Search results

In 2022, the EMES Network celebrated its 20th anniversary. The purpose of this paper is to trace the intellectual path of social enterprise (SE) research that has unfolded through some of the major EMES research projects.

This journey is recounted through three major milestones: the emergence and development of the EMES approach; the identification of various SE schools of thought; the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project.

The first section digs into the roots of the EMES approach – an ideal-type which allowed researchers to explore an SE field that was then largely unknown. In a second stage, a reading grid was developed to identify the different SE conceptions, their convergences and their divergences. In a third step, the ICSEM Project, acknowledging the impossibility to provide a single, universal definition of SE, aimed to identify SE models across the world. Defourny and Nyssens developed an SE typology and made the hypothesis that it was neither country-specific nor even context-specific. Based on the EMES ideal-type (which constituted a particularly relevant tool to inform the diversity of SE models), data were collected on over 700 SEs worldwide; three major SE models were found in almost all the countries covered.

This contribution does not aim to summarise all the – numerous and fruitful – research projects carried out by EMES members, but to show the common thread that runs through several of them.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that it is feasible to theoretically and empirically build an international typology of social enterprise (SE) models. The authors first rely on their previous work (Defourny and Nyssens, 2017), suggesting that the concept of “interest principles” can serve as a cornerstone in such perspective. This concept, when combined with that of SEs’ “resource mixes”, allows to design an analytical tool that shows from which “matrices” and through which “trajectories” several distinct SE models can emerge, namely, the “non-profit entrepreneurial model”, the “social cooperative model”, the “social business model” and the “public sector model”.

This paper combines deductive and inductive approaches. In a deductive perspective, the authors build upon the analytical framework proposed by Gui (1991) to identify capital interest, mutual interest and general interest as key driving forces and fundamental motives in the overall economy. To confront their theoretical construction and their tentative typology of SE models with field realities, the authors also adopt an inductive approach, relying on bottom-up research strategies developed in the seven “ICSEM country contributions” forming this special issue.

At first view, mapping exercises of SE categories in the seven countries seem to highlight a high degree of heterogeneity. However, a closer analysis of these apparently diverging contributions clearly suggests that the four major SE models derived from the authors’ theoretical framework find significant empirical support in most—if not all—countries.

Although major statistical work to test the authors’ typology of SE models remains to be carried out, mainly through the exploitation of the international ICSEM database (which covers over 700 SEs from more than 40 countries), this paper represents a first—although limited—attempt to collect empirical evidence for testing this typology.

There is still no universal definition of the third sector in Europe, but it can be seen as including all types of non-governmental not-for-profit entities such as non-profit organizations, mutuals, cooperatives, social enterprises and foundations. This article attempts to make sense of the current shifting conceptualization of the third sector in Europe. It is based on short country summaries of the images and concepts of the third sector in 13 European countries by EMES Network’s members, first presented in 2008 (Defourny and Pestoff, 2008; nine of them were recently revised and are found in the appendix to this article.). The perception and development of the third sector in Europe is closely related to the other major social governance institutions/mechanisms, like the market, state and community and through the third sector’s interaction with them. Moreover, many third sector organizations (TSOs) overlap with these other social institutions, resulting in varying degrees of hybridity and internal tensions experienced by them. TSOs can generate resources from their activities on the market, by providing services in partnership with the state and/or by promoting the interests of a given community or group. The country overviews document a growing professionalization of TSOs in most countries and a growing dependency of public funds to provide services. This has important theoretical and practical implications for orienting the articles included in this book. Thus, it can provide a key for better understanding the discussion and analysis in the remainder of this volume.

Fair trade organisations (FTOs) have been taken quite early as examples of Social Enterprises (SE) and have contributed to the shaping of the SE concept. The purpose of this paper is to examine more deeply the link between FTOs and SE, both at a conceptual and at an empirical level.

First, different theoretical frameworks of SE are introduced and confront FT to each of these frameworks. The second step is an empirical study of FTOs across four European countries to illustrate and deepen the links between FT and SE, focusing on the goals and the governance structures of FTOs.

All the FTOs combine in some way economic, social and sometimes also political goals. FTOs are thus coherent to the “hybrid goals” nature of SEs. FTOs' governance is also quite specific and often innovative in terms of organisational architecture and stakeholders' involvement. Some FTOs are closer to the European – participatory – approach while others are closer to US – individual – approaches. Finally, the governance structures of FTOs seem to reflect quite well their goal mix.

This paper provides a more solid basis for the often implicit link between FT and SE. Future researches could use this work to explore specific topics of the SE literature in the context of FT (e.g. stakeholders' involvement). The FT example could also be used to examine further the shifting boundaries of the SE reality.

The originality of this paper is to apply the SE concept to a specific field and to show how, within this field, there is at the same time a diversity of organisations, reflecting the diversity of SE approaches; and a range of specific features (especially in terms of goal mix and governance) distinguishing SEs from other types of organisations.

This paper aims to compare profiles of social enterprises as they are emerging in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea and to highlight common features across countries allowing the identification of (partly) East‐Asian‐specific model(s) of social enterprise.

The paper first examines the socio‐economic contexts in which new public policies and new NPOs' initiatives were launched to offer innovative solutions to current challenges, especially unemployment. Interactions between Eastern Asia and Western regions (EU, USA) are also analysed as to experiments and conceptions of social enterprise. In order to identify major convergences and divergences across countries in Eastern Asia, we rely on country studies presented in this issue as well as on a broad literature, related more specifically to the development and roles of NPOs and co‐operatives in this region.

