
entities is therefore unknown.
 In the above-mentioned screening methods, the qualification of organisations is done
prior to the surveys, ex ante. However, when the portraits resort to screening questions
to decide the qualification of the entities, the screening method is ex post. In those
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
99
cases, the survey frame is constructed starting from one of the screening methods
presented above, in addition to the administration of screening questions in the surveys
to the end of qualifying the organisations that are fully in scope of the statistical
definition of the social economy.
At each stage and for each of these methods, decisions must be made that require a tradeoff
between the cost and the quality of data. The issue of replicability should also be mentioned, as
not all portraits provide information on the quality procedures and criteria applied.
The selection of entities can be used for two purposes: the construction of a parent population to
be used at a later point for a survey, or the building of a statistical portrait or satellite account
with the available data, thereby foregoing the need to produce a survey.
8.3. Methods for producing statistics on the social economy
The production of statistics related to the size and scope of the social economy encompasses a
wide range of methods. These can be grouped into two general types, the satellite account
approach and the statistical observation approach in the form of surveys or observatories.
Satellite accounts
Satellite accounts provide a framework linked to the national statistical organisations’ central
accounts, which enables attention to be focused on a certain field or aspect of economic and
social life in the context of national accounts. A satellite account helps to understand the
economy of a precise field that cannot be examined within the general framework. This method
allows the general framework to be complemented while preserving the coherence of the whole.
It has been applied to a wide range of fields, such as research, transport, tourism, education,
health, the social safety net, the environment and the social economy. The countries in Europe
that have produced satellite accounts of the social economy are Belgium, Bulgaria, Macedonia,
Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Spain.
The first initiative in the field of the social economy was the construction of a methodology for
the measurement and international comparison of the non-profit sector. Carried out by the
Center for Civil Society at Johns Hopkins University, “The Comparative Nonprofit Sector
Project” contributed to the creation of the Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of
National Accounts, approved in 2002 by the United Nations (UN, 2006)59
. This initiative has
been complemented by CIRIEC with the Manual for Drawing up the Satellite Accounts of
Companies in the Social Economy: Co-operatives and Mutual Societies (Barea and Monzón,
2006). The satellite account method applied for the social economy is based on an operational
definition of the non-profit institutions (UN, 2006) or of the cooperative and mutual societies
(Barea and Monzón, 2006) as well as on two specific accounting conventions: the consideration
of non-commercial output and volunteerism.
59
Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, http://ccss.jhu.edu/research-projects/comparative-nonprofit-sector/aboutcnp
(consulted on July 27, 2013). This project extended into a reflection on the measurement of volunteer work in the
non-profit sector and was conducted in collaboration with the International Labour Organization.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
100
The need for satellite accounts is explained by the increasing difficulty of measuring the role of
the social economy in the national economy, given the presence of social economy
organisations in the various institutional sectors of the System of national accounting (SNA).
The data for a satellite account are compiled, following a specific methodology, from
administrative data that are “by-products of some administrative function (such as tax
collection)” (UN, 2006: 64). The first task is to create a statistical register of the entities (from
the non-profit sector or the cooperative and mutual sector) starting from the identification files
of businesses (such as the SIRENE60
database in France). Secondly, the data in the satellite
account tables are derived from existing sources concerning revenue, output and salaries paid.
In other words, they are composed of existing aggregate data. Thirdly, the methodology
suggests creating new data on the sector, either from specific administrative files or from the
implementation of new data by way of surveys conducted among small organisations or
households. The last phase is that of the compilation of all collected data.
The compilation of existing quality data and the creation of new data on satellite accounts
contribute to the robustness and strengthen the stability of this method. The use of existing
databases for other institutional sectors allows for consistency in the comparisons. In fact, the
results integrate the evolutions of statistics, whereby changes are taken into consideration in an
identical way for all institutional sectors. In this way, the method favours international
comparability and the establishment of longitudinal follow-ups, even though the use of satellite
accounts has limitations, given the different demographics of the populations studied from one
country to the next and the possible difficulties of capturing all the businesses concerned.
Statistical observation: surveys and observatories
Surveys seek to understand internal specificities of organisations, such as the estimated working
hours, women’s share in the salaries of the social economy, and the distribution of salaries.
These indicators can be reported for a given part of the social economy (e.g. the non-profit and
voluntary sector) or with a view to comparing social economy organisations with others (e.g. the
survival rate of small and medium size cooperative and non-cooperative enterprises). This
approach is especially useful when focusing on specificities of the social economy in a given
country or area. It is more frequently used for exploratory types of research.
In some countries such as France, the representational bodies of social economy organisations,
at regional and national levels, have established observatories. These observatories, with the
participation of university research centres, conduct research based on a decentralised structure
and bottom-up aggregation. This approach favours taking into account the specificities of the
social economy and a comparison with the other economic agents. The observatories highlight
the relative share of the social economy within the local economy and in comparison with the
private and the public sectors outside the social economy.
These observatories can be built on data derived from existing registers from national statistical
agencies, or government agencies such as business registers, as well as from surveys — all with
60
In France, all businesses have to register with SIRENE (Système national d’identification et du répertoire des
entreprises et de leurs établissements). The system identifies and indexes all businesses according to their principal
activity, location, legal status and number of staff.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
101
the idea of fostering a combination of registers and surveys. To complement the data produced
by the NSOs and to improve the taking into account of the specificities of the social economy,
many studies use data collected by surveys conducted among the social economy actors. Data
collection methodologies are varied, ranging from telephone surveys to surveys by regular mail
or email, with each positing a priori hypotheses on the framework of reference.
Unlike the satellite accounts, which should be based on a stable and homogeneous definition,
the definitions used for surveys and observatories are more heterogeneous. The legal statuses
are often taken into account as a criterion of inclusion, although these are not necessarily the
same or do not apply to the same situations from one country, or even region, to the next.
Exclusions on the grounds of conceptual definitions of the social economy are also possible.
The two statistical approaches to the social economy, namely satellite accounts and statistical
observations through surveys and observatories, differ on many points: unit of observation;
source of data; type of indicators; method; and objectives. Nevertheless, they face similar
challenges, such as comparability or the development of pertinent indicators for the social
economy.
8.4. Conclusion
Because it is an important phenomenon, and since it is still weakly codified in the national
statistics, measuring the social economy is a task that is as difficult as it is important. This
chapter has presented a rapid overview of approaches to the definition and to the measurement
of the social economy sector. A few issues and recommendations are summarised in this
conclusion.
One of the issues in producing statistics on the social economy is that the operational definition
varies between countries and very few have markers of it in their statistical accounts. Defining
the entities and the indicators to measure the social economy has an impact on the content of a
statistical portrait, which explains the diversity of statistical portraits. The construction of
operational definitions is common practice in social statistics. For example, it is this that has
allowed for the emergence of statistics on small and medium enterprises in the member states of
the European Union and of satellite accounts on non-profit institutions and on companies of the
social economy in many countries of the world.
In recent years, considerable work has been done to map the social economy, work that
nevertheless yields a range of notions of this type of economy and a variety of methodologies
for grasping its weight, size and scope. This reflects the diversity of the economic and political
contexts in which the social economy exists. It also reveals the competing development models
in which the social economy is called to play a role and the different paths of its
institutionalisation. As many countries have recently passed national legislations on the social
economy, future advances in this field can be expected. It is to be hoped that a conceptual
framework for defining, classifying and measuring the social economy may be developed and
adopted at an international level in a near future.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
102
The definitions used should be general enough to show the link between the social economy and
an international movement as well as to compare it with the rest of the economy. But they also
need to be specific enough to reflect the local originality of the social economy accurately in
various socioeconomic contexts. This calls for the identification of empirical, stable and readily
observable indicators, which in turn explains the importance of finding an operational definition
and developing a robust qualification process. As the social economy concept is based on
specific principles, values and rules, an operational definition of the social economy should
translate these elements into qualification criteria from which to build observable empirical
indicators.
