Skip to main content
Log in

Participatory Governance in Social Enterprise

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper emphasizes the importance of participative governance in the study of social enterprise. Furthermore, it argues that social enterprise must be analyzed through a multi-dimensional perspective. The EMES approach is based on three dimensions emphasizing the social, economic, and political dimension, while many Anglo-American definitions tend to use a one-dimensional spectrum framework. The latter often see social enterprise as a simple phenomenon that can be arranged along a continuum, ranging from economic to social, where more of one means less of the other. However, this fails to acknowledge the multi-disciplinary nature of social enterprise. Scholars inspired by the EMES approach should devote greater attention to exploring the interactive and interrelated nature of the three dimensions of social enterprise, especially the governance dimension.

Résumé

Cet article met en évidence l’importance de la gouvernance participative dans l’approche EMES de l’entreprise sociale. L’approche EMES repose sur trois dimensions, au lieu d’une seule, comme cela est courant dans la plupart des définitions anglo-américaines de l’entreprise sociale. Ces dernières considèrent souvent l’entreprise sociale comme un phénomène simple, qui peut être classé selon un ensemble d’activités, allant des entreprises économiques aux entreprises sociales, dans lequel en faire plus dans un domaine signifie en faire moins dans l’autre. Par ailleurs, une « théorie unifiée » , basée sur des éléments clés d’une seule discipline académique, est proposée. Elle ne parvient cependant pas à reconnaître le caractère pluridisciplinaire de l’entreprise sociale. L’approche multidimensionnelle d’EMES associe des éléments économiques, sociaux et politiques et, par conséquent, peut plus facilement promouvoir une compréhension véritablement multidisciplinaire de ce phénomène complexe. Toutefois, les universitaires inspirés par l’approche EMES ont besoin de consacrer plus d’attention à l’étude de la nature interactive et interdépendante de ces trois dimensions de l’entreprise sociale en Europe, en particulier celle de la gouvernance.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag hebt die Bedeutung der partizipativen Steuerung im EMES-Ansatz zu Sozialunternehmen hervor. Der EMES-Ansatz beruht auf drei Dimensionen anstelle einer einzigen Dimension, wie es in den meisten anglo-amerikanischen Definitionen des Sozialunternehmens verbreitet ist. Letztere betrachten das Sozialunternehmen häufig als ein einfaches Phänomen, das entlang eines Kontinuums angeordnet werden kann, welches von ökonomischen zu sozialen Belangen reicht, wobei die größere Präsenz eines Interesses zur geringeren Präsenz des anderen Interesses führt. Alternativ wird eine „vereinheitlichte Theorie“vorgeschlagen, die auf den Schlüsselelementen einer einzigen akademischen Disziplin beruht; doch lässt diese den multidisziplinären Charakter der Sozialunternehmen außer Acht. Der multidimensionale Ansatz von EMES vereint ökonomische, soziale und politische Elemente und ist somit besser imstande, ein wahres multidisziplinäres Verständnis dieses komplexen Phänomens zu fördern. Doch müssen sich Wissenschaftler, die vom EMES-Ansatz inspiriert werden, vermehrt der Erforschung des interkativen und zusammenhängenden Wesens dieser drei Dimensionen von Sozialunternehmen in Europa, und insbesondere der Steuerungsdimension, widmen.

Resumen

El presente documento hace hincapié en la importancia de la gobernanza participativa en el enfoque de EMES sobre la empresa social. El enfoque de EMES se basa en tres dimensiones, en lugar de en una sola, como es común en la mayoría de las definiciones anglo-americanas de la empresa social. Estos últimos a menudo ven la empresa social como un sencillo fenómeno que puede ser situado a lo largo de un continuo, que va de lo económico a lo social, donde más de uno significa menos del otro. Alternativamente, se propone una “teoría unificada”, basada en elementos claves de una única disciplina académica; pero no logra reconocer la naturaleza multidisciplinar de la empresa social. El enfoque multidisciplinar de EMES combina elementos económicos, sociales y políticos y, por consiguiente, puede promover más fácilmente una comprensión verdaderamente multidisciplinar de este complejo fenómeno. Sin embargo, los eruditos inspirados por el enfoque de EMES necesitan dedicar una mayor atención a explorar la naturaleza interactiva e interrelacionada de estas tres dimensiones de la empresa social en Europa, especialmente la dimensión de la gobernanza.

