Content uploaded by Rafael Chaves-Avila
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rafael Chaves-Avila
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Comité économique et social européen
European Economic and Social Committee
Comité économique et social européen
European Economic and Social Committee
EN
QE-30-12-790-EN-C
© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99
1040 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGIË
www.eesc.europa.eu
Published by: “Visits and Publications” Unit
EESC-2012-55-EN
REG.NO. BE - BXL - 27
DOI: 10.2864/19534
ENEN
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Report drawn up for the European Economic and Social Committee by the International
Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy
(CIRIEC)
2
Authors: - José Luis Monzón Campos
- Rafael Chaves Ávila
Committee of Experts: - Danièle Demoustier
- Roger Spear
- Alberto Zevi
- Chiara Carini
- Magdalena Huncova
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
3
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
SHORT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword: Mr Luca Jahier, President of the Various Interests Group of the European
Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and Mr Miguel Ángel Cabra de Luna,
Spokesperson of the Social Economy Category of the EESC
Preface
1. Introduction and objectives
2. Historical evolution of the concept of the social economy
3. Identifying the actors and groups included in the concept of the social economy
4. The main theoretical approaches related to the social economy
5. Comparative analysis of the prevailing definitions relating to the concept of the social
economy in each European Union Member State, acceding and candidate country
6. The social economy in the European Union and in the acceding/candidate countries in
figures
7. The legal framework governing social economy actors in European Union countries
and acceding/candidate countries and the public policies in place, with a focus on recent
new national legislation on the social economy
8. The social economy in a Europe amid global crisis
9. European Union Policies and the social economy, with a focus on the Europe 2020
strategy: facts and impact
10. Challenges and conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
4
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword: Mr Luca Jahier, President of the Various Interests Group of the European Economic
and Social Committee (EESC) and Mr Miguel Ángel Cabra de Luna, Spokesperson of the
Social Economy Category of the EESC
Preface
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1. Introduction and objectives
1.2. Methods
1.3. Structure and summary of the report
Chapter 2. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE SOCIAL
ECONOMY
2.1. Popular associations and cooperatives at the historical origin of the social economy
2.2. Scope and field of activity of the social economy
2.3. Present-day identification and institutional recognition of the social economy
Chapter 3. IDENTIFYING THE ACTORS AND GROUPS INCLUDED IN THE
CONCEPT OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY
3.1. The social economy in the national accounts systems
3.2. A definition of the social economy that fits in with the national accounts systems
3.3. The market or business sub-sector of the social economy
3.4. The non-market sub-sector of the social economy
3.5. The social economy: pluralism and shared core identity
Chapter 4. THE MAIN THEORETICAL APPROACHES RELATED TO THE SOCIAL
ECONOMY
4.1. The third sector as a meeting point
4.2. The non-profit organisation approach
4.3. The solidarity economy approach
4.4. The social enterprises approach
4.5. Other approaches
4.6. Similarities and differences between these approaches and the concept of the social
economy
Chapter 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PREVAILING DEFINITIONS
RELATING TO THE CONCEPT OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EACH EUROPEAN
UNION MEMBER STATE, ACCEDING AND CANDIDATE COUNTRY
5.1. The prevailing concepts in each country
5.2. The actors in the social economy in EU Member States
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
5
Chapter 6. THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND IN THE
ACCEDING/CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN FIGURES
Chapter 7. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING SOCIAL ECONOMY ACTORS
IN EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES AND ACCEDING/CANDIDATE COUNTRIES
AND THE PUBLIC POLICIES IN PLACE, WITH A FOCUS ON RECENT NEW
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE SOCIAL ECONOMY
7.1. Legislation governing social economy actors in the European Union
7.2. Public policies towards the social economy in European Union countries
7.3. New national legislation on the social economy (Spain, Portugal, and social enterprises
legislation)
Chapter 8. THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN A EUROPE AMID GLOBAL CRISIS
8.1. The social economy amid cyclical and structural crisis
8.2. The social economy amid financial crisis
8.3. The social economy amid an economic and employment crisis
8.4. The social economy amid a public sector and welfare state crisis
Chapter 9. EUROPEAN UNION POLICIES AND THE SOCIAL ECONOMY, WITH A
FOCUS ON THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY: FACTS AND IMPACT
9.1. The social economy in European Union policies: facts and perception
9.2. The social economy in the Europe 2020 Strategy
9.3. Recent European Union initiatives concerning the social economy
Chapter 10. CHALLENGES AND CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
Correspondents
Glossary
6
FOREWORD by Luca JAHIER
As President of the Various Interests Group of the European Economic and Social Committee
(EESC) I would like to strongly welcome this study on the state of the Social Economy in the
European Union, which was commissioned by the EESC and carried out by CIRIEC. Since the
previous study on the same topic published in 2008, much has changed in the European Union
and it was considered necessary to re-examine the scope and impact of the sector, both in the
EU Member States and in the acceding/candidate countries (Croatia and Iceland respectively).
Moreover, 2012 is the UN International Year of Cooperatives and an opportunity for the entire
social economy sector to demonstrate its contribution to our societies and our economies.
Undoubtedly, the social economy is a sector which makes a significant contribution to
employment creation, sustainable growth and to a fairer income and wealth distribution. It is a
sector which is able to combine profitability with social inclusion and democratic systems of
governance, working alongside the public and private sectors in matching services to needs.
Crucially, it is a sector which has weathered the economic crisis much better that others and is
increasingly gaining recognition at the European level.
Nonetheless, much still needs to be done in increasing understanding, in raising awareness and
in building public trust in the sector. A first step in this process is to fully comprehend the scope
and scale of the social economy within the European Union and for this reason it has been
necessary to revisit the facts and figures. Armed with this information, we must now strive for
unity and a new identity for the sector, despite its multiple dimensions. We must reinforce its
profile, highlighting its economic and social potential as a solution to the current economic and
social crises and as an instrument for positive change. I call on all relevant stakeholders to work
together to achieve this!
Luca JAHIER
President of the Various Interests Group
European Economic and Social Committee
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
7
FOREWORD by Miguel Ángel CABRA DE LUNA
Four years on we have the pleasure to publish an update of the EESC study on The Social
Economy in the EU. Once again, the objective is to provide an overview of the sector in the EU,
both from a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. This time we have extended it to the
current 27 Member States plus the acceding/candidate countries (Croatia and Iceland
respectively).
The EESC thus reinforces its commitment to the recognition and promotion of the Social
Economy, a sector that not only constitutes an important pillar in terms of employment and
social cohesion across Europe, but which is also key to achieving the goals of the Europe 2020
Strategy.
As this study demonstrates, Social Economy enterprises in their diverse forms (including social
enterprises) play an important role in increasing the competitiveness and efficiency of the
European economy in many different ways: through directing disperse and idle resources
towards economic activity, mobilising resources at the local level, strengthening the culture of
entrepreneurship, eliminating market rigidities, encouraging the flexibilisation of markets,
promoting the multilocalisation of production, just to mention a few. Social Economy
enterprises also have a greater capacity to maintain employment and to avoid job losses during
difficult economic cycles, as witnessed in the current economic crisis.
In the last few years, the sector has also been subject to important improvements in terms of
political and legal recognition, both at the EU level (Single Market Act, Social Business
Initiative, European Foundation Statute, Social Entrepreneurship Funds, etc.) and at the national
level (e.g. the recent Spanish Law on the Social Economy). I hope that this study will positively
contribute to gathering further momentum for the recognition of the Social Economy.
Miguel Ángel CABRA DE LUNA
Spokesperson of the Social Economy Category
of the European Economic and Social Committee
8
PREFACE
In 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) commissioned a report
from the International Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social and
Cooperative Economy (CIRIEC) in order to take stock of the social economy in the 25 Member
States of the European Union. One requirement of this report was that it pinpoint a core identity
shared by all the companies and organisations in this sphere. Its purpose was practical: to
visualise and more clearly identify the social economy (SE). Questions addressed by the report
include: which? How many? Where? How have they developed? How large or important are
they? How do the public and governments see them? What problems do they solve and how do
they contribute to the creation and equitable distribution of wealth and to social cohesion and
welfare?
In 2011 the EESC decided to update the report to include the two new Member States
Bulgaria and Romania, and the two acceding and candidate countries Croatia and Iceland
respectively, alongside the earlier members. Once more, it commissioned CIRIEC to carry out
the work, the results of which are presented in this report.
The report has been written by two experts from CIRIEC. The directors and authors,
José Luis Monzón and Rafael Chaves, are both members of the Institute of the Social and
Cooperative Economy of the University of Valencia (IUDESCOOP-UV) and of the CIRIEC
International Scientific Committee for the Social Economy.
As the report's authors we have had the permanent support and advice of a Committee
of Experts composed of Danièle Demoustier (Institut d'Études Politiques de Grenoble, France),
Roger Spear (Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom), Alberto Zevi (Italy), Chiara
Carini (Euricse, Italy) and Magdalena Huncova (Czech Republic). The advice of each has been
very valuable at every stage: designing the work schedule, deciding on the methodology,
drawing up questionnaires and supervising the final report.
We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Social Economy Category
of the European Economic and Social Committee, who very kindly discussed an Intermediate
Report during their meeting of 16 March 2012 in Brussels. Their information, observations and
advice have been most useful in carrying out and concluding the work.
This report would not have been possible without the support and involvement of the
European network of national sections of CIRIEC and CIRIEC's Scientific Committee for the
SE. Thanks to them we were able to set up a very large network of correspondents and co-
workers in all countries of the European Union and to benefit from CIRIEC's long record of
research in key theoretical issues. We are indebted to all their relevant works.
One of the central objectives of the report, a comparative analysis of the current
situation of the SE by country, could not have been achieved without the decisive help of
correspondents – academics, sector experts and highly-placed civil servants in the 27 Member
States and two candidates for EU membership (Croatia and Iceland) – listed at the end of this
Report. All of them answered a comprehensive questionnaire on the SE in their respective
countries, carrying out this work with great professionalism and generosity. Ben Telfer
(ICMIF), Fabienne Fecher (Belgium), Luca Jahier (Italy), Joao Leite (Portugal), Gurli Jakobsen
(Denmark), Edith Archambault (France), Carmen Comos (Spain), Günther Lorentz (Germany),
Paul A. Jones (United Kingdom) and Peter Herrmann (Ireland) all became actively involved in
the survey process, offering us extremely useful information and advice. And finally, B. Gonda,
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
9
G. Szocialis, K. Joo and T. Ibolya, all from Hungary, and Ancuta Vamesu from the Institute for
Social Economy of Romania, provided useful information about the Social Economy in the new
European Union countries.
Pepe Monzón of CIRIEC-España played a decisive role in setting up and coordinating the
network of correspondents. We are very pleased to acknowledge the excellent work he has
done.
Ana Ramón of CIRIEC-España's administrative services 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 translated into English by Gina Hardinge and the
company B.I.Europa. Bernard Thiry, the Director of CIRIEC, placed the entire network of the
organisation at our disposal and involved himself personally in finding useful information and
improving the content of the report.
