COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Building an economy that works for people: an action plan for the social economy
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, State aid, corporate social responsibility, innovation, public procurement, social economy, social enterprise, social integration, social services, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.12.2021  SWD(2021) 373 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Building an economy that works for people: an action plan for the social economy {COM(2021) 778 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  WHY AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY? 

2.  SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EUROPE – AN OVERVIEW 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 

Organisation types 
Mapping the social economy: different starting points, scope and dynamics 
Efforts in measuring social impact 
Gender dimension 

3.  COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSULTATIONS 
3.1 
3.2 
3.3 

Evidence and data collection 
Consultations 
Publication of the SEAP roadmap 

2 

4 
4 
6 
11 
12 

14 
14 
15 
17 

4.  CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY – MAIN FINDINGS FROM 
THE CONSULTATIONS 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 
4.8 
4.9 
4.10 
4.11 
4.12 
4.13 
4.14 
economy  37 
4.15 
4.16 

On the action plan for the social economy in general 
Defining social economy at the European level 
Enhancing awareness and visibility of the social economy  
Support for specific target groups 
Developing policy and legal frameworks 
Social economy and State aid 
Taxation 
Better access to markets: socially responsible public procurement 
Promoting the social economy at regional and local levels 
Promoting the social economy at international level 
Improving access to funding 
Boosting social innovation  
Fostering digitalisation and new technologies 
Maximising the contribution of the social economy to the European Green Deal and circular 

Promoting entrepreneurial skills and capacity building 
Implementation of the action plan for the social economy 

18 
18 
18 
19 
21 
25 
27 
29 
30 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

38 
39 

5.  EU BUDGET TO SUPPORT SOCIAL ECONOMY 2021-2027 

ANNEX 1: RECENT DECLARATIONS ON (OR RELATED TO) SOCIAL ECONOMY 

ANNEX 2: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO SUBMITTED FEEDBACK ON THE SOCIAL ECONOMY 
ACTION PLAN ROADMAP 

ANNEX 3: EXAMPLES OF EXISTING SOCIAL ECONOMY AWARDS 

41 

46 

47 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  WHY AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY? 

Ten years ago, in 2011, the European Commission launched the Social Business Initiative (SBI). This 
was followed by the Start-up and Scale-up initiative in 2016. Further to these initiatives the EU has 
launched  a  large  number  of  actions  to  support  the  development  of  the  social  economy  and  social 
enterprises  in  view  of  their  potential  to  address  societal  challenges  and  contribute  to  sustainable 
economic growth. 

Social economy ecosystems have developed significantly over the last decade and the concept of social 
economy has gained attention and momentum. Progress has been made, yet a great deal remains to 
be done in terms of harnessing the full potential of the social economy. 

Therefore, the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen has mandated the Commissioner for 
Jobs and Social Rights, Nicolas Schmit, with developing a European Action Plan for the Social Economy. 
The action plan contributes to the Commission priority “An economy that works for the people”. Given 
the  transversal  nature1  of  social  economy,  the  action  plan  will    support    the  objectives  of  the 
Commission in a variety of other policy areas (European Green Deal, A Europe fit for the digital age 
and Promoting our European way of life).  

The 2021 Commission Work Programme highlights that the Action Plan is intended to enhance social 
investment, support social economy actors and social enterprises to start-up, scale-up, innovate and 
create jobs. 

More recently, a number of Commission initiatives have called on the potential of social economy: 

  A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions 
  Circular Economy Action Plan 
  SME Strategy 
  Renovation Wave 
  Recovery Plan – Next Generation EU 
  Africa Strategy   
  Youth Employment Support Initiative 
  Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 
  European Skills Agenda  
  EU Roma Strategic Framework   
  EU Green Paper on Ageing: Fostering solidarity and responsibility between generations 
  Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans 
  Renewed  partnership  with  the  Southern  Neighbourhood  -  A  new  Agenda  for  the 

 

Mediterranean 
Joint  Communication:  Eastern  Partnership  policy  beyond  2020:  Reinforcing  Resilience  –  an 
Eastern Partnership that delivers for all 
  Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy 
  A long-term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas 

1 Social economy entities are active in almost all economic sectors and therefore many EU laws and policies are 
potentially relevant for the social economy or some of its actors. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Social economy organisations also contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social 
Rights. At the Social Summit in Porto (7-8 May 2021) Member States and civil society organisations 
confirmed their “commitment to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and to use 
this unique opportunity to join forces for an inclusive, sustainable, just and jobs-rich recovery, based 
on  a  competitive  economy  and  that  leaves  no  one  behind.”2  The  Porto  declaration  specifically 
acknowledged the role of social enterprises.3 

The present staff working document provides background information and an analysis on challenges 
and opportunities for the social economy in Europe. In addition, the document provides a summary of 
the  consultations  conducted  and  evidence  gathered  since  the  action  plan  was  announced  at  the 
beginning of 2020. 

It is complemented by a second Staff Working Document4 which presents scenarios towards the co-
creation, together with stakeholders, of the transition pathway of the ‘Proximity and Social Economy” 
industrial ecosystem5 towards its green and digital transition and long-term resilience. 

2 Porto social commitment, 7 May 2021 
3 The Porto declaration, 8 May 2021 
4 See SWD (2021) 982. 
5 Updated EU Industrial Strategy, COM(2021) 350 final 

3 

 
 
                                                           
2.  SOCIAL ECONOMY IN EUROPE – AN OVERVIEW 

Member  States  have  heterogeneous  traditions  and  employ  a  variety  of  terminology  as  to  which 
organisations are part of the social economy. Historically, the term social economy refers to four main 
types of organisations: cooperatives, mutual benefit societies, associations (including charities), and 
foundations.  

In recent years, social enterprises emerged as a new type of organisation in the social economy. Social 
enterprises operate by providing goods and services for the market in an entrepreneurial and often 
innovative fashion, having social and/or environmental objectives as the reason for their commercial 
activity. Profits are mainly reinvested with a view to achieving their societal objective. Their method 
of organisation and ownership also follow  democratic or participatory principles or focus on social 
progress6. Social enterprises adopt a variety of legal forms depending on the national context. 

Section 2 of the action plan provides a definition of the social economy from the EU perspective. 

2.1  Organisation types 

The  action  plan  provides  a  definition  of  the  social  economy  from  the  European  Commission’s 
perspective.  It highlights that Member States have heterogeneous traditions and employ a variety of 
terms  in  relation  to  the  social  economy.  It  is  commonly  considered  to  include  the  following 
organisation  types:  cooperatives,  mutual  benefit  societies,  foundations,  associations  and  social 
enterprises. 

Cooperatives have a long history in Europe and globally. There are some 131,000 in the EU7 active in 
all  sectors  of  the  economy.  They  are  people-centred  enterprises  jointly  owned  and  democratically 
controlled by and for their members to achieve common social and economic objectives. Driven by 
the principles of fairness and equality, they usually generate long-term jobs and prosperity. They are 
managed by producers, users or workers and are run according to the 'one member, one vote' rule8. 
They  offer  innovative  solutions  to  green  growth  such  as  renewable  energy,  but  also  to  societal 
challenges.  For  example,  recently  platform  co-operatives  offer  a  potential  route  to  a  fairer  digital 
economy that generates quality working conditions and other tangible advantages for workers and 
consumers alike and helps retain revenues and taxes locally. Cooperatives also provide a solution for 
workers  wishing  to  jointly  buy  their  company9.  Different  types  of  cooperatives  exist:  consumer 
cooperatives, producer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, social cooperatives, platform cooperatives 
(overlaps are possible). 

Mutual benefit societies are private entities owned and governed by their members. They play an 
important role in health insurance and in providing good, affordable and universally accessible health, 
long-term  care  and  other  social  security  services.  They  are  driven  by  the  principles  of  solidarity, 
affordability, non-discrimination and non-exclusion and are often key partners for public authorities, 

6 European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 
7 Cocolina, C., The power of cooperation: Cooperatives Europe key figures 2015, Cooperatives Europe, 2015. 
8 International Cooperative Alliance, What is a cooperative?, in https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/what-is-
a-cooperative 
9 In the EU, the practice of worker buyouts is most developed in Italy, Spain and France, where specific networks 
and policy initiatives have been adopted to support its development.  

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
providing innovative social services, such as healthcare and general care services. Some 209 million 
citizens  in  Europe  receive  health  coverage  and  other  social  security  services  from  mutuals10.  They 
command a 25% share of the insurance market and 70% of the total number of undertakings in the 
industry.11 

Public-benefit foundations are asset-based and purpose-driven. They generally have no members or 
shareholders  and  are  separately  constituted  non-profit  bodies.  They  can  engage  in  many  forms  of 
philanthropy,  from  traditional  grant-making  to  running  their  own  programmes  to  venture 
philanthropy  and  other  new  forms  of  social  investment.  Public-benefit  foundations  focus  on  areas 
ranging from the environment, social services, health and education, to science, research, arts and 
culture. They tend to have an established and reliable income source, which allows them to plan and 
carry  out  long-term  work.  There  are  estimated  to  be  approximately  147,000  public-benefit 
foundations in Europe.12 They can also act as funders of, and investors in, social enterprises and other 
social economy organisations. Similarly, they help leverage private funding for many other important 
EU policy priorities. 

Associations are vital for democracy and a constituent of EU civil society. As about 19% of the EU adult 
population engages in formal volunteering activities, associations offer a unique space where citizens 
engage  in  common  interests  and  generate  social  cohesion  and  mutual  understanding.  They  are 
present  in  many  areas  such  as  sport,  education,  environmental  protection,  culture  or  health.  The 
possibility that associations carry out entrepreneurial activities is not acknowledged in all countries13.   

Most  social  enterprises  have  their  roots  in  one  of  the  above-mentioned  social  economy  forms.  In 
countries where a significant degree of freedom in the performance of entrepreneurial activities by 
non-profit  organisations  is  permitted,  the  most  widespread  path  to  setting  up  social  enterprises 
remains  the  use  of  the  legal  form of  association  and/or  foundation  (e.g.,  France,  Belgium,  Austria, 
Germany and the  Netherlands).  However, they can also take other legal forms  that have  not  been 
designed specifically for them (e.g. conventional enterprises), which makes it difficult to capture their 
size and contribution to the economy. A recent report showed that they employ high proportions of 
female workers thanks to the availability of more flexible jobs.14 

Social  enterprises  are  active  in  a  wide  range  of  fields  of  activity. Particularly  well  known  are  work 
integration social enterprises (WISE) which benefit from legal recognition in a significant number of 
countries.  For  example,  countries  such  as  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Germany,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia and Spain have introduced statuses recognising WISEs to facilitate especially the integration 
of disabled people. Over the  years, there  has been a progressive enlargement of the typologies of 
disadvantaged people to be integrated by those legal forms that obtain the WISE status, whereas in 
the past only people with disabilities could be integrated. 

10 According to the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM). 
11 Social Economy Europe, Co-designing the Action Plan for the Social Economy, 2021. 
12 McGill, L., Number of Registered Public Benefit Foundations in Europe Exceeds 147,000, Dafne, 2016.  
13 European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 
14 European Commission (2020), A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.2  Mapping the social economy: different starting points, scope and dynamics15 

The landscape for social economy ecosystems in EU Member States is diverse.  

Data on social economy in the EU is partial, because social economy organisations fall under several 
categories in national accounts and therefore the volume of their activities is not directly visible in this 
most  reliable  data  source.  The  most  accurate  estimation  of  the  economic  importance  of  social 
economy in Europe is included in the study “Recent evolutions of the social economy in the EU” (EESC 
2017).16  

Satellite accounts are the most solid way to get a clear, comparable and harmonised view of the social 
economy  in  a  way  compatible  with  the  overall  national  accounts  framework.  However,  only  two 
Member States (Belgium and Portugal) have set up national versions of satellite accounts. Four more 
Member States worked on satellite accounts under a grant from Eurostat.  

The EESC study finds that the social economy represents around 2.8 million organisations and entities 
in  Europe,  as  well  as  over  13.6  million  paid  jobs  (i.e.  6.3%  of  the  work  force)17.  Social  economy 
represents between 0.6% and 9.9% of all jobs across Member States. In the countries where it is most 
developed  it  makes  an  important  contribution  to  GDP.18  These  different  degrees  of  development 
demonstrate that it has significant untapped economic potential, including in terms of job creation, in 
many Member States. 

Specific data on the number of social enterprises in the EU is limited, given that this concept is based 
on the characteristics of the undertaking rather than on its legal form. The recently published synthesis 
report of the 2020 mapping of social enterprises provides the latest estimates. However, given the low 
availability and reliability of data is some countries, it only draws together and presents the national 
data to enable comparisons when possible.  

For example: 

- 

- 

The highest numbers of social enterprises are found in: Italy (102 500), France (96 600), 
Germany (77 500), and Poland (24 500). 
The  highest  numbers  of  social  enterprises  per  1  million  inhabitants  are  found  in:  Italy 
(1690), Hungary (1620), Luxembourg (1550), Belgium (1530) and France (1400). 

The  mapping  study  was  launched  by  the  European  Commission  as  a  follow-up  to  its  2011 
communication on the Social Business Initiative (SBI) in order to shed light on the current size, scope 
and state of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe.  

The  first  study  was  published  in  2014  and  mapped  social  enterprise  activity  and  ecosystems  in  29 
countries  using  a  common  definition  and  approach.  Following  this  initial  effort,  an  update  was 

15 For more details on the evidence base, including links to the studies see section 3.1. 
16 https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-04-17-875-en-n.pdf. It has to be noted that the data 
in this study have a number of limitations: for example not capturing all social enterprises and covering on the 
other hand all organisations that have a specific legal form (association, cooperative, mutual and foundations) 
without looking at their mission nor the profit distribution model. 
17 The study also estimates that the social economy represents more than 82.8 million volunteers, equivalent to 
5.5 million (non-paid) full-time workers, which gives a total workforce of over 19.1 million people (paid and non-
paid). 
18 Estimates indicate GDP contributions of 10% in Spain (CEPES, 2017) and France (Cress, 2017) and 15% in Italy 
(Borzaga & Fontanara, 2013) 

6 

 
 
                                                           
launched in seven selected countries in 2016. A complete update of the then 28 Member States plus 
seven  neighbouring  countries  participating  in  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI) 
Programme was carried out in 2018-2020.  