Methods for measuring the size and scope of the sector also vary from country to country. They
are either based on the satellite account approach or on statistical observation approaches such
as surveys or observatories, or on a combination of these. Methods vary according to the
availability and quality of administrative data, the objective of the research and the resources
available to finance the operation. Satellite accounts have the advantage of using data that has
already been entered and standardised and that is comparable to those from other fields of the
economy. However, this method also inherits the limitations of national accounts with respect to
the inventorying of small or hybrid entities and the measurement of the complete output of the
social economy. Observatories and surveys tend to gather specific data using non-standardised
indicators which, although well-suited for the purposes of the social economy, are generally
difficult to aggregate from one study to another unless a convention has been established among
observers.
Yet, it should be noted that social economy statistics can hardly express the full range of added
value generated by this economy. Although standard economic indicators are able to accurately
inform about some aspects of the social economy, such as sales figures or employment, they can
prove tricky when used to measure the economic performance of social economy enterprises61
.
Moreover, they fail to shed light on aspects such as non-monetary production, the combination
of market and non-market resources, the internalisation of social costs and the reduction of
environmental externalities. What we find difficult to show about what the social economy
produces is just as hard to show for the rest of the economy. Externalities, spillover effects,
distributional effects, in short the “social” that is included in the economy is not well measured
by classical statistical measurement of the economy and, therefore, has been the subject of an
ongoing debate among statisticians and economists. But the “social” is of crucial importance for
the social economy as it is its raison d’être. Hence, whatever findings come from research on
the subject should in the end serve both the social and the classic economy, shedding light on a
larger spectrum of concerns about how the economy in general contributes - or not - to social
wellbeing.
Issues concerning quantification are not unrelated to those of the institutionalisation of the
social economy. A broad and inclusive definition of the social economy makes it possible to
keep ahead of the debates that occur when the definitions are not institutionalised, while
allowing the different subsets (e.g., cooperatives, non-profit sector, non-statutory social
enterprises) to be identified. In return, all the qualification or classification work contributes to
61
See the section about value added in: Bouchard, Le Guernic and Rousselière, forthcoming.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
103
the “statistical hardening” or formatting of the social economy. It is significant to note that the
interest in statistical monitoring of the social economy coincides with the adoption of laws on
the social economy in a number of countries. In some cases, such as France, statistical counts –
and thereby classification — preceded the adoption of a definition in a law, in 2014, while in
other cases, such as Québec (Canada), the adoption of a law in 2013 served to define the social
economy before statistical monitoring was conducted.
If what we measure defines what we seek (and vice versa), then the production and
implementation of a conceptual framework to identify the social economy is likely to have a
significant impact on how the social economy is perceived and, consequently, on the design,
implementation and evaluation of policies concerning the social economy.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
104
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
9.1. The social economy and related emergent concepts
In the recent period, several new concepts and approaches related to the social economy have
emerged in Europe, such as social enterprises, social entrepreneurship, social innovation,
collaborative economy, economy of the common good, circular economy, corporate social
responsibility and corporate citizenship. This report has studied these from the perspective of
the social economy concept.
Concerning the concept of social enterprises, the European Commission considers these an
integral part of the social economy (Communication from the European Commission, Social
Business Initiative, COM/2011/0682 final of 25/10/2011). The social innovation approach
emphasises the individual role of the social entrepreneur, who adopts a mission to create and
sustain social value (not just private value), recognises and pursues new opportunities to serve
that mission, engages in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning, acts boldly
without being limited by resources currently in hand and exhibits a heightened sense of
responsibility and accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.
The collaborative economy refers to very wide range of activities linked to the fields of
consumption, production, finance, education, and even governance. In its Communication called
“A European agenda for the collaborative economy” (COM/2016/0356 final - 02/06/2016), the
European Commission defines the collaborative economy as “business models where activities
are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the temporary
usage of goods or services often provided by private individuals”. The Communication ends by
noting that collaborative-economy transactions do not involve a change of ownership and can be
carried out for profit or not-for-profit. The Economy for the Common Good ((ECG) (1) is a
socioeconomic and political movement founded by Austrian economist Christian Felber in
2010. The ECG model's central proposition is that the economy should be at the service of
people, i.e., of the common good. The ECG model is cross-disciplinary and applicable to all
kinds of companies and organisations. The circular economy model consists of replacing a
linear economy, based on the take-make-use-dispose model, with a circular one in which waste
can be transformed into resources so the economy can become more sustainable and reduce its
negative environmental impact through improved management of resources and reducing
extraction and pollution. In 2011 the European Commission published its green paper on
Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility and defined CSR as “a
concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. The principles
of the social economy, inspired by the co-operative principles, are none other than the
application of CSR in all its aspects, it can be stated that the social economy has been a pioneer
in applying CSR, since CSR is an integral part of the values and operating rules of the social
economy.
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
105
Our research has highlighted that, as regards related emergent concepts, the best-known in EU
countries are ‘non-profit’, ‘third sector’, ‘civil society and voluntary sector’, ‘corporate social
responsibility’, ‘social enterprises’ and ‘social innovation’. Other concepts such as ‘circular
economy’ or ‘collaborative economy’ show an upward trend in knowledge levels in most EU
countries, while the concepts ‘economy of the common good’ and ‘solidary economy’ have
difficulty in making any way in many EU countries, where they are barely known or not known
at all.
9.2. Public policies towards the SE at the EU level and at national and regional
level, with special attention to new laws on the social economy
Between 2009 and 2017, European institutions have implemented several initiatives in relation
to the social economy, or more exactly for social enterprises that are part of the social economy,
opening a new period of European public policies. Concerning legal forms, few advances have
been made. The European Mutual Society Statute and Statute for a European Foundation (EF)
projects were discussed but were finally withdrawn, due to a lack of institutional support.
Currently the European Parliament has taken the legislative initiative to work on a Statute for
social and solidarity-based enterprises.
Concerning regulatory frameworks and legal barriers to the development of social economy
entities, until recently the Directives have paid insufficient attention to the specific features of
social economy organisations. The application of competition policy was the priority. More
recently, to mitigate this regulatory framework, in 2012 the Commission adopted the de minimis
Regulation for the field of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) and in 2014, the
public procurement reform package was approved. It allows the public authorities to insert
certain social clauses in procurement procedures and terms of reference. However, it has had
little impact. In the context of the regulatory framework, an emergent barrier that has been
developing is considered a qualitative austerity policy. It is related to the manner in which the
public sector and SE entities relate to each other, regarding not only the problem of increased
bureaucracy but also delays, application and implementation procedures and other requirements
that complicate, or even preclude, collaboration between the third sector and the public sector.
Efforts at European and national government level have been made to enhance the cognitive
dimension and participation by civil society, such as European Conferences organised by
Presidencies of the Council of the European Union or within the framework of a Presidency, the
successive EESC Opinions, the initiatives and opinions of the European Parliament’s Social
Economy Intergroup and in some cases also those of the Committee of the Regions, or even of
the Commission itself. The last initiative, taken in Madrid (23.5.2017), was the adoption of the
‘Madrid Declaration’, which achieved high media and social network impact. However, in order
to increase social visibility and social receptiveness it needs to move from the macro level to the
micro level. In addition, in this way, the social fabric of societies, their social capital of
networks, becomes a key factor. As noted in previous reports, European programmes based on
ESF have had a wide-ranging structuring effect, both nationally and internationally, in joining
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
106
up and strengthening the European social economy in terms of federations, networks, research,
culture and policies. On the other hand, EU funds and programmes encounter considerable
difficulties in becoming accessible to the local networks.
As previously noted, another issue is the visibility and recognition of the conceptual definition
of the social economy field. The periodic deployment of ‘neoconcepts’ (see chapter 3 of this
report) does not help. In the 1970s the multiplicity of terms related to the social economy
comprised the third system, civil society and non-profit. In the context of the economic crisis, a
new wave of concepts has emerged, such as social enterprises, the collaborative economy and
the economy of the common good. We must emphasise that these issues mask not only a lack of
consensus on the designation to be employed but also a concealed policy to not advance in this
field.