We feel privileged to have been given the opportunity to direct the preparation of this
report which, we hope, will serve to boost awareness of the SE as one of the pillars of the
European edifice. The SE centres on people, human beings, who are its reason for being and the
goal of its activities. The SE is the economy of citizens who take charge of and are responsible
for their own destinies. In the SE, men and women take decisions equally. After all is said and
done, it is they who make history.
José Luis Monzón and Rafael Chaves
10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Introduction and objectives
1.2 Methods
1.3 Structure and summary of the report
1.1 Introduction and objectives
The general objective of this report is to update the study "The Social Economy in the
European Union" published in 2008 by the European Economic and Social Committee,
expanding its scope to include all 27 of the current EU Member States and the
acceding/candidate countries (Croatia and Iceland respectively), and examining the definitions,
state, contribution, legal instruments and public policies surrounding the social economy (SE) as
well as the impact of the economic crisis.
To meet the latter objective, the report makes use of three intermediate objectives or tools
that have not been sufficiently defined until now. The first is to establish a clear, rigorous
definition of the SE as a concept, and of the different classes of company and organisation that
form part of it.
The second intermediate objective is to identify the different agents which, irrespective of
their legal form, form part of the SE in each EU Member State on the basis of the definition
established in this report, and to compare the different national definitions used in relation to the
SE concept.
The third intermediate objective is to provide macro-economic data on the SE in the 27
Member States and the two candidate countries, to examine recent national legislation on the
SE, to conduct a comparative analysis at national level of current concepts and perceptions of
the SE in each country, and to analyse how the social economy can and will contribute to
implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy.
1.2 Methods
The report has been prepared and written by Rafael Chaves and José Luis Monzón of
CIRIEC, with advice from a Committee of Experts made up of D. Demoustier (France), R.
Spear (United Kingdom), Alberto Zevi (Italy), Chiara Carini (Italy) and Magdalena Huncova
(Czech Republic), who have discussed the work schedule as a whole, the methodology and the
proposed final report with the directors.
Because this is an update, most parts of the document draw on the previous report
published in 2008: "The Social Economy in the European Union". In terms of methodology, 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 Co-operatives and
Mutual Societies as the basis for establishing a definition of the SE as a whole on which there is
broad political and scientific consensus.
Concerning the second of the report's objectives, a major field study was conducted in
February, March and April 2012 in the form of a questionnaire sent out to the 27 EU Member
States and the acceding/candidate countries. It was sent to privileged witnesses with an expert
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
11
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-level civil servants with
responsibilities relating to the SE. The results have been very satisfactory: 52 completed
questionnaires have been collected from 26 countries. Contributions from such European
organizations as Cooperatives Europe, COGECA and ICMIF have helped to plug gaps in the
data.
Table 1.1. Questionnaires received
Questionnaires
Austria 1
Belgium 3
Bulgaria 2
Cyprus 0
Czech Republic 3
Denmark 1
Estonia 0
Finland 1
France 2
Germany 4
Greece 2
Hungary 4
Ireland 2
Italy 2
Latvia 1
Lithuania 1
Luxembourg 0
Malta 1
Netherlands 1
Poland 3
Portugal 1
Romania 2
Slovakia 3
Slovenia 2
Spain 3
Sweden 1
United Kingdom 2
Acceding and Candidate Countries
Croatia 3
Iceland 1
With regard to the third intermediate objective of the report – identifying public policies,
examining recent national legislation on the social economy, analysing the impact of the
economic crisis on the social economy and studying how the social economy can and will
contribute to implementation of the "Europe 2020 Strategy" – this was achieved by consulting
the Committee of Experts and sector experts, using information supplied in the questionnaires,
and holding discussions with the Committee of Experts and within the CIRIEC Scientific
Committee for the Social Economy.
12
1.3 Structure and summary of the report
The report has been structured as follows:
Following the first chapter introducing the report and its objectives, Chapter 2 presents
the historical evolution of the social economy as a concept, including the most recent
information on its recognition in national accounts systems.
Chapter 3 begins by formulating a definition of the social economy that fits in with the
national accounts systems, before identifying the major groups of agents in the social economy
on this basis.
Chapter 4 summarises the main theoretical approaches to the social economy, establishing
the similarities and differences between them.
Chapter 5 and 6 present an overview of the current situation of the social economy in the
EU, providing a comparative analysis of the perceptions of the social economy in each country
and macro-economic data on the social economy in the 27 Member States and the two candidate
countries.
Chapters 7, 8 and 9 present an overview of recent national legislation on the social
economy, public policies that each country has developed in relation to the social economy,
followed by a review of the impact of the economic crisis and the contribution of the social
economy to implementation of the "Europe 2020 Strategy".
Finally, Chapter 10 analyses the challenges and trends and presents conclusions. The
report concludes with a list of bibliographical references and appendices.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
13
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE SOCIAL
ECONOMY
2.1. Popular associations and cooperatives at the historical origin of the social economy
2.2. Present-day scope and field of activity of the social economy
2.3. Present-day identification and institutional recognition of the social economy
2.1. Popular associations and cooperatives at the historical origin of the social
economy
As an activity, the social economy (SE) is historically linked to popular associations and
cooperatives, which make up its backbone. The system of values and the principles of conduct
of the popular associations, reflected in the historical cooperative movement, are those which
have informed the modern concept of the SE, which is structured around three large families of
organisations: cooperatives, mutual societies and associations, with the recent addition of
foundations. In reality, at their historical roots these great families were interlinked expressions
of a single impulse: the response of the most vulnerable and defenceless social groups, through
self-help organisations, to the new living conditions1 created by the development of industrial
society in the 18th and 19th centuries. Cooperatives, mutual assistance societies and resistance
societies reflected the three directions that this associative impulse took (López Castellano,
2003).
Although charity (charity foundations, brotherhoods and hospitals) and mutual assistance
organisations had seen considerable growth throughout the Middle Ages, it was in the 19th
century that popular associations, cooperatives and mutual societies acquired extraordinary
impetus through initiatives launched by the working classes. In Britain, for instance, the number
of Friendly Societies multiplied in the 1790s. Throughout Europe, numerous mutual provident
societies and mutual assistance societies were set up (Gueslin, 1987). In Latin American
countries such as Uruguay and Argentina, the mutualist movement grew considerably during the
second half of the 19th century (Solà i Gussinyer, 2003).
The first stirrings of cooperative experiments in Britain flowered in the late 18th and early
19th centuries as a spontaneous reaction by industrial workers to the difficulties of their harsh
living conditions. However, the socialist thinking developed by Robert Owen and Ricardian
anti-capitalists such as William Thompson, George Mudie, William King, Thomas Hodgskin,
John Gray and John Francis Bray would soon exert considerable influence on the cooperative
1 The Common Company of Ampelakia (Greece) is considered the first modern cooperative in the
world. It was founded between 1750 and 1770 as the small cotton-growing and red yarn-producing
fellowships (syntrofies) in 22 villages in the Tempi area united in 1772 to avoid unnecessary rivalry and
competition. It became a major enterprise, with 6000 members, 24 factories and 17 branches throughout
Europe, from St. Petersburg and London to Smyrna. Its members benefited from social insurance, health
facilities, schools and libraries and the Free University of Ampelakia. It was dissolved in 1812 under the
combined pressure of heavy taxes and economic and technical developments in the yarn industry
(Kalitsounakis, 1929: 224-231, quoted in Nasioulas, 2010:64).
14
movement2, and from 1824 to 1835 a close connection was established between this movement
and trade unions, both being expressions of a single workers' movement and having the same
objective: emancipation of the working classes. The eight Co-operative Congresses held in
Britain between 1831 and 1835 coordinated both the cooperatives and the trade union
movement. Indeed, the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union was formed at one of these
congresses, uniting all the British trade unions (Monzón, 1989; Cole, 1945).
William King intervened directly and decisively in the development of the cooperative
movement in Britain and influenced the well-known cooperative that was founded in Rochdale
(England) in 1844 by 28 workers, six of whom were disciples of Owen (Monzón, 2003). The
famous cooperative principles that governed the workings of the Rochdale Pioneers were
adopted by all kinds of cooperatives, which created the International Cooperative Alliance
(ICA) in London in 1895, and which have made a notable contribution to the development of
the modern concept of the SE3.
According to the 1995 ICA Congress in Manchester, these Principles identify
cooperatives as democratic organisations in which the decisions are in the hands of a majority of
user members of the cooperativised activity, so investor or capitalist members, if involved, are
not allowed to form a majority and surpluses are not allocated according to any criteria of
proportionality to capital. Equal voting rights, limited compensation for the share of capital that
user members are obliged to subscribe and the creation, in many cases, of indivisible reserves
that cannot be distributed even if the organisation is dissolved, are further ways in which
cooperatives differ from other companies.
From Rochdale onwards, cooperatives have attracted the attention of different schools of
thought. Indeed, transcendence of ideological boundaries and analytical pluralism are among the
characteristics of the literature addressing this phenomenon. Utopian socialists, Ricardian
socialists, social Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) and social liberals, as well as eminent
classical, Marxist and neo-classical economists, have analysed this heterodox type of company
extensively.
In the multi-faceted expression of popular associationism, Britain is no exception. In
continental Europe, workers' associationism manifested itself in the growth of mutualist and
cooperative initiatives. In Germany, cooperativism boomed in rural and urban areas, together
with mutual assistance societies. The ideas of the workers' industrial association movement
were widely disseminated in Germany in the mid 19th century by Ludwig Gall, Friedrich
Harkort and Stephan Born (Monzón, 1989; Bravo, 1976; Rubel, 1977)4. Although one of the
first German cooperatives for which there are references was set up by a group of weavers and
spinners5, cooperativism developed in urban areas through the work of Victor-Aimé Huber and
Schulze-Delitzsch, and in rural areas by Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, who set up and spread
the Darlehenskassenvereine credit unions. The first of these was founded in 1862 in Anhausen
and its spectacular growth culminated in 1877 with the founding of the German Federation of
Rural Cooperatives of the Raiffeisen type (Monzón, 1989). At the same time, both workers'
mutual assistance societies and rural mutualism became established institutions in German
society and were regulated by an imperial law of 1876 (Solà I Gussinyer, 2003).
2 In 1821 George Mudie published the first Owenian cooperativist newspaper, The Economist. From
1828 to 1830, in Brighton, William King published a monthly periodical, The Co-operator, which did
much to spread cooperative ideas (Monzón, 1989).
3 A detailed analysis of the Rochdale experience and its operating principles can be found in Monzón
(1989).
4 Bravo, G.M (1976): Historia del socialismo, 1789-1848, Ariel, Barcelona
Rubel, M (1977): “Allemagne et coopération”, Archives Internationales de Sociologie de la
Coopération et du Développement, Nº 41-42.
5 This was the Ermunterung consumers' cooperative, founded in Chemnitz in 1845 (Hesselbach, W.
(1978): Las empresas de la economía de interés general, Siglo XXI).
