Konstantinos Geormas
Hellenic Open University
Greece
Hellenic Open University
Greece
Niki Glaveli
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Greece
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Greece
30-6-2019
UNTFSSE Call for Papers 2018
Implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals: What Role for Social and Solidarity Economy?
This document is made available on the SSE
Knowledge Hub for the SDGs in the form and language in which it was received.
The current paper focuses on the Greek
Social and Solidarity Economy (GSSE) and its undelivered promise for
transformative local sustainable development. Our argument is that the GSSE is
at an infant stage regarding the cultivation of its identity and its social impacts which deprives
its potential to be a robust social economy paradigm able to address local
development issues. Emphasis is placed on the role of Social Enterprises (SEs),
and particularly on Social Cooperative Enterprises (SCEs/KOINSEPs in Greek)
introduced by Law 4019/2011. Based on our analysis, factors traced in the
macro, meso and micro environment could be considered responsible for KOINSEP’s
fragility and low contribution to the implementation of SDGs at local level.
Firstly, an examination of KOINSEP’s characteristics points to weaknesses that these entities exhibit in
the Greek case. Secondly,
an analysis is presented as to why these weaknesses are aggravated by the
parameters at macro level such as the continuously altered legal/institutional
environment and the unfulfilled “promises” regarding the creation of a
favourable ecosystem. Thirdly, at meso level there is lack of local
governance’s and other local actors’ support, low trust towards SSE
organizations and poor local social capital. Fourthly, at micro (internal) level,
the absence of strategic orientation and a clear vision, as well as the limited
resources and the characteristics of the social entrepreneurs are underlined.
Finally, directions for actions are discussed.
Keywords
Greek Social and Solidarity Economy, Social Cooperative
Enterprises, Greece
Bio
Dr Konstantinos Geormas, General Director
of Benefits at the Organization of Welfare Benefits and Social Solidarity, Ministry
of Labour, Social Insurance and Social Solidarity and Adjunct
Academic Staff at the MA programme “Social and Solidarity Economy” of the
Hellenic Open University. He was the founder of the Greek Social Economy
Registry and the author of many articles and reports on Greek SSE.
Dr Niki Glaveli is Academic Staff at the
Department of Economic of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Scientific
Associate on Social Entrepreneurship at the Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Unit of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Adjunct
Academic Staff at the Hellenic Open University. Her research focuses primarily
on strategic management issues, in the private, public and social sector, and
social enterprises development and behaviour
Introduction
Sustainable development (SDGs
implementation) cannot be achieved at the global or even national level without
mobilizing localities (Budd 2003). Social Enterprises (SEs), as localized agents -emerge
from local communities and undertake activities to benefit these localized communities.
Their presence in the community results in mobilizing resources to generate a
number of values: economic, social, environmental, and cultural in response to
social or market disequilibrium within the community or place (Kim and Lim
2017). Thus, SEs are probably the nodal actor of the Social and Solidarity
Economy (SSE) in localizing the SDGs and promoting local sustainable development,
defined as “the process by which communities can initiate and generate their
own solutions to their common economic problems and thereby build long-term
community capacity and foster the integration of economic, social and
environmental objectives” (Roseland 2000) through a democratic, people-centred,
inclusive and sustainable way (UNRISD 2017).
Moreover, SEs activate and exploit social forces in a creative way, have
stability, durability and great resilience to external shocks and the potential
to create economic environments that bring multiple benefits to all involved.
Furthermore, what is important to realize is
that there is a beneficial and synergistic relationship between local and
SEs’ sustainable development, on the one hand, and reaching SDGs at the local
level on the other hand (UNRISD 2017; Glaveli and Geormas 2017; Geormas 2014).
Boosting SEs promotes local sustainable development and vice versa (Glaveli and
Geormas 2017), whilst SDGs represent a concrete ground on which SEs can build
and enhance their own identity.