The mapping study identified different drivers that have been boosting social enterprise development 
in recent years depending on the type of welfare system in place: 

Table: Drivers and trends of social enterprises 

Source: European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 

The  degree  of  recognition  of  the  social  economy  and  social  enterprises  varies  largely  from  one 
Member  State  to  another.  However,  the  general  trend  is  clearly  positive:  since  the  Commission 
adopted its Social Business Initiative in 2011, 16 EU countries have adopted new specific legislation in 
this field and 11 EU countries have created formal strategies or policies for supporting social economy 
and/or social enterprise development. Some of these countries have adoped dedicated legal forms for 
the social economy (e.g. BE, FR, IT, LV, PL, PT) while others have used  labelling systems or statutes  to 
address the lack of legal recognition19. Examples of countries that have introduced a social enterprise 
or  social  economy  label  include  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Romania, 
Slovakia  and  Slovenia.  Moreover,  accreditation  schemes  for  work  integration  social  enterprises 
applicable to a plurality of legal forms have been introduced for instance in: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Germany, Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  and  Spain.  Such  labelling  can also  apply to the  products  and 
services delivered by social economy entitites or to financial products (see more info in section 4.5). 

 The two maps below from the 2020 mapping study show the diversity:  

19 The labels or statutes can be adopted by a variety of legal entities  provided that they comply with a set of 
criteria, in addition to the fulfilment of the criteria already in force for the legal forms entitled to qualify. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 

Source: European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 
Taxation: Diversity of approaches 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As the 2020 mapping study pointed out: In most countries, the fiscal framework within which social 
enterprises operate is rather complex and fragmented. "Given their nature, social enterprises in most 
countries  enjoy  all  those  fiscal  benefits  (or  at  least  many  of  them)  already  in  place  for  non-profit 
organisations, social economy organisations (especially for cooperatives) and mainstream business. 
Some fiscal benefits depend on the legal forms adopted by social enterprises instead of their activity, 
as in Italy and in Ireland, in cases in which cooperatives (in Italy) and organisations with charitable 
status  (in  Ireland)  are  exempt  from  taxation  on  non-distributed  profits.  In  other  countries,  social 
enterprises may enjoy fiscal benefits that are granted on the basis of their activities rather than on the 
basis of their specific organisational nature."20 

The table below (from the same source) gives an overview about the fiscal benefits granted to social 
enterprises: 

Source: European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020. 

Developing social economy ecosystems 

Some countries with an already advanced ecosystem benefitted from EU support on mutual learning, 
access to finance and research for social economy organisations. In Central and Eastern Europe and in 
neighbouring countries (e.g. the Western Balkans), SBI actions and EU funding have played an essential 
role in the setting up of a social economy ecosystem.21 

Despite progress in many areas, needs persist – although with different intensities across EU Member 
States and regions. 

While some economic sectors like care and social services have a higher share of social economy than 
other sectors22, social economy organisations can be found in virtually all economic sectors. This can 
make it very challenging to adress their needs. A newly founded social enterprise, trying to scale up a 
particular social innovation, will face other immediaate challenges than a local farming cooperative 

20  European  Commission,  ‘Social  enterprises  and  their  ecosystems  in  Europe:  Comparative  synthesis  report’, 
Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020, p. 92. (For more details see Appendix 6 of this study) 
21 European Commission. Impact of the European Commission’s Social Business Initiative (SBI) and its Follow-up 
Actions, 2020. 
22 The economic sectors in which social economy actors are particularly prevalent varies between countries. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
with decades of history. On the other hand, there are numerous ways how exchange of experience 
across sectors can be beneficial for social economy organisations. Common challenges can inspire new 
creative solutions that would not have been possible without the cross-sectoral exchange of ideas.  

Estimated data on employment  

The EESC (2017) study estimates that in the EU the social economy represents more than 82.8 million 
volunteers,  equivalent  to  5.5  million  (non-paid)  full-time  workers.  This  gives  an  estimated  total 
workforce of 19.1 million people (13.6 million paid and 5.5 million non-paid). Data on employment 
confirm that social enterprises are generally micro- and small organisations with high proportions of 
female  workers.  For  example,  in  Croatia, only  one-fifth  of  social  enterprises  employ  more  than  10 
workers. Exceptions include France, Italy and Spain, where social enterprises also include rather large 
organisations. In many countries—including Belgium, Denmark, France and Italy— large numbers of 
volunteers work with social enterprises.23  

Data on working conditions 

Statistical data on the quality of jobs and working conditions in the social economy are not availble. 
However, anecdotal evidence such as the case studies conducted by Eurofound in cooperatives and 
social enterprises in 2018 in five countries (Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK) suggests that, overall, 
workers perceived the quality of jobs within cooperatives and social enterprises to be good, both in 
absolute terms and relative to other organisations. Managers and workers reported that many of the 
dimensions of job quality were integral to organisational objectives.  

Mainstream businesses: increased awareness of social issues 

Awareness  of  social  issues  has  also  grown  among  mainstream  profit-maximising  businesses.  For 
example, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has grown in prominence over the last two decades, to 
the point that it is now inconceivable for companies of a certain size not to have a CSR policy in place. 
Benefit Corporations and impact enterprises have also grown in number and incorporate sustainable 
ambitions  in  their  missions.  At  the  same  time  other  enterprises  are  adopting  ad  hoc  measures  to 
improve transparency and engage more actively with communities. This trend has been largely driven 
by an increase in public and consumer pressure. At the same time, social economy business models 
have served as inspiration for alternative ways to engage in business.  

These  developments  can  serve  as  an  opportunity  for  increased  cooperation  between  the  social 
economy and mainstream businesses. 

2.3 

Efforts in measuring social impact 

With growing interest in recent years in social enterprises and social impact investment, efforts have 
increased to try to measure social impact. The idea is that such data can help an organisation identify 
for itself the strategies that generate the greatest social impact. At the same time, such data can help 

23  European  Commission,  ‘Social  enterprises  and  their  ecosystems  in  Europe:  Comparative  synthesis  report’, 
2020, p. 106. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
attract  funding  from  public  authorities  and  social  investors.  The  recent  concept  of  social  outcome 
contracting24, for example, introduces the idea of contracting and paying for certain outcomes, rather 
than activities (outputs), and has contributed to interest in measurement methodologies.  

As interest in social impact measurement has grown, numerous approaches, tools and practices have 
been  developed,  each  promoting  particular  types  of  indicators.  Experts  identify  a  need  to  further 
strengthen  and  support  the  sharing  of  know-how,  tools  and  good  practice  in  designing,  planning, 
implementing, measuring, monitoring, and reporting on social impact and social added value25. 

At present there is no indicator database for social impact criteria that can be used by investors and 
social economy organisations. Some efforts are underway regarding the standardisation of data by 
providing validated indicators26. They constitute a good source to start developing an own indicator 
set. However, not all possible interventions are covered and indicators often focus on a development 
aid context27.  

Whilst some of these methodologies are becoming more widely used than others, there is emerging 
consensus that a “one-size fits all” approach is not appropriate in light of the diversity of social needs, 
interventions,  scale  and  stakeholder  interests.  Social  economy  representatives  are  therefore 
increasingly requesting more bottom-up, flexible and differentiated approaches28.  

The  4-year  INTERREG  project  VISES  gathered  21  partners  and  highlighted  how  the  social  economy 
contributes to the dynamism of the territories and to the well-being of their inhabitants. The project 
illustrated the key features of a relevant social impact evaluation strategy.29 

While  promising  developments  are  occurring  in  relation  to  social  impact  measurement  and  these 
should  be  further  explored,  some  challenges  need  to  be  acknowledged.  For  example,  measuring 
impact  can  be  perceived  as  intrusive  and  an  additional  burden,  in  terms  of  human  and  financial 
resources. Expectations need to be proportionate and adjusted to the nature of the entity (e.g. social 
enterprises, investment funds) and the stage of development and size of the enterprise in order not 
to stymie the development of new start ups in the early stages. 30 Concerns have also been expressed 
about possible unintended consequences of data gathering, especially long-term data. For instance, 
the importance of not ending up focusing only on easy to measure impacts, rather than considering 
all aspects of the work of an organisation. Similarly, questions have arisen as to whether measurement 
dynamics –  if poorly designed  -  could  inadvertently actually  reduce  the  scope for innovation if too 
much pressure from payment schedules is imposed on the delivery of very specifically pre-determined 
outcomes.  

24  European  Commission,  Study  on  the  benefits  of  using  social  outcome  contracting  in  the  provision  of  social 
services and interventions, 2021 
25 European Commission,  Social enterprises and the social economy going forward: A call for action from the 
Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship (GECES), 2016.  
26 The few examples encompass the SDG’s sub-indicators and the metrics published by IRIS+. 
27 Upcoming European Commission (2021) Impact measurement in Social Finance. 
28 OECD, ‘Social impact measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy: OECD Global Action Promoting 
Social & Solidarity Economy Ecosystems’, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, 
No. 2021/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021. & European Commission, Proposed approaches to social impact 
measurement, A report by the GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement, 2014.  
29  See: 
(projetvisesproject.eu) 
30 OECD & European Commission, Policy Brief on Social Impact Measurement for Social Enterprises, 2015.  

l’Entrepreneuriat  Social 

l’Impact  Social  de 

-  Valorisation  de 

Joint  declaration 

-  VISES 

11 

 
 
                                                           
Despite these challenges, some promising practices in terms of harmonising reporting standards have 
emerged at national levels. Examples include  the Social Reporting Standard, developed in Germany, 
and the Canadian Common Approach.31 Rather than focusing on creating a universal set of metrics 
that  every  social  economy  organisation  must  narrowly  adhere  to,  these  approaches  recognise  the 
diversity  of  drivers,  actors  and  intentions  for  social  impact.  Although  promising,  the  continued 
development  of  these  “middle  ground”  approaches require extensive  consultation  at  a  grass  roots 
level,  and  creative  mechanisms  for  enabling  collaboration  between  financers  and  the  social 
economy32. 

The  Commission  has  also  started  the  development  of  a  social  economy  “canvas”,  a  visual  tool  to 
comprehend the social, environmental and economic implications of social economy activity as well 
as  picturing  the  value  relations  between  social  economy  organisations  and  their  community 
stakeholders. 33 

2.4  Gender dimension 

In general, high proportions of female workers seem common in the social economy34, however no 
EU-wide reliable and fully comparable data is available. 

“(I)n  Belgium,  females  comprise  70%  of  the  workforce  in  social  economy,  while  in  France  they 
comprise  67%.  Women  represent  about  61%  of  Italian  social  cooperatives’  nonseasonal  part-time 
employees, compared with 47% in other enterprises. In some countries, the creation of flexible jobs 
by social enterprises is regarded as a positive trend (e.g., Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Turkey) that 
can especially benefit women. This is the case for both social enterprises led by women and social 
enterprises that mainly employ women. The high share of women employed is related to the fields of 
engagement of social enterprises, which also typically account for a high percentage of women when 
they are managed by public agencies.”35 

However,  having  a  large  share  of  women  in  the  workforce  does  not  prevent  issues  related  to  the 
gender pay gap. While no reliable data is available for all EU Member States and it it is thus difficult to 
assess the overall situation, some national data is available. For example, the gender pay gap in the 
French social economy can be partly explained by the strong presence of women in occupations in the 
health  and  social  sectors.  Occupations  and  jobs  in  these  sectors  are  often  not  paid  very  well  and 
women generally have less access to managerial positions which usually command higher salaries. For 
example, only 13 % of women employed in the social economy in France are in managerial positions, 

31 See note 29, p. 12. 
32  OECD,  ‘Social  impact  measurement  for  the  Social  and  Solidarity  Economy: OECD  Global  Action  Promoting 
Social & Solidarity Economy Ecosystems’, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, 
No. 2021/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021. 
33 European Commission, A Canvas for Social Economy 
34 At least in some countries the percentage is significantly higher than in the mainstream private sector or even 
the public sector: For example in France 40% percent of people working in the private sector (not counting social 
economy) and 63% in the public sector are women, compared to 68% in the social economy. CNCRESS, État des 
lieux de l'égalité femmes-hommes dans l'Économie Sociale et Solidaire, 2019, p. 6. 
35  European  Commission,  ‘Social  enterprises  and  their  ecosystems  in  Europe:  Comparative  synthesis  report’, 
Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, 2020, p. 105. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
compared to 22 % of men.36 In France part-time work is more common in the social economy (38%) 
than in the rest of the private sector (19%) and the public sector (24%).37 

According  to  the  Global  Entrepreneurship  Monitor  (GEM)  an  estimated  55%  of  the  world’s  social 
entrepreneurs  are  male  and  45%  female.  This  gender  gap  in  social  entrepreneurial  activity  is 
significantly smaller than the roughly 2:1 gender gap in mainstream entrepreneurial activity found in 
some economies. Women tend to pursue entrepreneurial roles in a more social setting – for example, 
by  becoming  a  social entrepreneur  (on  the  support for  female  social entrepreneurship  see  section 
4.15) or by making an entrepreneurial contribution in the public sector, as found in an earlier GEM 
report.38  For more  information about female entrepreneurship see also the most  recent edition of 
OECD  &  European  Commission  report  “The  Missing  Entrepreneurs  2021.  Policies  for  Inclusive 
Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment” (6th edition). 

A number of social economy organisations also specifically target women in their up-skilling and re-
skilling work, including female migrants and refugees and women from other vulnerable groups. 

Fostering  the  social  economy  can  also  have  an  indirect  positive  impact  on  women’s  access  to  the 
labour  market.  The  reasoning  is  that,  as  care  burdens  in  households  are  still  not  shared  equally 
between women and men in practice, the provision of high quality, affordable care services by social 
economy  organisations  can  enable  women  to  pursue  their  professional  development  more 
indepentently because they can turn to professional care services instead of having no other choice 
than to do the care work for dependent relatives themselves. 

36 CNCRESS, État des lieux de l'égalité femmes-hommes dans l'Économie Sociale et Solidaire, 2019,  p. 28. 
37 See note 37, p. 13. 
38  Bosma,  N.,  Schøtt,  T.,  Terjesen,  S.  and  Kew.  P,  Global  Entrepreneurship  Monitor’s  (GEM):  Social 
Entrepreneurship, 2016. See also : Huysentruyt, M., "Women's Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation", OECD 
Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2014/01, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSULTATIONS 

In order to gain a better understanding of the needs of the social economy, the Commission gathered 
evidence through a variety of studies and reports and consulted a broad range of stakeholders. The 
feedback from social economy stakeholders confirmed the need for reinforced action at EU level to 
support the social economy. 

This section describes how evidence and views from stakeholders have been collected. The first part 
focuses on relevant studies, the second one describes the process of collecting feedback and 
contributions, including on the basis of the roadmap published by the Commission39. 

An analysis of the contribution is provided in chapter 4. 

3.1 

 Evidence and data collection  

A number of recent studies fed into the preparation of the action plan for social economy. The most 
important ones are: 

- 

- 

- 

The study on the impact of the Social Business Initiative and its follow-up actions (2020): Based 
on  326 
interviews  with  public  authorities,  stakeholder  organisations,  experts  and 
practitioners, the study provides a comprehensive evidence-based analysis of the impact of 
the  Commission’s  2011  Social  Business  Initiative  on  the  development  of  social  economy 
organisations and their operating environments at both national and EU levels. 
The EU mapping study on social enterprises and their ecosystems (2020): it is currently the 
most comprehensive source presenting a comparative overview of social enterprises and their 
operating environments in Europe. It covers 35 European countries. 
The European Economic and Social Committee report on the recent Evolutions of the Social 
Economy in the European Union (2017): it provides aggregate EU level figures on the whole 
social economy, its importance in terms number of entities, number of jobs and to a certain 
extent its economic weight. 