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
15
In Spain, popular associationism, mutualism and cooperativism forged strong links as
they expanded. They were often set up by the same groups, as in the case of the weavers of
Barcelona. Their Asociación de Tejedores or Weavers' Association, the first trade union in
Spain, was founded in 1840, at the same time as the Asociación Mutua de Tejedores mutual
provident society, which in 1842 created the Compañía Fabril de Tejedores. This is considered
the first production cooperative in Spain and was a mixture of "workers' production society and
mutual assistance society" (Reventos, 1960).
In Italy, mutual assistance societies were very numerous in the middle third of the 19th
century, preceding the first cooperatives. It was precisely a mutual assistance society, the
Società operaia di Torino, that in 1853 set up the first consumers' cooperative in Italy, the
magazzino di previdenza di Torino, to defend the purchasing power of its members' wages.
Similar instances of friendly societies' creating consumers' cooperatives ensued in other Italian
cities (De Jaco, 1979).
Nonetheless, of all the European countries, France is probably the one where the origins
of the SE are most visibly a manifestation of popular associative movements and inseparable
from these. Indeed, the emergence of cooperatives and mutual societies during the first half of
the 19th century cannot be explained without considering the central role of popular
associationism, which in its industrial associationism version found its driving force in Claude-
Henri de Saint-Simon, an exponent of one of the French socialist currents.
Under the influence of the associationist ideas of Saint-Simon and his followers,
numerous workers' associations were created in France from the 1830s onwards and although
the term 'co-operation' was introduced into France in 18266 by Joseph Rey, an Owenite, during
most of the 19th century production cooperatives were known as 'workers' production
associations'7. The first significant workers' cooperative in France, for instance, the Association
Chrétienne des Bijoutiers en Doré, founded in Paris in 18348, was started by Jean-Phillipe
Buchez, a disciple of Saint-Simon. Its founding date and the name of its 'father' have the
advantage of immediately locating the workers' production cooperatives in the environment in
which they originated: the first half of the 19th century, in the melting-pot of social experiments
and socialist associationist doctrines that marked the birth of the workers' movement (Vienney,
1966).
Associationism also played a fundamental part in other socialist currents, such as those
influenced by Charles Fourier, who called for society to organise itself through associations,
mutual societies and phalanxes, multi-purpose communities of workers with a comprehensive
network of multiple solidarities (Desroche, 1991). Workers' production associations also
occupied a decisive place in the thinking of Louis Blanc, who proposed that production should
be organised through the widespread establishment of state-supported, worker-controlled social
workshops (Monzón, 1989).
6 Joseph Rey was the author of the "Lettres sur le système de la Coopération mutuelle et de la
Communauté de tous les biens d’après le plan de M. Owen" The first of these letters was published in
1826 by the Saint-Simonian journal Le Producteur (Lion et Rocher, 1976).
7 Even in 1884, when the French workers' production cooperatives federated they did so under the name
of Chambre consultative des associations ouvrières de production. This was the forerunner of today's
Confédération générale des sociétés coopératives (ouvrières) de production - or General Confederation
of (Workers') Production Cooperatives.
8 This was a significant cooperative, and not only because of its considerable expansion, opening as
many as eight branches in Paris and operating for thirty-nine years, until 1873 (Monzón, 1989). It was
significant above all because of its rules, as in many aspects Buchez was ahead of the Rochdale Pioneers
in outlining the most important principles of the cooperative movement: a company based on people, not
capital, democratic organisation (one person, one vote), distribution of surpluses in proportion to work,
creation of an indivisible reserve, limits to the employment of salaried workers, etc. (Desroche, 1957).
16
Mutual assistance and mutual provident societies very quickly became widespread in 19th
century France and although their origins and activities were highly diverse, workers'
associationism was behind most of the 2,500 mutual assistance societies, with 400,000 members
and 1.6 million beneficiaries, in France in 1847 (Gueslin, 1987).
The term social economy probably appeared in economics literature for the first time in
1830. In that year the French liberal economist Charles Dunoyer published a Treatise on social
economy that advocated a moral approach to economics9. Over the 1820-1860 period, a
heterogeneous school of thought that can collectively be termed the social economists
developed in France. Most of them were influenced by the analyses of T.R. Malthus and S. de
Sismondi, regarding both the existence of 'market failures' that can lead to imbalances, and the
delimitation of the true subject of economics, which Sismondi considered to be man rather than
wealth. However, most of the social economists must be placed within the sphere of liberal
economic thinking and identified with laissez-faire principles and the institutions that the
emerging capitalism was to consolidate, including capitalist companies and markets.
As a result, the thinkers behind social economics in this period did not launch or promote
any alternative or complementary approach to capitalism. Rather, these economists developed a
theoretical approach to society and what is social, pursuing the reconciliation of morality and
economics through the moralisation of individual behaviour, as in the model of F. Le Play
(Azam, 2003), for whom the goal that economists should strive for was not welfare or wealth
but social peace (B. de Carbon, 1972).
Social economics underwent a profound reorientation during the second half of the 19th
century, through the influence of two great economists, John Stuart Mill and Leon Walras.
Mill paid considerable attention to business associationism among workers, in both its
cooperative and mutualist aspects10. In his most influential work, Principles of Political
Economy, he examined the advantages and drawbacks of workers' cooperatives in detail, calling
for this type of company to be encouraged because of its economic and moral benefits11.
Like Mill, Leon Walras considered that cooperatives can fulfil an important function in
solving social conflicts by playing a great "economic role, not by doing away with capital but by
making the world less capitalist, and a moral role, no less considerable, which consists in
introducing democracy into the workings of the production process" (Monzón, 1989).
Walras' Études d'Économie Sociale: théorie de la répartition de la richesse sociale
(Studies in Social Economy: theory of the distribution of social wealth), published in Lausanne
in 189612, marks a major break from the original social economy approach identified with F. Le
Play's model. With Walras, the social economy became both part of the science of economics13
and a field of economic activity that is prolific in cooperatives, mutual societies and
associations, as we know them today. It was at the end of the 19th century that the principal
9 In Spain, too, Lecciones de economía social by Ramón de la Sagra was published in 1840.
10 J.S. Mill made a decisive contribution to the passing of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act in
Great Britain in 1852, the first law in the world to regulate the cooperative phenomenon.
11 As well as their macroeconomic benefits, Mill maintained that workers' cooperatives would usher in a
"moral revolution" in society, as they would achieve "the healing of the standing feud between capital and
labour, the transformation of human life, … the elevation of the dignity of labour; a new sense of security
and independence in the labouring class, and the conversion of each human being's daily occupation into
a school of the social sympathies and the practical intelligence" (Mill, 1951:675; first published in 1848).
A detailed analysis of Mills' ideas on cooperatives can be found in Monzón, 1989.
12 A modern edition in French is Etudes d´économie sociale: théorie de la répartition de la richesse
sociale, Leon Walras, Economica, París, 1990.
13 "What I call social economy, as does J.S. Mill, is that part of the science of social wealth that addresses
the distribution of this wealth between individuals and the State" (B. de Carbon, 1972).
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
17
features of the modern concept of the social economy took shape, inspired by the values of
democratic associationism, mutualism and cooperativism.
2.2. Present-day scope and field of activity of the social economy
Although the SE was relatively prominent in Europe during the first third of the 20th
century14, the growth model in Western Europe during the 1945-1975 period mainly featured
the traditional private capitalist sector and the public sector. This model was the basis of the
welfare state, which addressed recognised market failures and deployed a package of policies
that proved highly effective in correcting them: income redistribution, resource allocation and
anti-cyclical policies. All of these were based on the Keynesian model in which the great social
and economic actors are the employers' federations and trade unions, together with government.
In Central and Eastern European countries, linked to the Soviet system and with
centrally-planned economies, the state was the only economic actor, leaving no space for SE
agents. Cooperatives alone had a considerable presence in some Soviet bloc countries, although
some of their traditional principles such as voluntary and open membership and democratic
organisation were totally annihilated. In the last two centuries, Czech economists came up with
social economic approaches without exclusively privileging profitability. A large number of
non-profit organisations during the period of the First Czechoslovak Republic followed this
tradition, which dated back to the 19th century15.
The consolidation of mixed economy systems did not prevent the development of a
notable array of companies and organisations – cooperatives, mutual societies and associations
– that helped to address socially important and general interest issues concerning cyclical
unemployment, geographical imbalances between rural areas and the skewing of power
relations between retail distribution organisations and consumers, among others. However,
during this period the SE practically disappeared as a significant force in the process of
harmonising economic growth with social welfare, with the state occupying centre stage. It was
not until the crisis of the welfare state and the mixed economy systems in the final quarter of the
20th century that some European countries saw a reawakening of interest in the typical
organisations of the SE, whether business alternatives to the models of the capitalist and public
sectors, such as cooperatives and mutual societies, or non-market organisations – mostly
associations and foundations16. This interest sprang from the difficulties that the market
economies were encountering in finding satisfactory solutions to such major problems as
massive long-term unemployment, social exclusion, welfare in the rural world and in run-down
urban areas, health, education, the quality of life of pensioners, sustainable growth and other
issues. These are social needs that are not being sufficiently or adequately addressed by either
private capitalist agents or the public sector, and for which no easy solution is to be found
through self-adjusting markets or traditional macroeconomic policy.
Although a series of demutualisations of major cooperatives and mutual societies has
taken place in some European countries, in recent decades, overall, the business sector of the SE
14 The zenith of its institutional recognition may be considered the Paris Exhibition of 1900, which
included a Social Economy pavilion. In 1903 Charles Gide wrote a report on this pavilion in which he
underlined the institutional importance of the SE for social progress.
15 Information from Jirí Svoboda, Cooperative Association of Czech Republic (Czech Republic).
16 In the European System of National and Regional Accounts (the 1995 ESA), non-market output is
goods and services that certain organisations supply to other units (e.g. households or families) without
charge or at prices that are not economically significant. Non-market producers are those that supply the
majority of their output free or at insignificant prices. Most private non-market producers are associations
and foundations, although many of these organisations are also market producers and, moreover, of
considerable economic importance.
18
(cooperatives and mutual societies) has seen considerable growth, as recognised by the
European Commission's Manual for drawing up the Satellite Accounts of Companies in the
Social Economy (Barea and Monzón, 2006).
Major studies have highlighted the considerable growth of the SE as a whole in Europe.
One of the most significant of these, carried out by CIRIEC for the European Commission
within the scope of the "Third System and Employment" Pilot Scheme (CIRIEC, 2000),
highlights the increasing importance of cooperatives, mutual societies and associations in
creating and maintaining employment and correcting serious economic and social imbalances.
After the Soviet bloc crumbled, many cooperatives in Eastern and Central Europe
collapsed. Furthermore, they were severely discredited in the eyes of the public. Lately,
however, a revival of citizens' initiatives to develop SE projects has been taking place and is
being reflected in proposals for legislation to boost organisations in this sector.