An important shift in the European Commission's political agenda regarding the social
economy, or more precisely, social enterprises, took place in 2011, when the Commission began
to apply the "Social Business Initiative (SBI). Creating a favourable climate for social
enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation" (COM(2011) 682 final).
The SBI listed the policy agenda of the European Commission with 11 key actions. One axis is
improving private and public funding. To enhance the interest of private investors in social
enterprises, Regulation 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds (EuSEF) was
approved. The Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) was also established
in collaboration with other financial initiatives such as the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, the EaSI
Capacity Building Investments Window and the Social Impact Accelerator (SIA). Concerning
public funds, the goal of 'promoting social economy and social entrepreneurship' was transferred
to ERDF and ESF. However, a European budgetary policy specifically for the social economy
did not get off the ground and is still awaited. The recent Declaration of Madrid (23.5.2017)
continues to call for it.
Our study with the correspondents has revealed the importance of the main financial instrument
of the EU, the ESF. International congresses and networks, the LEADER initiative and the
European directives and legislation have also proved key measures. Congresses and networks
have been revealed as a tool to generate structuring and cognitive effects such as coordinating
the civil society of Europe's social economy. The new tools established recently (EFSI, EaSI,
COSME, etc.) have shown little or no impact, especially in Mediterranean and Eastern EU
countries. Studies to assess the impact of the new policies are needed.
9.3. The weight of the social economy in Europe and the statistical challenge
This Report has shown the increasing size of the SE in Europe, which is very large in both
human and economic terms. It provides over 13.6 million paid jobs in Europe, accounting for
6.3% of the total working population of the EU-28. Including both paid and non-paid
employment, it has a workforce of over 19.1 million, with more than 82.8 million volunteers,
equivalent to 5.5 million full time workers. Cooperatives, mutuals and similar entities have
more than 232 million members. Finally, it includes over 2.8 million entities and enterprises.
Despite this size, the social economy remains invisible in the national accounts, a hurdle that
constitutes another major challenge. Efforts to prepare better statistics have been made during
Recent evolutions of the Social Economy in the European Union
107
the last two decades, both in the academic field and by national statistical institutes and
governments. In 2006, CIRIEC drew up a method for the European Commission, the Manual
for drawing up the Satellite Accounts of Companies in the Social Economy. Some countries
have put a great deal of work in recent years into providing reliable data on various social
economy groups. France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic and Hungary
have made serious improvements in the statistics published by their national statistics institutes
and government bodies, in some cases using the satellite account method for non-profit
organisations. Special mention should be made of Portugal, Poland and Romania. These three
EU countries have developed regular, systematic statistics for the social economy as a whole in
recent years. In Portugal this is mandated by the country’s Law on Social Economy (2013).
However, much effort needs to be made to systematise the statistics for the different social
economy groups over the coming years.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
108
BIBLIOGRAPHY
European Union Official Documents
- EESC (2015). Building a financial ecosystem for social enterprises (Opinion INT/770 - CESE
3146/2015).
- EESC (2014). Social Impact Investment (Opinion INT/747 - CESE 3794/2014).
- EESC (2013). Social Impact Measurement (Opinion INT/721 - CESE 6135/2013).
- EESC (2012). European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (Opinion INT/623 - CESE 1294/2012).
- EESC (2012). Social Business Initiative (Opinion INT/606 - CESE 1292/2012)
- EESC (2011). Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise (Opinion INT/589 - CESE 1584/2011)
- EESC (2009). Diverse forms of enterprises (Opinion INT/447 - CESE 1454/2009)
- EESC - Consejo Económico y Social Europeo (CESE) (2004) (14 October 2004). Dictamen Sobre
La “Capacidad de adaptación de las pymes y de las empresas de la economía social a los cambios
impuestos por el dinamismo económico”
- EESC (2000). Dictamen Ces242/2000 Do C117 De 26.04.2000, “Economía Social y Mercado
Único”
- EESC (1986). Les organisations coopératives, mutualistes et associatives dans la Communauté
Européenne, Brussels, Editions Delta: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
- European Commission (2015). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe.
- European Commission (2013). Social economy and social entrepreneurship.
- European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
Social Business Initiative, Creating a favorable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the
social economy and innovation, COM/2011/0682.
- European Commission (1997). Promotion of the Role of Associations and Foundations in Europe,
Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Com (97) 241 Final.
- European Commission (2004), Comunicación al Consejo, al Parlamento Europeo, al Comité
Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones sobre fomento de las cooperativas en
Europa (23 Febrero 2004, Com(2003)18),.
- European Commission (2011). Social Business Initiative. Creating a favourable climate for social
enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation, COM no. 682, 2011.
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (2016),
Social Enterprises and their eco-systems: developments in Europe. Authors: Carlo Borzaga and Giulia
Galera. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- European Parliament (2009). Rapport sur l’économie sociale. (2008/2250 /INI).
- European Parliament (2015). Resolution on social entrepreneurship and social innovation in
combating unemployment (2014/2236(INI)).
- European Parliamentary Research Service / EPRS (2017). EU support for social entrepreneurs,
Briefing, March, 2017. Author: Agnieszka Widuto.
- European Parliament (2016). Social Economy, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy
Department A, IPOL_STU(2016)578969.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
109
- European Parliament (2017). A European Statute for Social and Solidarity Based Enterprise, DG for
Internal Policies, Policy Department C. European Parliament. Author: Fici, A.
- GECES (2016). Social enterprises and the social economy going forward, European Union
Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship, Brussels
- OECD/European Commission (2013). Policy Brief on Social Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial
Activities in Europe.
- OECD/European Union (2015). Policy Brief on Social Impact Measurement for Social Enterprises:
Policies for Social Entrepreneurship, OECD/European Commission, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union, http://www.oecd.org/industry/Policy-Brief-social-impact.pdf
International reports
- EESC/CIRIEC (2008), The Social Economy in the European Union, European Economic and Social
Committee, Brussels,
- EESC/CIRIEC (2012), The Social Economy in the European Union, European Economic and Social
Committee, Brussels.
- CIRIEC (2000). The Enterprises and Organizations of the Third System: A strategic challenge for
employment. CIRIEC – Directorate General V of the European Union, Liege.
- CIRIEC/BAREA, J. & MONZON, J.L. (2006). Manual for Drawing up the Satellite Accounts on
Cooperatives and Mutual Societies. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate
General
- CIRIEC/BOUCHARD, M.J. (ed.) (2010). The worth of the Social Economy. An international
Perspective. Brussels: Peter Lang
- CIRIEC /THIRY, B. (2007). The role of the cooperatives in the civil dialogue in Europe, Outcomes
of the social partner program (SPP).
- CIRIEC/ CHAVES, R. & DEMOUSTIER, D. (eds,) (2013). The emergence of the social economy in
public policies. An international perspective, Brussels: Peter Lang.
- CIRIEC/BOUCHARD, M.J. & ROUSSELIÈRE, D. (eds.) (2015). The weight of the Social
Economy. An international Perspective. Brussels: Peter Lang.
- ICF / WILKINSON, D. (2014). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe.
Synthesis Report, report submitted by ICF Consulting Services, European Union, Brussels.
- EUROSTAT (1997). Le Secteur Coopératif, Mutualiste et Associatif dans l’union Européenne,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
- Directorate-General for Communication of the EU (2011). Voluntary work, European Parliament
Special Eurobarometer 75.2, Brussels.
- GRIJPSTRA,D, et al. (2011). The role of mutual societies in the 21st century; IP/A/EMPL/ST/2010-
004, PE 464.434; European Parliament Directorate General For Internal Policies; Policy Department
A: Economic And Scientific Policy.