However, the
contribution of SEs in the implementation of SDGs at local level is not axiomatic
(Budd 2003). Their effectiveness depends on factors in their ecosystem traced at
the macro, meso and micro level. So, this paper attempts to enlighten the
reader on the following issues: First, provide a quick overview of the Greek
Social and Solidarity Economy (GSSE) and, especially, Greek Social Cooperative
Enterprises (KOINSEPs) and
their connection to SDGs. Second, give an insightful look at the impact
of Greek KOINSEPs to local sustainable development and the implementation of SDGs at the local level. Third, broaden our understanding regarding the
factors and tensions that may stimulate or inhibit the potential of SEs to
contribute to the localization of SDGs in the Greek context. For this purpose
three levels of analysis will be considered:
macro, meso and micro. The macro level refers to aspects related to
public policy issues and national level ecosystem (i.e. national level policies),
the meso level relates to the local
community characteristics and actors (i.e. local social capital, local
authorities) and the micro to the SEs internal environment. Finally, the current paper concludes by
providing some directions of action in order to strengthen the role of KOINSEPs
as means of implementing the SDGs at local level and achieving sustainable
local development.
Social cooperative enterprises and local sustainable development
Greek social cooperative enterprises
Legal framework/types and connection to
SDGs
In the Greek case, KOISPE[1]
was the first form of SE that was introduced by Law (Law 2716/1999). However, the
first legislative action introducing the concept of social economy was Law
4019/2011 on "Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship". Law 4019 provided
for the emergence of a new form of SE, the "Social Cooperative
Enterprise" (KOINSEP) and distinguished (Art 2) three (3) types of
KOINSEPs:
i)
Inclusion KOINSEPs [2], for the integration of vulnerable population groups (e.g. people with disabilities, drug addicts, rehabilitated drug addicts,
HIV-positive people, prisoners, released prisoners, juvenile offenders) in the
economic and social life of communities. As such they have the potential to mainly contribute to the implementation of
SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG1 (no
poverty) at local level.
ii)
Social
Care KOINSEPs, which focus on the production and provision of social care
services/products to vulnerable social groups such as the elderly, infants,
disabled and chronically ill. As a result it could be supported that through
their operations this KOINSEP type has
the potential to mainly contribute to the implementation of SDG3 (good health
and wellbeing) at local level.
iii)
Collective
and Productive purpose KOINSEPs, which focus on the production of products and
the provision of services (related to: culture,
environment, ecology/recycling, promoting local products etc) with the aim
to serve local and collective interests and promote
employment, social cohesion and local/regional development. Analyzing their
purpose, it could be suggested that they would be expected to mainly contribute
to the implementation of SDG1 (no poverty), SDG12 (responsible production and consumption)
and the SDGs (13;14;15) related to the
preservation of environment .
Five years
later, Law 4030/2016 on “Social and Solidarity Economy” was introduced,
attempting to address problems arising from the implementation of Law 4019/2011
while broadening up the scope of SSE initiatives so as to: i) include other legal entities fulfilling
certain criteria (such as: civil cooperatives, agricultural cooperatives), ii) introduce a new legal entity, the workers’ cooperative, iii) reduce
the KOINSEP types to two (Inclusion KOINSEPs for the integration of
vulnerable and special groups and Collective and Social Benefit KOINSEPs which in fact
integrates the KOINSEPs of Social
Care with the KOINSEPs of Collective and Productive purpose) and iv) more closely relate SEs functioning to local
sustainable development and the
provision of services of general interest.
Characteristics and development
Greek KOINSEPs (as a type of SE) are actors of the SSE,
that are quite different from the traditional non-profit organizations (Dess
1998). A set of key economic and social elements defines and differentiates
them (Defourny and Nyssens 2008). They possess entrepreneurial capacity by Law,
so they have the statutory right to engage in the continuous production and/or
sale of goods and services, seek a high degree of autonomy, involve a
significant level of economic risk and employ (at least) a minimum number of
paid workers. Also, they prioritize
people over capital (are people-centred offering decent work conditions),
operate under the principle of sustainable development and utilize profits
primarily for achieving its social mission and secondarily for any eventual
restricted profit distribution (balance among social, environmental and
economic values). In detail, profits are not to be distributed to members,
whilst 60% of profits should be invested in new jobs creation and in promoting
the KOINSEP's activities in general. KOINSEP members can be individuals or
juridical entities and participate with one vote regardless of the cooperative
shares they own (democratic decision making and equal opportunities for all;
SDG10).