-  A set of policy guidance and tools elaborated by the European Commission in cooperation with 
the  OECD  in  relation  to  specific  aspects  of  social  economy  and  social  entrepreneurship 
developments. A number of the related OECD / EU reports have been used to gather evidence 
relevant for the drafting of the action plan:  

  Policy brief on Social Entrepreneurship 
  Policy brief on Social Impact Measurement 
  Policy brief on Scaling the Impact of Social Enterprises 
  Compendium of good practices 
  Policy paper: Regional Strategies for the Social Economy40 

-  Other  recent  studies  focusing  on  specific  challenges  for  the  social  economy,  such  as  two 
market  analyses  of  the  social  enterprise  finance  market  and  of  the  microfinance  market 
conducted  in  2020,  which  shed  light  on  the  funding  gaps  for  social  enterprises  and  micro-
enterprises in Europe, one study on the cooperation between social economy and traditional 

39  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12743-EU-action-plan-for-social-
economy_en 
40 This is an OECD Policy Paper, while all above are OECD / EU jointly. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
enterprises,  a  study  on  new  technologies  and  digitisation  and  the  ESF  report  on  social 
innovation. 

3.2 

Consultations  

This section describes the ways in which EU institutions, stakeholders and citizens provided input for 
the action plan. The consultations allowed the Commission to benefit from rich inputs reflecting the 
variety of citizens’ and stakeholders’ views on the needs of the social economy and formed the basis 
for the preparation of the action plan.  

Formal opinions from other EU institutions and bodies 

The Commission has received contributions or held exchanges of views with the European Economic 
and Social Committee (EESC) as well as the Committee of the Regions (CoR). 

  The EESC adopted an explanatory opinion on “The role of social economy in the creation of 
jobs and in the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights” at the request of the 
Portuguese Presidency, on 27 April 2021.41  

  The CoR adopted an opinion on “An action plan for the social economy”, at the request of the 

Commission, on 1 July 2021.42  

In addition, at the time of publication, the European Parliament was in the process of preparing a 
report  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on  a  statute  for  European  cross-border 
associations  and  non-profit  organisations  (2020/2026(INL)  (Committee  on  Legal  Affairs  - 
Rapporteur: Sergey Lagodinsky). 

Events 

  On  25-26  November  2020  the  European  Commission  co-organised  the  Social  Economy 
Scientific  Conference,,  whose  proceedings  have  been  widely  disseminated  through  a 
partnership between the European Commission and the Stanford Social Innovation Review, 
culminating  with  the  publication  of  the  in-depth  series  on  “European  Perspectives  on 
Emerging Social Economy”. 

  On 26-27 May 2021 the city of Mannheim in Germany organised the European Social Economy 
Summit with the support of the Commission. Eight online events took place in the run-up to 
this  Summit.  In  addition,  a  “Mannheim  declaration”  with  policy  recommendations  was 
endorsed by a large number of stakeholders after the Summit.  

  The Spanish and Portuguese Presidencies of the Monitoring Committee of the Luxembourg 

declaration43 organised several conferences on the social economy. 

41  EESC  opinion  adopted  on  27/04/2021,  The  role  of  social  economy  in  the  creation  of  jobs  and  in  the 
implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, INT/925-EESC-2020-5266.  
42 Committee of the Regions opinion adopted on 01/07/2021, An action plan for the social economy, SEDEC-
VII/016  
43 The Monitoring Committee for the Luxembourg Declaration currently has 14 member states (Slovak Republic, 
Luxembourg, Spain, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Italy, Malta 
and  Portugal).  The  main  aim  of  the  monitoring  committee  is  to  follow  up  and  provide  continuity  to  the 

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
  On 8 June  2021, the  Commission organised a meeting of EU social partners. In addition to 
discussing the overall objectives of the action plan, the participants were invited to comment 
more specifically on the issues of State aid and worker buy-outs.  

  Since 2020, the European Parliament Intergroup on Social Economy organised several digital 

events aimed to feed the preparation of the action plan for the social economy: 

o  2  June  2020: “Co-designing  the  European  Action  plan  for  the  Social  Economy, as  a 

leverage for the Economic and Social Recovery of Europe”; 

o  10 November 2020: “Social Economy’s vision for a Green and Fair Transition”; 
o  18  February  2021:  “Skills  and  Digitalisation:  Investing  in  the  Social  Economy  as 

tomorrow’s economy”;  

o  7 October 2021: “Social Economy as an Industrial Ecosystem – A catalyst to Build Back 

Better & Fairer”.  

  A series of social economy stakeholders also organised relevant conferences and events. 

Targeted consultation  

The Commission invited stakeholders to provide input through various channels: 

  The broad consultation process from 14 January to 30 November 2021 on the action plan for 

the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; 

  The ‘Have your Say’ web page of the European Commission, where stakeholders could provide 

feedback on the roadmap on the action plan (for details see section III); 

  The European Commission expert group on the social economy and social enterprises (GECES) 
meetings and its 2016 report on “Social enterprises and the social economy going forward”; 
  A specific consultation of the GECES on the topic of “Social economy and State aid for access 
to  finance”  at  the  meeting  on  10  September  2021,  with  an  invitation  to  provide  written 
comments in the weeks following the meeting;  

  The strategic dialogue between civil society and the European Commission in November 2020.  
  Bilateral meetings with stakeholders such as Social Economy Europe, Concorde Europe, Social 
Services  Europe,  CG  Scop,  CECOP,  European  Foundation  Centre,  Dieses,  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean, AIM, EASPD, Red Cross, Caritas. 

Ad hoc input and position papers 

The Commission also received ad hoc input and position papers from stakeholders. These included a 
position paper developed by France and supported by Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, 
Spain and Slovakia. 

agreements made in the  Luxembourg declaration, which  establishes a  road map to a  broader ecosystem  for 
social economy companies. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.3 

Publication of the SEAP roadmap 

In spring 2021 the European Commission published a roadmap on the upcoming action plan, inviting 
stakeholders to provide their input. The Commission received feedback both through the dedicated 
website and other contact channels. 

Roadmap feedback  

Via a dedicated web page44, open from 1 March until 26 April 2021, stakeholders and citizens could 
submit their feedback (without pre-set questions) on the roadmap for the action plan for the social 
economy. The  Commission received 132 contributions  and  46% of submissions came from NGOs  – 
within and beyond the social economy. Business associations accounted for 13% of total submissions, 
public authorities for 8%, and business organisations for 7%. Further contributions came from research 
institutions (4%), consumer organisations (2%), trade unions (2%), as well as from EU (2%) and non-EU 
citizens (2%).  

Distribution of contributions from citizens and organisations (N=132) 

In  total,  the  Commission  received  contributions  from  25  countries,  including  21  in  the  EU. 
Stakeholders’  contributions  very much  echoed  the  needs  identified  in  the  context  of  the  evidence 
gathering  process.  They  called  for  an  improvement  of  access  to  funding  and  markets  for  social 
economy  actors,  as  well  as  for  advances  in  policy  and  legal  frameworks  better  reflecting  their 
characteristics. In addition, several asked to increase the recognition, visibility of and awareness about 
the  social  economy,  in  particular  through  the  inclusion  of  a  clear  and  inclusive  definition  of  the 
business model. A number of contributions formulated very concrete proposals. 

44  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12743-EU-action-plan-for-social-
economy_en 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.  CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY – MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE 

CONSULTATIONS 

This chapter gives an analytical overview of the opportunities and challenges for the social economy 
identified  through  the  consultations  conducted  in  preparation  of  the  action  plan  (as  described  in 
chapter 2). The content of this chapter is structured around a number of overarching topics, similar to 
those covered in the action plan. The main contributions and suggestions received from experts and 
stakeholders in the consultation on the roadmap are integrated in each section. The feedback received 
on the roadmap reflects, to a large degree, viewpoints expressed by various stakeholders in previous 
exchanges and contacts and during various events. 

All sections list the problems social economy actors face (as stated by the stakeholders), present their 
suggestions for changes, and then provide a concluding assessment of the situation. 

4.1  On the action plan for the social economy in general 

A strong consensus emerged amongst the contributions on the importance of the action plan for the 
social  economy  and  its  strong  relevance  in  the  current  context.  Stakeholders  appreciated  the  EU’s 
efforts in supporting the social economy’s visibility. A number of key themes were identified in  the 
feedback gathered.  

4.2  Defining social economy at the European level 

The SBI study pointed out that future policy initiatives should take into account the different needs of 
the  diverse  types  of  organisation  (e.g.  cooperatives,  mutual  benefit  societies,  associations, 
foundations, social enterprises).  

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 

Lack of a common definition and understanding of social economy at European level impedes 
the development of consistent EU policies and support instruments 
Lack of a common definition of social enterprises at European level hinders awareness raising 
initiatives and impedes the formation of a basis upon which tailored and effective policy can 
be formulated 

 

  There is no common definition of “for benefit” or “limited profit” enterprises 
 

Inclusive enterprises for persons with disabilities are not always considered part of the social 
economy 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

A number of stakeholders called for a clear EU level definition of the social economy concept.45 A few 
advocated a homogenous, binding definition at EU level, whilst most others stressed the need for an 
EU  definition  to  respect  the  diversity  of  social  economy  organisations  and  the  heterogeneity  of 

45 Suggestion made in position papers by CIRIEC, Social Economy Europe, AMICE, CEPES, Federation of European 
Social Employers, SLOGA Platform, Fair Trade Advocacy Office, ConcertES, Department of Rural and Community 
Development (Ireland), AEMA Groupe, Crédit Coopératif, TERZJUS and Social Entrepreneurship Association of 
Latvia. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
national traditions. There was also a call for the explicit inclusion of specific types of entities, e.g. not-
for-profit social service providers. European social partners argued that the definition would be best 
created at Member State level. 

Commission analysis  
The Commission will aim to retain a broad and inclusive definition of the social economy, which 
respects Member States’ heterogeneous traditions. The fact that there are very diverse traditions 
and  definitions  means  that  a  very  precise  (and  therefore  somewhat  narrow)  definition  of  social 
economy would likely exclude some organisations and can therefore not be assumed to be in the 
best  interests  of  the  social  economy  in  Europe.  Only  a  broad  and  inclusive  definition  takes  into 
account the existing diversity and preserves the possibility to pursue  a variety of approaches (at 
Member State level, as well as at the level of individual organisations). 

4.3 

Enhancing awareness and visibility of the social economy  

The visibility of the social economy and social enterprises has increased considerably since 2011. The 
Social Business Initiative  has helped to increase the visibility, recognition and understanding of social 
enterprises.  It  contributed  to  facilitate  the  availability  of  information  on  social  enterprises,  to 
implement mutual learning, research, and visibility measures related to the social economy and social 
enterprises in EU programmes. The SBI also helped to disseminate the social enterprise concept across 
EU  Member  States  and  to  raise  awareness  on  the  social  economy  as  a  broader  dynamic  in  policy 
debates.  

Social  enterprises  and  other  social  economy  organisations  (SEOs)  are  increasingly  considered  as 
important  actors,  not  only  by  policymakers  in  social  policy,  but  also  in  other  policies  (regional 
development, cohesion, innovation, climate, environment). Further awareness raising efforts would 
nevertheless be beneficial. The SBI study identified a need for more visibility, better understanding 
and recognition of benefits and obstacles, for example in national legal and fiscal frameworks. Social 
impacts of social economy organisations need to be better understood and reported.46  

Continued  efforts  in  generating  solid  knowledge  and  high  quality  data  about  social  economy  are 
needed to inform EU, national and local policies, to stimulate mutual learning and to inspire common 
agendas according to the 2020 mapping study. 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
 
 
 

Lack of visibility, recognition and significance of the social economy sector within the EU 
Lack of indicators and data on the real socio-economic impact and value of the social economy  
Lack of understanding and promotion of EU opportunities for social economy stakeholders 
Lack  of  visibility  of  the  social  economy  in  European  processes  and  initiatives  such  as  the 
European Semester and the European Pillar of Social Rights 

  Member States lack awareness on the particular characteristics of the social economy 
  Social  economy  actors  are  not  fully  recognised  for  their  valuable  contributions  during  the 

COVID-19 crisis 

46  See  recommendations  in  European  Commission,  Impact  of  the  European  Commission’s  Social  Business 
Initiative (SBI) and its Follow-up Actions, 2020. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
Suggestions from stakeholders 

Visibility 

Stakeholders  and  experts  drew  attention  to  the  role  of  the  action  plan  for  the  social  economy  in 
increasing the visibility and recognition of the sector as a whole and of its enterprises in particular.  

Stakeholders such as RREUSE and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) called for mainstreaming 
the social economy at EU and national levels, respectively. 

At  the  European  Social  Economy  Summit,  several  speakers  emphasised  the  importance  of  raising 
political awareness on the advantages of socially inclusive economic growth.  

A  position  paper  developed  by  France  and  supported  by  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Portugal,  Spain  and  Slovakia  stressed  that  research  initiatives  on  the  social,  environmental  and 
economic added value of social economy structures should be encouraged through  the Fi-compass 
platform47 or European universities. Eurofound suggested that, building on work already undertaken 
by the European Commission, the existing and emerging types of cooperative and social enterprises 
should be further clarified in order to collect a robust and consistent evidence base. In addition to this, 
the Mannheim Declaration suggested that the European Commission increase the sector’s visibility by 
encouraging other interested regions, cities and municipalities to join the European Social Economy 
Regions (ESER) initiative. 

Other visibility initiatives referred to included the European Social Economy Capital initiative set up by 
the Monitoring Committee of the Luxembourg declaration.48 In addition, efforts have been made to 
raise awareness on the social economy through the development, in recent years, of a large number 
of awards and prizes a developed at various levels (see Annex 3 for a list of examples). 

Commission analysis 
Better visibility, understanding and recognition of the benefits and obstacles for the social economy 
continue  to  be 
important.  Raising  awareness  and  improving  communication  on  support 
opportunities  for  stakeholders  have  a  big  potential  to  boost  the  social  economy,  (especially  in 
countries  where  it  is  currently  less  developed.  Therefore,  awareness  raising  and  disseminating 
information will be important. Young people, who may be the social entrepreneurs of the future, 
should  be  included  in  these  efforts.  Economic  and  business  faculties  of  universities  could  be 
targeted  with  information  about  the  social  economy  with  a  view  to  presenting  it  as  a  potential 
career path. 