摘要

文着重强调了社会企业网络参与式管理的重要性。正如多数英国和美国对社会企业的定义,社会企业网络基于三个方面,而非局限于单个方面。通常来讲,后者将社会企业视为一种简单的,贯穿整个经济社会的连续现象,厚此则薄彼。鉴于此,有人提出了以单个学科主要元素为基础的“统一理论”,但未能发现社会企业的多学科性质。社会企业网络的多维视角综合了经济、社会和政治元素,因此能够促进跨学科理解这一复杂现象。虽然如此,研究社会企业网络的学者需要投入更多精力研究欧洲社会企业三个方面的关联性,特别是在管理方面。

ملخص

يؤكد هذا البحث على أهمية التحكم التشاركي في نهج (EMES) الذي يجمع بين العناصر الإقتصادية والإجتماعية والسياسية لمؤسسة إجتماعية. يستند نهج (EMES)على ثلاثة أبعاد، بدلا” من واحد، كما هو شائع في أكثر التعريفات الأنجلو أمريكية للمشاريع الإجتماعية. هذا الأخير كثيرا” ما يرى المشاريع الإجتماعية كظاهرة بسيطة التي يمكن ترتيبها على طول سلسلة متصلة، بدءا” من الإقتصادية إلى الإجتماعية، حيث أكثر من طريق واحد أقل من الآخر. بدلا” من ذلك، “نظرية موحدة”، إستنادا” إلى العناصر الأساسية من إنضباط أكاديمي واحد، يقترح؛ لكنه يفشل في إقرار طابع متعدد التخصصات للمشاريع الإجتماعية. نهج متعدد الأبعاد من (EMES) يجمع بين العناصر الإقتصادية والإجتماعية والسياسية، بالتالي، يمكن أن يعزز فهم حقيقي متعدد التخصصات لهذه الظاهرة المعقدة. مع ذلك، العلماء الذين يتأثرون بنهج (EMES) يحتاجون إلى تكريس إهتمام أكبر لإكتشاف طبيعة تفاعلية ومترابطة لهذه الأبعاد الثلاثة لمؤسسة إجتماعية في أوروبا، خاصة البعد الخاص بالتحكم.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. EMES is a research network of established university research centers and individual researchers whose goal has been so far to gradually build up a European corpus of theoretical and empirical knowledge, pluralistic in discipline, and methodologies around “SE” concepts: social enterprise, social entrepreneurship, etc. (www.emes.net).

  2. 4th EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, EMES Network and University of Liége, July 1–4, 2013, Liége, Belgium.

References

  • BEPA-Bureau of European Policy Advisors. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Bruxelles: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, G. & Galera, G. (2013) Social enterprise: A neo-liberal strategy or a participatory model for managing general-interest issues? Paper presented at 4th EMES international conference. Liege, July 2014.

  • Borzaga, C. & Santuari, A. (2003). New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship. In OECD, The non-profit sector in a changing economy (Chap. 1, pp. 31–56). Paris: OECD.

  • Cabinet Office of the Third Sector—UK Government. (2006). Social enterprise action plan: Scaling new heights. London: Office of the Third Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (Eds.). (2002). Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofits. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., Hulgård, L., & Pestoff, V. (Eds.). (2014). Social enterprise and the third sector—Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society (pp. 3–6). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). Conceptions of social enterprises in Europe: A comparative perspective with the United States. In B. Gidon & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 71–90). New York: Palgrave-Macmillian.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2014). The EMES approach of social enterprise in a comparative perspective. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector—Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise. An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implication. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). Grassroots leaders for a new economy—How civic entrepreneurs are building prosperous communities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulgård, L. (2004). Entrepreneurship in community development and local governance. In P. Bogason, S. Kensen, & H. Miller (Eds.), Tampering with tradition: The unrealized authority of democratic agency. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulgård, L. (2011). Social economy and social enterprise: An emerging alternative to mainstream market economy? In China journal of social work (Vol. 4, No 3, November 2011). Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Peking University: Routledge.