- GHK (2010). Study on Volunteering in the European Union, London: GHK for Directorate General
Education and Culture of the European Union
- ILO (2002). Recomendación Sobre Promoción De Las Cooperativas (Recomendación 193/2002)
OIT - Organización Internacional Del Trabajo
- ILO (2011). Manual on the measurement of volunteer work. International Labour Office, Geneva.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
110
- UNITED NATIONS (2003). Handbook on Non Profit Institutions in the System of National
Accounts. Series F, No. 91. New York: United Nations (Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics
Division).
- UN DESA – Dave & Grace Associates (2014). Measuring the size and scope of the cooperative
economy – Results of the 2014 Global census on co-operatives for the United Nation’s Secretariat
Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
- UNRISD (2016). Promoting Social and Solidarity Economy through Public Policy. In: UNRISD
Flagship Report. UNRISD, Geneva, 115-139.
Other references
- ACI (2016). Le grandi cooperative italiane 2006-15, ACI - Alleanza Cooperative Italiane
www.alleanzacooperative italiane.it/uffici-studi/documenti/ricerche/.
- ALFONSO, R. (2016). La Economía colaborativa: un nuevo mercado para la economía social,
CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 88: 230-258.
- ANHEIER, H.K. et al. (2011). Zivilgesellschaft in Zahlen – Abschlussbericht Modul 1. Rapport
commun par Destatis, CSI, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft, Fritz
Thyssen Stiftung.
- ARCHAMBAULT, E. & KAMINSKI, P. (2009). “La longue marche vers un compte satellite de
l’économie sociale : un bilan à partir de l’experience française“, Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, 80 (2): 225-246
- ARCHIMBAUD, A. (1995). “L´Économie alternative, forme radicale de l´économie sociale”, Revue
des études coopératives, mutualistes et associatives, Nº 256.
- AZAM, G. (2003). « Economie Sociale, Tiers Secteur, Economie Solidaire, quelles frontières?» Revue
du Mauss, 21: 151-161.
- BARCO, S., HAHN, G. & PASTORELLY,G. (2012). A better future Results of the network for
better future of social economy, European Social Fund.
- BAREA, J. (1991). “La economía social en España”, Revista de Economía y Sociología del Trabajo,
12: 8-16.
- BAREA, J. & MONZON, J.L. (1995). Las cuentas Satélite de la Economía Social en España; una
primera aproximación, Ed. CIRIEC-ESPAÑA, Valencia.
- BARNA, C., VAMESU, A. (2015). Credit Unions in Romania. A strong social enterprise model to
combat financial exclusion and over indebtedness, CIRIEC Working Paper no. 2015/112.
- BARNA, C. (2014). Atlas of Social Economy Edition 2014, Civil Society Development Foundation Institute
of Social Economy, 2014.
- BARNA, C., VAMESU, A. (2014). Reviving Social Economy in Romania, between emerging social
enterprises in all sectors, surviving communist coops and subsidiaries of globalization actors,
CIRIEC Working Paper no. 2014/07.
- BCNL (2006). Survey of Nonprofit Governance Practices in Bulgaria, BCNL-Bulgarian Center forNot-for
Profit Law for the Bulgarian Charities Aid Foundation, Sofia
- BIRCHALL, J. & HAMMOND, L. (2009). Resilience of the cooperative business model in times of
crisis, ILO – International Labour Organization
- BIRKHOELZER, K., KLEIN, A. et al (Hrsg.) (2005). Dritter Sektor / Drittes System. Theorie,
Funktionswandel und zivilgesellschafliche Perspektiven, VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften..
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
111
- BORZAGA, C. & DEFOURNY, J. (eds.) (2001). The emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge,
London.
- BOUCHARD, M. J., LE GUERNIC, M. & ROUSSELIÈRE, D. (2017), Conceptual framework for
the purpose of measurement of cooperatives and its operationalization. Report for the International
Labour Office, presented to the COPAC technical working group on statistics for cooperatives,
Geneva, 5, forthcoming.
- BRANDSEN, T. & PAPE, U. (2015). The Netherlands: The paradox of government–nonprofit
partnerships. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations,26(6):
2267–2282.
- BURGER, A., & DEKKER, P. (2001). The nonprofit sector in the Netherlands. Den Haag, The
Netherlands, Social and Cultural Planning Office (http://www.scp.nl).
- CASES (2017). Conta Satélite das Instituçoes Sem Fin Lucrativo, CASES – Cooperativa Antonio
Sergio da Economia Social, documents.
- CASEY, J. (2016). Comparing Nonprofit Sectors Around the World: What Do We Know and How
Do We Know It? The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 6 (3): 187-223.
- CHAVES, R. & MONZON, J.L. (2000). “Las cooperativas en las modernas economías de mercado”,
Economistas, 83: 113-123.
- CHAVES, R. & MONZON, J.L. (2017). “Current challenges of the social economy in Europe: the
neoconcepts, the statistic problem and the policies”, Ciriec-España, revista de economía pública, social y
cooperativa (http://www.ciriec-revistaeconomia.es/), forthcoming.
- CHAVES, R. & ZIMMER, A. (dir.) (2017). The Third Sector in Spain and in Europe (El Tercer
Sector en España y en Europa). Valencia: Edl. Universidad de Valencia..
- CHAVES, R. & PEREZ DE URALDE, J.M. (dir.) (2012). La economía social y la cooperación al
desarrollo. Una perspectiva internacional, Valencia: Edl. Universidad de Valencia.
- CHAVES, R. & SAVALL, T. (2017): “Social economy in a context of austerity policies”, Journal of
Economic Policy Reform, forthcoming.
- CICOPA (2009). The impact of the crisis on worker and social cooperatives, CICOPA.
- CICOPA (2013). Promoting cooperatives and the Social Economy in Greece. How to promote the
social economy in Greece through social cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and cooperatives of
artisans and of SMEs, Final report to the ILO.
- CICOPA (2017). Cooperatives and employment: Second Global Report. CICOPA.
- CICOPA (2014). Cooperatives as builders of sustainable development - Applied to industrial,
artisanal and service producer cooperatives, CICOPA, Brussels.
- CLARKE, J., HULIARAS, A. & SOTIROPOULOS,D. (ed) (2016). Austerity and the Third Sector
in Greece: Civil Society at the European Frontline. Routledge.
- COEN, J.M. (2010). La stratégie « europe 2020 » et l'économie sociale, quelle place pour
l'économie sociale en europe ? SAW – Solidarité Alternatives Wallonnes.
- COLE, G.D.H. (1945). A Century of co-operation, Manchester.
- CONSTANTINESCU, S. (coord.) (2011). Atlasul Economiei Sociale. Romania 2011, Report
“Prometeus” project, Bucharest: Foundation for Civil Society Development.
- Cooperatives Europe, Euricse, Ezai (2010). Study on the implementation of the Regulation
1435/2003 on the Statute for European Cooperative Society, Document for the European
Commission.
- COOPERATIVES EUROPE (2016). The power of cooperation – Cooperatives Europe key figures
2015. Cooperatives Europe.
- COOPFR (2016). Panorama sectorial des entreprises cooperatives, Paris: CoopFR.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
112
- CORAGGIO, J.L. (1995). Desarrollo humano, economía popular y educación, Buenos Aires:
Instituto de Estudios y Acción Social.
- CRACOGNA, A. FICI, H. HENRY (Eds.) (2013), International Handbook of Cooperative Law.
Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
- DEES, J.G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, WP Kauffman Center of
Entrepreneurial Leadership.
- DEFOURNY, J. & MONZÓN CAMPOS, J. (eds.) (1992). Économie sociale (entre économie
capitaliste et économie publique) / The Third Sector (cooperative, mutual and nonprofit
organizations). Brussels: De Boeck Université – CIRIEC.
- DEFOURNY, J. & NYSSENS, M. (2012). El enfoque EMES de la empresa social desde una
perspectiva comparada, CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 75: 8-
34.