Spectacular growth of the SE has taken place in the field of organisations engaged in
producing what are known as social or merit goods, mainly work and social integration as well
as social services and community care. In this field, associationism and cooperativism seem to
have reencountered a common path of understanding and cooperation in many of their projects
and activities, as in the case of social enterprises, many of them cooperatives, which are already
legally recognised in various European countries, including Italy, Portugal, France, Belgium,
Spain, Poland, Finland and the United Kingdom (CECOP, 2006). Their characteristics are
summarised in section 3.2.D of this report.
In the EU-27, over 207,000 cooperatives were economically active in 2009. They are
well-established in every area of economic activity and are particularly prominent in agriculture,
financial intermediation, retailing and housing and as workers' cooperatives in the industrial,
building and service sectors. These cooperatives provide direct employment to 4.7 million
people and have 108 million members17.
Health and social welfare mutuals provide assistance and cover to over 120 million
people. Insurance mutuals have a 24% market share18.
In the EU-27, associations employed 8.6 million people in 2010; they account for over
4% of GDP and their membership comprises 50% of EU citizens (CIRIEC; Jeantet, 2006).
In conclusion, over and above its quantitative importance, in recent decades the SE has
not only asserted its ability to make an effective contribution to solving new social problems, it
has also strengthened its position as a necessary institution for stable and sustainable economic
growth, fairer income and wealth distribution, matching services to needs, increasing the value
of economic activity serving social needs, correcting labour market imbalances and, in short,
deepening and strengthening economic democracy.
2.3. Present-day identification and institutional recognition of the social economy
Identification of the SE 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)19.
17 Cooperatives Europe and CIRIEC.
18 ACME, Association des coopératives et mutuelles d’assurance, http://www.acme-eu.org.
19 CNLAMCA was set up on 11 June 1970. On 30 Octuber 2001 it became the present-day CEGES
(Conseil des entreprises, employeurs et groupements de l’économie sociale or Council of Social
Economy Companies and Institutions) (Davant, 2003).
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
19
From the end of World War II to 1977, the term 'social economy' had fallen out of everyday use,
even among the 'families' in this sector of economic activity20. 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). Coinciding with its 10th
anniversary, in June 1980 the CNLAMCA published a document, the Charte de l´économie
sociale or Social Economy Charter, which defines the SE 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 an SE sphere that hinges on three main families – cooperatives, mutual societies and
associations – which have recently been joined by foundations. In Belgium, the 1990 report of
the Walloon Social Economy Council (CWES)21 saw the SE sector as a part of the economy that
is made up of private organisations that share four characteristic features: "a) the objective is to
serve members or the community, not to make a profit; b) autonomous management; c) a
democratic decision-making process; and d) the pre-eminence of individuals and labour over
capital in the distribution of income".
• The most recent conceptual definition of the SE by its own organisations is that of the
Charter of Principles of the Social Economy promoted by the European Standing Conference on
Cooperatives, Mutual Societies, Associations and Foundations (CEP-CMAF)22, the EU-level
representative institution for these four families of social economy organisations. The principles
in question are:
• The primacy of the individual and the social objective over capital
• Voluntary and open membership
• Democratic control by membership (does not concern foundations as they have no
members)
• Combination of the interests of members/users and/or the general interest
• Defence and application of the principle of solidarity and responsibility
• Autonomous management and independence from public authorities
• Use of most of the surpluses to pursue sustainable development objectives, services of
interest to members or the general interest.
The rise of the SE has also been recognised in political and legal circles, both national
and European. France was the first country to award political and legal recognition to the
modern concept of the SE, through the December 1981 decree that created the Inter-Ministerial
Delegation to the Social Economy (Délégation interministérielle à l´Économie Sociale – DIES).
In other European countries, such as Spain, 'social economy' is a term that has also entered the
statute book. In 2011, Spain became the first European country to pass a Social Economy Act.
Greece also has a Social Economy Act and Portugal has presented a bill. The new French
20 The first time since World War II that the expression 'the social economy' was used in a similar sense
to its present meaning was in 1974, when the journal Annales de l’économie collective changed its name
to Annales de l’Économie Sociale et Cooperative, as did the organisation to which it belongs (CIRIEC:
the International Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy).
Justifying the change of name, Paul Lambert, the President of CIRIEC in 1974, pointed to "… important
activities, with considerable economic repercussions, which are neither public nor cooperative: certain
social security institutions, mutual societies, trades unions …" (Annales, 1974). In 1977 Henri Desroche
presented a Rapport de synthèse ou quelques hypothèses pour une entreprise d’économie sociale to the
CNLAMCA (Jeantet, 2006).
21 Conseil Wallon de l´Économie Sociale (1990): Rapport à l´Exécutif Régional Wallon sur le secteur de
l´Économie Sociale, Liège.
22 Déclaration finale commune des organisations européennes de l´Économie Sociale, CEP-CMAF, 20
juin 2002.
20
government which took office in June 2012 has appointed a Minister Delegate for the social
economy within the Ministry of the Economy, the Treasury and Foreign Trade. At European
level, in 1989 the European Commission published a Communication entitled "Businesses in the
Economie Sociale sector: Europe's frontier-free market". In that same year the Commission
sponsored the 1st European Social Economy Conference (Paris) and created a Social Economy
Unit within DG XXIII Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and the Social
Economy23. In 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1995 the Commission promoted European Social
Economy Conferences in Rome, Lisbon, Brussels and Seville. Numerous European conferences
have been held since then. The latest two were held in Toledo (May 2010) and Brussels
(October 2010). In 1997, the Luxembourg summit recognised the role of social economy
companies in local development and job creation and launched the "Third System and
Employment" pilot initiative, with the social economy as its field of reference24.
In the European Parliament, too, the European Parliament 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"25. In 2009 the European Parliament adopted a major report on the social
economy that recognised the SE as a social partner and as a key actor in achieving the Lisbon
Strategy objectives (the Toia Report)26. Very recently, the European Commission has taken two
important initiatives on social enterprises, a set of companies that forms an integral part of the
social economy: the Social Business Initiative (SBI) and the Proposal for a Regulation on
European Social Entrepreneurship Funds.
For its part, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has published
numerous reports and opinions on the contribution of companies in the social economy to
achieving different public policy objectives. The EESC's latest own-initiative and exploratory
opinions have included one on the variety of forms of companies, which recognises the
importance of the social economy in building Europe; one on the social economy in Latin
America (the Cabra de Luna Opinion), which considers the role of the social economy in local
development and social cohesion; and one on social entrepreneurship and social enterprise27.
Consultation by the Commission resulted in the EESC's adopting opinions on the Social
Business Initiative (SBI) (Guerini Opinion) and the Proposal for a Regulation on European
Social Entrepreneurship Funds (Rodert Opinion)28.
23 The current DG Enterprise and Industry
24 The proposed European Constitution of some years ago also mentioned the market social economy,
which takes its inspiration from the German Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Social Market Economy) concept
coined by Franz Oppenheimer and popularised in the 1960s by Ludwig Erhard. The Soziale
Marktwirtschaft lay behind the development of the German welfare state. It proposes a balance between
free market rules and social protection for individuals, as workers and citizens (Jeantet, 2006). The
Soziale Marktwirtschaft should not be confused with the concept of the SE expounded in this report or
with the market sector of the SE, which is made up of cooperatives, mutual societies and other similar
companies whose output is mainly intended for sale on the market. In the consolidation of the market
social economy and the European social model, however, greater importance is increasingly being placed
on the SE pillar (Report on a European Social Model for the future, 2005).
25 Report on a European Social Model for the future (2005/2248 (INI))
26 European Parliament report on the social economy (2008/2250 (INI))
27 EESC Opinions INT/447 (OJ C 318 23.12.2009), CESE 496/2012 - REX/325 and 2012/C 24/01.
28 CESE 1292/2012 - INT/606 and CESE 1294/2012 - INT/623.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
21
CHAPTER 3
IDENTIFYING THE ACTORS AND GROUPS INCLUDED IN THE CONCEPT
OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY
3.1. Towards recognition of the social economy in national accounts systems
3.2. A definition of the social economy that fits in with national accounts systems
3.3. The market or business sub-sector of the social economy
3.4. The non-market sub-sector of the social economy
3.5. The social economy: pluralism and shared core identity
3.1. Towards recognition of the social economy in national accounts systems
The national accounts systems perform a very important function in providing periodic,
accurate information on economic activity, and in working towards terminological and
conceptual harmonisation in economic matters to enable consistent, meaningful international
comparisons. The two most important national accounts systems currently in force are the
United Nations' System of National Accounts (1993 SNA) and the European System of National
and Regional Accounts (1995 ESA or ESA 95). The 1993 SNA gives national accounting rules
for all the countries in the world. The 1995 ESA applies to EU Member States and is fully in
line with the 1993 SNA, although there are minor differences.
The thousands upon thousands of entities (institutional units) that carry out productive
activities (as defined in the 1993 SNA and 1995 ESA) in each country are grouped into five
mutually exclusive institutional sectors that make up each national economy: 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).
This means that, rather than the companies and organisations that form part of the SE
concept being recognised as a different institutional sector in the national accounts systems,
cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations are scattered among these five
institutional sectors, making them difficult to analyse as a single group.
The European Commission recently prepared a Manual for drawing up the Satellite
Accounts of Companies in the Social Economy (cooperatives and mutual societies)° 29 which
will make it possible to obtain consistent, accurate and reliable data on a very significant part of
the SE: cooperatives, mutual societies and other similar companies. Based on this manual, at the
initiative of the European Commission's DG Enterprise and Industry, satellite accounts for
cooperatives and mutual societies have already been drawn up in 2011 in Spain, Belgium,
Serbia and Macedonia. Recently this same Directorate-General has sponsored an initiative to
draw up reliable statistics for social businesses30.
As the SE company satellite accounts manual says, the methods used by today's national
accounts systems, rooted in the mid-20th century, have developed tools for collecting the major
29 In 2003, the United Nations published a handbook for drawing up consistent statistics on the non-profit
sector, in accordance with the conceptual delimitation criteria established by the Non-Profit Organisation
(NPO) approach. This sector includes an large number of social economy entities, largely made up of
associations and foundations.
30 Proposal 46/G/ENT/CIP/12/F/S01C24.
22
national economic aggregates in a mixed economy context with a strong private capitalist sector
and a complementary and frequently interventionist public sector. Logically, in a national
accounts system that revolves around a bipolar institutional reality, there is little room for a
third pole that is neither public nor capitalist, while the latter can be identified with practically
the entirety of the private sector. This has been one important factor explaining the institutional
invisibility of the social economy in present-day societies and, as the manual recognises, it is at
odds with the increasing importance of the organisations that form part of the SE.
3.2. A definition of the social economy that fits in with national accounts systems
A further reason for the institutional invisibility of the social economy referred to above is
the lack of a clear, rigorous definition of the concept and scope of the SE that could usefully be
employed by the national accounts systems. Such a definition needs to disregard legal and
administrative criteria and centre on analysing the behaviour of SE actors, identifying the
similarities and differences between them and between these and other economic agents. At the
same time, it needs to combine the traditional principles and characteristic values of the SE and
the methodology of the national accounts systems in force to create a single concept that
constitutes an operative definition and enjoys broad political and scientific consensus, allowing
the main aggregates of the entities in the SE to be quantified and made visible in a
homogeneous and internationally standardised form.
