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.

The overall objective of this research was to elucidate the ecosystem of women’s health social enterprises (WHSEs) based in the United States. The Aim I was to conduct a secondary data analysis of a random national sample of non-profit WHSEs based in the United States regarding their characteristics and areas of intervention. Aim II was to conduct a qualitative assessment of a sample of WHSEs based in the United States regarding their perspectives on the ecosystem of WHSEs. Aim I utilized the GuideStar database and assessed enterprise size, geographic location, financial distress, health intervention area, and health activity category using descriptive statistics, statistical tests, and multivariable regression analysis via SPSS. Aim II utilized in-depth interviewing and grounded theory analysis via MAXQDA 2018 to identify novel themes and core categories while using an established framework for mapping social enterprise ecosystems as a scaffold.

Aim I findings suggest that WHSE activity is more predominant in the south region of the United States but not geographically concentrated around cities previously identified as social enterprise hubs. WHSEs take a comprehensive approach to women’s health, often simultaneously focusing on multiple areas of health interventions. Although most WHSEs demonstrate a risk for financial distress, very few exhibited severe risk. Risk for financial distress was not significantly associated with any of the measured enterprise characteristics. Aim II generated four core categories of findings that describe the ecosystem of WHSE: (1) comprehensive, community-based, and culturally adaptive care; (2) interdependent innovation in systems, finances, and communication; (3) interdisciplinary, cross-enterprise collaboration; and (4) women’s health as the foundation for family and population health. These findings are consistent with the three-failures theory for non-profit organizations, particularly that WHSEs address government failure by focusing on the unmet women’s health needs of the underserved populations (in contrast to the supply of services supported by the median voter) and address the market failure of over exclusion through strategies such as cross-subsidization and price discrimination. While WHSEs operate with levels of financial risk and are subject to the voluntary sector failure of philanthropic insufficiency, the data also show that they act to remediate other threats of voluntary failure.

Aim I findings highlight the importance of understanding financial performance of WHSEs. Also, lack of significant associations between our assessed enterprise characteristics and their financial risk suggests need for additional research to identify factors that influence financial performance of WHSE. Aim II findings show that WHSEs are currently engaged in complex care coordination and comprehensive biopsychosocial care for women and their families, suggesting that these enterprises may serve as a model for improving women’s health and health care. The community-oriented and interdisciplinary nature of WHSE as highlighted by our study may also serve as a unique approach for research and education purposes. Additional research on the ecosystem of WHSE is needed in order to better inform generalizability of our findings and to elucidate how WHSE interventions may be integrated into policies and practices to improve women’s health.

In the recent 2015 report by Social Enterprise UK – Think Global Trade Social – it is argued that social enterprises have an important role to play in the achievement of the UN’s new sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, with 17 SDGs and no less than 169 associated targets, understanding how social enterprises can contribute to the achievement of these goals remains challenging, particularly given the diversity of social enterprise models that exist globally. This chapter contributes toward addressing this problem by introducing a framework for conceptualising how social enterprises can contribute to the SDGs, illustrated with global examples. The chapter begins by reviewing what has been written about social enterprises and the SDGs. This is followed by the development and presentation of the conceptual framework. Finally, conclusions and areas for future research on social enterprises and the SDGs are identified.

This article has two objectives: to clarify the organizational and managerial differences between social entrepreneurship and social enterprises and to investigate the role of social enterprises and their impacts on the welfare systems of European countries. The authors describe social entrepreneurship as a trend across all forms of enterprises and social enterprise as the institutionalization of a new typology that is distinguished by specific features from its inception. By relying on a theoretical analysis, the article supports the interpretation of social enterprise as an innovative institutional tool that can have a role in supporting growth and welfare. The essential features of social enterprise, which justify their competitiveness vis-à-vis public and for-profit organizations in the production and delivery of general-interest services, are thoroughly investigated. The article sheds light on the contribution of social enterprises to reforming and democratizing the traditional European welfare systems, which – since the 1980s – have revealed their inability to distribute welfare services inclusively and cope with the growing phenomena of poverty and inequalities.

As complex, intractable social problems continue to intensify, organizations increasingly respond with novel approaches that bridge multiple institutional spheres and combine forms, identities, and logics that would conventionally not go together, creating hybridity. Scholarly research on this phenomenon has expanded in tandem, raising questions about how the concept of organizational hybridity can maintain analytical clarity while accommodating a diverse range of empirical manifestations. Reviewing and integrating extant literature, the authors argue that to achieve both analytical rigor and real-world relevance, research must account for variation in how hybridity is organizationally configured, temporally situated, and institutionally embedded. The authors develop a framework that captures this heterogeneity and discuss three key implications for hybridity research: drawing on multiple theoretical lenses, examining varied empirical contexts, and adopting multi-level and dynamic perspectives.

The purpose of this chapter is to present and review: (a) the development of social entrepreneurship in Croatia over the last 10 years; (b) the current state and perspective of the development of social entrepreneurship; and (c) strategic documents related to social entrepreneurship with an emphasis on the Strategy for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship 2015–2020 which was an essential document for the promotion and financing of social entrepreneurship. At the beginning of the chapter, the historical reasons for the emergence of the concept of social entrepreneurship are briefly described. Next, entrepreneurship is defined, then entrepreneur, and later the concepts of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneur are introduced with an emphasis on the differences between commercial and social entrepreneurship. After the basic concepts have been explained, the chapter focusses on social entrepreneurship in Croatia: (a) the types of legal forms in which a social enterprise can be initiated, are listed due to the absence of a separate legal form in Croatian legislation; (b) several examples of positive practices were presented; and (c) the Social Entrepreneurship Development Strategy was analysed by comparing planned and executed activities and allocated and implemented resources. Unfortunately, the strategy did not achieve the expected effect and boosted social entrepreneurship’s development, which slowed growth. Social entrepreneurship in Croatia is still in its initial development phase, and a colossal opportunity has been missed. The government and other stakeholders must make additional efforts to develop social entrepreneurship in Croatia.