- DEFOURNY J. & NYSSENS M., (dir.) (2017). Economie Sociale et Solidaire, SocioEconomie
du 3eme secteur. Brussels: De Boeck.
.- DEMOUSTIER, D., CHAVES, R., HUNCOVA, M., LORENZ, G. & SPEAR, R. (2006). “Débats
autour de la notion d’économie sociale en Europe”, Revue Internationale de l’économie sociale, 300 :
8-18.
- DEMOUSTIER, D. (coord.) (2005). Economie sociale et développement local, Cahiers de
l’Economie Sociale, Paris: IES –L’Harmattan.
- DESROCHE, H. (1983). Pour un traité d’économie sociale, Paris: Coopérative d’information et
d’édition mutualiste.
- DÍAZ-FONCEA, M., MARCUELLO, C. (2016). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems
in Europe - Country report: Spain, European Commission.
- DRAPERI, J.F. (2012). L’économie sociale et solidaire, une réponse à la crise? Capitalisme,
territoire et démocratie. Paris: Dunod.
- ENJOLRAS, B. (2010). «Fondements normatifs des organisations d’économie sociale et solidaire et
évaluation du point de vue des politiques publiques», Economie et solidarités, 39 (1): 14-34.
- FAVREAU, L. & VAILLANCOURT, Y. (2001). "Le modèle québécois d´économie sociale et
solidaire", Revue internationale de l´économie sociale, nº 281.
- FECHER, F., LEVESQUE, B. & VALLET N. (2015). “Some current issues and Challenges in the
Social Economy”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86(2).
- FELBER, C. (2010). Die Gemeinwohl-Okonomie-Das Wirtschaftsmodell der Zukunft.
- GALERA, G. & SALVATORI, G. (2015), Public policy in the social and solidarity economy:
towards a favourable environment: the case of Europe. Torino: International Training Centre of the
International Labour Organization.
- GARDIN, L., FRAISSE, L., LAVILLE, J.-L., PETRELLA, F., RICHEZ-BATTESTI, N., 2016,
Social enterprise in France : at the crossroads of social Economy, Solidarity Economy and social
Enterpreneurship, ICSEM Working papers, n°34.
- GEYNE-RAJME, F. & MOHAN, J. (2012). «The regional distribution of employees in the third
sector in England: estimates from the National Survey of Third Sector Organisations”, Third Sector
Research Centre Working Paper, 80.
- HOLCMAN, R. (2015). Economie sociale et solidaire, Paris: Dunod.
- GIRAUD-DUMAIRE, C. (2015) “The problem of cooperative boundaries: History, considerations
and constraints”, RECMA Revue internationale de l’économie sociale, 94: 20–33
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
113
- HERRMANN, P. (2008). Social Economy and Social Economics –The Situation in the Republic of
Ireland. Munich Personal Repec Archive - MPRA Paper No. 10246, http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/10246
- ICMIF (2016). Global Mutual Market Share 2014, ICMIF - International Cooperative and Mutual
Insurance Federation.
- INSEE (2016). L’Economie sociale, Connaissance locale de l’appareil productif, novembre,
Parution annuelle depuis 2005.
- JEANTET, T. (2006). Economie Sociale: la solidarité au défi de l´efficacité, La Documentation
française, Paris.
- JULIA, J.F. & CHAVES, R. (eds.) (2012). Social economy: a responsible people-oriented economy,
Special issue, Service Business, an international journal, Vol. 6(1).
- LAVILLE, J.L. (1994). L´Économie solidaire. Une perspective internationale. Paris: Desclée de
Brouwer.
- LEITE, J. (2014). Textos de economía social, Cases, www.cases.pt.
- LÉVESQUE, B. & MENDELL, M. (1999). “L'économie sociale: éléments théoriques et empiriques
pour le débat et la recherche”, Lien social et politique, 41, 105-118.
(http://www.crises.uqam.ca/cahiers/ET9908.pdf).
- LEVITT, T. (1973). The Third Sector – New Tactics for a Responsive Society, New York: Division
of American Management Associations.
- LIPIETZ, A. (2001). Pour le tiers secteur. L’économie sociale et solidaire : pourquoi et comment?
Paris: Éd. La Découverte/La Documentation française.
- LÓPEZ CASTELLANO, F. (2003). “Una sociedad ‘de cambio y no de beneficencia’. El
asociacionismo en la España Liberal (1808-1936)”, CIRIEC-España, revista de economía pública,
social y cooperativa, 44: 99-228.
- MARINI, M. & KOPEL M. (2016). “Organization and Governance in Social Economy Enterprises”,
Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(3), special issue.
- MONZON, J.L. (dir.) (2009). Informe para la elaboración de una Ley de fomento de la economía
social en España (Report for a Spanish Social Economy Law), Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo.
- MONZÓN, J.L. & CHAVES, R. (2008). «The European Social Economy: concept and dimensions
of the third sector», Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79(3): 549-577.
- MONZÓN, J.L. (1987). “La Economía Social en España”, CIRIEC-España, revista de economía
pública, social y cooperativa, nº 0: 19-29.
- MONZON, J.L. (1989). Las cooperativas de trabajo asociado en la literatura económica y en los
hechos, Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social
- MONZON, J.L. (2003). “Cooperativismo y Economía Social: perspectiva histórica”, CIRIEC-España,
revista de economía pública, social y cooperativa, 44: 9-32.
- MONZON, J.L. & CHAVES, R. (2018). “The impact of the Social Economy in the European Union.
Methods, statistics, definitions and results”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, forthcoming.
- MONZÓN, J.L. & HERRERO, M. (2016). “Identificación y análisis de las características
identitarias de la empresa social europea: aplicación a la realidad de los Centros Especiales de Empleo
de la economía española”, CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 87:
295-326.
- MOULAERT, F., MAC CALLUM, D., MEHMOOD, D. & HAMDOUCH, A. (dirs.) (2013).
International Handbook of Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and
Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- NAGY, R. & SEBESTÉNY,I. (2008). “Methodological Practice and Practical Methodology: Fifteen
Years in Nonprofit Statistics”, Hungarian Statistical Review HCSO, 12, 112-138.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
114
- NASIOULAS, I. (2012). Greek Social Economy Revisited: Voluntary, Civic and Cooperative
Challenges in the 21st
century. Peter Lang Verlag..
- NASIOULAS, I. (2011). “Greek Social Economy at the Crossroads. Law 4019/2011 and the
Institutionalization Challenge”, CIRIEC Working Paper no. 2011/10.
- Observatoire National de l’ESS (2012, 2014 et 2017). Atlas commenté de l’Economie sociale et
solidaire, Dalloz et Juris Association, avec les contributions de D. Demoustier, J-F. Draperi, et N.
Richez-Battesti.
- OECD/NOYA, A. & CLARENCE, E. (eds.) (2007). The Social Economy: Building inclusive
economies, Paris: OECD.
- OECD/E – NOYA, A. (2017). Boosting Social Enterprise Development: Good Practice
Compendium. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- PAPE, U., CHAVES-AVILA, R., PAHL, J. B., PETRELLA, F., PIELIŃSKI, B., & SAVALLMORERA,
T. (2016). “Working under pressure: economic recession and third sector development in
Europe”. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 36(7/8): 547-566.
- PAULI, G. A. (2010). The blue economy: 10 years, 100 innovations, 100 million jobs. Paradigm
Publications.
- PETRELLA F., RICHEZ-BATTESTI N. (2016). “Patterns of evolutions of Social enterprises in
France: A focus on work integration social enterprises”, International Review of Sociology, 26/2: 234-
246.
- PETRELLA, F., RICHEZ-BATTESTI, N. (2014). “Social entrepreneur, social entrepreneurship and
social enterprise: semantics and controversies”, Journal of Innovation Economics & Management
2(14): 143-156.
- PEZZINI, E. (2000). “Politiques européennes à l’égard de l’économie sociale et de l’emploi”, in
CIRIEC (2000). op. cit., 100-105.