Accordingly, this report proposes the following working definition of the SE:
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 take place through democratic and
participative decision-making processes. The social economy also includes private, formally-
organised organisations 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 them31.
This definition is absolutely consistent with the conceptual delimitation of the SE
reflected in the CEP-CMAF's Charter of Principles of the Social Economy (see section 2.3 of
this report). In national accounts terms, it comprises two major sub-sectors of the SE: a) the
market or business sub-sector32 and b) the non-market producer sub-sector. This classification is
very useful for drawing up reliable statistics and analysing economic activity in accordance with
the national accounting systems currently in force. 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:
31 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 (1990 and 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; Conseil Wallon de
l’Economie Sociale, 1990; CCCMAF and ESC-CMAF, 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 (2001 and 2006).
32 In this report, the expression 'business' is mainly used to designate micro-economic organisations that
draw their resources principally from the market (most cooperatives, mutual societies, social enterprises
and other companies). It is less common, although not impossible, to employ 'business' to mean other
micro-economic organisations in the SE that principally receive their monetary resources from outside the
market, in the form of donations, membership fees, property income or grants (most associations and
foundations). These non-market producers also carry out an economic activity that falls within the scope
of National Accounts analysis.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
23
they are organisations of people who conduct an activity with the main purpose of meeting the
needs of people rather than remunerating capitalist investors.
According to the above definition, the shared features of these two sub-sectors of the SE
are:
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, it is not obligatory to join them;
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. Except for some voluntary organisations that
provide non-market services to households, SE primary level or first-tier
organisations usually apply the principle of “one person, one vote” in their decision-
making processes, irrespective of the capital or fees contributed by the members. At
all events, they always employ democratic and participative decision-making
processes. Organisations at other levels are also organised democratically. The
members have majority or exclusive control of the decision-making power in the
organisation.
A very important feature of SE organisations that is deeply rooted in their history is their
democratic character. Indeed, in the aforementioned satellite accounts manual for companies in
the social economy that are market producers (classed in the S.11 and S.12 institutional sectors
of the national accounts), the democratic criterion is considered a prerequisite for a company to
be considered part of the social economy, as the social utility of these companies is not usually
based on their economic activity, which is an instrument to a non-profit end, but on their
purpose and on the democratic and participative values that they bring to running the company.
However, the working definition of the SE applied 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.
3.3. The market or business sub-sector of the social economy
In essence, the market sub-sector of the SE is made up of cooperatives and mutual
societies; business groups controlled by cooperatives, mutual societies and other SE
organisations; other similar companies; and certain non-profit institutions serving SE
companies.
24
As well as all the features shared by all SE entities, the working definition in 3.2 above
and in the European Commission Manual emphasises three essential characteristics of 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.
The European Commission manual gives a detailed explanation of the scope and
limitations of this characteristic. 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.
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 mutual societies, there is an indissoluble, inseparable relationship
between being a mutualist (member) and being a policy-holder (intended recipient of the
mutual's activity).
In the case of cooperatives, the member and user relationship is common but not
always indispensable. Some classes of 'ancillary members' may contribute to the company
without being users of the cooperativised activity. Examples include capital investors or former
user members who are no longer users for logical, justified reasons (retirement, among others);
some public bodies may even be contributing members of the company. Provided that the SE
company 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 business sub-sector of the SE.
There may also be other SE companies, as in the case of social enterprises, where
some members may share their objectives without being permanent members, strictly speaking,
although a transitory association still exists. This may even include certain volunteer activities.
Nevertheless, what is typical and relevant is that in these companies there is always a reciprocal
relationship, a stable bond between the company and those who participate in its activities with
a certain continuity, sharing in its risks and offering some consideration in respect of
membership.
The beneficiaries of the activities of SE companies also play a leading role in these
companies, which constitute reciprocal solidarity initiatives set up by groups of citizens to meet
their needs through the market.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
25
This does not prevent SE companies from undertaking solidarity-based activities in
much broader social environments, transcending their membership base. In the case of
cooperatives, their traditional rules of operation made them pioneers in applying the principle of
the social responsibility of companies, or corporate responsibility, as these rules stimulate and
foster solidarity mechanisms (the principle of education and social action, the 'open
membership' principle, the creation of reserves that cannot be divided among the members,
etc.). However, all this does not alter the mutual basis of SE companies, which compete in the
market, finance themselves largely through the market and conduct business entailing risks with
results on which depend, in the final analysis, the provision of services to their members.
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 95 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.
Although democratic organisation is a shared feature of all SE organisations, certain non-
profit voluntary organisations that provide non-market services to families may be part of the
SE despite not possessing a democratic structure, as will be seen further on.
For a company to be considered part of the SE, however, the democratic criterion is
considered a prerequisite. As the European Commission's manual says, SE companies are
characterised by democratic decision-taking by the members, without ownership of the share
capital determining the control of the decision-making process. In many cooperatives and
mutual societies the principle of 'one person, one vote' may often be qualified, allowing some
weighting of votes to reflect each member's participation in the activity. It may also happen that
business groups set up by different SE companies weight the votes, not only to reflect the
different degrees of activity of the members of the group but also to acknowledge the
differences between them in terms of rank and file membership numbers. Other business groups
may be set up and controlled by SE organisations to improve the delivery of their objectives for
the benefit of their members, with the parent organisations controlling the decision-making
processes. These groups also form part of the SE.
In some countries, certain social economy companies created by workers in order to
create or maintain jobs for themselves take the form of limited or public limited companies.
These too may be considered democratic organisations with democratic decision-making
processes, provided that the majority of their share capital is owned by the working partners and
shared equally among them.
Other social economy companies that also take a different legal form from a cooperative
have been set up 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 follow participative
and democratic processes.
Accordingly, the different groups or families of agents in the market sub-sector of the
social economy are as follows:
26
A. Cooperatives
As mentioned in the European Commission's manual, cooperatives in the European Union
are subject to very different and varied bodies of law. Depending on the country, they may be
considered commercial companies, a specific type of company, civil associations or
organisations that are difficult to categorise. There may even be a total lack of specific legal
regulation, obliging them to follow the rules for companies in general, which normally means
commercial companies. In such cases, it is the cooperative’s members who include the
operating rules in the articles of association which enable a company to be identified as a
‘cooperative’.
In terms of the business they conduct, cooperatives are found in both the non-financial
corporations sector and the financial corporations sector and in practically every kind of
activity.
In general, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of cooperatives in the European
Union share a common core identity based on the historical origins of the cooperative
movement and on the acceptance, to varying degrees, of the operating principles detailed in the
Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE)33.
As these operating principles are reflected in each and every one of the characteristics of
companies in the SE set out at the beginning of this chapter, cooperatives are the first great
business agent in the social economy. Cooperatives are self-help organisations set up by citizens
(they are private and are not part of the public sector) which are formally organised and have
autonomy of decision. In order to satisfy the needs of their members or conduct their business
they operate on the market, from which they obtain their main source of funding. They are
organised democratically and their profits are not distributed in proportion to the share capital
contributed by their members. The 1995 ESA considers cooperatives to be market producer
institutional units.
B. Mutual societies
Like cooperatives, mutual societies in the EU are governed by very diverse bodies of law.
Depending on their principal activity and the type of risk they insure, mutual societies are
divided into two large classes or categories. One group comprises mutual provident societies.
Their main activity is covering the health and social welfare risks of individuals. The second
group is mutual insurance companies. Their principal activity usually centres on insuring goods
(vehicles, fire, third party insurance, etc.), although they can also cover areas related to life
insurance.
The concept of the mutual society employed in the European Commission's manual is as
follows: an autonomous association of persons (legal entities or natural persons), united
voluntarily for the primary purpose of satisfying their common needs in the insurance (life and
non-life), providence, health and banking sectors, which conducts activities subject to
competition. It operates according to the principle of solidarity between the members, who
participate in the governance of the business, and to the principles of the absence of shares,
freedom of membership, not exclusively profit-making objectives, solidarity, democracy and
independence34.
33 See clauses 7 to 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a
European Cooperative Society (SCE).
34 http://europa.eu.int/comm/entreprise/entrepreneurship/coop/social-cmafagenda/social-cmaf-mutuas.htm
and consultation document “Mutual Societies in an enlarged Europe”, 2003
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/mutuals-consultation/index.htm.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
27
These operating principles, which are very similar to those of the cooperatives, again
comply with all the characteristics of companies in the SE mentioned previously, so mutual
societies are the second great business agent in the social economy.
However, following the European Commission's manual, social security management
bodies, and in general mutual societies of which membership is obligatory and those controlled
by companies that are not part of the social economy, are excluded from the business sub-sector
of the SE.
C. Social economy business groups
The European Commission's manual also considers certain business groups to be SE
market agents. According to the manual, when an SE company or coalition of companies or any
other SE organisation sets up and controls a business group to improve the delivery of its
objectives for the benefit of its rank and file members, this group is considered an SE group,
regardless of the legal form it adopts. In the European Union, there are groups that engage in
agri-food, industrial, distribution and retail, social welfare and other activities. There are also SE
banking and mutual society groups. They are all incorporated under different legal forms.
D. Social enterprises
In addition, the European Commission's manual considers that the market agents in the
SE include a gamut of companies with legal forms other than those of cooperatives and mutual
societies but which operate according to principles that, in essence, fit the definition of social
economy companies established in this report.
Among non-financial companies, the manual cites a variety of cases such as integration
and other social action organisations that operate in the market and adopt different legal forms,
in many cases as cooperatives and in others as commercial or similar companies. Generally
known as social enterprises, they are continuously engaged in producing goods and/or services,
have a high degree of autonomy and a significant level of financial risk, use paid work and are
market oriented, meaning that a significant proportion of the organisation's income is derived
from the market (services sold directly to users) or from contractual transactions with the public
authorities. It should also be noted that they are private companies set up by groups of citizens,
there is direct participation by the persons affected by the activity, their decision-making power
is not based on the ownership of capital, distribution of surpluses and profits is limited, and they
have the explicit objective of benefiting the community (Borzaga and Santuari, 2003).
The European Commission's Social Business Initiative (SBI)35 defines a social business as a
social economy operator with the main objective of achieving a social impact rather than
generating profits for its owners or members. Social businesses operate in the market to provide
goods and services in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion. They mainly use their
surpluses for social ends and their organisation is based on democratic or participative
principles that aim for social justice.
In other words, social enterprises are non-financial corporations which, irrespective of their
legal status, possess the aforementioned features of social economy companies.