47 Fi-Compass is an EU platform offering advisory services on financial instruments available under the European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF).  A  joint  tool  provided  by  the  European  Commission  and  European 
Investment Bank (EIB), it is designed to support microfinance providers and other interested parties by making 
learning  tools  on  financial  instruments  available  to  them  and  encouraging  them  to  make  use  of  them. 
(https://www.fi-compass.eu/) 
48 Since 2019, the countries presiding the Monitoring Committee designate yearly a European Capital for Social 
Economy. After Strasbourg (2019) and Toledo (2020), in 2021 the title is shared by five Portuguese municipalities 
(Sintra, Braga, Cascais, Coimbra and Torres Vedras). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.4 

Support for specific target groups 

In a number of contributions stakeholders called for an enhanced awareness and support for their 
area(s) of work and their target groups (including mainstreaming the issues and target groups into 
various EU programmes).  

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
 

Lack of awareness for the work with specific target groups 
Lack of awareness on the concept and benefits of Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs), 
including those employing persons with disabilities, and cooperative enterprises 
Lack of data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rights of workers with disabilities, 
particularly female workers with disabilities 
Lack of understanding about the social economy and social entrepreneurship among young 
people 

 

 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Some stakeholders identified a lack of data as an issue to address. EVPA suggested to collect data on 
equality and disparities of different vulnerable groups (on the main topics under the European Pillar 
of  Social  Rights)  for  designing  more  targeted  solutions.49  Another  suggestion  made,  was  to 
disaggregate collected data to highlight the percentage of social entrepreneurs led by vulnerable and 
marginalised groups.50 Eurodiaconia suggested that the European Commission should launch research 
into the methods of successful mainstream workplace integration of people with disabilities, people 
who experience homelessness and the long term unemployed. 

A number of specific target groups have been highlighted in the contributions from stakeholders. The 
list below is by no means exhaustive, but may serve as a reminder about the wide range of groups and 
individuals social economy organisations support with their work on a daily basis. 

Persons with disabilities 

The  European  Observatory  for  Inclusive  Employment  and  Sustainable  Development  Goals  and 
Eurodiaconia  suggested  the  European  Commission  and  national  governments  should  promote  and 
fund projects and transnational mutual learning exchanges that facilitate the reintegration of persons 
with  disabilities  into  the  regular  labour  market  (including  through  the  ESF).  The  European 
Observatory for Inclusive Employment and Sustainable Development Goals asks to ensure that non-
discrimination on the  basis of disability and work integration of persons with disabilities remains  a 
requirement  for  EU  funding  allocation,  in  particular  for  the  current  initiatives  taken  to  support 
employment retention and promotion.  

49 The EU Multidimensional Inequality Monitoring Framework developed by the European Commission’s Joint 
Research  Centre 
a 
repository of inequality indicators spanning ten key life domains. It also facilitates the monitoring of inequality 
levels across groups defined by socioeconomic characteristics such as gender and migrant status. 
50 Suggestion made in position paper by WEF COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs 

(https://composite-indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/multidimensional-inequality)  offers 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A  number  of  stakeholders  called  for  an  increase  in  recognition  and  visibility  of  the  positive  socio-
economic impact of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) by the EU and its Member States. The 
European Commission should organise awareness raising activities for Member States, together with 
social services providers in order to showcase WISEs' contribution.51 

Other suggestions included:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

Ensure  that  EU-level  funds  can  be  easily  accessed  to  finance  projects  around  education, 
training, lifelong learning, skills development and traineeship-to-employment programmes, in 
order to equip workers with disabilities  with knowledge  and competences that match the 
demand  for  green,  digital  and  in-sourcing  skills  –    European  Observatory  for  Inclusive 
Employment and Sustainable Development Goals 
Support  conditions  for  unrestricted  access  to  in-company  vocational  training  for  young 
people with disabilities and to individually adapted vocational preparation measures for the 
transition  from  school  to  working  life  –  European  Confederation  of  Inclusive  Enterprises 
(EUCIE) and Spanish Council for the Defense of Disability and Dependency (CEDDD) 
SEAP should address the responsibility of social enterprises to focus on training and skilling 
their employees with disabilities to facilitate career progression and a transition into the 
open labour market if the employee wishes to. Particular efforts must be made to ensure that 
training programmes are made accessible for persons with disabilities, and that workers are 
free from discrimination when it comes to promotions and pay-scale progression – European 
Disability Forum 
SEAP  must  recognise  the  differing  roles  played  by  social  economy  enterprises  and  social 
services towards the inclusion of persons with disabilities – (CEDDD) 

-  Raise awareness of all employers that the talents of persons with disabilities can be used in 
these times as well and that workers with disabilities can actually be “co-creators of COVID-19 
responses.52 The SEAP should explore the importance of persons with disabilities not only as 
employees in social enterprises, but also as entrepreneurs who want to create their own 
business or start-up.53 

-  Recognise  the crucial role played by work integration social enterprises  employing persons 
with disabilities (D-WISE) in promoting employment for persons with disabilities in the next 
European Disability Strategy.54 The SEAP should clearly recognise the value of social economy 
entities in providing employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.55 
Fund  EU  level  projects  and  research  aiming  to  improve  the  understanding  of  work 
integration  social  enterprises  employing  persons  with  disabilities  (D-WISE)  across  EU 
Member  States  –  European  Observatory  for  Inclusive  Employment  and  Sustainable 
Development Goals. 

- 

Roma 

ERGO Network pointed out that social economy holds a great potential to positively contribute to a 
sustainable  and  inclusive  recovery,  where  the  Roma  are  not  left  behind,  but  supported  towards 

51 Suggestion made in position papers by  ENSIE, Coorace, Eco-Razeni Association, Fédération des entreprises 
d'insertion, FAEDEI, GALILEO PROGETTI Nonprofit Kft., Klimax Plus, RISE, ŠENT, Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR 
52  Suggestion  made  in  position  paper  by  European  Observatory  for  Inclusive  Employment  and  Sustainable 
Development Goals 
53 Suggestion made in position paper by European Disability Forum 
54  Suggestion  made  in  position  paper  by  European  Observatory  for  Inclusive  Employment  and  Sustainable 
Development Goals 
55 Suggestion made in position paper by European Disability Forum and Asociación MIRA España 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
better  social  and  economy  outcomes,  while  combatting  prejudice  and  promoting  peaceful 
coexistence. In their view, WISEs represent a good solution for the preservation of Roma traits and 
crafts that are on the verge of being forgotten. 
The ERGO network also suggested to mainstream social enterprises and the social economy into EU 
law, policy, and programmes and spell out Roma as a key target group in EU initiatives such as the 
EU Roma Integration Framework, Youth Guarantee and Child Guarantee. Legislative proposals should 
strive for social inclusion and clearly name Roma communities among the intended beneficiaries. 
They call for all social economy actors to be mindful of deeply-rooted discrimination and anti-gypsyism 
in all countries and make conscious efforts to combat any such tendencies in their work.  

People experiencing homelessness 

FEANTSA reminded that it should be recognised that homeless services are first and foremost provided 
by  not-for-profit  organisations  and  that  employment  and  social  economy  policies  can  play  an 
important part in approaches and solutions to preventing and ending homelessness in Europe, but 
that they are not a guaranteed solution to all of that challenges that a homeless person might face. 
 From  the  perspective  of  the  homelessness  sector,  the  European  Platform  for  Combatting 
Homelessness  is  the  flagship  initiative  to  prevent  and  reduce  homelessness  in  the  EU.  FEANTSA 
suggested that the innovative approaches and inspiring examples arising from the Platform should be 
channelled into the social economy sector via the SEAP. Models of social enterprises that are designed 
specifically for people experiencing homelessness and their unique needs and obstacles to accessing 
the labour market should be promoted. 

Migrants  

Migrants, refugees in particular, often are in need of support when they first arrive in a new country. 
Social economy organisations contribute significantly to the integration of migrants and refugees, at 
the different stages of the integration process. The earlier the access to the labour market, the more 
effective the integration process. Social economy organisations can also provide labour opportunities 
with  specifically  adapted  conditions,  for example  in  terms of  linguistic  support,  which  can  have  an 
overall positive effect on the participation to the labour market. The Municipality of Lampedusa and 
Linosa  pointed  out  that  social  economy  opportunities  for  migrants  can speed up  their  process  of 
integration,  helping  them  in  becoming  a  productive  member  of  the  European  society  and  local 
community.  In  their  view  this  can  lead  to  wider  societal  change:  “Through  social  economy,  local 
European Citizens can reimagine the economic model of their communities shaping new sustainable 
entrepreneurial initiatives based on new societal context (result of migration) and ready to answer 
to the new needs”.  

Youth 

Young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, are also a target group for the work of 
social economy organisations and can benefit from their activities. The overall increased awareness of 
environmental  and  social  issues  among  young  people,  combined  with  a  rising  interest  in 
entrepreneurship with social impact, could potentially make social entrepreneurship the careerpath 
of  choice  for  many  dedicated  young  professionals.  In  addition  to  social  entrepreneurship,  the 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
cooperative model has been found to be an attractive option with viable employment opportunities 
for  young  people56.    Despite  its  potential,  however,  many  young  people  remain  unaware  of  social 
economy business models and their opportunities57. 

In this sense, several stakeholders and experts stressed the importance of promoting awareness and 
recognition of the social economy among young people, in order to promote a transition towards a 
more sustainable and fairer society58. To reach this objective, stakeholders suggested that efforts be 
made to include teaching on the social economy in  schools and universities.59 Social Economy Europe60 
and ConcertES called for the development of Erasmus+ opportunities on social entrepreneurship.  

Some  stakeholders  focused  particularly  on  cooperatives,  underlining  the  importance  of  raising 
awareness  about  the  cooperative  model  among  young  people.61  On  this,  CECOP  and  ZLSP  Poland 
suggested that professional trainings be developed within cooperatives and on the cooperative model, 
particularly targeting young people.  

Women 

The  gender  dimension  was  mentioned  in  the  contributions,  mainly  in  calls  for  promoting  female 
entrepreneurship  and  gender  equality  as  a  whole.  Indeed,  in  their  position  papers,  a  number  of 
stakeholders called on the European Commission to ensure that full gender equity is mainstreamed 
throughout the action plan for the social economy and that specific attention be given to fostering and 
supporting female-led social enterprises.62 

On gender and working conditions, the European Disability Forum invited the action plan for the social 
economy to pay particular attention to furthering the employment quality of women with disabilities. 
They  added  that  the  action  plan  should  seek  to  combat  harassment,  including  sexual  harassment, 
faced by women with disabilities working in social enterprises.  

At  the  Social  Economy  Summit  in  Mannheim,  experts  highlighted  the  challenges  faced  by  women 
between the ages of 45 and 65 that undertake both work and care responsibilities. To this end, they 
stressed the value of career coaching and the importance of work-life balance and promoting a more 
inclusive labour market. 

Commission analysis 
These stakeholder inputs confirm how the social economy serves a variety of target groups. Each of 
these target groups is important and indirectly covered by most of the actions in the action plan, 
even if not spelt out explicitly each time. 

56 International Cooperative Alliance, Young People and Cooperatives: a perfect match?, 2021, p. 65.  
57See note 59, p. 26 and ESSC 2021 Workshop: “Social Economy and Youth Entrepreneurship for a sustainable 
recovery”. 
58 Suggestion made in position papers by Caritas Europa, CECOP and EMES International Research Network. 
59  Suggestion  made  in  position  papers  by  Caritas  Europa,  EMES  International  Research  Network  and  Euclid 
Network and by speakers at the European Social Economy Summit. 
60 Social Economy Europe’s position paper was also submitted by AMICE & CEPES. 
61 Suggestion made in position papers by CECOP, CG Scop, Cooperatives Europe, the Wallon Region and ZLSP 
Poland. 
62 Suggestion made in position papers by Euclid Network and Advocating 4 non-profit enterprises 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
4.5  Developing policy and legal frameworks 

The Social Business Initiative and its follow-up activities have had important effects on the regulatory 
and institutional operating environments of the social economy and social enterprises. 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
  Social economy entities are not legally recognised at the European level 
  The  framework  conditions  for  the  creation  and  growth  of  social  enterprises  are  mainly 
implemented at  national level. Some stakeholders would like to see  a stronger role for the 
European level. 

  The diversity of enterprise models operating in the EU is not sufficiently taken into account 

when legislation is drafted or revised  

  The particularities of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) and WISEs employing persons 
with disabilities (D-WISE) are not always taken into account in policy development related to 
the social economy 

  Social  economy  entities  are  excluded  from  accessing  certain  opportunities  due  to  lack  of 

information on and awareness about their legal forms 

  Certain national enterprise development finance and support programmes, many of which are 
funded by EU funds, still exclude social enterprise legal forms, even when they meet the EU’s 
definition for SMEs 

  Social economy entities are excluded from accessing certain opportunities due to non-inclusive 

legal criteria63 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Several stakeholders, experts and Member States64, as well as the Mannheim Declaration, provided 
suggestions on improving policy and legal frameworks related to the social economy. Throughout the 
consultation process, stakeholders and experts called for more inclusive EU legislation, strengthened 
social  dialogue  and  proposed  new  policies  and  initiatives. While  presenting  their  comments, many 
underlined the diversity of social economy actors.  

In  response  to  the  roadmap  consultation,  several  stakeholders  called  on  the  EU  to  promote  and 
support  Member  States  in  setting  up  appropriate  framework  conditions,  as  well  as  guide  them  in 
improving their social economy ecosystems.65 To this end, the European Confederation of Inclusive 
Enterprises and the Spanish Council for the Defense of Disability and Dependency (CEDDD) suggested 
that a permanent support system for the social economy be established at European level to later be 
transposed into the national legal systems. On this topic, the Mannheim Declaration pointed out that 

63  For  example:  Recommendation  2003/361/EC  of  6  May  2003  concerning  the  definition  of  micro,  small  and 
medium-sized enterprises can indirectly exclude work integration social enterprises (WISEs) from the group of 
beneficiaries of public aids for SMEs as the definition of company size is linked to the number of people working 
in the company. In addition the ownership structure can also lead to not being  considered an (autonomous) 
SME. 
64  This  reference  concerns  a  position  paper  developed  by  France  and  supported  by  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Slovakia. 
65  Suggestion  made  in  position  papers  by  European  Confederation  of  Inclusive  Enterprises  (EUCIE),  SLOGA 
Platform, Spanish Council for the Defense of Disability and Dependency (CEDDD) and European Association of 
Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD). 

25 

 
 
                                                           
“(…) [t]he development of appropriate legal, regulatory and fiscal frameworks must (…) emerge from 
the national and local environments in which social economy enterprises and organisations operate." 

In  their  contributions,  stakeholders  further  underlined  that  the  diversity  of  enterprise  models 
operating in the European Union must be considered when legislation is drafted or revised.66 To this 
end,  Social  Economy  Europe67  and  AIM  suggested  that  a  protocol  on  the  diversity  of  forms  of 
enterprises in the EU be adopted as an annex to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), including the social economy actors and their different legal forms.  