Five major models of social enterprise with specific dynamics can be identified in Eastern Asia. State influence and driving forces linked to public policies make these models rather different from the typical US social enterprise; as for the role of civil society, it seems weaker than in Western contexts but is growing significantly. Co‐operative movements also play a significant role in shaping some social enterprise models. Finally, two conditions identified as critical for the development of social economy organisations – a “condition of necessity” and a “condition of shared destiny” – seem to be valid in Eastern Asia as well, provided they are properly reinterpreted.

As in other regions, the concept of social enterprise itself only begins to be used in Eastern Asia, and no specific legislation deals explicitly with social enterprise as such, except in South Korea. So the main challenge was to identify all categories of initiatives which can be described as part of the new “social enterprise phenomenon”. The understanding of the latter may evolve over time and vary across countries.

The present analysis, just like the other four papers in this issue, is a result of a joint research project of the EMES European Research Network and East‐Asian researchers. Country studies were conducted along common broad guidelines, and they were discussed and revised at various stages, which insured a fairly good level of comparability. Moreover, this seems to be the first systematic comparative analysis on social enterprise involving all industrialised countries in Eastern Asia.

This paper seeks to address emerging practices of social enterprises (SEs) in China by exploring the institutional context, organisational features and legislative framework of this new phenomenon.

The analysis is based on data drawn from secondary sources (laws and regulations, forum transcripts and news reports) and primary evidence (in‐depth study of six SE cases).

The various kinds of SEs are highly diversified in terms of social mission, organisational nature, legal form, and operational pattern; the institutional context is underdeveloped, providing growing but still limited financial, intellectual, technical, and human resources; although it allows increasing space for diversified development dynamics of SEs, the legislative system regulating SEs is still flawed in several vital ways.

This paper relies heavily on qualitative research methods to make a preliminary assessment of the development of China's SEs. Neither primary nor secondary data sources collected for this paper can be used to draw any general conclusion of statistical significance.

The paper sheds light on the overall landscape of the recent development of SEs in China, providing a descriptive and normative foundation for cross‐country comparative studies and quantitative, explanatory analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to review the development and impact of the Social Enterprise Journal (SEJ) from its inception in 2005 until present day.

The paper analyses the thematic content of SEJ and its impact data from 2005 until 2017.

SEJ has broken new ground in the study of social enterprise (SE). It was the first journal back in 2005 to commence the exploration of this field and since has been the first to publish works on defining SE, their performance management, critical perspectives plus international differences. The paper shows that in the early years, SEJ was dominated by conceptual work aiming to understand SE plus their governance and performance management, which was mainly based on UK descriptive case studies and uncritical. By 2010, SEJ became established internationally with various issues being 100 per cent dominated by international aspects of SE. Recent more critical work has also enabled a process of “myth busting” in the SE field. This paper also shows the growth of SEJ in downloads and citations.

The paper demonstrates the important role SEJ has played in both improving practice and informing policy.

The paper is the first to review the development and impact of SEJ.

Twelve years ago, the concept of social enterprise was rarely discussed in Europe, however it is now making significant breakthroughs in European Union (EU) countries. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to synthesize major evolutions experienced by social enterprises across Europe and the key challenges they are facing; and specific members of the EMES European Research Network provide a more in‐depth update as to current trends and debates in their respective countries

This paper is based on a comparative analysis of the different institutions (legal frameworks, public policies, supporting structures, public procurement policies …) which support the development of social enterprises in the different EU countries. To delimit the field, the paper relies on the “ideal‐type” social enterprise as defined by the EMES network: “Social enterprises are not‐for‐profit private organizations providing goods or services directly related to their explicit aim to benefit the community. They rely on a collective dynamics involving various types of stakeholders in their governing bodies, they place a high value on their autonomy and they bear economic risks linked to their activity”.

It was found that although the concept of social enterprise itself has not gained the same recognition in all EU countries (and is even still poorly understood in several of them), the reality is that growth and social enterprise are being experienced in most EU countries.

If the concept of social enterprise is on the public agenda of several EU countries, the understanding as well as the institutions to support their development vary from one country to the other. This paper provides a comparative analysis of this heterogeneous but rich landscape.

On the basis of a survey conducted in 2010,the purpose of this paper is to discuss the latest developments of social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan by analysing the typology and nature of social enterprises in these two regions, their operating context, and their perceived social impacts. The institutional context and governmental policies appear to have had a great influence on the development of social enterprise in both these Chinese communities.

Data were collected through a survey conducted in both Hong Kong and Taiwan in 2010. A total of 116 completed questionnaires (return rate: 27.2 per cent) in Taiwan and 45 completed questionnaires (return rate 53.0 per cent) in Hong Kong were received.

Social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan are in a “growth stage”, and they are becoming more diversified in both regions. Solving the problem of unemployment and alleviating poverty appear to be two major reasons pursued by NPOs when they set up a social enterprise. In addition, the analysis also revealed that the significance of social enterprises for helping marginal groups is increasingly recognised and that self‐reliance is very much emphasised in both regions. Beside these similarities, there are also great differences between social enterprises in the two regions, be it in terms of respective importance, institutional context, marketing strategies or government policies.

By tracking the growth and development of social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan from 2006 to 2010, this paper attempts to analyse the similarities and diversities of social enterprises in these two Chinese communities. It also attempts to shed light on the impacts of the institutional context and the governmental policies on shaping the future development of social enterprises.