SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL ENTERPRISE Session Title Social Enterprises in Changing Welfare States This panel proposal is based on papers derived from country contributions to the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project launched in July 2013. The ICSEM Project is a worldwide research project aiming to compare social enterprise models across countries. Over 200 researchers are working together under the coordination of Jacques Defourny (CES, University of Liege, Belgium) and Marthe Nyssens (CIRTES, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium). Some 50 countries are covered, in all regions of the world. So far, the ICSEM Project has resulted in country contributions prepared by local research partners to address three major topics: 1. Understanding contexts and concepts The first part deals with historical, contextual and conceptual issues about the emergence of social enterprise in each country. 2. Mapping social enterprise models The aim of this second part is to identify and characterize the various types/models of social enterprises: fields of activity, social mission, target groups, operational model, stakeholders, legal frameworks, and so on. 3. Institutionalization processes of social enterprise models The aim of this third part is to analyze the extent to which social enterprise models identified here above are currently institutionalized and to examine the processes through which these institutional frameworks have emerged. This panel proposal is made of papers focusing on the analysis of social enterprises in three advanced economies experiencing changes in their welfare regimes although to various degrees: Austria, Finland and Israel. In Austria, the various SE models tend to remain strongly interlinked with public bodies in terms of external facilitation, which sometimes threatens the organizational autonomy and the participatory governance of social enterprises. This also seems to be the case in Finland where social enterprises often provide public welfare services or are used by public policies to fight unemployment of the hard-to-place. As to Israel, the third paper stresses the emergence of social enterprises incorporated within the public sector, among various other models. More precisely, two public sector SE models can be identified as they combined differently their social mission and their economic goals. In all three countries, changes in the roles of the State and the emergence of social enterprises also go along with evolutions of the overall third sector.
Paper 1: Social Enterprise Models in Austria: a Contextual Approach to Understand an Ambiguous Concept Paper 2: A Typology of Social Enterprise Models in Finland Paper 3: The Development of Social Enterprises within the Public Sector in Israel Estimated Attendance No Data Entered Additional Information No Data Entered Participants Jacques Defourny, j.defourny@ulg.ac.be; University of Liege (Session Organizer) Social Enterprise Models in Austria: a Contextual Approach to Understand an Ambiguous Concept Title (Panel Paper) Social Enterprise Models in Austria: a Contextual Approach to Understand an Ambiguous Concept Author Maria Anastasiadis, maria.anastasiadis@uni-graz.at; University of Graz (Presenter) Richard Lang, richard.lang@jku.at; Johannes Kepler University Linz, Institute for Innovation Management (Non-Presenter) Context and concepts This contribution deals with contextual and conceptual issues about the emergence and development of social enterprises in Austria (Anastasiadis & Lang 2015). Prior it has to be said, that the
international term SE is not frequently used in the Austrian context neither in research nor in public and professional discourses. Instead, German versions are more common, such as Sozialwirtschaft (Social Economy) or Sozialintegrationsunternehmen (Social Integration Enterprises). Further a variety of international terms dominate national research debates which are somehow related to the SE concept, like non-profit-organisations (NPOs) or social entrepreneurs, whereby these notions are often used synonymously as it is the case in international discussions (Peattie & Morely 2008). Secondly there is still little existing literature and almost no comprehensive empirical data on the phenomenon of SE in Austria (Lehner 2011; Neumayr et al. 2007). Some groundwork on NPOs and social entrepreneurs in Austria has been done (e.g. Millner et al. 2013; Schneider & Maier 2013), although research on SE in Austria tends to focus on specific fields, like child care (Leichsenring 2001) or work integration (Gschöpf 2010) and previous attempts to map the SE sector in Austria remained fragmented and descriptive (European Commission 2014). Methodology Against this background, the paper examines existing SE-models in Austria in a more comprehensive way. Based on a systematic, explorative literature analysis (Tranfield et al. 2003) of about 140 sources, it explores