On social dialogue, several stakeholders underlined that the action plan should address the need to 
further develop and promote social dialogue and collective bargaining in the social economy.68 Some 
stressed that this would be particularly relevant for the social services sector, where current workforce 
challenges must be addressed.69 

Working conditions in the social economy overall are understood to be good, but some concerns have 
been raised, especially in situations when public tenders are solely based on cost (see section 4.8). On 
working conditions, several GECES experts pointed out the lack of data on the topic and called for the 
collection  of  more  information  with  a  view  to  improve  policies.70  However  it  was  recognized,  that 
gathering data on this topic would be a complex matter and it would need to include a comparison 
with  the  situation  in  traditional  (for-profit)  businesses.  Eurofound  suggested  that  national  working 
conditions  surveys  should provide  a  separate  analysis  of  the working  conditions  in  social  economy 
organisations. 

In addition, the European Observatory for Inclusive Employment and Sustainable Development Goals  
had a more specific request, calling on the European Commission to collect data and support research 
on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rights of workers with disabilities, taking a gender-
sensitive and intersectional approach. 

The Commission also received several suggestions concerning labels and certification of varied scope. 
The Mannheim Declaration invites a reflection on labels and certification “to boost the recognition of 
products,  services  and  enterprises  and  highlight  the  social  economy’s  role  in  tackling  societal 
challenges”.  While  RREUSE  called  for  the  creation  of  a  European  social  label  specifically  for  social 
economy products71, the GECES working group set up for preparing InvestEU looked at the feasibility 
of  social  finance  labels.  The  latter  concluded  that  such  labels  could  play  a  role  in  helping  mobilise 
finance for social purposes, but that independence would be crucial for their credibility. The experts 

66 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe (SEE), AMICE, CEPES, AIM, Spanish Council for 
the Defense of Disability and Dependency (CEDDD), Cooperatives Europe, ZLSP (Poland), Eurodiaconia 
67 Social Economy Europe’s position paper was also submitted by AMICE & CEPES. 
68 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Services Europe, Union des employeurs de l'économie sociale 
et solidaire, Federation of European Social Employers, Humana DE, EPSU and European Association of Service 
providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD). 

69 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Services Europe, Union des employeurs de l'économie sociale 
et solidaire, Federation of European Social Employers, Social Employers and EPSU joint statement and 
European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD). 

70 This point is made in reference to the GECES meeting of 23 March 2021. 
71 In their position paper, RREUSE explained that the aim of this European Label for social economy products 
would  be  to  boost  and  incentivise  companies  to  integrate  social  considerations  and  empower  consumers  to 
make informed choices. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
also cautioned that labels can be costly and complex to set up and manage and EU labels were not 
realistic. In a different vein, in response to a Commission consultation of the GECES on State aid, the 
French  authorities  highlighted  the  French  accreditation  framework  enabling  State  aid  for  social 
enterprise financing (“solidarity-based enterprise of social utility”), designed to create an asset class 
for  channelling  long-term  private  savings  towards  social  companies,  with  fiscal  incentives  for  risk 
finance investors through income tax reductions. 

Commission analysis  
Member  States  are  responsible  for  putting  in  place  policy  and  legal  frameworks  supporting  the 
development of the social economy at national level. The diversity of starting points means that a 
“one size fits all” approach is not feasible and supporting the social economy will require different 
approaches. The Commission can play a supporting role by  providing guidance, fostering mutual 
learning and the  exchange of good practices  regarding policies  and legal frameworks.  Regarding 
labels and certification/accreditation, the Commission can facilitate a reflection on schemes existing 
at national level, their purposes, and how they can help to strategically unlock new opportunities 
for the social economy, including in relation to State aid. 

4.6 

Social economy and State aid 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
  EU  competition  and  State  aid  rules  do  not  always  match  the  specific  features  of  the  social 

Lack of awareness of State aid rules and their impact on social enterprises 

economy  

  The General Block Exemption Regulation is perceived as overly complex and as not taking fully 

into account the specific needs of the social economy  

  The  complexity  of  some  Services  of  General  Economic  Interest (SGEI)  rules  hinders  the 

 

allocation of SGEIs to social economy organisations 
Local  authorities  lack  awareness  on  the  procedures  for  implementing  State    aid  under  the 
General Block Exemption Regulation 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Several stakeholders and experts made comments and suggestions on the social economy and State 
aid  throughout  the  consultation  process.  Many  highlighted  the  need  to  revise  and  adapt  EU 
competition and State aid rules to the particularities of social economy entities and called on specific 
changes to legislation and initiatives. 

In response to the roadmap, several stakeholders called for the State aid General Block Exemption 
Regulation (n° 651/2014 of 17 June 201) to be modified in order to better take stock of the specific 

27 

 
 
 
needs of the social economy72, while others underlined that the complexity of the legislation should 
be addressed73.  

On improving legal frameworks, a position paper supported by eight Member States74 suggested that 
the State aid General Block Exemption Regulation introduce a definition for social enterprises, based 
on the definition already enshrined in Regulation (EU) no 346/201375. On this topic, the Mannheim 
Declaration  pointed  out  that  “(…)  [t]he  development  of  appropriate  legal,  regulatory  and  fiscal 
frameworks  must  (…)  emerge  from  the  national  and  local  environments  in  which  social  economy 
enterprises and organisations operate."  

In their position paper, the Five Flemish provinces & Association of Flemish Provinces explained that 
the complexity of State aid rules and regulations leads many local/regional governments to resort to 
de minimis, which do not serve the social economy adequately. Indeed, several stakeholders made 
reference to the de minimis Regulation in their position papers. Some called for an increase of the 
threshold of de minimis State aid provided for services of general economic interest76, while others 
emphasised that EU discipline with regard to de minimis rules must be respected and implemented in 
national grant programmes77.  

Also on State aid, some business representatives present at the social partners’ consultation spoke in 
support of extending the maximum duration of wage subsidies for the recruitment of disadvantaged 
and severely disadvantaged workers under the General Block Exemption Regulation. Along these lines, 
in  response  to  the  roadmap,  ENSIE  and  ConcertES  pointed  out  that  the  General  Block  Exemption 
Regulation should be revised regarding the definitions of disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged 
workers and the aids for their employment and training.78 

In response to a Commission consultation of the GECES on state aid, the French authorities highlighted 
the  French  accreditation  framework  enabling  State  aid  for  social  enterprise  financing  (“solidarity-
based enterprise of social utility”) (see previous section). 

72 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe, AMICE, ENSIE, Coorace, Eco-Razeni Association, 
Fédération  des  entreprises  d'insertion,  FAEDEI,  GALILEO  PROGETTI  Nonprofit  Kft.,  Klimax  Plus,  RISE,  ŠENT, 
Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR, ConcertES and the European Association of Service providers for Persons with 
Disabilities (EASPD). 
73 Suggestion made in position papers by Five Flemish provinces & Association of Flemish Provinces and ENSIE 
(Coorace, Eco-Razeni Association, Fédération des entreprises d'insertion, FAEDEI, GALILEO PROGETTI Nonprofit 
Kft., Klimax Plus, RISE, ŠENT, Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR). 
74 Position paper developed by France and supported by Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain 
and Slovakia. 
75  Regulation  (EU)  No  346/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  European  social 
entrepreneurship funds. 
76 Suggestion made in position papers by ENSIE and CECOP. 
77 Suggestion made in position paper by the Hungarian Social Enterprise Coalition. 
78  ENSIE’s  position paper  was  also  submitted  by  Coorace,  Eco-Razeni  Association,  Fédération  des  entreprises 
d'insertion, FAEDEI, GALILEO PROGETTI Nonprofit Kft., Klimax Plus, RISE, ŠENT, Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR 
The stakeholders point out that "the limits of the “Aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers in the form 
of wage subsidies” (art.32) do not allow to integrate many disadvantaged groups because the financial support 
is insufficient to cover their non-productivity and also because they are not ready to integrate the conventional 
labour market after 12 or 24 months of integration pathways (justifying the need of a longer period of financial 
support in general and, more specifically, for people over 50)." 

28 

 
 
 
                                                           
Commission analysis  
The current possibilities allowed by the existing State aid framework are  not always fully exploited, 
therefore awareness raising is needed. The revision process in connection with the expiry of the 
General Block Exemption Regulation in 2023 will be an occasion to consider the potential need for 
changes.  

4.7 

Taxation 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 

Lack of awareness of how EU fiscal rules can be used to maximise investment into the social 
economy 
Lack of a favourable VAT framework for social enterprises and organisations 
Lack of tax exemption initiatives aiming to incentivise investors to provide financial support to 
social entrepreneurs 

 
 

  The social economy sector is rarely mentioned in EU taxation policies 
  The cuts to public expenditure over the last decade have damaged the development of the 

social economy 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Several  stakeholders  and  experts  made  comments  and  suggestions  on  taxation  throughout  the 
targeted consultation process.  

In response to the roadmap, several stakeholders highlighted the need to ensure that the EU’s taxation 
policy favours the development of social economy actors79 and called for facilitating taxation measures 
(i.e.: special rates of VAT) for the social economy.80 Similarly, other stakeholders called for a favourable 
VAT  framework  for  social  enterprises  active  in  the  circular  economy81  and  underlined  that  the  EU 
should  incentivise  investments  in  social  entrepreneurs  and  enterprises  through  tax  exemptions82. 
Along  these 
implementation  of  the  non-
discrimination principle be improved and called for a fairer VAT deal for public-benefit organisations 
via a code of conduct. 

lines,  Philanthropy  Advocacy  suggested  that  the 

RREUSE  pointed  out  a  problem  with  VAT  leading  to  incentives  that  work  counter  to  the  logic  of 
sustainability: in many cases it is currently cheaper for manufacturers and retailers to destroy usable 
goods (including new goods) than to donate them to non-profit organisations (because VAT payments 
are required for donations). 

In  their  position  paper,  the  European  Association  of  Service  providers  for  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(EASPD) explained that the EU’s fiscal rules and promotion of cuts to public expenditure over the last 
decade have damaged the development of the social economy, in particular the development of the 

79 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe, AMICE and CEPES. 
80 Suggestion made in position papers by Federation of European Social Employers, European Confederation of 
Inclusive Enterprises (EUCIE), Humana DE, CECOP, Spanish Council for the Defense of Disability and Dependency 
(CEDDD) and European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD). 
81 Suggestion made in position paper by RREUSE. 
82 Suggestion made in position paper by WEF COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                           
social services sector, whose structural vulnerability is in large part caused by underinvestment. In this 
sense, they called for the action plan for the social economy to demonstrate how EU fiscal rules can 
be used to maximise investment into the social economy, including through the flexibility clause. 

Commission analysis  
The  fiscal  framework  within  which  social  economy  organisations  operate  is  largely  defined  by 
Member States subject to EU legislation and is in many cases rather complex and fragmented. An 
exchange  about  existing  practices  can  be  suggested  to  support  the  Member  States  who  are 
interested in fostering the social economy ecosystem in their country. Facilitating such exchanges  
may help to identify best practices and cross-border learning. Donations are not subject to VAT but 
the VAT paid on goods donated cannot be deducted83. While rules on VAT deduction may merit 
proper  assessment  (especially  with  view  to  the  green  transition),  the  issue  goes  beyond  the 
objectives of the social economy action plan and would require an impact assessment that could 
also look at potential issues of tax avoidance and distortion of competition. 

4.8 

Better access to markets: socially responsible public procurement 

While  access  to  public  markets  was  in  principle  facilitated  by  the  latest  overhaul  of  EU  public 
procurement rules, social economy organisations still largely fail to seize the opportunities deriving 
from  public  tenders.  There  also  remains  a  lot  of  untapped  potential  for  scaling  up  social 
entrepreneurial  activities  on  the  basis  of  private  procurement  and  partnerships  with  mainstream 
enterprises (see SBI study). 

Capacity building is needed to strengthen managerial skills and professionalisation, but also to better 
prepare the public sector and financial intermediaries for working with social economy organisations 
(see SBI study). 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
  The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not fully reflect the diversity 

of companies operating in the Single Market 

  EU trade agreements do not systematically include measures to support the social economy 

sector 

Lack of incentives for private procurement from social enterprises 

  The social economy sector is not visible within the public procurement directives 
  Socially responsible public procurement is not sufficiently promoted within the EU  
  Social economy entities do not know how to identify and successfully bid for public tenders 
 
  Most  procurement  officials  (public  and  private)  do  not  have  the  necessary  skills  and 
background knowledge to prepare tenders that are accessible to social economy actors.  
  Member States and public authorities are not sufficiently aware of the significant opportunities 
Directive  2014/24/EU  on  public  procurement  can  generate  for  Work  Integration  Social 
Enterprises (WISEs) 

83 VAT on donations cannot be deducted as this is not business use, unless they can no longer be sold, e.g. food 
products after due date. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Suggestions from stakeholders 

Better access to markets is a priority for numerous stakeholders. They highlighted the need to improve 
the legal framework, facilitate public and private procurement, build partnerships and stimulate cross-
border operations. 

In particular, several stakeholders argued in favour of a revision of Article 54 of the TFEU to better 
reflect the diversity of actors operating in the Single Market84. Along these lines, some stakeholders 
emphasised the need to improve equal access to the Single Market for the social economy85. 

GECES experts86 and Social Economy Europe stressed the importance of promoting socially responsible 
public procurement in Europe in general. Other stakeholders called more specifically for an increased 
use  of  social  clauses  and  reserved  contracts  in  public  procurement.87  Similar  comments  were  also 
noted  at  the  European  Social  Economy  Summit.  In  the  GECES  meeting  of  23  March  2021,  it  was 
stressed that public tenders were still often awarded solely on the basis of the price criterion and that 
this had a negative effect on the working conditions in the social economy. 

On the subject of improving access to markets, some Member States88 and GECES experts89 pointed 
out that cross-border cooperation remains difficult. To overcome these barriers, several stakeholders 
called for a legal recognition for associations, foundations and mutual benefit societies at European 
level.90 

The Walloon Region encouraged partnerships between social economy stakeholders in the traditional 
economy. Cooperation between social entrepreneurs and the traditional entrepreneurial ecosystem 
(e.g.:  accelerators, 
incubators,  chambers  of  commerce,  development  agencies)  should  be 
strengthened. Different types of partnerships could be established according to the desired area of 
exchange and mutual learning: local partnerships, partnerships between entrepreneurs, international 
partnerships, etc. 

Commission analysis  
The  Commission  shares  the  analysis  by  stakeholders  that  better  access  to  markets  and  public 
procurement should be one of the priorities of the action plan. Special attention will be given to 
further encouraging the development of socially responsible public procurement. This will require 
further  engaging  with  Member  States  and  continuing  to  raise  awareness  and  offer  dedicated 
training. 