35 Communication from the Commission SEC/2011/1278/final of 25/10/2011.
28
E. Other social economy companies
In some countries there are also certain non-financial corporations set up in order to create
or maintain stable employment for their members, in which the majority of shares are owned by
the workers, who also control the governing bodies, and which are organised on a workers’ self-
management basis. While these companies often take the form of public limited companies or
limited companies, the workers’ equity is equally divided among them, so these companies are
actually characterised by democratic decision-making processes and equitable distribution of
profits. The best-known example of this type of company is the labour company (sociedad
laboral) in Spain.
Non-financial corporations with majority control vested in the workers, democratic
decision-making processes and equitable distribution of profits should also be included in the
market sub-sector of the SE.
Lastly, in some countries the financial corporations sector includes savings and loans
societies and savings banks which, in their essential aspects, fit the definition of social economy
companies given in this report.
F. Non-profit institutions serving social economy entities
The only non-profit institutions which are included in this group are those serving
companies in the social economy. These organisations are funded by fees or subscriptions from
the group of companies in question which are considered payments for the services performed,
i.e. sales. Consequently, such non-profit institutions are market producers and are placed in the
‘non-financial corporations’ sector if they serve cooperatives or similar social economy
companies in this sector, or in the ‘financial institutions’ sector if they are at the service of credit
cooperatives, mutual societies or other social economy financial organisations.
3.4. The non-market sub-sector of the social economy
The vast majority of this sub-sector consists of associations and foundations, although
organisations with other legal forms can also be found. It is made up of 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 3.2 above, they are private, formally-organised entities with autonomy
of decision and freedom of membership that produce non-market services for families and
whose surpluses, if any, cannot be appropriated by the economic agents that create, control or
finance them. In other words, they 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 produce.
The national accounts have a specific institutional sector, S.15, called 'non-profit
institutions serving households' (NPISH), to differentiate them from other sectors. The ESA 95
defines this sector as consisting of non-profit institutions that are separate legal entities, that
serve households and that are other private 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
government and from property income (ESA 95, 2.87).
The NPISH sector includes a variety of organisations, mostly associations, that perform
non-market activities for their members (entities of a mutualist nature) or for groups of non-
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
29
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,
trade unions, professional or learned societies, consumers' associations, political parties,
churches or religious societies, and social, cultural, recreational and sports clubs.
As stated in section 3.1 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 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 a legal personality or are not very large, which the ESA 95
places in the Household sector, S.14 (ESA 95, 2.76), 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 supply free of charge to individuals. Although the 1995 ESA conventionally
considers these to be serving the non-financial or financial corporations in question and
therefore includes them in the respective (market) institutional sectors (ESA 95, 2.23 and 2.40),
provided that they meet the requirements set out in the definition they form part of the non-
market sub-sector of the SE.
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 fees paid by non-financial or financial
corporations in return for the services they provide.
3.5. 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 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; these
are a clear example of a hybrid of market and non-market with a wide diversity of resources
(revenue from the market, public subsidies and voluntary work) and of agents within the
organisation (members, employees, volunteers, companies and public bodies).
This plural SE which is asserting and consolidating its part in a plural society does not
amount to a hotchpotch with no identity or analytical value. On the contrary, the shared core
identity of the SE is reinforced by a large and diverse group of free and voluntary
microeconomic entities 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 – in other words, created by not-for-profit organisations. Over the past 200 years,
this varied spectrum (market and non-market, of mutual interest or general interest) has shaped
the third sector, as identified here through the social economy approach.
30
CHAPTER 4
THE MAIN THEORETICAL APPROACHES RELATED TO THE SOCIAL
ECONOMY
4.1. The third sector as a meeting point
4.2. The non-profit organisation approach
4.3. The solidary economy approach
4.4. The social enterprises approach
4.5. Other approaches
4.6. Similarities and differences between these approaches and the social economy
concept
4.1. 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, Levitt (1973)36 was one of the first to use the expression third sector,
identifying it with the non-profit sector37. 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 SE38.
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, in the theoretical approaches that have
been developed from these concepts, the TS is assigned different functions in today's economy.
4.2. The non-profit organisation approach
4.2.1. 4.2.1. The non-profit organisation (NPO) as a concept
The main theoretical approach that addresses the TS, apart from the SE approach, is of
English-speaking origin, as mentioned above: literature on the non-profit sector or non-profit
organisations (NPO) first appeared 30 years ago in the United States. In essence, this approach
36 Levitt, T.: The Third Sector – New Tactics for a Responsive Society, Division of American
Management Associations, New York, 1973.
37 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.
38 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).
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
31
only covers private organisations which have articles of association forbidding them to
distribute surpluses to those who founded them or who control or finance them39.
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.
The modern concept of the non-profit sector has been more precisely defined and widely
disseminated throughout the world by an ambitious 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
society.
The different phases of the project cover the non-profit sector in 36 countries across five
continents40.
This project examined organisations that met the five key criteria in the 'structural-
operational definition'41 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, i.e. non-profit organisations may make profits but these must
be ploughed back into the organisation's main mission and not distributed to the
owners, members, founders or governing bodies of the organisation;
e) voluntary, which means two things: first, that membership is not compulsory or
legally imposed, and second, that they must have volunteers participating in their
activities or management.
4.2.2. The NPO approach in the 1993 SNA
The United Nations published a Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of
National Accounts42 (NPI Handbook). The handbook's identification of the non-profit
institutions is based on a definition of the non-profit sector drawn from Salamon and Anheier's
NPO approach as described in the previous paragraph. On this basis, the NPI Handbook
identifies a large, heterogeneous set of non-profit organisations which could belong to any of
the five institutional sectors that make up the system of national accounts, including 'general
39 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. (1977): The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector, Lexington Books, Lexington M.A.
40 Salamon, L.M.; Anheier, H.K.; List, R.; Toepler, S.; Sokolowski, W. et al (1999): Global Society.
Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. The Johns Hopkins Comparative nonprofit Project, Baltimore.
41 Salamon, L.M. and Anheier, H.K. (1997): Defining the Non-Profit Sector: A Cross-National Analysis,
Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
42 Handbook on Non-profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts (United Nations, New York,
2003).
32
government' (S.13)43. There are non-profit institutions in the 'non-financial corporations' sector
(S.11), the 'financial corporations' sector (S.12) and the 'households' sector (S.14). Lastly, 'non-
profit institutions serving households' or NPISH (S.15) have their own separate institutional
sector in the national accounts system. These organisations take a great variety of legal forms,
although the majority are associations and foundations, and are created for very different
purposes: to provide services to the people or companies that control or finance them; to carry
out charitable or philanthropic activities to benefit people in need; to supply non-profit market
services such as health, education, leisure activities, etc.; to defend the interests of pressure
groups or the political programmes of like-minded citizens, etc.
However, the NPI Handbook considers that such major groups as cooperatives, mutual
societies, social enterprises and others do not belong in the non-profit sector.
As will be seen further on, not all the non-profit institutions that the NPI Handbook
considers to lie within its scope form part of the SE concept.
4.3. The solidary economy approach
The concept of the solidarity economy developed in France and certain Latin American
countries during the last quarter of the 20th century, and is associated to a large degree with the
major growth that the TS has experienced in organisations that produce and distribute some of
what are known as social goods or merit goods. Merit goods are those for which there is 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 by ensuring that they are provided free of charge or by subsidising them so that they
can 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, was guaranteed by the
governments of most developed countries in Europe. In recent decades, however, new social
needs have emerged that are not being addressed by either the public sector or the traditional
capitalist sector, 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, the handicapped, reintegration of ex-prisoners, abused women,
the chronically ill, etc.
It is in these areas that some organisations that 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 has three distinctive features: a) the social demands it attempts to address, b) the actors behind
these initiatives and c) the explicit desire for social change44.
Based on these three aspects, the concept of the solidarity 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
43 The NPI Handbook considers some organisations that the 1993 SNA includes in S.13, the 'general
government' sector, to be 'quasi-non-governmental organisations', i.e. self-governing and institutionally
separate from government (NPI Handbook paragraphs. 2.20 and 2.22).
44 Favreau, L. and Vaillancourt,Y. (2001): "Le modèle québécois d´économie sociale et solidaire", Revue
internationale de l´économie sociale, nº 281.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
33
reciprocity principles45. The latter refer to a non-monetary exchange in the area of primary
sociability that is identified, above all, in associationism46.
In short, the economy is plural in nature and cannot be reduced to strictly commercial and
monetary terms. The solidarity economy approach is an unprecedented attempt to link the three
poles of the system, so specific solidarity 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 economics47 and their resources, too, have plural origins: market
(sales of goods and services), non-market (government subsidies and donations) and non-
monetary (volunteers).
In addition to this concept of the solidarity economy, which has its epicentre in France,
another view of the solidarity economy with a certain prominence in some Latin American
countries sees it as a force for social change, the bearer of a project for an alternative society to
neoliberal globalisation48. Unlike the European approach, which considers the solidarity
economy to be compatible with the market and the state, the Latin American perspective centres
on developing this concept as a global alternative to capitalism.
4.4. The social enterprises approach
A considerable body of work on social enterprises has appeared in recent years, although
it cannot be said to take a unified approach. Two main approaches to social entrepreneurship
can be distinguished, however: Anglo-American and Continental European.
The Anglo-American sphere comprises various currents that define the social enterprise
sphere differently, ranging from those who consider social enterprises to be the market company
counterpart of private non-profit organizations with a social purpose, to those whose definition
of a social enterprise centres exclusively on social innovation and satisfying social needs,
whatever the form of ownership of the enterprise (public, private capital-based or what is
understood by the term social economy in Europe)49.
In the Continental European tradition, the main approach to social enterprises is
summarised in the studies and proposals of the EMES network, which sees these companies as
the result of collective entrepreneurship in the social economy and as defined by three blocks of
indicators (relating to economic, social and governance structure). In the Social Business
Initiative mentioned earlier, the European Commission also defined social enterprises as a sub-
set of the social economy (social economy operators).
4.5. 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
privately-owned with other ways of organising the production system. They include a) the
45 Polanyi, K. (1983): La Grande Transformation, Gallimard, París.
46 Laville, J.L. (1994).
47 Eme, B.; Laville, J.L. (1999): “Pour une approche pluraliste du tiers secteur”, Nouvelles Pratiques
Sociales, Vol. 11-12, Nº 1-2.
48 Boulianne, M. et al (2003): “Économie solidaire et mondialisation”, Revue du Mauss, Nº 21, París.
49 A comparative analysis of the European and American approaches to social enterprises can be found in
Defourny, J. y Nyssens, M., 2011, “Approches européenes et américaines de l’entreprise sociale : une
perspective comparative”, Revue internationale de l’économie sociale, nº 319 and in Ciriec-España,
revista de economia pública, social y cooperativa, nº 75, a special issue on “Social Economy and Social
Enterprises“, 2012.
34
alternative economy50, with roots in the anti-establishment movements that developed in France
after May 1968, and b) the popular economy, promoted in various Latin American countries
since 1980, with very similar characteristics to the Latin American version of the solidarity
economy, so much so that it is also known as the solidarity popular economy. The popular
economy excludes any type of employer/employee relationship and considers work the main
factor of production51.