in the first section the institutional context of the SE-debate in Austria from a historical perspective. This leads to a delineation of different SE-related concepts which currently exist in Austria. In line with the Social-Origins-Approach and its Civil-Society-Models (Salamon & Sokolowski 2010) it draws on specificities of the Austrian welfare regime both in different historical periods and in its current form. Furthermore, it highlights the links to the emergence and development of different forms of third sector organisations in general and SE practices and models, in particular. Toward a typology of SE models in Austria Based on this analysis, in the second section the paper proposes a typology of five main SE-models to be found in Austria at present: Traditional SE-models are community-led (1) and professional cooperatives (2) as well as non-profit and limited-profit associations and companies (3). Among younger SE-models, we find collective SE (4) and individually-driven social entrepreneurs (5). As an indication for the typology, cases will be sketched for each model. They reveal that SE-models in Austria tend to be strongly interlinked with public bodies in terms of external facilitation. On the one hand, this strengthens their capacity to effectively tackle community problems. On the other hand, however, it constantly threatens organisational autonomy and participatory governance of SE in Austria. References: Anastasiadis, M. & Lang, R. (2015): Social Enterprise Models in Austria: A contextual approach to understand an ambiguous concept. Working paper of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project. (in print). Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M. (2008): Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. In: Social Enterprise Journal (4), pp. 202 228. European Commission (Ed.) (2014): A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe. Country Report: Austria, Available HTTP: http://ec.europa.eu/social/blobservlet?docid=12989&langid=en (14 October 2015). Gschöpf, H. (2010): The Social Economy Sector and the situation of Social Enterprises in Austria with special reference to Work Integration Social Enterprises. National report Austria. ISEDENET Project. Lehner, O.M. (2011): The Phenomenon of Social Enterprise in Austria: A Triangulated Descriptive Study. In: Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2 (1), pp. 53 78. Leichsenring, K. (2001): Austria. Social Enterprises and new childcare services. In: Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (Ed.): The Emergence of social enterprise. New York: Routledge, pp. 32 46. Millner, R.; Vandor, P. & Schneider H. (2013): Innovation und Social Entrepreneurship im Nonprofit-Sektor. In: Simsa, R.; Meyer, M. & Badelt, Ch. (Eds.): Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation.
Strukturen und Management. 5. Aufl. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, pp. 431 449. Neumayr, M.; Schneider, U.; Meyer, M. & Haider, A. (2007): The Non-profit Sector in Austria. An economic, legal und political appraisal Working. Working Papers / Institut für Sozialpolitik, 01/2007. WU Wien; Institut für Sozialpolitik. Wien. Peattie, K. & Morley, A. (2008): Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. In: Social Enterprise Journal (4), pp. 91 107. Salamon, L. M. & Sokołowski, C. W. (2010): The social origins of civil society. Explaining variations in the size and structure of the global civil society sector. 9th international conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research. Istambul, Türkei, 07.07.2010. Schneider, H. & Maier, F. (2013): Social Entrepreneurship in Österreich. NPO Institut WU Wien, available at: http://epub.wu.ac.at/4061/. Tranfield, D.R.; Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003): Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 3, pp. 207-222. Individual Submission Panel Paper A Typology of Social Enterprise Models in Finland Title (Panel Paper) A Typology of Social Enterprise Models in Finland Author Harri Kostilainen, Harri.Kostilainen@diak.fi; Diaconia University of Applied Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (Presenter) Eeva Houtbeckers, eeva.houtbeckers@aalto.fi; Aalto University (Non-Presenter) Pekka Pättiniemi, pekka.pattiniemi@ksl.fi; Finnish Social Enterprise Research Network Association FinSERN (Non-Presenter) Context, concepts and SE typology This paper follows the framework and the proposed work plan of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project. More precisely, we first review the ways the notion of social enterprise and related concepts are understood in Finland as well as the influence of various schools of thought (Dees, 1998; Defourny & Nyssens, 2012; Kerlin, 2006). Then we propose a typology which consists of a) social enterprises providing public welfare services, b) emerging alternative economic initiatives, c) impact businesses and smart-ups, and d) social impact investors.