84 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe, AMICE, CEPES and AIM. 
85 Suggestion made in position papers by AIM, Social Economy Europe, AMICE, CEPES and Philanthropy Advocacy 
86 This point is made in reference to the GECES meeting of 18 June 2020. 
87  Suggestion  made  in  position  papers  by  the  City  of  Strasbourg,  RREUSE,  Caritas  Europa,  Position  paper 
developed by France and supported by Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Slovakia 
88 Position paper developed by France and supported by Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain 
and Slovakia. 
89 This point is made in reference to the GECES meeting of 18 June 2020. 
90 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe, AMICE, CEPES and AIM. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.9 

Promoting the social economy at regional and local levels 

Given the significant differences between national/local contexts, there is a need to build capacity at 
local and regional level and tackle the specific needs of cross-border91 social economy organisations 
in rural and peripheral areas (see SBI study). The European Social Economy Regions (ESER) intitiative 
was highlighted as a successful initiative in the SBI study. 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
  Need to improve access by local governments to European funds and programmes, such as the 

European structural and investment funds 

  Weak  link  between  the  EU  and  local  levels,  which  hampers  the  development  of  social 

enterprises in certain regions 
Lack of awareness on the role of the social economy sector in local communities 

 
  Small and local social enterprises struggle to access the resources they need 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Throughout the targeted consultation process, stakeholders and experts stressed the need to focus 
on  local  partnerships  and  the  regional  level.  For  example,  SEE  suggested  that  local  partnerships 
between regional and local authorities and the social economy should be further supported. Along 
these lines, the city of Strasbourg called for improved dialogue and collaboration with local authorities 
to strengthen the ties between the local and EU levels. 

Strasbourg also outlined that the “[t]he Commission should encourage tools and dynamics of territorial 
economic cooperation” and CIRIEC  recommended enhancing cooperation between social economy 
actors and the public sector. REVES, RTES and the Conseil Supérieur de l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire 
called for initiatives to promote the exchange of good practices between local governments and their 
ecosystems. 

Also on territorial dimension, REVES suggested the establishment of a task force to ensure that EU 
measures take the local and regional perspectives into account. Along these lines, CG SCOP pointed 
out that developing cooperatives that meet citizens’ needs could contribute to the revitalisation of 
territories.  

CECOP  and  REVES  highlighted  the  need  to  further  promote  Community-Led  Local  Development 
approaches and good practices. 

Commission analysis  
The Commission agrees with the analysis of stakeholders that the regional dimension is of particular 
importance for the development of well-functioning social economy ecosystems. Well-developed 
regional  social  economy  ecosystems  are  a  way  to  create  new  jobs92  and  more  efficient  than 
increasing  public  spending  for  unemployment.  Providing  support  to  local  and  regional  social 

91 Mostly EU cross border, but possibly also beyond the EU. 
92  For  example:  ‘Territoires  Zéro  Chômeur  de  Longue  Durée,  a  Belgian  project  to  reduce  long-term 
unemployment.) 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
economy  stakeholders  (including  through  capacity  building  and  cross-border  networking 
opportunities) is likely to be an important way forward.  

4.10  Promoting the social economy at international level 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
  The  social  economy  is  not  well  known  to  EU  delegations,  who  lack  adequate  training  and 

Lack of a common understanding of social economy at the international level 

 

information on its particularities  
Lack of data and information on the challenges and experiences faced by the social economy 
in partner countries 

  The social economy is scarcely mentioned in EU external action 
  Social economy ecosystems are being developed unevenly in developing countries 
  Non-EU social economy organisations are not always eligible for EU programmes and initiatives 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Several  stakeholders  and  experts  pointed  out  the  importance  of  developing  the  social  economy 
beyond  the  EU.  Throughout  the  consultation  process,  many  emphasised  the  need  to  inform  EU 
delegations about the social economy, called for intiatives to further develop the social economy in 
the EU neighbourhood and beyond, and encouraged EU institutions to cooperate with international 
and regional organisations on the topic.  

In  the  GECES  meeting  of  23  March  2021,  a  number  of  experts  called  for  further  research  on  the 
development  of  social  economy  ecosystems  in  different  parts  of  the  world.  On  cooperation  with 
international organisations, some GECES experts underlined that it was key to work with actors such 
as ILO, UNTSFSSE or OECD.  

Moreover, stakeholders93 called for the social economy to be put on the agenda of global fora and 
conferences such as the UN General Assembly, G7 and G20 and the COP Climate negotations. At the 
European Social Economy Summit, several speakers emphasised the need to look “beyond Europe”. 
Here,  the  importance  of  promoting  social  businesses  at  the  upcoming  EU-Africa  Summit  was  also 
underlined. 

Commission analysis  
The topic of social economy in general has been receiving increased levels of attention in various 
international fora in recent years. The Commission can continue to cooperate with key international 
partners to make good use of this momentum. In addition, the social economy can be addressed in 
the EU’s neighbourhood and enlargement policy as well as in international cooperation. More can 
be done to enhance mutual learning and exchange of practices between the EU and third countries. 

93 Suggestion made in position papers by Caritas Europa and ESS Forum International 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.11 

Improving access to funding 

The Social Business Initiative and its follow-up activities have made it easier for social enterprises to 
access public and private funding. Interviewed stakeholders highlighted the role of EU policies and 
EU funds as a key driver for strengthening social economy ecosystems. They considered that the 
general SBI objectives remain relevant and that needs persist: access to finance continue to be an 
important need according to the SBI study. 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 

Information on EU funding opportunities (i.e.: funds, existing financing opportunities and new 
opportunities linked to Next Generation EU) is unclear to social economy stakeholders 

  EU  and  national  financing  opportunities  are  not  tailored  to  the  needs  of  social  economy 

organisations 

  The procedure, criteria and requirements of EU programmes and funds are not adapted to the 
specific  features  of  social  economy  actors,  which  leads  many  to  be  excluded  from  these 
opportunities 

  The social economy sector has not been sufficiently supported in the Recovery and Resilience 

plans proposed by Member States 

  Social enterprises are excluded from certain EU financial instruments because the definitions 
adopted do not reflect the broad spectrum of organisations operating in the Single Market 
  SME programmes such as COSME or fund-of-funds such as the Social Impact Accelerator fail to 

adequately address the specificities of social economy actors  
 
Lack of financial and technical assistance instruments designed for the social economy sector 
  No strong culture of data collection and measurement across social economy actors, including 

investors 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Improving access to funding was a key topic raised by experts, stakeholders and some Member States 
in official meetings, relevant conferences and events and in position papers. 

Overall,  stakeholders  and  experts  pointed  out  the  need  to  adapt  eligibility  criteria  and  legal 
requirements to the particularities of social economy actors, provide access to both financial and non-
financial support, and create new funding schemes. In response to the roadmap, the Commission also 
received suggestions on how to improve access to funding for entities in this sector.  

For example, a number of stakeholders called for the creation of an EU online platform that could 
support social economy actors in accessing EU funds and opportunities.94 In the GECES meeting of 18 
June 2020, experts underlined that requesting access to EU funds is too complex and called for the 
creation  of  a  specific  EU  fund  for  social  economy  actors.  At  the  European  Social  Economy  Summit 
stakeholders expressed a need for clearer communication efforts between the European Commission 

94 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe,UDES, ENSIE, Coorace, Eco-Razeni Association, 
Fédération  des  entreprises  d'insertion,  FAEDEI,  GALILEO  PROGETTI  Nonprofit  Kft.,  Klimax  Plus,  RISE,  ŠENT, 
Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR and Conseil Supérieur de l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire (FR). 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
and  national  public  institutions,  as  well  as  between  the  national/regional  authorities  and  social 
investors. 

On the specific case of philanthropic organisations, a number of stakeholders suggested that EU and 
national measures should be developed to stimulate foundation engagement into social business.95 

EVPA  signalled  the  need  to  create  a  generally  accepted  framework  for  Impact  Measurement  and 
Management (IMM) practices and suggested a closer cooperation between the social economy and 
the academic world, as well as the establishment of a pan-European database on IMM practices. A 
position paper supported by several Member States96 identified similar challenges and called on the 
European  Commission  to  give  a  mandate  to  the  EIB  Group  to  develop  technical  assistance  and 
financing tools tailored for social economy players.  

ESS Forum International called for new financing instruments to provide seed capital and acceleration 
capital  for  social economy  projects, while  Euclid  Network  called  for  investments  in  existing  impact 
funds which support the social economy. 

Commission analysis  
Improving access to funding is a key topic for supporting the social economy. It transpires from the 
feedback  that  many  social  economy  stakeholders  are  unaware  of  the  EU  funding  opportunities 
available to them, including the instruments specifically designed under the EaSI programme 2014-
2020, which addresses many of the reported needs. Improvements can be made to the information 
available on  funding opportunities  specific to the social economy,  as well as on  opportunities  in 
other EU funding programmes. 

It is important to foster synergies among funding instruments and to continue mobilising private 
finance, patient capital and advisory support, tailored to the needs of social enterprises and social 
economy organisations. A revised set of financial instruments will be set up under InvestEU, building 
on those developed under the EaSI programme 2014-2020 and EFSI and managed for the European 
Commission by the EIF and other implementing partners.   

Concerning the suggestion regarding the involvement of the EIB Group, the involvement of the EIF 
(part of the EIB Group) in these funding tools already effectively addresses this concern. In addition 
the Commission developed technical assistance and other financing tools to boost the supply and 
demand side of social enterprise finance. InvestEU and the EaSI strand of the ESF+ programme will 
enable these kinds of support measures to be renewed.   

4.12  Boosting social innovation  

The issue of how to scale and/or replicate social innovations is a recurring theme among stakeholders 
since several years. Various challenges are identified. 

95 Suggestion made in position papers by Social Economy Europe and Philanthropy Advocacy. 
96 Position paper developed by France and supported by Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain 
and Slovakia. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
  Bureaucratic  burdens  hinder  the  development  of  smaller  social  innovation  projects  and 

 

organisations  
Lack of opportunities  for mutual  learning  and  exchange  between  social  innovation  projects 
funded in the framework of EU cohesion policy 

  Difficulty in scaling up and mainstreaming social innovations 
  Difficulty  in  getting  public  authorities  to  take  up  social  innovations  proven  to  be  effective 

elsewhere 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Several speakers and experts stressed the need to support and promote social innovation and social 
entrepreneurship  across  Europe.  This  included  the  need  to  create  mechanisms  to  scale  and/or 
replicate successful social innovations. For example, the initial investment (often with public funds) is 
not capitalised on if the results of successful initiatives fail to be scaled or replicated. 

In  response  to  the  roadmap,  several  stakeholders  called  for  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and 
experiences  on  social  innovation.97  In  their  position  paper,  REVES  expained that  its  members  have 
expressed  a  lack  of  opportunities  for  contacts  and  exchange  between  projects  funded  in  the 
framework  of  EU  Cohesion  Policy,  including  the  European  Agricultural  Rural  Development  Fund. 
Calling for the encouragement of a more collaborative approach to innovation, EURICSE pointed out 
that this approach could create greater awareness of the role that the social economy plays in social 
innovation. 

In their position papers, REVES and the ILO stressed the need to improve connections and exchanges 
between existing projects and initiatives. Along these lines, Center Noordung suggested the creation 
of mentoring partnerships between emerging socially innovative initiatives and those that are already 
successfully  operating.  As  a  concrete  proposal,  Center  Noordung  and  Catalyst  2030  suggested  the 
development  of  a  network  of  social  innovation  ambassadors,  where  staff  from  sectoral  agencies, 
business support organisations, SMEs and big enterprises could be trained for social entrepreneurship 
and on social innovation. 

Commission analysis  
It  is  important  to  foster  social  innovation  but  also  to  widely  spread  knowledge  about  new 
approaches and models to facilitate scaling and replication. Organising mutual learning and capacity 
building for relevant authorities and building support structures (like competence centres) can help 
to transfer and scale up social innovation, and hopefully achieve systemic impact. 

4.13  Fostering digitalisation and new technologies 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
  The digital gap has been reinforced during the COVID-19 crisis 

Lack of digital skills in the social economy sector 

97 Suggestion made in position papers by Catalyst 2030, Center Noordung, ILO, REVES, ERICSE. 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Many  social  enterprises  are  yet  to  undergo  digital  transformation  as  they  lack  expertise  in 

digitalisation 

  The value of technology is still under appreciated in the process of developing and scaling-up 

 

innovation 
Lack of visibility of the role of the social economy sector in digital education and the digital 
economy 

Suggetions from stakeholders 

Improving digitalisation was also a common theme in stakeholder expert feedback. In response to the 
roadmap,  ideas  such  as  promoting  digital  social  enterprises  more  actively98  and  improving  the 
digitalisation  of  social  economy  actors99  to  better  integrate  most  vulnerable  groups  in  the  labour 
market were put forward.100 For example, in their position paper, Catalyst 2030 stressed that social 
enterprises can help promote digital education, one of the key tools to empower young people for 
their future and for coping with rapidly changing digital innovations, to reach a more diverse range of 
target groups. Cooperatives Europe stressed that the digital gap should be addressed from a gender 
perspective. 

On  skills, the  European  Observatory for  Inclusive  Employment  and  Sustainable Development Goals 
called on the European Commission to ensure that EU-level funds can be easily accessed to finance 
projects  around  education,  training,  lifelong  learning,  skills  development  and  traineeship-to-
employment  programmes,  in  order  to  equip  workers  with  disabilities  with  knowledge  and 
competences  that  match  the  demand  for  green,  digital  and  in-sourcing  skills.  The  Mannheim 
Declaration  highlighted  the  important  role  of  skills,  calling  on  the  European  Commission  to  “(…) 
support  the  upskilling  of  social  economy  workers  in  areas  such  as  digitalisation,  participatory 
governance and the green transition.” 

Commission analysis  
Supporting  social  economy  organisations  in  their  digitalisation  efforts  is  one  area  for  further 
capacity building and mutual learning. Facilitating the creation of social economy tech start-ups and 
connecting social economy organisations with relevant support structures for digitalisation seem to 
be actions worth pursuing. 

4.14  Maximising the contribution of the social economy to the European Green 
Deal and circular economy 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
 
 

Lack of visibility of the role and potential of the social economy model in the green transition 
Lack of convergence between green and social objectives 
Lack of equal footing of environmental, social and employment sectors when setting ambitious 
EU level targets for the circular economy 

98 Suggestion made in position paper by EURICSE. 
99 Suggestion made in position paper by Walloon Region. 
100 Suggestion made in position paper by the ILO. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The social economy is not mainstreamed within circular policies 
 

Lack of investment in capacity-building of social economy organisations and public authorities 
in the green context 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders and experts have highlighted the importance of 
the social economy for the green transition. In response to the roadmap, RREUSE made a number of 
suggestions in support of the circular economy. For example, RREUSE called for the development of 
flexible  labour market  integration  policies  to match evolving circular  business models.  Along  these 
lines,  several  stakeholders  called  on  the  European  Commission  to  consider  setting  social  and 
employment objectives within circular economy related policies and to create a clear link between the 
action plan for the social economy and the Circular Economy Initiatives.101  

During  the  Road  to  Mannheim  events,  several  speakers  emphasised  the  relevance  of  consumer 
cooperatives, and other social economy forms, in achieving sustainability and transitioning to a circular 
economy. This point was also highlighted at the European Social Economy Summit. In response to the 
roadmap, the  WWF European Policy Office  stressed the  role of the  social economy in  fulfilling the 
SDGs, the European Green Deal and in addressing climate change.  

