3.2.4.1 The roles and rights of stakeholders in the governance of social enterprises

The case studies examined in this article have shown that various types of stakeholders (employees, volunteers, financiers and public institutions) in two Koinseps, KMY and KE, have no rights and hardly any formal role in the enterprises’ decision-making processes. Stakeholders do not participate formally in the two selected Koinseps, neither as managers and representatives nor as supervisors and controllers. Instead, stakeholders have acquired a more consulting role, one which was found to materialise in informal settings. This is because of the fact that participatory governance is not expressed in a formal manner through membership of these two Greek Koinseps, but rather in a symbolic and informal way. The type of informal participation that is developed in the Koinseps’ governance emerges not as a coercive necessity through compliance with the applicable legal framework, but rather as an actual cooperation with respect to crucial decisions that need to be made. Primarily, participatory governance does not materialise through membership because of: (i) the limited urge and motivation on the part of stakeholders to be involved in the ownership and membership of the organisation for financial and risk-related reasons; (ii) the limited awareness of stakeholders regarding the opportunities that membership provides for participation in governance; and finally (iii) the constraints that have been imposed by law and public policy (especially with respect to the participation of legal persons and public institutions).

Stakeholders also show a lack of trust concerning the legal and institutional framework of the Koinsep, which might be justified considering its emerging character, a series of unsuccessful policies that have been implemented and the lack of knowledge and awareness in society regarding this new type of social enterprise. The inconsistency of the legal framework and its repercussions are manifested in the detrimental policy applied to Koinseps concerning public contracts, something which besides being inconsistent with the EU and the national public procurement law (as ruled by the Court of Audit) is also irreconcilable with the Koinsep’s legal form. Therefore, although Koinsep governance with its participatory and multi-stakeholder character could complement, for instance, the provision of public goods and services by public institutions, the law excludes the internalisation of municipal authorities and public law enti-ties in the membership of a Koinsep – and consequently in its governance. This lack of trust is also noted among stakeholders with respect to the successful outcomes, the future growth and eventually the development of the new legal form of the Koinsep, which is still in its start-up phase. This leads to the assumption that participatory governance through membership may become more likely in fully grown and more mature Koinsep social enterprises in Greece. However, in view of the fact that the Koinsep legal form was only introduced in 2011-2012 and that even the oldest Koinsep in Greece has only been in operation for a maximum of four years, this assumption is not firmly grounded on a comprehensive basis of empirical research, at least not for the near future. Additionally, and apart from the limited motivation of stakeholders to participate in governance, in an uncertain institutional environment, there is a limited urge on the part of a Koinsep’s founders and principal decision-makers to make membership – and thus the decision-making processes – attractive to new members. This is primarily because founders and decision-makers in the examined social enterprises disregarded the means by which stakeholders can jointly contribute to the governance of the organisation or the fulfilment of social objectives through decision-making.