4.6. Similarities and differences between these approaches and the social economy
concept
Section 3.5 explained how the concept of the SE established in this report not only sees
the SE as being part of a plural economy and society but also as itself composed of a great
plurality of actors. From this point of view, not only does the solidary economy approach
present important elements of convergence with the SE approach, from a practical point of view
it can also be asserted that all the organisations considered part of the solidary economy are also
unquestionably part of the SE. The same may be said of other theoretical developments such as
the social usefulness third sector (Lipietz, 2001), social enterprise (Borzaga and Defourny,
2001) or the 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.
As far as the social enterprises approach is concerned, it must be emphasised that the
concept of the social economy is far broader than that of social enterprise, as the latter forms
only a small part of the former: the social economy is made up of a wide range of operators that,
taken together, constitute a pole of social utility between the public sector and the capital-based
sector. Under the European approach, all social enterprises form an integral part of the social
economy, but most social economy enterprises do not form part of the group of social
enterprises
Because of their importance, it is worth pausing to examine the main similarities and
differences between the SE approach and concept and that of the NPO approach.
In terms of the similarities between the SE and the NPO approaches, four of the five
criteria that the NPO approach establishes to distinguish the TS sphere (see 4.2.1) are also
required under the SE approach (section 3.1): private, formally organised organisations with
autonomy of decision (self-governing) and freedom of membership (voluntary participation).
However, there are three TS delimitation criteria which clearly distinguish the NPO and
SE approaches:
a) The non-profit criterion
Under 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 4.2.1. above). As well as not
50 Archimbaud, A. (1995): “L´Économie alternative, forme radicale de l´économie sociale”, Revue des
études coopératives, mutualistes et associatives, Nº 256.
51 Coraggio, J.L. (1995): Desarrollo humano, economía popular y educación, Instituto de Estudios y
Acción Social, Buenos Aires; and Razeto, L. (1993): Empresas de trabajadores y economía de mercado,
PET, Chile.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
35
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).
Under the SE approach, the non-profit criterion in this sense is not an essential
requirement for TS organisations. Naturally, the SE approach considers that many organisations
that apply the non-profit criterion strictly belong in 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 3.1). However, cooperatives and mutual societies, which form a decisive nucleus
of the SE, are excluded from the TS by the NPO approach because most of them distribute part
of their surpluses among their members52.
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
organisation. Consequently, in the NPO approach the TS includes many, and very important,
non-profit organisations that do not meet the democracy criterion and which, therefore, the SE
approach excludes from the TS. In effect, many non-profit institutions in the non-financial
corporation and financial corporation sectors sell their services at market prices and do not meet
the democratic organisation principle. These non-profit organisations that 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, sell their services on the market and meet all the requirements established by the NPO
approach.
The SE approach generally excludes from the TS any non-profit entities that do not
operate democratically although, as pointed out in section 3.2 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 non-profit institutions prove their social usefulness 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.
52 The SE approach includes an important current that considers cooperatives and mutual societies to be
non-profit in both senses: that of applying the non-distribution constraint among their members and that
of being not-for-profit, i.e. set up primarily to provide a particular service to their members rather than to
obtain financial returns. As regards the application of the non-distribution constraint, this considers that
the members only receive part of the surpluses in the form of 'cooperative refunds', which constitute
yields generated by the members themselves by engaging in cooperativised transactions with the
cooperative, so these surpluses are not considered profits. Nor do members receive any profit when their
contributions to the share capital are liquidated, as they are repaid at nominal value, although possibly
updated to maintain their purchasing power. If the cooperative is dissolved, the net assets after settling the
debts, including the members' contributions to the share capital, cannot be distributed among the
members. As regards the second meaning of the non-profit criterion, it is generally accepted in the SE
approach that cooperatives and mutual societies, together with other TS organisations, are not-for-profit
bodies, i.e. they are set up to solve needs and offer services to individuals, households or families rather
than to remunerate or provide cover for investors or capitalist companies. On this debate see Chaves and
Monzón (2001).
36
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 all cases the SE's
concerns centre on human beings, who are its reason for being and the purpose of its activities.
The NPO approach, on the other hand, has no such criterion of service to people as
primary objective. Non-profit organisations can be set up both to provide services to persons
and to provide them to corporations that control or fund them (NPI Handbook, paragraph 2.21).
There may even be first-tier non-profit organisations 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 conclusion, the above similarities and differences between the NPO and SE
approaches, together with the existence of a shared space occupied by organisations included by
both, make it possible to appreciate important conceptual and methodological divergences
which do not allow the TS to be configured by simply adding together the groups of
organisations considered by the two approaches.
Concerning the differences between the two approaches in terms of the functions that the
TS can perform in developed economies, as far as the NPO approach is concerned the TS lies
between the state and the market53 and the mission of its most characteristic nucleus (the social
third sector) is to satisfy a considerable quantity of social needs that are not being met by either
the market (due to a lack of solvent demand with purchasing power) or the public sector (as
public provision is incapable of doing so), making it essential to turn to a third type of resources
and motivation. The Anglo-Saxon concept, based on volunteers, charities (in Britain) and
foundations (United States), insists on the values of philanthropy and the non-profit criterion.
The lack of profitability of the work carried out demonstrates the purity and rectitude of
the motives that underlie it and confirms membership of the TS, which thereby shows its
charitable and welfare nature, with its mission being to palliate the shortcomings of a limited
public social protection system and the excesses of a market system that is more dynamic but
also more implacable than any other system54 towards less solvent social sectors.
For the SE approach, the TS is not located between the market and the state but between
the capitalist market and the public sector55. From this point of view, in developed societies the
TS is positioned as a pole of social utility made up of a broad set of private organisations that
are created to meet social needs rather than to remunerate capitalist investors.
Ultimately, the concept of the TS developed by the SE does not consider it a residual
sector but an institutional pole of the system which, together with the public sector and the
capitalist private sector, is a key factor for consolidating welfare in developed societies by
helping to resolve some of their most prominent problems, such as social exclusion, large-scale
long-term unemployment, geographical imbalances, local self-government and fairer income
and wealth distribution, among others.
Unlike the NPO approach, which sees only a charitable and philanthropic function in the
TS developing one-way solidarity initiatives, the SE promotes business initiatives with
53 Salamon, L.M. and Anheier, H.K. (1997), Powell (1987).
54 Caille (2003): “Sur les concepts d´Économie en général et d´Économie Solidaire en particulier”, Revue
du Mauss, Nº 21, p. 215-236.
55 Defourny, J. and Monzón, J.L. (1992): Économie Sociale. Entre économie capitaliste et économie
publique, De Boeck-Wesmael, Bruxelles.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
37
reciprocal solidarity among its initiators, based on a system of values where democratic decision
making and the priority of people over capital in the distribution of surpluses prevail.
The SE does not just see people in need as the passive beneficiaries of social
philanthropy, it also raises citizens to the status of active protagonists of their own destiny.
38
CHAPTER 5
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PREVAILING DEFINITIONS
RELATING TO THE CONCEPT OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EACH
EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATE, ACCEDING AND CANDIDATE
COUNTRY
5.1. Concepts prevailing in each country
5.2. The actors in the social economy in EU Member States
5.1. Concepts prevailing in each country
The social and economic phenomenon that we refer to in this work as the 'social
economy' is widespread and in evident expansion across the EU. However, this term, as well as
the scientific concept linked to it, is not unambiguous across all EU countries – or even within a
country in some cases – usually coexisting with other terms and similar concepts. The purpose
of this section is to shed light on the diversity of concepts and terms that exist in Europe to refer
to this phenomenon.
Part of this research has been directed on the one hand to assessing the level of
recognition of the social economy in three important spheres – public administration, the
academic and scientific world, and the social economy sector itself in each country – and on the
other hand to identifying and assessing other similar concepts. This work has been carried out in
accordance with the methodology used in the first chapter of The enterprises and organizations
of the third system. A strategic challenge for employment (Vivet and Thiry in CIRIEC, 2000), in
which the third system was assimilated into the social economy.
Information from primary sources has been gathered on the basis of the semi-open
question targeted at 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-closed questions on the
social economy and similar concepts in the different EU countries. The correspondents are
academics, professionals from the federative and representative structures of the sector in the
countries, and top officials from the national public administrations with powers in the field of
the social economy. The degree of recognition has been divided into three relative levels across
the different countries: (*) where there is little or no recognition of this concept; (**) where
there is a moderate level of recognition; and (***) where there is a high level, denoting
institutionalised recognition of the concept in the country in question.
The results appear in tables 5.1. and 5.2. They relate respectively to the level of
recognition of the concept (and the term) of the social economy; recognition of the related
concepts 'social enterprise', 'non-profit sector' and 'third sector'; and finally recognition of other
concepts.
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
39
Table 5.1. National acceptance of the concept 'Social Economy'
By public authorities
By companies in the
social economy
By academia / the
scientific world
Acceding and Candidate Countries
Austria * ** **
Belgium ** *** **
Bulgaria ** ** **
Croatia * * *
Cyprus ** ** **
Czech Republic * ** **
Denmark ** ** **
Estonia ** * *
Finland ** ** **
France ** *** **
Germany * ** **
Greece ** ** ***
Hungary * ** *
Iceland ** ** **
Ireland ** *** **
Italy ** ** **
Latvia * ** **
Lithuania ** * *
Luxembourg ** ** **
Malta ** * **
Netherlands * * *
Poland ** ** **
Portugal *** *** **
Romania * * *
Slovakia * * *
Slovenia * ** **
Spain *** *** ***
Sweden ** ** *
United Kingdom * ** **
Note: Questionnaire question: Could you tell us whether the concept 'social economy' is recognised in
your country?
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 to divide countries into three groups depending on their level of recognition of the
social economy concept (see table 5.1.):
- countries in which the concept of the social economy is widely accepted: In Spain, France,
Portugal, Belgium, Ireland and Greece, the concept of the social economy enjoys 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: 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 acceptance:
These include Italy, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Latvia, Malta, Poland,
the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Iceland. In these countries the concept of the social economy
coexists alongside other concepts, such as the non-profit sector, the voluntary sector and social
40
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, emerging or unknown in the following countries:
Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia,
Romania, Croatia and Slovenia, a group which mainly comprises Germanic countries and those
which joined the EU during the last round of enlargement. The related terms non-profit sector,
voluntary sector and non-governmental organisation enjoy a relatively greater level of
recognition.
In the rest of the tables, information for each country is presented according to two
objectives: first, that of differentiating the reality of the 12 new countries of the EU and the two
candidate countries, a central objective of this work; second, that of differentiating the reality of
the 15 older Member States.
Table 5.2. National acceptation of other recognised concepts related to the social economy
Social
enterprises Non-profit
Sector Third sector
Austria ** *** *
Belgium ** ** *
Bulgaria ** ** **
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 ** ** ***
Acceding And Candidate Countries
Croatia * *** **
Iceland ** *** ***
Note: Questionnaire question: Which other concepts related to the 'social economy' enjoy scientific,
political or social recognition in your country?