- POLANYI, K. (1983). La Grande Transformation. Paris: Gallimard
- RAZETO, L. (1993). Empresas de trabajadores y economía de mercado, Chile: PET
- REVENTOS, J. (1960). El movimiento cooperativo en España, Barcelona: Ariel
- RICHEZ-BATTESTI, N., PETRELLA, F. (2016). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems
in Europe – Country report: France, European Commission.
- RICHEZ-BATTESTI N., PETRELLA F. (2014). “Social Entrepreneur, Social Entrepreneurship,
Social entreprise: semantics and controversies“, Journal of Innovation Economics and Management,
143-156.
- RICHEZ-BATTESTI N. (2016). Economie sociale et solidaire, territoires et innovations sociales: de
la mobilisation à l’encastrement, in Glon E., Pecqueur B., Proximités et ressources territoriales : au
cœur des territoires créatifs, PUR, 69-78.
- RICHEZ-BATTESTI N., PETRELLA F. (2015). « L’innovation sociale entre vogue et vague : une
approche en termes d’objet-frontière », in Klein J-L et al (ed.), La transformation sociale par
l’innovation sociale, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 363-373.
- ROELANTS, B., DOVGAN, D., EUM, H. & TERRASI, E. (2012). The resilience of the
cooperative model – How worker cooperatives, social cooperatives and other worker-owned
enterprises respond to the crisis and its consequences, Brussels: CECOP-CICOPA Europe.
- RUIZ, R. (ed.) (2015). El Tercer Sector de Acción Social en 2015: Impacto de la crisis, Plataforma
de ONG de Acción Social y Plataforma del Tercer Sector, Madrid.
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
115
- SALAMON, L.M.; ANHEIER, H.K.; LIST, R.; TOEPLER, S.; SOKOLOWSKI, W. et al (1999).
Global Society. Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Comparative
Nonprofit Project.
- SALAMON, L.M. & ANHEIER, H.K. (1997). Defining the Non-Profit Sector: A Cross-National
Analysis. Manchester University Press. Manchester and New York.
- SALAMON L. M. & SOKOLOWSKI, S. W. (2016). “Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the
third sector”. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit, 27 (4), 1515-1545.
- SARRACINO, F. & PERONI, C. (2015). Report on the social economy in Luxembourg, STATEC,
Luxembourg.
- SANCHEZ, C. & ROELANTS, B. (2011). Capital and the debt trap. Learning from cooperatives in
the global crisis, Palgrave – McMillan.
- SCHNEIDER, E.A. & LAINO E. (2014). Promoting the Social Economy as a Driver for Inclusive
Growth and Social Progress, Solidary Social Economy Framework Working Paper.
- SCHOLZ, T. (2016). Platform Cooperativism. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
- SIMSA, R., RAUSCHER, O., et.al. (2014). “Methodological Guideline For Impact Assessment”,
TSI Working Paper Series No. 1. Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034),
European Union. Third Sector Impact. Brussels.
- SOCIAL ECONOMY EUROPE (2010). Answer to the European Commission’s consultation on the
future EU 2020 strategy. SE Europe.
- SOCIAL ECONOMY EUROPE (2015). White Paper: Social Economy, taking the iniciative.
Proposals to make the social economy into a pillar of the European Union. SE Europe.
- SOCIAL PLATFORM (2015). Public procurement for social progress. A Social Platform Guide to
the EU Public Procurement Directive, Social Platform.
- SPEAR, R. (2010). “The social economy in Europe: trends and challenges”. In: Mook, Laurie;
Quarter, Jack and Ryan, Sherida eds. Researching the Social Economy Matters. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto. 84–105.
- SPEAR, R., PATON, R., NICHOLLS, A. (2015). “Public Policy for Social Finance in Context”, in
Nicholls, A., Paton, R., and Emerson, J. (eds.) Social Finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- SPEAR, R. DEFOURNY, J. FAVREAU, L. & LAVILLE, J.L. (eds.) (2001). Tackling social
exclusion in Europe. The contribution of Social Economy, Aldershot: Ashgate, Aldershot.
- STIGLITZ, J. (2009). “Moving beyond market fundamentalism to a more balanced economy”,
Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(3): 345-360
- STREČANSKÝ, B. (2012). “The Situation of the third sector in Slovakia. The impacts of crisis,
trends, mainstreams and challenges”, Civil Szemle, 3: 75-93.
- SUNDARARAJAN, A. (2016). The Sharing Economy. The End of Employment and the Rise of
Crowd-Based Capitalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- TSOMBANOGLOU, G.O. (ed.) (2008). The emergence of Social Economy, Athens: Papazissis
- VIENNEY C. (1994). L’Economie sociale, Paris: La Découverte, « Repères ».
- VOSEC (2010). L’Europe et l´économie sociale. Brussels: VOSEC- Bruxelles. .
- WEISBROD, B.A. (1975). “Towards a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three sector
economy”, in Phelps, E. (Ed.). Altruism, morality and economic theory. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
- WEISBROD, B.A. (1988). The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
116
- ZEVI, A., ZANOTTI,A., SOULAGE,F. & ZELAIA,A. (2011). Beyond the Crisis: Cooperatives,
Work, Finance. Generating Wealth for the Long Term, CECOP.APPENDIX 1. STUDY
CORRESPONDENTS
Johann Brazda, University of Vienna, (Austria); johann.brazda@univie.ac.at
Holger Blisse, University of Vienna, (Austria); holger.blisse@univie.ac.at
Bernard Thiry, CIRIEC-Belgium & University of Liege (Belgium); apce.ciriec@guest.ulg.ac.be
Wim Van Opstal, CIRIEC-Belgium, CES & HIVA; (Belgium); wim.vanopstal@khleuven.be
Pekka Pattiniemi, Coop Finland; (Finland); pekka.pattiniemi@ksl.fi
Danièle Demoustier, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble ; (France) ;
Daniele.Demoustier@iep.upmf-grenoble.fr
Nadine Richez-Battesti, Aix-Marseille Université, LEST-CNRS & Ciriec france; (France) ;
nrichezbattesti@wanadoo.fr
Günther Lorenz, Technologie-Netzwerk Berlin e.V.; (Germany); g.lorenz@technet-berlin.de
Karl Birkhölzer, Technologie-Netzwerk Berlin e.V.; (Germany); karl.birkholzer@TU-berlin.de
Ioannis K. Nasioulas, “ERGaxia” Sociology of Work Academic Laboratory, University of the
Aegean (Greece); ioannisnasioulas@gmail.com
Olive McCarthy, University College Cork, Centre for Co-operative Studies; (Ireland);
o.mccarthy@ucc.ie
Alberto Zevi, Study Center Legacoop; (Italy); a.zevi@legacoop.coop
Chiara Carini, EURICSE & Irisnetwork; (Italy); chiara.carini@euricse.eu
Joao Leite, CASES (Portugal); joaoleite@cases.pt;
Baleren Bakaikoa, GEZKI – University of the Basque Country; (Spain); baleren.bakaikoa@ehu.es;
Carmen Comos Tovar, CEPES; (Spain); c.comos@cepes.es
Gordon Hahn, SERUS; (Sweeden); gordon@serus.se
Roger Spear, Cooperatives research unit, Open University; (United Kingdom); r.g.spear@open.ac.uk
Gurli Jakobsen, Center for Corporate Values and Responsibility. Copenhagen Business School
(Denmark); gj.ikl@cbs.dk
Julia Doitchinova, University of National and World Economy & Trakian University; (Bulgaria);
juliadoj@abv.bg
Darina Zaimova, University of National and World Economy & Trakian Univ.; (Bulgaria);
dzaimova@gmail.com
Zdenek Linhart, Czech University of Agriculture; (Czech Republic); linhart@pef.czu.cz
Petra Francova, Organisation: P3 – People, Planet, Profit; (Czech Republic); petra.francova@nova-
ekonomika.cz
Magdalena Huncova, University J. E. Purkyne in Usti nad Labem; (Czech Republic);
mhuncova@hotmail.com
