Blog Articles

Last week, I participated in the launch of the Social Economy Intergroup of the European Parliament. So far it has been rather unclear if the new Commission would continue working on social economy and social enterprises with the same commitment as the predecessors. Last week a Commission representative stated that the actions identified by the Social Business Initiative had been implemented at the Commission level as of end 2014. For the coming years the main objective is to ensure that these actions are implemented in the member states, notably in the use of structural funds and in public procurement contracts. The next concrete steps will include the launch of a guarantee scheme supporting social enterprises under the European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) and the development of a social investment market. Commissioner Bienkowska’s answer to a written question posed by two MEPs confirmed this.

At the event, it became clear that the European Parliament and the upcoming EU Presidency would like to see more ambition by the Commission. Jens Nillson, Co-President of the Social Economy Intergroup, recalled that the Intergroup has received the support of six political groups. MEP Marie-Christine Vergiat argued that Toia’s report on social economy is still relevant and represents for the Parliament the road-map on social economy. MEP Sven Giegold pointed out that enforcement and implementation is not in contradiction with new initiatives and he sees the need for a Social Business Initiative II. The representative of the Luxembourgish Ministry of Labour and Social and Solidarity Economy announced that social economy will be one of the main priorities of the upcoming EU Presidency.

Last week’s debate shows that the three main EU institutions have different priorities when it comes to social economy and social enterprises. The Commission mainly focuses on social enterprises, while the Parliament and the Council are prone to extend their action to the broader social economy.

Several speakers highlighted that we should not fall into the trap of definitions, but better focus on actions. If at Social Platform we can agree with this pragmatic approach, at the same time we should not fall into another trap, the one of considering ordinary businesses pursuing a social aim equivalent to those achieving other social economy criteria.  An ordinary business engaging in a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy is clearly very different from social economy enterprises: the general interest (and in the case of social enterprises, a social objective) nurtures the mission of social economy and social enterprises and you don’t find this in an ordinary company. Other two key elements mark an additional difference of social economy enterprises: surpluses are mainly reinvested to achieve the enterprise’s objective and the governance of the enterprises is founded on democratic or participatory principles or focuses on social justice.

Of course, we need to respect and value the diversity of legal forms of social economy and social enterprises across Europe, as they are all important to contribute to inclusive and sustainable growth. However, a clear distinction should be made between social economy / social enterprises and CSR of ordinary businesses. Unfortunately the debates at the Intergroup confirmed this confusion. I believe that it is really time to clarify what we are talking about! As pointed out by Ariane Rodert, Vice-President of EESC Group III, different actors need different type of support and frameworks. For those who are interested in learning more about the concepts, our contribution on social economy can be of help.