Commission analysis  
Helping social economy organisations adopt greener and climate friendly practices and integrate 
environmental goals in their work can be supported with capacity building. In the circular economy, 
partnerships between social enterprises and mainstream businesses may be a promising approach 
to boost the development of Local Green Deals or green citizenship actions. 

4.15  Promoting entrepreneurial skills and capacity building 

The capacity to self-organise as well as research, education and skills development were among the 
opportunities and challenges indentified in the 2020 mapping study. 

Lack of initiatives aiming to develop social entrepreneurs’ managerial and digital skills 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
 
  Entrepreneurial culture is not sufficiently promoted across the EU 
 

Lack  of  incentives,  support  and  mentoring  beyond  the  start-up  phase  hinders  self-
entrepreneurship and, in particular, female entrepreneurship 

  Aspiring social entrepreneurs continue to be impacted by gender stereotypes and unequal care 

responsibilities 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Focusing  on  social  entrepreneurship,  several  speakers  at  the  European  Social  Economy  Summit 
emphasised  the  need  to  develop  entrepreneurial  skills  and  mindsets  through  education.  At  the 

101 Suggestion made in position papers by ENSIE, Coorace, Eco-Razeni Association, Fédération des entreprises 
d'insertion, FAEDEI, GALILEO PROGETTI Nonprofit Kft., Klimax Plus, RISE, ŠENT, Stichting De Omslag, TESSEA CR 

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
Summit,  as  well  as  in  other  conferences  and  events,  speakers  suggested  that  courses  on  social 
entrepreneurship be included in school curriculums. 

In response to the roadmap, several speakers expressed the view that female entrepreneurship should 
be encouraged and supported.102 In their position paper, the Walloon Region called on the European 
Commission to encourage a gendered approach in public policies pertaining to the social economy by 
supporting female entrepreneurship through bolstering the skills, financial resources and networks of 
female  entrepreneurs  and  supporting  the  employment  of  female  workers  within  integration 
enterprises.  Along  these  lines,  Cooperatives  Europe  stressed  that  female  entrepreneurs  should  be 
supported through the provision of effective follow-up and support on access to capital and credit. 
Similar points were raised at the Social Economy Summit, where speakers emphasised the challenges 
faced by women entrepreneurs, including the impact of different maternity leave opportunities and 
unequal care responsibilities. Experts suggested lifelong learning and flexible working arrangements 
as strategies  to facilitate  balancing career and care  responsibilities for women entrepreneurs. (See 
also section 2.4 on the gender dimension). 

Commission analysis  
Promoting entrepreneurial skills could be another building block in capacity-building measures. This 
may lend itself particularly well to peer-to-peer learning. Existing social economy networks could be 
used to foster and exchange good practices on entrepreneurial skills in the social economy context. 
The promotion of synergies between the EU funding programmes devoted to lifelong learning and 
job creation may further contribute to this objective and to maximise the existing investments. 

4.16 

Implementation of the action plan for the social economy 

Main problems / challenges as perceived by stakeholders and experts 
  The action plan for the social economy must be fully integrated with other EU initiatives and 
programmes  (i.e.:  EU  Green  Deal,  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  Disability  Strategy,  Skills 
Agenda, Platform Work Initiative, SME Strategy, Industrial Strategy) 

  The implementation of the action plan should be assessed on a yearly basis  
 

Suggestions from stakeholders 

Throughout the consultation process, several stakeholders (among them Social Services Europe) called 
for a participatory approach to policy design and implementation and indicated their availability for 
co-creation processes. This was  also underlined in the Mannheim Declaration: "The  preparation of 
public policy making should be carried out in close cooperation with social economy actors for greater 
policy coherence and greater effectiveness". 

102 Suggestion made in position papers by the Walloon Region and Cooperatives Europe. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In response to the roadmap, several stakeholders called for the action plan to be renewed every 5-6 
years.103 This  point  was  also  made  in  the  European  social  partners‘  consultation.  In  addition,  some 
stakeholders called for the implementation of the action plan to be assessed on an annual basis by the 
GECES.104 A few stakeholders suggested that the GECES be strengthened105 and renewed at the end of 
its mandate in 2024.106 In addition, several stakeholders107, in response to the roadmap, called for the 
action plan to be fully connected with other EU initiatives and programmes such as the European Pillar 
of  Social  Rights,  the  EU  Green  Deal  and  the  Skills  Agenda.  Looking  beyond  EU  initiatives,  WWF 
European  Policy  Office  and  Eurodiaconia  stressed  that  the  action  plan  should  be  aligned  with  the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

The need for the social economy to complement public support, rather than replace it, was also raised 
by some stakeholders in response to the roadmap and by trade union representatives at the European 
social partners’ consultation. This message was echoed by the Mannheim declaration which stressed 
that “the social economy should complement public approach in tackling societal challenges but not 
replace it.”  

Commission analysis  
To succeed with implementation, the Commission will need to work in close partnership with social 
economy actors, other EU institutions and bodies, the European Investment Bank Group, Member 
States, regions, industry, network organisations and other key stakeholders. Ensuring their support 
and buy-in will be key.  

103 Suggestion made in position papers by UDES, Social Economy Europe (SEE) and EASPD. 
104 Suggestion made in position papers by UDES, SEE, Philanthropy Advocacy, EASPD and Cooperatives Europe. 
105 Suggestion made in position papers by SEE and Social Services Europe. 
106 Suggestion made in position papers by SEE and Philanthropy Advocacy. 
107 Suggestion made in position papers by CECOP, Cooperatives Europe, Fair Trade Advocacy Office, FEANTSA, 
Region Örebro County, RTES and SLOGA Platform. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.  EU BUDGET TO SUPPORT SOCIAL ECONOMY 2021-2027 

EU budget to support and unlock investment in the social economy and social innovation during 
2021-2027  
During 2014-2020, the EU budget mobilised directly at least EUR 2.5 billion for the social economy 
and other related topics (e.g. microfinance, social innovation, inclusive entrepreneurship). Thanks 
to the multiplier effect of the financial instruments for microfinance and social enterprise, at least 
EUR 7.9 billion were mobilised from EU, national and private resources108.  

Cohesion policy funds can be used to promote the social economy, including through support to 
social entrepreneurship, social innovation, education and training, experimentation and innovation 
in  SMEs.  Several  Cohesion  policy  programmes  support  business  development  and  promotion  of 
cooperation for the social economy.  For example:  

  The  European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), which allocates  a budget of EUR 99.3 billion, will 
remain  an  important  funding  source  for  promoting  the  social  economy  and  social 
innovation. Social economy organisations will be well placed to benefit from ESF+ support, 
because  their  activities  can  help  to  achieve  the  ESF+  specific  objectives,  notably  the 
objective  of  enhancing  the  inclusiveness  of  labour  markets  and  access  to  quality 
employment.  National  and  regional  authorities  can  use  grants  as  well  as  financial 
instruments to build social economy ecosystems.   

  At the EU level, the Commission can support transnational cooperation specifically with a 

view to accelerating the scaling up of social innovation. 

  The  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  can  provide  support  for  the 
development and upscaling of social enterprises through developing new business models 
and innovative solutions to address societal challenges. The support can take the shape of: 
business  advice  and  guidance  (business  planning,  coaching  and  mentoring,  support  with 
marketing); start-up centres and incubators; innovation activities to develop new products, 
services  or  ways  of  working;  awareness  raising,  workshops,  awards.  In  addition,  ERDF-
funded financial instruments can be used to provide risk capital to start-ups. Finally, ERDF 
makes available tools and measures to help mutual learning between different countries 
and regions in Europe.  

  Specifically for the culture and tourism sectors, which suffered disproportionately from the 
COVID  pandemic,  the  ERDF  can  support  funding  towards  strengthening  these  sectors’ 
capacity to drive  economic development, social inclusion and social innovation, given the 
role that these sectors play in addressing socio-economic challenges at the local, regional, 
national and cross-border level.  

  The  new  European  Urban  Initiative  will  provide  space  and  resources  for  EU-wide  urban 
experimentation  to  test  suitability,  feasibility  and  acceptance  of  social  change  and  will 
support  cities  that  can  demonstrate  their  potential  for  social 
innovation  and 
transformation.  

108 These estimates reflect only the dedicated support to social economy and other related topics. However the 
social economy also benefited from other broad EU measures (e.g. targeting SMEs or innovation) which are not 
reflected in these amounts. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                           
  The  Interreg  Europe  Programme  will  continue  to  provide  opportunities  for  regional  and 
local public authorities across Europe to share ideas and experience on support to the social 
economy. 

The Employment and Social Innovation strand under the ESF+, with a budget of EUR 762 million, 
will provide EU level support for the development of social enterprises, the emergence of a social 
investment  market,  and  the  development  of  the  market  ecosystem  around  the  provision  of 
microfinance. It will also support social experimentation and guidance for the development of social 
infrastructure.  The  strand  will  complement  the  financial  instruments  funded  under  the  Social 
Investments  and  Skills  window  of  InvestEU  through  analytical  activities,  capacity  building  and 
mutual learning. 

The  Social  Investments  and  Skills  window  of  InvestEU  will  use  part  of  its  EUR  2.78  billion  of 
guarantee to support the deployment of financial products providing repayable finance for social 
enterprises,  irrespective  of  their  legal  form,  and  to  microenterprises.  These  products  will  help 
mobilise private financing and are expected to have a multiplier effect of around 10. While most 
instruments for social enterprises will address small risk capital investments and debt of up to EUR 
500 000, larger amounts of up to EUR 2 million will also be possible, to cater to the larger scaling 
needs of some organisations. Moreover, the financial products will be complemented by advisory 
initiatives  in  the  fields  of  social  enterprise  finance,  microfinance,  impact  investing  and  social 
outcomes  contracting.  Other  InvestEU  windows  will  also  offer  opportunities  for  social  economy 
entities. Notably, as most social economy entities are SMEs, they will be able to benefit from support 
under the SME window. For example, initiatives such as worker buyouts are increasingly common 
among  SMEs  and  social  economy  entities  and  will  be  able  to  benefit  from  support  under  these 
windows.  

The Horizon Europe programme can contribute to research on the social economy in the context of 
inclusive growth and other policy targets of the European Union. For instance, the 2021-2022 Work 
Programme  on  Culture,  Creativity  and  Inclusive  Society  includes  several  references  to  the  social 
economy  and  social  enterprises.  Furthermore,  support  to  social  innovation  is  mainstreamed 
through all the strands of the programme. The new feature of Horizon Europe are “missions”, i.e., 
commitments  to  solve  some  of  the  challenges  we  are  facing  today:  fighting  cancer,  adapting  to 
climate change, protecting the ocean, seas and waters, living in greener cities and ensuring healthy 
soil and food. Alongside research and innovation projects, the missions include policy measures and 
legislative initiatives, as well as citizens' involvement to achieve concrete goals with large societal 
impact, with a budget of EUR 1.9 billion over 2021-2023. 

The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme can contribute to developing entrepreneurial skills and fund 
actions  with  relevance  for  the  social  economy.  For  example,  it  can  support  transnational 
cooperation partnerships including those aiming to promote social entrepreneurship skills. The new 
action  “Alliances  for  Innovation”  aims  to  foster  social  innovation  and  tackle  societal  challenges 
through  cooperation  between  higher  education  institutes,  vocational  education  and  training 
providers, enterprises and other relevant stakeholders. Erasmus+ can also fund strategic activities 
supporting policy experimentation and reform, including the promotion of social entrepreneurship 
skills.  

42 

 
 
  
 
 
 
The  new  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  can  fund  projects  with  relevance  to  the  social 
economy.  For  example,  it  can  contribute  to  developing  entrepreneurial  skills  through  solidarity 
projects that are bottom-up activities set up and carried out by a group of young people themselves. 

The Recovery and Resilience Facility, with EUR 732.8 billion in grants and loans109, provides Member 
States  with  significant  opportunities  to  fund  reforms  and  investments  in  social  and  inclusive 
entrepreneurship.  Some  Member  States  have  reflected  the  social  economy  and  inclusive 
entrepreneurship as priorities in their national recovery and resilience plans. The Commission will 
monitor and support  Member  states  in the implementation of their respective plans.  It will also 
systematically highlight the potential of the social economy to create jobs and foster social cohesion 
in the context of the European Semester process. 

The  LIFE  Programme  will  fund  initiatives  that  address  both  environmental/climate  and  social 
aspects,  demonstrating  the  links  between  social  and  environmental  problems.  For  example,  the 
programme will encourage investment and activities focusing on energy efficiency and small-scale 
renewables such as those promoted by energy cooperatives. It also aims to facilitate the transition 
to a circular economy, a field of activity where many social enterprises are active.  

The  second  pillar  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the  European  Agriculture  Fund  for  Rural 
Development, enables measures that can contribute to the development of social economy in rural 
area such as investment for farmers and in basic services, diversification and cooperation and the 
local development method LEADER. The social economy will also be a good partner for achieving 
the objectives of the new Common Agricultural Policy, which starts in 2023. It can notably support 
the objective of modernising the agricultural sector by attracting young people and improving their 
business development, and promoting employment, growth, social inclusion and local development 
in rural areas. 

The Single Market Programme will strengthen the governance of the EU single market. It will help 
to:  make  the  internal  market  work  better,  through  measures  including  improved  market 
surveillance, problem-solving support to citizens and business, and enhanced competition policy; 
boost  the  competitiveness  of  businesses,  in  particular  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises, 
including  social  economy  organisations  and  social  enterprises;  develop  effective  European 
standards and international financial and non-financial reporting and auditing standards; give even 
higher protection to consumers; maintain a high level of food safety; and produce and disseminate 
high-quality statistics.  

The  Digital Europe Programme (DIGITAL)  will focus on bringing digital technology to businesses, 
citizens  and  public  administrations.  It  aims  to  accelerate  the  economic  recovery  and  shape  the 
digital  transformation  of  Europe’s  society  and  economy,  bringing  benefits  to  everyone,  but  in 
particular to small and medium-sized enterprises. DIGITAL will provide strategic funding in five key 
capacity  areas:  supercomputing;  artificial  intelligence;  cybersecurity;  advanced  digital  skills;  and 

109  In  current  prices,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-
and-resilience-facility_en   

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ensuring a wide use of digital technologies across the economy and society, including through Digital 
Innovation Hubs.  