Indre Vareikyté, EESC (Lithuania); Indre.Vareikyte@eesc.europa.eu
Ewa Les, The University of Warsaw Institute of Social Policy; (Poland); e_les@onet.pl
Gabriela Lubelcova, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University; (Slovaquia);
lubelcova@fphil.uniba.sk
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
117
Gabriela Korimova, Faculty of Economics of Matej Bel University - Centre of Social Economics
and Social Enterpreneurship; (Slovaquia); Gabriela.Korimova@umb.sk
Franci Avsec, Cooperative Union of Slovenia; (Slovenia)
Davorka Vidovic, Political Science Research Centre; (Croatia); davorka.vidovic@cpi.hr
Cristina Barna, Bucharest University of Economic Studies (Romania);
cristina_barna1412@yahoo.com
Manuel Belo Moreira, Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal); mbelomoreira@isa.ulisboa.pt
Stefania Andersen, Institutul de Economie Sociala (Romania); stef@fdsc.ro
Gojko Bežovan, University of Zagreb Faculty of Law (Croatia); Gojko.Bezovan@pravo.hr
Danijel Baturina, University of Zagreb Faculty of Law (Croatia); danijel.baturina@pravo.hr
István Sebestény, Central Statistical Office (Hungary); istvan.sebesteny@ksh.hu
Sébastien Pereau, Concertes Belgium (Belgium); sebastien@concertes.be
Małgorzata Saracyn, Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy (Poland);
Malgorzata.Saracyn@mrpips.gov.pl
Aylin Yumerova, Bulgarian center for non-profit laws (Bulgaria); aylin@bcnl.org
Zoe Andreou, Ministry of Finance (Cyprus), zandreou@mof.gov.cy
Jorge de Sá, Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal); jdsa@aximage.pt sa@aximage.pt
Dolores Kores, Slovenian association for Mental Health (Slovenia); dolores.kores@premiki.com
Teodora Demirevao, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Bulgaria);
tdemireva@mlsp.government.bg
Susanne Westhausen, Secretaria de Kooperationen (Denmark); sw@kooperationen.dk
Jarmo Hänninen, Idekoop (Finland); jarmo.hanninen@idekoop.fi
Dražen Šimleša, Pilar Institute (Croatia); drazen.simlesa@pilar.hr
Teodor Petričević, ACT Grupa (Croatia); teo@actnow.hr
Hedviga Hejduková, Otevrena Spolecnost (Czech Republic); hedviga.hejdukova@osops.cz
Julianna Kiss, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) (Hungary); kissjuli@gmail.com
László Hubai, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) (Hungary); hubairlaszlo@gmail.com
Melinda Mihály, University of Leipzig (Hungary); mihaly@socialimpact.eu
Andrea Bassi, Università di Bologna (Italy); andrea.bassi7@unibo.it
Balon Krzysztof, European Economic and Social Committee (Poland);
Krzysztof.Balon@eesc.europa.eu
Alena Zieglerová, Institute for Social Inclusion (Czech Republic);
alena.zieglerova@socialniinkluze.cz
Zsolt Ruszkai, Ministry of National Economy (Hungary); ruszkaizsolt@gmail.com
Eszter Faragó-Kovách, IFKA nonprofit ltd (Hungary); farago-kovach@ifka.hu
László Németh, National Federation of Social Cooperatives (Hungary); nemeth.laszlo@koszsz.hu
Marinela Tomić, Croatian Association of Cooperatives (Croatia); marinela@zadruge.coop
Lindsay Farrugia, University of Malta (Malta); lindsayfarrugia13@gmail.com
Jean-Christophe Burkel, Union Luxembourgeoise de l'Économie Sociale et Solidaire
(Luxembourg); jean-christophe.burkel@uless.lu
Stella Adamu-Fuhs, Austrian Association for Public and Social Economy (Austria); stella.adamu-
fuhs@voewg.at
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
118
Heidrun Maier de Kruijff, Austrian Association for Public and Social Economy (Austria);
heidrun.maier-dekruijff@voewg.at
Jonathan Healy, Department of Employment, Jobs and Innovation (Ireland); jonathan.healy@djei.ie
Mette Hjære, Center for Frivilligt Socialt Arbejde (Denmark); mh@frivillighed.dk
Kristīne Zonberga, Latvian Civic Alliance (Latvia); kristine@nvo.lv
Zanda Skuja, Zaļā brīvība (Latvia); zanda@zalabriviba.lv
Tihomira Palova, Ministry of economy (Bulgaria); t.palova@mi.government.bg
Beata Idzikowska, Central Statistical Office of Poland (Poland); B.Idzikowska@stat.gov.pl
Bruno Silva, Union luxembourgeoise de l’économie sociale et solidaire - ULESS (Luxembourg);
bruno.silva@uless.lu
Marie-Caroline Collard, Saw-B (Belgium); mc.collard@saw-b.be
Tessa Wernink, Fairphone (Netherlands); tessa@fairphone.com
Annette Zimmer, Universität Münster (Germany); zimmean@uni-muenster.de
Neophyta Empora, University of Cyprus (Cyprus); embora.neophyta@ucy.ac.cy
Dimitri Coutiez, Gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie (Belgium);
dimitri.coutiez@gov.wallonie.be
Stefan Panhuijsen, Social Enterprise NL (Netherlands); stefan@social-enterprise.nl
Janine Downing, Wales Council for Voluntary Action (United Kingdom); jdowning@wcva.org.uk
Ranko Milić, Cluster za eko-društvene inovacije i razvoj; ranko.milic@cedra.hr
Marie Dohnalová, Charles University, Faculty of humanities, Department of Civil Society Studies
(Czech Republic); marie.dohnalova@fhs.cuni.cz
Kateřina Legnerová, Charles University, Faculty of humanities, Department of Civil Society Studies
(Czech Republic); katerina.legnerova@fhs.cuni.cz
Julia Peric, Facultad de Economía en Osijek (Croatia); julia@efos.hr
Urszula Fila-Kicman, Association of the Vetting Cooperative (Poland); asystentka@zlsp.home.pl
Dan Gregory, Social Enterprise UK (United Kingdom); dan.gregory@socialenterprise.org.uk
Petar Stefanov, Bulgarian Central Co-operative Union (Bulgaria); stefanov@ccu-bg.com
José Pitacas, Ciriec (Portugal); n/d
Christina Grabbe, Universität Münster (Germany); c_grab03@uni-muenster.de
Katharina Obuch, Universität Münster (Germany); k.obuch@uni-muenster.de
James Wright, Co-ops UK (United Kingdom); james.wright@uk.coop
Christaine Basset, Union Nationale des Associations Familiales (France); cbasset@reseau.unaf.fr
Adam Piechowski, Social economy Europe (Poland); director@socialeconomy.eu.org
Christos Koutsampelas, University of Cyprus (Cyprus); koutsampelas.christos@ucy.ac.cy
Andreas Kappes, DGRV (Germany); kappes@dgrv.de
Tomas Lavišius, Lietuvos Respublikos ūkio ministerija (Lithuania); Tomas.Lavisius@ukmin.lt
Tamás Szenttamási, IFKA nonprofit ltd (Hungary); n/d
Gábor Lévay, Civil Support (Hungary); levai.gabor@civilsupport.hu
Irene Piki, Administrative Report Unit (Cyprus); ipiki@dgepcd.gov.cy
Alexander Apostolides, European University Cyprus (Cyprus); A.Apostolides@euc.ac.cy
Delphine Phillips, Macif (France); dphillips@macif.fr
Anikó Soltész, IFKA nonprofit ltd (Hungary); aniko.soltesz@gmail.com
Godfrey Baldacchino, University of Malta (Malta); gbaldacchino@upei.ca
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
119
Kaupo Sempelson, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (Estonia);
kaupo.sempelson@mkm.ee
Anette Järvpõld, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (Estonia);
anette.jarvpold@mkm.ee
Alanna Higgins, University of Latvia (Latvia); alanna@lu.lv
Giussepe Guerini, Cooperatives of Italy (Italy); guerini.g@confcooperative.it
Markus Lehner, University of applied sciencies upper Austria (Austria); markus.lehner@fh-linz.at
Wim Van Opstal, SocialEconomy.be (Belgium); wim.vanopstal@in-c.biz
Sybille Mertens, Ciriec (Belgium); smertens@ulg.ac.be
Kristine Hindriks, Ministry of Rural Affairs (Estonia); kristine.hindriks@agri.ee
Eleni Mossila, Ministry of Finance (statistics department) (Cyprus); emossila@cystat.mof.gov.cy
