Advertisement

An Empirical Investigation of Supportive Legal Frameworks for Social Enterprises in Belgium: A Cross-Sectoral Comparison of Case Studies Concerning Social Enterprises in the Social Housing, Finance and Energy Sector

  • Aikaterini ArgyrouEmail author
  • Tineke Elisabeth Lambooy
  • Robert Jan Blomme
  • Henk Kievit
  • Guus Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman
  • Duco Hora Siccama
Chapter

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how the existing legal framework for social enterprises in Belgium affects the activity of social enterprises in the social housing, finance and energy sector. The focus is thereby on the legal factor of governance and the decision-making power of stakeholders. These matters are examined in respect of one particular type of social enterprises, the so-called company with a social purpose, ‘Vennootschap met Sociaal Oogmerk’ (VSO). The authors conducted three case studies in Belgium. They examined in which way the VSO law has been implemented in three social enterprises which are active in different sectors, i.e. the energy, finance and housing sector and compared the results. By comparing the case studies, this article aims to generate (i) a cross-sectoral theoretical analysis regarding the practical application of the legal factor of governance in the three Belgian social enterprises and, (ii) a comprehensive understanding of the involvement of different stakeholders in the social enterprises’ governance in these sectors. Useful conclusions were drawn for the improvement of the legal framework for social enterprises in Belgium as well as for the improvement of the social enteprises functioning.