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
41
In Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy and Poland the concept of social enterprises
is widely accepted. Finland passed a Law on Social Enterprises in 2003, Italy in 2005 and a bill
has been drawn up in the Netherlands. In addition to the concepts social economy, non-profit
sector, social enterprise and third sector, other widely accepted notions coexist in several EU
countries. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Malta and Slovenia, the concepts
voluntary sector and non-governmental organisation, more closely related to the idea of non-
profit organisations, appear to enjoy wide scientific, social and political recognition. In French-
speaking European countries (France, the Walloon Region of Belgium and Luxembourg56), the
concepts solidarity economy, and social and solidarity economy are also recognised, while the
idea of a Gemeinwirtschaft (general interest economy) is known in Germanic countries such as
Germany and Austria.
It is important to point out that in several countries certain components of the term
social economy in its broadest sense are not recognised as integral parts of this sector, with
emphasis instead on their specificity and separateness. This is the case of cooperatives in
countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Latvia, and partly Portugal.
5.2. The actors in the social economy in EU Member States
In light of the situation outlined in the previous section of this chapter, which highlights
the marked diversity of national realities concerning the concepts and the level of recognition of
the social economy and related concepts, it is clearly not easy to identify the components of the
social economy in each country. The undertaking is to identify what institutional forms make up
the field of the social economy or the related term that is most widely recognised in each
country.
The results of the study, having consulted the corresponding national experts, are shown
in Table 5.3.
Three main conclusions may be drawn by way of a summary. The first and basic one is
that the components vary significantly from one country to another, there being genuinely
national forms that the experts consider to be integral to the social economy in their countries
(see X1, X2, etc.). In some countries, such as Italy and Spain, there are differing ideas about the
scope of the social economy: a business concept of the social economy that sees it as consisting
mainly of cooperatives coexists with a non-market concept that sees it as largely comprising
associations, social cooperatives and other non-profit organisations.
A second conclusion to be drawn is that the well-known notion of the social economy,
one that brings together cooperatives, mutuals, associations and foundations, is most widely
spread in precisely the group of countries where the concept of the social economy is most
broadly accepted, with the exception of Ireland. In two of these countries, France and Spain,
there is legal recognition of the social economy.
A third conclusion is that there is general consensus that cooperatives are part of the
social economy. This reflects the fairly widespread view that cooperatives and mutuals are the
prototype enterprises of the social economy. Associations, foundations and social enterprises are
also considered components. The reason for excluding friendly societies (mutuals) from the
sphere of the social economy in the new EU Member States may be the low level of recognition
56 In France the new socialist government has created a Ministère délégué chargé de l'Economie sociale et
solidaire and in Luxembourg there is a Plateforme de l’économie sociale et solidaire [Social and Solidary
Economy Platform].
42
of the very concept of the social economy itself, together with the absence of a legal status for
mutuals in these countries.
Table 5.3. Components of the 'social economy'
Note: Questionnaire question: Which of the following institutional forms do you consider to belong to the
field of the 'social economy' in your country or, if applicable, to a related concept that you consider more
widely accepted?
Other specific forms of the social economy in each country :
X1: Social enterprises
X2: Sociétés à finalité sociale
X3: Social enterprises
X4: Comités d'entreprise, voluntary social protection
X5: Volunteer services and agencies; social firms for disadvantaged people; alternative enterprises of the
women's and environmental movement; self-help organisations; socio-cultural centres; work integration
companies; local exchange and trading systems; neighbourhood and community enterprises
X6: Popular companies
X7: Credit unions
X8: Volunteering organisations; specific types of associations such as associations of social promotion and
family associations; community foundations; non-governmental organizations; IPAB: Istituzioni di Pubblica
Assistenza e Beneficenza
X9: Misericordias; IPSS (Instituiçoes Particulares de Solidariedade Social)
Cooperatives Mutuals Associations Foundations Others
Austria X X X X X1
Belgium X X X X X2
Bulgaria X X X X
Cyprus X n.a. n.a. n.a.
Czech Republic X - - - X11
Denmark X X X X X3
Estonia X n.a. X X
Finland X X X X
France X X X X X4
Germany X - X X X5
Greece X X X X X6
Hungary X - X X X12
Ireland X X - - X7
Italy X X X X X8
Latvia X X X X
Lithuania X - - - X13
Luxembourg X X X X
Malta X X X X X14
Netherlands X X X X
Poland X - X X X15
Portugal X X X X X9
Romania X X X X X16
Slovakia X X X X X17
Slovenia X X X X
Spain X X X X X10
Sweden X X X X
United Kingdom X X X X
Acceding and Candidate Countries
Croatia X - X X
Iceland X X X X
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
43
X10: Sociedades Laborales, Empresas de Inserción, Centros Especiales de Empleo, specific groups such as
ONCE, Sociedades Agrarias de Transformación
X11: Association of Common Benefits;
X12: Non profit enterprises
X13: Credit unions and social enterprises
X14: BandClub
X15: Centres of Socio-Economic Integration
X16: Unitati Autorizate Proteiate (Authorized Protected Units)
X17: Sheltered workshops, social services
The platforms and networks of the social economy in Europe
Social organisations have a natural tendency to form groups based on shared economic
and political affinities and interests.
Some of the social economy business groups and networks that have been built up in the
interests of competitiveness are veritable European corporate giants57.
Groups have also been formed in the political sphere, in what some have named the
‘European civil society” of the social economy (see DIESIS, 2008). The social economy in
Europe has set up many organisations that act as its representatives. Through these, it has taken
part in drawing up and implementing national and EU policy when these processes have made
space for participation by this type of social interlocutor.
In the different European countries, the associations that represent social economy
companies and organisations have mainly arisen from a sector perspective, giving rise to
organisations, associations and platforms that represent credit, workers' and agricultural
cooperatives, among others, as well as mutual insurance companies, provident societies and
associations, and other social action non-governmental organisations.
This process has also taken place at European level, where the social economy (either
the 'families' within it or as a whole) has historically played a part in different EU policies. This
has been evident since the year the Treaty of Rome was signed, when Eurocoop, the
organisation that represents the consumers' cooperatives of Europe, was founded, and in the
development of the Common Agricultural Policy with the assistance of the General
Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union (COGECA).
Nowadays, the organisations that represent the social economy in Europe are:
1. Cooperative family:
- EUROCOOP: European Community of Consumer Cooperatives
- CECODHAS: European Liaison Committee for Social Housing — cooperative section
- CECOP: European Confederation of Workers' Cooperatives, Social Cooperatives and
Participative Enterprises
- COGECA: General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives
- GEBC: European Cooperative Banking Group
- UEPS: European Union of Social Pharmacies
Cooperatives Europe58 is the umbrella organisation of all these representative bodies of
the European cooperatives.
2. Family of mutual societies:
- AIM: International Association of Mutual Societies
57 See the world’s major cooperatives and mutual businesses at http://global300.coop.
58 http://www.coopseurope.coop
44
- AMICE - Association of Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in Europe59
3. Family of associations and social action organisations:
- CEDAG: European Council of Associations of General Interest
- EFC: European Foundation Centre
- European Platform of Social NGOs
4. Platforms for social enterprises:
- CEFEC: Social Firms Europe, the Confederation of European Social Firms, Employment
Initiatives and Social Cooperatives
Most of these European-level representation organisations are in turn members of
SOCIAL ECONOMY EUROPE60, the European Standing Conference on Cooperatives, Mutual
Societies, Associations and Foundations, which is currently the highest-level European social
economy interlocutor for the European institutions. This platform was set up in November 2000
under the name of CEP-CMAF.
In some countries the representative associations have surpassed the sector (family)
level and created cross-sector organisations that refer explicitly to the social economy.
Examples of these are CEPES, the Spanish Business Confederation of the Social Economy and
the Social Economy Platform in Luxembourg.
Groupings have also followed other criteria: for instance, the past fifteen years have
seen the appearance of joint networks of platforms representing the social economy,
government bodies (such as town councils) and/or companies and other social organisations
which are actively promoting the social economy. This is the case with ESMED, the Euro-
Mediterranean Social Economy Network, made up of the national social economy or
cooperative platforms of Portugal, France, Spain, Italy, Morocco and Tunisia; REVES, the
European Networks of Cities & Regions for the Social Economy; ENSIE, the European
Network for Social Integration Enterprises; and FEDES – European Federation of Social
Employers. CIRIEC-International61, in turn, is an unusual example of an organisation with a
membership that brings together organisations representing companies from the public sector
and the social and cooperative economy of many European countries with researchers who
specialise in this field.
59 AMICE was created in 2008 through the merger of the two previously existing associations of mutual
and cooperative insurers in Europe, AISAM and ACME.
60 http://www.socialeconomy.eu.org/
61 http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be
The Social Economy in the European Union – Report by José Luis Monzón & Rafael Chaves
45
CHAPTER 6
THE SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, IN THE ACCEDING
AND CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN FIGURES
The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of the main figures for the social
economy in the EU, 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 up from secondary
data supplied by our correspondents in each country (see Appendix). The reference period is
2009-2010. 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 organisations or companies. For purposes of comparability with the data of the
previous study carried by CIRIEC for the EESC on the state of the social economy in the EU-
25, particular attention has been paid to the 'employment' variable. Two specific tables (6.3 and
6.4) have been drawn up to compare the main figures from both studies.
In the course of this work, serious statistical gaps have appeared in the data for various
countries, particularly the new EU Member States, but not exclusively. The gaps have been
remedied, where possible, on the basis of the information available from other scientific studies
cited in the bibliography, from the ICMIF and AMICE, the Cooperatives Europe study of
organisations (2010), and studies by other umbrella organisations such as COGECA or
Eurocoop. These sources have been cited systematically in the tables for the different countries.
On the other hand, for some countries we found different data for the same year depending on
the source and the concept of the social economy group. Decisions have been taken based on
prudence. Much effort must be made to systematise statistics for the different social economy
groups over the coming years (as stated in Chapter 3 and in Archambault and Kaminski, 2009).
A significant difference between this study and the last one carried out by the EESC-
CIRIEC is that national statistical institutes have put a great deal of work in recent years into
providing credible data on various groups in the social economy. In Spain, Portugal, the Czech
Republic and Hungary the satellite account methodology has been employed. Some other
statistical institutes, such as France, supply time series on employment in the social economy.
Rigorous statistics are an important step in the recognition of the social economy in Europe.
Given the method employed, particularly in view of the difficulty of comparing certain
variables internationally, the questionable reliability of the data for certain countries, the risks of
double accounting among 'families' within a single country, the different years to which they
refer, and the different sources for the same 'family' and country for the two periods of reference
(2002-03 and 2009-10), linked in the latter case to the availability or otherwise of data, this
statistical information should be treated with caution.
The tables below are self-explanatory in terms of the state of the social economy in EU
countries.
46
The main conclusion to be drawn is that the social economy in Europe is very important
in both human and economic terms, providing paid employment to over 14.5 million Europeans,
or about 6.5% of the working population of the EU-27 and about 7.4% in the 15