Thomas Gregoriou, Ministry of Finance (statistics department) (Cyprus);
TGregoriou@cystat.mof.gov.cy
Boris Strečanský, Independent expert (Slovakia); strecansky@changenet.sk
Nadia Shabani, Bulgarian center for non-profit laws (Bulgaria); nadya@bcnl.org
Pavleta Alexieva, Bulgarian center for non-profit laws (Bulgaria); pavleta@bcnl.org
Vasya Vasileva, Bulgarian center for non-profit laws (Bulgaria); info@bcnl.org
Christodoulos Pavlou, Expert of Social Economy from Cyprus (Cyprus);
pavlouchristodoulos@gmail.com
Martinas Žaltauskas, Non-Governmental Organisations Information and Support Centre (Lithuania);
martinas@nisc.lt
Marie Burke, Department of Employment, Jobs and Innovation (Ireland); marie.bourke@djei.ie
Suzette Frovin, Center for Frivilligt Socialt Arbejde (Denmark); sfr@frivillighed.dk
Anita Īvāne, Latvian Civic Alliance (Latvia); anita@nvo.lv
Lauma Ziemeļniece, Zaļā brīvība (Latvia); lauma@zalabriviba.lv
Jeljaz Enev, Ministry of Economy (Bulgaria); j.enev@mi.government.bg
Skoopi, The Swedish social cooperatives interest organisation (Sweeden); info@skoopi.coop
Jaap Kemkes, De Omslag (Netherlands); info@deomslag.nl
Corine van de Burgt, De Omslag (Netherlands); info@deomslag.nl
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
120
APPENDIX 2. QUESTIONNAIRES PER COUNTRY
Country Code Questionnaires
AUSTRIA AT 4
BELGIUM BE 5
BULGARIA BG 5
CROATIA HR 7
CYPRUS CY 7
CZECH REPUBLIC CZ 5
DENMARK DK 3
ESTONIA EE 2
FINLAND FI 2
FRANCE FR 4
GERMANY DE 3
GREECE EL 1
HUNGARY HU 9
IRELAND IE 2
ITALY IT 4
LATVIA LV 3
LITHUANIA LT 2
LUXEMBOURG LU 1
MALTA MT 2
NETHERLANDS NL 1
POLAND PL 5
PORTUGAL PT 2
ROMANIA RO 1
SLOVAKIA SK 3
SLOVENIA SI 2
SPAIN ES 1
SWEDEN SE 1
UNITED KINGDOM UK 3
Total 89
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
121
APPENDIX 3. GLOSSARY
ACME – Association of Insurance Mutuals and Cooperatives
AGCI - Associazione Generale Cooperative Italiane (Italy)
AIM - International Association of Mutual Societies
AISAM - International Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
AMICE – Association of Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in Europe
AiSBL - Association internationale sans but lucratif
ASBL - Association sans but lucratif
BAGFW – Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der freien wohlahrtspflege (Germany)
CASES – Cooperativa Antonio Sergio da Economia Social (Portugal)
CCACE - European Co-ordination Committee of Cooperative Associations
CECOP – European Confederation of Workers’ cooperatives, Social cooperatives and Social
and participative enterprises,
CEDAG - European Council for Non-Profit Organisations
CEPES - Spanish Business Confederation of the Social Economy (Spain)
CIC – Community Interest Company (United Kingdom)
CIRIEC - Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social & Cooperative Economy
CMAF - Cooperatives, Mutual Societies, Associations and Foundations
CN-CRESS – Conseil National des Chambres Régionales de l’Economie Sociale (France)
COFAC - Training and Cultural Activities Cooperative (Portugal)
COGECA - General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union
CONCERTES – Walloon Confederation of Social Economy (Belgium)
Confcooperative - Italian Cooperative Confederation
COSME - EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SME Enterprises
CRISES - Centre de recherche sur les innovations sociales (Canada)
CSDF - The Civil Society Development Foundation (Romania)
CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility
CSO - Central Statistics Office (several countries)
CWES - Walloon Social Economy Council (Belgium)
EaSI - European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation
ECG - Economy of the Common Good
EFSI - European Fund for Strategic Investment
EMES – European research network on social enterprises
ERDF - European Regional Development Fund (aka FEDER)
ESA - European System of National and Regional Accounts
EESC - European Economic and Social Committee
Euro Coop - European Community of Consumer Cooperatives
ESF - European Social Fund
EU – European Union
EURICSE - European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises (Italy)
EuSEF - European Social Entrepreneurship Fund
FEBECOOP - Fédération Belge de l'économie sociale et coopérative
Recent evolutions of the social economy in the European Union
122
FEDER - Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (aka ERDF)
FNDS - National Fund for the Development of Sport (France)
FNDVA - French National Funds for the Development of Associated Life
FTEV – Full-time equivalent volunteers
ICA - International Co-operative Alliance
ICMIF – International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation
ICOS - Irish Cooperative Organisation Society (Ireland)
ILO - International Labour Organization
INAISE – network – International Association of Investors in the Social Economy
INSEE - Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (France)
IPAB - Istituzioni di Pubblica Assistenza e Beneficenza (Italy)
IPSS - Instituições Particulares de Solidariedade Social (Portugal)
ISTAT - L'Istituto nazionale di statistica (Italy)
IUDESCOOP-UV - Institute of the Social Economy of the University of Valencia (Spain)
KFO - Cooperative Movement Bargaining Organisation (Sweden)
LEADER - Liaison entre actions de développement de l'économie rurale (European Funds)
LEGACOOP - Lega Nazionale delle Cooperative e Mutue (Italy)
MCC – Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa (Spain)
NCVO – National Council for Voluntary Organisations (United Kingdom)
NENO - Network of Estonian Non-Profit Organizations
NIS / INE – National Institute of Statistics (several countries)
NGO - Non-governmental organization
NNO - Association of Common Benefits (Czech Republic)
NPI / NPO - Non-profit institutions / organisations
NPISH - Non-profit institutions serving households
NSTSO - National Survey of Third Sector Organisations in England (United Kingdom)
OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
ONCE – National Organization of Spanish blind people
ONLUS - Non Profit Organisation of Social Interest (Italy)
ONNS - Office National de Sécurité Sociale (Belgium)
PTS – Plataforma del Tercer Sector (Spain)
RedEsmed – Euro-Mediterranean Network of Social Economy
SBA – Small Business Act
SCB - National Statistics of Sweden
SBI – Small Business Initiative
SCE - Statute of the European Cooperative Society
SE - Social Economy
SEE – Social Economy Europe
SERUS – Social economy and civil society in Scandinavia
SNA - United Nations' System of National Accounts
STATEC - Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Luxembourg)
TS - Third Sector
VOSEC – Flemish Confederation of Social Economy (Belgium)
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99
1040 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Published by: “Visits and Publications” Unit
EESC-2017-103-EN
www.eesc.europa.eu
© European Union, 2017
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of the cover page photo permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
European Economic and Social Committee
EN
REG.NO. BE - BXL - 27
Print
QE-04-17-875-EN-C
ISBN 978-92-830-3841-2
doi:10.2864/255713
Online
QE-04-17-875-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-830-3837-5
doi:10.2864/191345