  • Huybrechts, B., Mertens, S., & Rijpens, J. (2014). Explaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector—Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and abroad: learning from our differences. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.) Research on Social Entrepreneurship. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series (Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 105–25).

  • Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. London, UK: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levander, U. (2011). Utanförskap på entreprenad. Diskurser om sociala företag i Sverige. Göteborg: Daidalos Förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: taking stock and looking ahead. In A. Fayolle & H. Matley (Eds.), Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship (pp. 15–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., Jessop, B., Hulgård, L., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). “Social Innovation: A new stage in innovation process analysis? In Mac Callum Moulaert & Hamdouch Mehmood (Eds.), Handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nyssens, M. (2014). European work integration social enterprises: Between social innovation and isomorphism. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector—Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyssens, M., & Petrella, F. (2013). From common goods to quasi-collective goods: The role of multi-stakeholder ownership. Paper presented at the 4th EMES international research conference on social enterprise “If not profit, for what? And How?”, EMES Network and University of Liége, 2013, Liége, Belgium. Forthcoming in P. Eynaud, J. -L. Laville & D. Young (Eds.), Governance & democracy: Civil society in a changing world.

  • Nyssens (2006). Social Enterprise. London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (1998). Beyond the market & state: Civil democracy & social enterprises in a welfare society. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2008). A democratic architecture for the welfare state. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2009). Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and co-production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2011). Lost in translation or what’s not included in the polish social economy? Paper presented at the ISTR international conference, Siena, Italy.

  • Pestoff, V. (2012). Hybrid tendencies in consumer co-operatives: The case of Sweden. In D. McDonnell & E. Knight (Eds.), The co-operative model in practice. International perspectives. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen: CETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2013). The role of participatory governance in the EMES approach to social enterprise. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, JEOD, 2(2), 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regeringskansliet (1998). Social ekonomi i EU-landet Sverige—tradition och förnyelse i samma begrepp. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regeringskansliet (2001). Social ekonomi—en skrift om Regeringskansliets arbete med ett nytt begrep. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, B. (2011). Stanford Report. Retrieved June 11, 2011, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/classday-talk-reich.

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1996). The emerging nonprofit sector: An overview. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, G. E., Frank, G. P., & Stough, R. (Eds.). (2009). Non-market entrepreneurship. Interdisciplinary approaches. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Socialstyrelsen. (2014). Flere og stærkere socialøkonomiske virksomheder i Danmark. København: Ministeriet for børn, ligestilling, integration og sociale forhold. Socialstyrelsen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyart, C., & Hjorth, D. (Eds.). (2006). Entrepreneurship as social change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, S. (2010). How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22, 89–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamstad, J. (2007) Governing welfare: The third sector and challenges to the swedish welfare state. Doctoral Thesis No. 37, Mid-Sweden University, Östersund.

  • Vidal, I. (2013). Governance of social enterprises as producers of public services. In P. Valkama, S. J. Bailey, & A.-V. Anttiroiko (Eds.), Organizational innovation in public services. Forms & governance. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (2008). Alternative perspectives on social enterprise. In J. J. Cordes & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits & business (pp. 21–46). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (2009). A unified theory of social enterprise. In G. E. Shockley, G. P. Frank, & R. Stough (Eds.), Non-market entrepreneurship. Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 175–191). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., & Lecy, J. (2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. Paper presented at 4th EMES international research conference on social enterprise (Vol. 25, pp. 1307–1332).

  • Young, D., & Salamon, L. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures and for-profit competition. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Denver Colorado, 19–23 November, 2014. That paper, in turn, was a substantially revised version of a paper by the lead author published in the Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, JEOD, (2013, V. 2: 48–60) on “The Role of Participatory Governance in the EMES Approach to Social Enterprise.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor Pestoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pestoff, V., Hulgård, L. Participatory Governance in Social Enterprise. Voluntas 27, 1742–1759 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9662-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9662-3

Keywords

Navigation