Keywords

Social enterprises Cooperatives Governance Stakeholders Belgium 

References

  1. Alter K (2007) Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC 12:1–124Google Scholar
  2. Alvord SH, Brown LD, Letts CW (2004) Social Entrepreneurship and societal transformation. J Appl Behav Sci 40(3):260–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyrou A, Lambooy T, Blomme RJ, Kievit H (2015) An understanding how social enterprises can benefit from supportive legal frameworks: a case study report on social entrepreneurial models in Greece. Int J Bus Glob (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Austin JE, Gutierrez R, Ogliastri E, Reficco E (2006) Effective management of social enterprises: lessons from businesses and civil society organizations in Iberoamerica. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnoli L, Megali C (2011) Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 40(1):149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borzaga C, Defourny J (eds) (2001) The emergence of social enterprise. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Breesch T, Coeckelbergh D (1995) De VSO. Non Profit, recht & management-reeks. Gent: Mys & Breesch, 110Google Scholar
  8. Cafaggi F, Iamiceli P (2009) New frontiers in the legal structure and legislation of social enterprises in europe: a comparative analysis. In: Noya A (ed) The changing boundaries of social enterprises. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 25–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campi S, Defourny J, Gregoire O (2006) Work integration social enterprises: are they multi-stakeholder and multiple goal organizations? In: Nyssens M (ed) Social enterprise: at the crossroads of market. Routledge, London, pp 29–49Google Scholar
  10. Coates A, Van Opstal W (2009) The joys and burdens of multiple legal frameworks for social entrepreneurship: lessons from the Belgian case. EMES conferences selected papers series, ECSP-T09-01. Retrieved 19 July 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1432427
  11. Corbin J, Strauss A (2014) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox E, Schmuecker K (2010) Growing the big society: encouraging success in social and community enterprise in deprived communities. IPPR, NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  13. Crabtree B, Miller W (eds) (1999) Doing qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Decision of the Flemish Government of October 22, 2010, Laying down the additional conditions and the procedure for recognition as social housing and establishing the procedure for assessing the performance of social housing. Official translation Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 22 Oktober 2010. Retrieved 24 July 2015 from http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a.pl
  15. Dees JG (1998) The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Draft Report for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Stanford University, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  16. Dees JG, Anderson BB (2003) For-profit social ventures. In: Kourilsky ML, Walstad WB, Osborne AE (eds) Social entrepreneurship. Senate Hall Academic Publishing, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  17. Defourny J, Nyssens M (2001) Belgium: social enterprises in the community services sector. In: Borzaga C, Defourny J (eds) The emergence of social enterprise. Routledge, London, pp 47–65Google Scholar
  18. Defourny J, Nyssens M (2008) Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Soc Enterp J 4(3):202–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Defourny J, Nyssens M (2010) Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in europe and the United States: convergences and divergences. J Soc Entrepr 1(1):32–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Domenico H, Haugh H, Tracey P (2010) Social bricolage: theorizing social value creation in social enterprise. Entrepr Theor Pract 34(4):681–703Google Scholar
  21. Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91Google Scholar
  22. Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2014) What impact? a framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Univ Calif Berkeley 56(3):118–141Google Scholar
  23. EC (2011) Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions social business initiative: Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. COM 682 final, Brussels, 25 Oct 2011. Retrieved 23 July 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/COM2011_682_en.pdf
  24. EC (2014a) European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe: Synthesis report, 14 Oct 2014. Retrieved 19 July 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=2149
  25. EC (2014b) European Commission, A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe-Country Report: Belgium, 14 Oct 2014. Retrieved 19 July 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?advSearchKey=socentcntryrepts&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&country=0&year=0&orderBy=docOrder
  26. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  27. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elkington J, Hartigan P (2008) The power of unreasonable people: how social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Harvard Business Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman RE, Reed DL (1983) Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review XXV (3): 88–106Google Scholar
  30. Flemish Housing Code 1997 Official translation Decreet houdende de Vlaamse Wooncode, 15 July 1997. Retrieved 23 July 2015, from http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=1997071539&table_name=wet
  31. Galera G, Borzaga C (2009) Social enterprise: an international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Soc Enterp J 5(3):210–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haugh H (2006) A research agenda for social entrepreneurship? Soc Enterpr J 1(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huybrechts B, Mertens S (2014) The relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy. Ann Public Cooperative Econ 85(2):193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaplan RS (2001) Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 11(3):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerlin AJ (2006) Social enterprises in the United States and Europe: understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas 17:162–179Google Scholar
  36. King N (2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. King Baudouin Foundation (2013) Mapping social enterprises in Belgium, October 2013. Retrieved July 20, 2015 from http://www.oksigenlab.eu/sites/default/files/selusi_belgium_-full_report.pdf
  38. Lambooy TE, Argyrou A (2014) Improving the legal environment for social entrepreneurship in Europe. Eur Co Law 11(2):71–76Google Scholar
  39. Lee C, Nowell B (2014) A framework for assessing the performance of nonprofit organizations. Am J Evaluation 1–21Google Scholar
  40. Low C (2006) A framework for the governance of social enterprises. Int J Soc Econ 33(5/6):376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mason C, Kirkbride J, Bryde D (2007) From stakeholders to institutions: the changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Manag Decis 45(2):284–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Melmoth G (2005) Simply legal: an introduction to legal structures in the social economy, ‘foreword’ in cooperatives UK. Cooperatives UK, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  43. Münkner H (2004) Multi-stakeholder co-operatives and their legal framework. In: Borzaga C and Spear R (eds) Trends and challenges for co-operatives and social enterprises in developed and transition countries. (pp.49–84).Trento: Edizioni 31Google Scholar
  44. Morduch J (1999) The microfinance promise. J Econ Lit XXXVII:1569–1614Google Scholar
  45. Paton R (2003) Managing and measuring social enterprises. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Peattie K, Morley A (2008) Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Soc Enterp J 4(2):91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Périlleux A (2015) When social enterprises engage in finance: agents of change in lending relationships, a Belgian typology. Strateg Change 24(3):285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Périlleux A, Hudon M, Bloy E (2011) Surplus distribution in microfinance: Differences among cooperative, nonprofit, and shareholder forms of ownership. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Q DOI: 0899764011406287Google Scholar
  49. Pestoff VA (2013) The role of participatory governance in the EMES approach to social enterprise. J Entrep Org Divers 2(2):48–60Google Scholar
  50. Phillips R, Freeman ΕR, Wicks AC (2003) What stakeholder theory is not. Bus Ethics Q 13(4):479–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sawhill JC, Williamson D (2001) Mission impossible? measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 11(3):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharir M, Lerner M (2006) Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. J World Bus 41(1):6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spear R (2004) Governance in democratic member-based organisations. Ann Public Cooperative Econ 75(1):33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spear R, Cornforth C, Aiken M (2009) The governance challenges of social enterprises: evidence from a UK empirical study. Ann Public Cooperative Econ 80(2):247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spear R, Cornforth C, Aiken M (2014) Major perspectives on governance of social enterprise. In: Defourny J, Hulgård L, Pestoff V (eds) Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Routledge, London and New York, pp 133–157Google Scholar
  56. Yildiz Ö, Rommel J, Debor S, Holstenkamp L, Mey F, Müller JR, Radtke J, Rognli J (2015) Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Res Soc Sci 6:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aikaterini Argyrou
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tineke Elisabeth Lambooy
    • 3
  • Robert Jan Blomme
    • 4
  • Henk Kievit
    • 5
  • Guus Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman
    • 1
  • Duco Hora Siccama
    • 1
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands
  2. 2.Nyenrode Business UniversityBreukelenNetherlands
  3. 3.Corporate LawNyenrode Business UniversityBreukelenNetherlands
  4. 4.Organisational BehaviourNyenrode Business UniversityBreukelenNetherlands
  5. 5.Center for Entrepreneurship, Governance and StewardshipNyenrode Business UniversityBreukelenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations