Einde inhoudsopgave
Social enterprises in the EU (IVOR nr. 111) 2018/3.6.1
3.6.1 An overview of the developed cases concerning the participatory governance of social enterprises
mr. A. Argyrou, datum 01-02-2018
- Datum
01-02-2018
- Auteur
mr. A. Argyrou
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS585766:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht / Rechtspersonenrecht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Argyrou et al. 2017 (n 169).
ibid.
mr. A. Argyrou et al., ‘Social Enterprises and the Integration of Persons with Mental Disabilities: A Case-study of Koispe Athena-Elpis’ in M. Pirson et al. (eds), Responsible Leadership : A Humanistic Perspective (Business Expert Press 2018, forthcoming).
Argyrou et al. 2016b (n 85).
Campi et al. (n 5); Adam (n 92); Spear (n 5); Spear and Bidet (n 141).
Campi et al. (n 5); Mason et al. (n 7).
Campi et al. (n 5); Mason et al. (n 7).
Campi et al. (n 5); Adam (n 115).
Campi et al. (n 5).
ibid.
Mason et al. (n 7); Low (n 6).
Mason et al. (n 7); Low (n 6); Spear et al. 2009 (n 4); 2014 (n 11).
Low (n 6); Spear et al. 2014 (n 11).
Low (n 6); Mason et al. (n 7); Spear et al. 2009 (n 4); 2014 (n 11).
Ebrahim et al. (n 4); Spear (n 4).
Ebrahim et al. (n 4); Low (n 6); Doherty et al. (n 112).
Ebrahim et al. (n 4); Mason et al. (n 7); Low (n 6); Spear et al. 2009 (n 4), 2014 (n 11); Doherty et al. (n 112).
Ebrahim et al. (n 4); Doherty et al. (n 112); Mason et al. (n 7); Spear et al. 2009 (n 4); Low (n 6).
This article provides a meta-synthesis and a cross-examination of findings from nine qualitative case studies regarding the participatory governance of social enterprises. The meta-synthesis comprises a cross-case comparison amongst the examined case studies and a synthesis/integration of findings concerning the element of participatory governance in tailor-made legal forms for social enterprises and its actual implementation in practice. In this article, the aggregate results of the nine qualitative case studies are presented. The qualitative case studies considered social enterprises which employed variations of legal forms operating in different sectors.
Three case studies concern three Greek social enterprises with the legal form of the social cooperative and its legal variations, namely: (i) a Koinsep of Collective and Productive purpose, i.e. Koinsep Ekati (KE) (hereafter ‘Case Study 1’);1 (ii) a Koinsep of Care, i.e. Koinsep Merimna Ygeias (KMY) (hereafter ‘Case Study 2’);2 and (iii) a Koinsep of Integration, i.e. Koispe Athena-Elpis (hereafter ‘Case Study 3’). Case Study 3 concerns a social cooperative with the special legal form of Koispe. The Koispe legal form is considered a Koinsep of Integration according to the Social Entrepreneurship Law of 2011 and its later amendment of 2016.3
Three case studies concern three Belgian social enterprises which adopted the legal form of the cooperative with a social purpose, i.e. CVBA-VSO.4 The Belgian social enterprises include: (i) a VSO from the renewable energy sector, i.e. CORE (hereafter ‘Case Study 4’); (ii) a VSO from the financial sector, i.e. Microstart (hereafter ‘Case Study 5’); and (iii) a VSO from the social housing sector, i.e. Volkshuisvesting (hereafter ‘Case Study 6’).
Three case studies concern three UK social enterprises with the legal form of the CIC and its legal variations: (i) a CIC limited by guarantee, i.e. Breadshare CIC (hereafter ‘Case Study 7’); (ii) a CIC limited by shares, i.e. GTS Solutions CIC (hereafter ‘Case Study 8’); and (iii) a public limited CIC, i.e. Stratford Community Energy PLCIC (hereafter ‘Case Study 9’).
The case studies discuss various theoretical propositions concerning stakeholder participation in the governance of social enterprise. In doing so, they contribute to the improvement of existing theories concerning the participatory governance of social enterprises. The theoretical propositions are considered, and they are reflected upon in the meta-synthesis of findings and results. In particular, the theoretical propositions have argued that:
the participatory governance structure suggests that, in the decision- making processes of social enterprises, stakeholders have a real voting power – through the exercise of voting rights – and not just a symbolic one;5
the participatory governance structure is characterised by the ‘internalisation’ of stakeholders and their active participation in decision- making processes, which could ultimately lead to more open and democratic decision-making processes;6
stakeholders can either participate in the organisational decision- making processes of social enterprises as formal members and co-owners of shares, or they can influence decision-making through other, informal processes;7
membership may materialise as a coercive necessity, as opposed to actual voluntary cooperation, due to the necessity of complying with the legal and institutional framework. In this case, the formal multi- stakeholder character cannot be translated into actual participation of stakeholders in the governance of a social enterprise;8
the structure of participatory governance tends to depend on the autonomous decision of its founders within legal frameworks that often permit – explicitly or implicitly – but do not require the involvement of more than one category of stakeholder in the governance of the organisation;9
the autonomous decisions of social enterprise founders (owners-members/principal decision-makers) tend to influence the participatory governance structure of a social enterprise to a greater extent than the law does;10
the boards of social enterprises are more likely to exhibit a stewardship model of governance than the democratic model found in other non- profits;11
the boards of social enterprises are more likely to recruit members on the basis of expertise and skill rather than on the basis of the representative status of the stakeholders;12
the governance structures of social enterprises are categorised into: (i) structures that involve the self-selection of decision-makers; (ii) structures that are associated with membership in organisations in which boards are directly elected by members; and (iii) structures that combine both aspects, i.e. self-selecting governance and representation;13
a stewardship model for social enterprises moves away from inclusive representation at the board level, regardless of their strategic utility, towards a group of managers and/or directors with a specific skill set that can more effectively manage the entire operation;14
governance challenges include ‘mission drift’ and/or inactive membership. These challenges emerge from the hybrid character of the social enterprise, regardless of it having used a tailor-made legal form that seeks to accommodate the hybrid features;15
newly introduced tailor-made legal forms for social enterprises may not have any effect in resolving the governance challenges and trade-offs that social enterprises often encounter;16
governance challenges when materialising lead to a decline in the social enterprise’s legitimacy and accountability to stakeholders;17
accountability and the scrutiny of stakeholders is facilitated through formal means, i.e. through the law, or through informal means, i.e. in unofficial processes developed in any given organisation.18