The  new  Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  Programme  (CERV)  brings  together  the  Rights, 
Equality and Citizenship Programme and the Europe for Citizens Programme. It aims to protect and 
promote  European  Union  rights  and  values  as  enshrined  in  the  EU  Treaties  and  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights.  It  contributes  to  sustaining  and  further  developing  open,  rights-based, 
democratic, equal and inclusive societies based on the rule of law. CERV has four main objectives 
which constitute its strands: promoting equality and rights; fighting violence; citizens engagement 
and participation; and promoting European values. The last two strands are particularly relevant for 
the  social  economy,  as  they  encompass  town-twinning,  networks  of  towns  and  remembrance 
actions, as well as the European networks, civil society organisations active at EU level and European 
think-tanks in the areas of Union Values. 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF)  is  to  support  the 
integration of third-country nationals. The involvement of local and regional authorities as well as 
civil society organisations, including refugee organisations and migrant-led organisations, and social 
partners,  is  explicitly  supported  as  per  the  “partnership  principle”  under  the  Member  States’ 
national programmes, where most funding is available. In addition, transnational projects where a 
string focus is usually put on cooperation with local authorities, NGOs and migrant-led organisation 
can be financed under the so-called thematic facility. Preparation to the access to the labour market 
are among the integration measures that can be supported by the AMIF. 

The  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance  (IPA)  aims  to  prepare  beneficiaries  for  future  EU 
membership.  One  of  its  key  priorities  is  strengthening  economic  and  social  development  and 
cohesion, including through supporting investment and private sector development, with a focus 
on small and medium-sized enterprises.  It can play an important role in strengthening the social 
and economic development of the region and shaping the rules, standards, policies and practices of 
the IPA beneficiaries in the area of social economy in alignment with those of the EU. 

The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument houses almost all 
external  instruments.  It  aims  to  promote  stronger  partnerships  with  third  countries,  including 
sustainable and inclusive economic growth and promoting human development. Its specific areas 
of  cooperation  include  improving  business  environment  and  investment  climate,  developing  a 
socially and ecologically responsible local private sector, and building capacities, competitiveness 
and resilience of local SMEs and start-ups, as well as of cooperatives and social enterprises, and 
their integration into the local, regional and global economy.  

In addition, the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+) will have a new window 
on human capital that should help financing the development of social economy in neighbourhood 
countries. 

To raise awareness about the various EU funding and programmes available for the social economy, 
the  Commission  is  supporting  networks  active  at  European  level.  For  example,  Euclid  Network  is 
preparing an EU Funding toolkit providing details on how to access the funding available in the period 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2021-2027  and  the  European  Venture  Philantrophy  Association  disseminates  information  on  EU 
funding opportunities throuth their website110. The Commission will soon publish a toolkit on the use 
of EU funds for the  integration of people with a migrant  background  and has recently published a 
Toolkit for Early-Stage Social Innovators111. 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1: Recent declarations on the social economy 

Annex 2: List of stakeholders who submitted feedback on the social economy action plan roadmap  

Annex 3: Examples of existing social economy awards 

110 https://evpa.eu.com/policy/eu-funding  

111 See https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/news/finance-your-social-innovation-new-funding-toolkit-
released-2021-08-26_en   

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: RECENT DECLARATIONS ON (OR RELATED TO) SOCIAL ECONOMY 

  Declaration of Luxembourg, “A roadmap to a more complete ecosystem for social economy 

companies.” 4 December 2015 

  Declaration of Bratislava, “The social economy as a key player in providing effective answers 

to current societal challenges in the EU and the world”. 1 December 2016 

  Declaration of Madrid, "The social economy, a business model for the future of the European 

Union.” 23 May 2017 

  Declaration of Ljubljana, “Expansion of social economy enterprises in the social and solidarity 
economy: towards a more solid and structured cooperation between the EU and Southeast 
Europe.” 25 April 2017 
Lisbon declaration “Social innovation as a path to a sustainable, resilient and inclusive Europe”, 
26 September 2018 

 

  Manifesto “Pact for impact, a global alliance for a social and inclusive economy” Paris, 11 July 

2019 

  Manifesto of the ILO Social and Solidarity Academy "The social economy in the future of 

work", Madrid, 18 October 2019 

  Toledo Declaration 2020 “The Social and Solidarity Economy as a key driver for an inclusive 

and sustainable future”, 4 December 2020 

  Porto declaration, 8 May 2021 
  Porto social commitment, 7 May 2021 
  Mannheim Declaration, European Social Economy summit, 27 May 2021 

  Cascais declaration, 13 July 2021 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO SUBMITTED FEEDBACK ON THE SOCIAL ECONOMY ACTION 
PLAN ROADMAP  

(1 March to 26 April 2021) 

code  Organisation 
C01 
C02 
C03 
C04 
C05 

Country 
Belgium 
France 
Italy 
Italy 
Belgium 

Portugal 

Spain 
Spain 
Belgium 

Italy 
Estonia 
Spain 

Advocating 4 non-profit enterprises 
AEMA Groupe 
Alleanza cooperative sociali italiane 
Alleanza delle Cooperative Italiane 
AMICE 
APM-RedeMut - Associação Portuguesa de 
Mutualidades 
ASLE - Organización empresarial de sociedades 
laborales y empresas participadas de Euskadi 
Asociación MIRA España 
Association Internationale de la Mutualité (AIM) 
AUSER APS Rete Associativa Nazionale per 
l'Invecchiamento Attivo 
Baltic Innovation Agency 
Barcelona Activa 
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien 
Wohlfahrtspflege e.V. 
Bundesarbeitskammer Österreich 
Carbery Housing Association CLF 
Caritas Europa 
Catalyst 2030 
CECOP - European Confederation of Industrial and 
Service Cooperatives 
Center Noordung 
CIRIEC (Centre International de Recherches et 
d'Information sur l'Economie publique, sociale et 
coopérative) 
Clann Credo - Community Loan Finance 
ConcertES 
CONCORD Europe 
Confédération générale des Scop (CG Scop) 
Confederation of European Firms, Employment 
Initiatives and Cooperatives 
Conseil Supérieur de l'Economie Sociale et Solidaire  France 
CONSEJO ESPAÑOL PARA LA DEFENSA DE LA 
DISCAPACIDAD Y LA DEPENDENCIA - CEDDD 
Coompanion 
Cooperatives Europe 
Coorace 
COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs, 
hosted by the Schwab Foundation and the World 
Economic Forum 

Belgium 
Ireland 
Belgium 
Belgium 
France 

Spain 
Sweden 
Belgium 
France 

Belgium 

Belgium 
Slovenia 

Germany 
Austria 
Ireland 
Italy 
France 

Switzerland 

C06 

C07 
C08 
C09 

C10 
C11 
C12 

C13 
C14 
C15 
C16 
C17 

C18 
C19 

C20 
C21 
C22 
C23 
C24 

C25 
C26 

C27 
C28 
C29 
C30 

C31 

Attachment 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

47 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
C32 
C33 
C34 
C35 
C36 

C37 
C38 
C39 
C40 

C41 

C42 
C43 
C44 
C45 

C46 
C47 

C48 
C49 

C50 
C51 

C52 
C53 

C54 
C55 

C56 

C57 
C58 
C59 
C60 
C61 
C62 
C63 
C64 

C65 

C66 
C67 

France 
Netherlands 
Italy 
Belgium 

Netherlands 
Belgium 

France 

France 
Denmark 
Ireland 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Moldova 
Belgium 

Crédit Coopératif 
Danish Social Innovation Academy 
Department of Rural and Community Development 
Department Work and Social Economy 
D-WISE network 
European Association of Service Providers for 
Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) 
Ecopreneur.eu 
Eco-Razeni Association 
EMES International Research Network 
Chambre Française de l'Économie Sociale et 
Solidaire (ESS France) 
EuCIE - European Confederation of Inclusive 
Enterprises 
Euclid Network 
Euricse and Diesis Network 
Eurodiaconia 
European Anti Poverty Network Nederland (EAPN 
NL) 
European Association of Cooperative Banks 
European Business and Innovation Centre Network 
(EBN) 
European Disability Forum (EDF) 
European Federation of Public Service Unions 
Belgium 
(EPSU) 
European Network of Social Integration Enterprises  Belgium 
European Roma Grassroots Organisations (ERGO) 
Network 
Belgium 
EVPA - European Venture Philanthropy Association  Belgium 
FAEDEI - Federación de Asociaciones Empresariales 
de Empresas de Insercion 
Fair Trade Advocacy Office 
FEANTSA - the European Federation of National 
Organisations Working with the Homeless 
FEBEA - European Federation of Ethical and 
Alternative Banks and Financiers 
Federation of European Social Employers 
Financité 
Finansol 
Forum Nazionale del Terzo Settore 
France Active 
Fundacja Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich 
GALILEO PROGETTI Nonprofit Kft. 
GdW Bundesverband der deutschen Wohnungs- 
und Immobilienwirtschaft e.V. 
GISAD i.G. - Global Institute for Structure relevance, 
Anonymity and Decentralisation i.G. 
Goethe-Institut 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 
France 
Italy 
France 
Poland 
Hungary 

Germany 
Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 

Spain 
Belgium 

Germany 

Belgium 

YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 

48 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
C68 
C69 
C70 
C71 

Gouvernement wallon 
Groupe VYV 
HUMANA Kleidersammlung GmbH 
Hungarian Social Enterprise Coalition 
iesMed SCE – Innovacio Economia Social en la 
Mediterrania, Societat Cooperativa Europea 
Limitada 
Impact Hub Global Network 
Ius Cooperativum 
Klimax Plus Social Cooperative 
La fédération des entreprises d'insertion 
Legacoopsociali 

C72 
C73 
C74 
C75 
C76 
C77 
C78  Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social 
C79  Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali 
C80  Ministry of Labour 
C81  Municipality of Lampedusa and Linosa 
C82  My Swimwear LLC 
C83 

Parasol dla Kooperatyw Spożywczych w Polsce 
Philanthropy Advocacy - joint initiative of EFC and 
Dafne 
Poppy 
Reach for Change 
Red Cross EU Office 
Region Örebro County 
RIPESS EU - Solidarity Economy Europe 
RISE Reteaua Intreprinderilor sociale de insertie 
RREUSE 
RTES - réseau des collectivités territoriales pour une 
économie solidaire 
Samaritan Internatonal e.V. 
SAW-B 
SEIP Hungary 
ŠENT - Slovenian Association for Mental Health 
SLOGA, NGO Platform for Development, Global 
Education and Humanitarian Aid 
SmartCoop 
Social Economy Europe (SEE) 
Social Employers and EPSU: Joint Contribution 
Social Enterprise NL 
Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia 
Social Good Accelerator 
Social Services Europe 
Spanish Confederation of Social Economy 
Enterprises (CEPES) 
SSE International Forum 
Stichting De Omslag 
TERZJUS 

C84 
C85 
C86 
C87 
C88 
C89 
C90 
C91 

C92 
C93 
C94 
C95 
C96 

C97 
C98 
C99 
C100 
C101 
C102 
C103 
C104 

C105 
C106 
C107 
C108 

Belgium 
France 
Germany 
Hungary 

YES 

YES 
YES 

Spain 
YES 
YES 
Austria 
Luxembourg  YES 
YES 
Greece 
YES 
France 
Italy 
YES 
Spain 
Italy 
Romania 
Italy 
Latvia 
Poland 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

Belgium 
Afghanistan 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Sweden 
YES 
Luxembourg  YES 
YES 
Romania 
YES 
Lithuania 

France 
Germany 
Belgium 
Hungary 
Slovenia 

Slovenia 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Latvia 
France 
Belgium 

Spain 
France 
Netherlands 
Italy 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

49 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Czech 
Republic 

Belgium 
Greece 

YES 

YES 

France 

YES 

Switzerland 

YES 

C109 

C110 
C111 

C112 

C113 

TESSEA ČR 
The five Flemish provinces and the Association of 
Flemish Provinces (VVP) 
THREE THIRDS SOCIETY NPO 
UDES - Union des employeurs de l'économie sociale 
et solidaire 
UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity 
Economy (UNTFSSE) 
Urgenci International Netowrk of Community 
Supported Agriculture 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Slovenia 

C114 
France 
C115  Ville de Strasbourg & Eurométropole de Strasbourg  France 
C116  World Fair Trade Organization - Europe 
C117  WWF European Policy Office 
Zadruga BUNA, z.o.o. 
C118 
ZLSP (Poland) - Związek Lustracyjny Spółdzielni 
Pracy 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 
 Citizen 

C119 
C120 
C121 
C122 
C123 
C124 
C125 
C126 
C127 
C128 

Poland 
United States 
Iran 
Italy 
Poland 
Iran 
France 
France 
France 
Netherlands 

YES 
YES 
YES 

50 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EXAMPLES OF EXISTING SOCIAL ECONOMY AWARDS112  

Examples of European awards: 

  European Commission’s European Social Innovation Competition awarded annually since 

2013, https://eusic.challenges.org/  

  European Commission’s Horizon prize for social innovation 2019 (RTD) 
  EIB Social Innovation Tournament for social entrepreneurs: Social Innovation Tournament 

2021     

  WISE Manager Award (organiser: ENSIE, in collaboration with RREUSE, Social Firms Europe 

CEFEC and the CEC,).  

  European Social Economy Award (Organiser: Social Economy Europe), first edition 2021, to 

be replicated every two years.  

  Social Innovation Summit Awards 2021: 8-10 June 2021 (organized by Landmark Ventures)  
  https://socialimpactaward.net/ They are linked to an incubator (ImpactHub) and provide 

incubation to the winners of the award.  

  REVES Excellence award (2013, 2015, 2017, 2019) (European Network of Cities & Regions 

for the Social Economy)  

  EPR Innovation Prize: EPR is a community of service providers working with people with 

disabilities committed to high quality service delivery. 

  ESN European Social Services Awards: organized by the European Social Network since 2019 
  Social Innovation on Ageing European Award: organized by Ashoka “changemakers” network 

Examples of national awards (examples listed in the mapping study and others): 

 
 
 

“Social Impact Award” in the Czech Republic and Slovakia 
“Social Economy Prize” in French-speaking Belgium 
 “ESF Ambassadors” nomination in Flanders, held in the context of a European Social Fund 
programme”  

  Malta: Since 2014, activities and events around SEs, such as the Social Impact Awards and 

dosomethinggood.eu 

  France: Les Prix de l'économie sociale et solidaire (categories in 2021: Transition écologique 

& Utilité sociale)   

  Austria: Get Active Social Business Award: 14th edition in 2021, organizers: Coca‑Cola, Der 
Standard (newspaper), NPO und SE Kompetenzzentrum der WU Wien, 4Gamechangers) 

Somewhat related awards: 

JAE launched an Enterprise Challenge: https://www.jaenterprisechallenge.org/  

  Regiostars awards (organised by DG REGIO since 2008) 
 
  EESC Civil Society Prize  
  European Entrepreneurial Regions since 2011 (CoR)  
  European Commission’s Access City Awards: The Access City Award 2022 will be the 12th 

edition. 

112 As of 19 October 2021. 

51