Search results

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.

In this book chapter, we analyse social entrepreneurship (SE) development in the Western Balkans and present a regional overview. SE has become a globally known contributor to alleviating societal, economic, social, and environmental concerns. Its influence on increasing people’s quality of life has put the concept on a pedestal, and the Balkans are no different. The new advances have increased the efforts from the third sector in advocating for increased visibility, recognition, and support for social enterprises (SEs) as contributors to the development of resilient communities and facilitating the countries’ recovery from economic, social, and environmental crises. To provide a regional development overview, we use the institutional perspective. We base the analysis on data by applying qualitative methods, including document analysis, conference speeches, round tables, consultations, and other impactful events conducted over the last decade. The evidence suggests that the Western Balkan countries are similar in their development and lack a clear vision, a strategic pathway, and sustainable solutions to accelerate the sector’s growth. The awareness of the SEs’ contributions is still low, hindering their impact and potential scalability. Raising awareness campaigns is much needed to increase SEs’ visibility, recognition, revenues, and financial sustainability. Intersectoral collaboration is not at a suitable level, and the coordination and partnerships between the SE actors are lacking. The region needs to make a significant and consistent effort to facilitate the sector’s development and support SEs to provide the expected societal impact.

Prior research has documented the importance of the state and social movements for the emergence and proliferation of alternative organizational forms. Yet, we lack a comprehensive and interactive understanding of the larger environment that sustains cooperatives and other collectivist-democratic organizations. Using the example of Brazil’s Solidarity Economy Movement, a longstanding social movement to address poverty and inequality, we describe how a multilevel ecosystem of organizations and institutions creates conditions favorable for the growth of alternative organizational forms – in this context, democratic cooperatives that the Movement calls solidarity economy enterprises (SEEs). Drawing from archival data, interviews, and a government survey of over 19,000 SEEs between 2005 and 2012, we map out the key actors at each level of the ecosystem, identifying three primary mechanisms by which these actors collectively enabled the creation and development of SEEs: (1) providing glue for action; (2) organizing for action; and (3) engaging in action. These mechanisms, in turn, allowed for greater communication and cohesion and the exchange of information and experiences among the Movement’s participants, thereby enhancing their interconnectedness and the institutionalization of their practices.

In debates about recycling and the circular economy, the role of existing organisations that already facilitate the circulation of materials through society can be neglected. Indeed, the social enterprise sector may currently be more significant than the commercial waste management sector in facilitating the circular economy within Australia. Drawing on interviews with organisations involved in collecting and reprocessing used electronics and scrap metal in Australia, the authors detail some of the synergies and tensions between the social enterprises and commercial organisations that have emerged as recycling gains traction through government policy and various forms of product stewardship. The authors conclude with suggestions for policy and governance approaches most likely to facilitate productive and perhaps symbiotic relationships between the two sectors in the future.