Data collection For data collection and analysis, we then select emblematic cases from each category of the typology (a, b, c and d) which are described in-depth To build a reliable data set concerning these cases, we combine interviews based on the ICSEM questionnaire, publicly available registers, and some other databases. On such a basis, we also analyze the respective institutionalization processes of each SE category as well as their eco-systems. Expected impacts This research makes a threefold contribution. First, it develops an empirically grounded typology of social enterprises which adds to the knowledge of the field in Finland. It paves the way to international comparative analyses. Finally, this study serves Finnish practitioners to better understand the emerging eco-system and the diverse forms and needs of social enterprises. References Dees, G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb., 54 67. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). Conceptions of Social Enterprise in Europe: A Comparative Perspective with the United States. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 71 90). Palgrave Macmillian. Houtbeckers, E. (2014). Yhteiskunnallisen yrittäjyyden toimijoiden kirjo Suomessa [Social entrepreneurship actors in Finland]. Tieteessä tapahtuu, 32(3), 7 11. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246 262. doi:10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2 Kostilainen, H., & Grönberg, V. (2013). Understanding startup and success of work integration social enterprises in Finland. In H. Kostilainen & P. Pättiniemi (Eds.), Avauksia yhteiskunnallisen yritystoiminnan tutkimukseen: FinSERN 1. Kostilainen, H., & Tykkyläinen, S. (2015). The Characteristics of Finnish Social Enterprise. In H. Kostilainen & P. Pättiniemi (Eds.), FinSERN 2. Konferenssijulkaisu. Pättiniemi, P. (2006). A plurality of logics behind Finnish social enterprises. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise (pp. 157 166). London: Routledge. Individual Submission Panel Paper The Development of Social Enterprises within the Public Sector in Israel Title (Panel Paper) The Development of Social Enterprises within the Public Sector in Israel
Author Yisca Monnickendam-Givon, yiscam@gmail.com; The Hebrew University and The College of Management Academic Studies (Presenter) Research goals and methodology Social enterprise (SE) are social-economic organizations that have a twofold mission. to combine an entrepreneurial dynamics to provide services or goods with a primacy of social aims. Combining an economic paradigm with a social one has great implications on the way SE operate. The mapping of the social enterprise models has identified that such entities incorporated within the public sector (national and municipal) in addition to the more commonly known entities incorporated as businesses, NPOs and cooperatives (Gidron, et al., 2014; Gordon, 2015). The goal of the study is to inquire into the characteristics of public sector SEs in Israel and the meaning of these characteristics for the participants that are involved in such entities. This study examines 5 legally incorporated SEs within the public sector utilizing questionnaires from the ICSEM (international comparative social enterprise models) Project, and open interviews. Preliminary results: two types of public sector SE Preliminary results identified two types of social enterprises within the public sector: The first type are enterprises that were initially established as social services, and were later transformed through innovative strategies (Luke, et al., 2010) into social enterprises. The second type includes enterprises that were created to address a specific social problem, and selected the socialenterprise concept as the most suitable strategy to reach their goals (Lawson & Samson, 2001). This type is often set-up by an individual or group of entrepreneurs' initiative from inside or outside the public sector, in a similar way to SEs that are formed by NGOs. Our findings so far indicate that the SEs deal in differently with the twofold paradigm of SE, the social paradigm v. the business paradigm. The first type was not bothered much by it and just developed its own blend of both paradigms on the fly. The second type of SEs, discussed and struggled with the issue of how to best combine the paradigms. It seems that these different ways of dealing with the twofold paradigm also affect the governance of the SEs, i.e., different ways of sharing with constituencies and accountability to stakeholders. Wider implications In a wider context, the development of SEs within the public sector (often in collaboration with NPOs) can be seen as a result of the pressures social services are facing: (A) The competition with the private and other NGO based services, (B) the need to maintain relevance as professional bodies and (C) economic and managerial efficiency (Hefetz & Warner, 2011; Forrest & Murie, 2014). These pressures created the need for innovation that maybe best implemented by the creation of SEs. Research into public sector SEs, has implications on the study of new trends in the public sector. It may be seen on the one hand as a form of privatization and on the other as a way of introducing entrepreneurship and innovative approaches in the public services.
References Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M. (2010) Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53. Forrest, R., & Murie, A. (201 ). Selling the Welfare State: the privatisation of public housing. outledge. Gidron, B., Abbou, I., Buber-Ben David, N., Navon, A. and Greenberg, Y. (2015) Social Enterprise in Israel: The Swinging Pendulum between Collectivism and Individualism, ICSEM Working Papers, No. 20 (forthcoming). Gordon, M. (2015) A Typology of Social Enterprise Traditions, ICSEM Working Papers, No.18(forthcoming). Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. E. (2011). Contracting or public delivery? The importance of service, market and management characteristics. ournal of Public Administration esearch and Theory, mur00. Luke, B., Verreynne, M. L., & Kearins, K. (2010). Innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the public sector: The changing face of public sector institutions. Innovation, 12(2), 138-153. Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach. International journal of innovation management, 5(03), 3-00. Nyssens, M., & Defourny, J. (2012). The EMES approach of social enterprise in a comparative perspective (No. 12 03). EMES, Working Papers.