Also, KOINSEPs are launched by a group of citizens[3]
engaging people belonging to a community
or to a group that shares a certain need or aim, are participatory in nature which means that those affected by the
activities are represented and take part in the management of the SE and pursue
a clear goal to benefit the community or a specific group of people in the
community and thus, directly and
indirectly, promote a sense of social responsibility at local level.
Based on the
above characteristics, it could be
supported that SEs represent an
alternative to the flaws of the market-centred development model by reducing
the inequalities of power and knowledge that exist in goods and labour markets
(Hope and Martelli 2017).
Nevertheless.
a main difference between the Greek and the European experience is that Greek social
enterprises seem to fit more to the model of “necessity entrepreneurship”
(Poschke 2010), rather than to an innovative and meeting local social needs
model (Geormas 2016; Nasioulas
and Mavroeidis 2013), resulting to low expectations of
development, limited resources and low capital mobilized for their
entrepreneurial activity. Some other characteristics that point to the
“necessity entrepreneurship” categorization are the age of the members and the
levels of employment that characterize Greek SEs. According to a research
conducted by Adam (2014), 50% of the members were above 40 years of age, that
is, the age group mainly affected by the economic crisis.
One interesting feature of Greek KOINSEPs is the wild fluctuation regarding their numbers. Data (from Social and
Solidarity Registry) show that in Greece there is a case of a “skyrocketing”
registration of new entities, motivated by the Law and promises for economic
subsidies. Thus, four years after the introduction of Law 4019/2011, and just
before the introduction of the new Law (4430/2016[4]),
the number of the registered KOINSEPs reached
1.205. Law 4430/2016 provided that KOINSEPs should apply in order to
re-register to the new Social and Solidarity Registry. From the total (1025),
only 586 (around 48%) were the entities that did apply (and 541 were finally
re-registered), suggesting that, most probably, the rest of them were inactive.
The same “skyrocketing” phenomenon holds after the introduction of Law
4430/2016. In the two years period, after this Law was introduced, the number
of the registered SEs had reached 1.138[5]. In fact, since 2016, their number has been
doubled (from 541 to 1.138).
There are a number of reasons explaining this “booming” (Nasioulas and
Mavroeidis 2013). First, in Greece, amidst the crisis
a KOINSEP is the easiest and cheapest
form of enterprise to establish. Second, a motive behind setting up a social
enterprise is the prospect of subsidies from
programs financed by the European structural funds. A third reason is the preferential treatment regarding the
relations with local authorities. Whilst, a fourth reason is the fact that the field is not regulated, because the
Social Economy Registry is severely understaffed and, in addition, it seems
that there is not a political will to actually regulate the field.
Nevertheless, it seems that the “active”[6]
entities of the Registry represent a much smaller number. The Special’s Secretariat Yearly
Report 2018 provides the following table:
Table 1: The “active”
entities of the Social and Solidarity Registry
between 2012-2016
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2
|
44
|
214
|
335
|
374
|
In 2017, when on
paper, more
than a thousand entities were registered, only 332 got approved for
the “member certificate”[7].
And in 2018, with a similar number of registered entities, only 464 of them
submitted the necessary documents in order to obtain the “member certificate”.
Contribution to local development and SDGs’ localization
Regarding
employment, in 2016 when there were 1205 entities registered- the employment
reached 1200 persons (of which 386 belonged to vulnerable groups). That means
that a mean average was one employee per social enterprise (KOINSEP, KOISPE and
worker cooperatives). Conducive to this low number of employment is the fact
that although after the Law 4430/2016 was introduced, and there have been at
least 15 programs subsidizing employment, KOINSEPs applied for only 209
employees[8]. Moreover, if we consider that the 25 KOISPE are the ones which bear
the burden of employment numbers –as well as of a decent turnover– then the
contribution of the KOINSEPs is really meager.
Capital mobilization and consequently, resources mobilization at the
local level, is very low. According to the registry’s data the picture if as
follows:
Table 2: The turnover of KOINSEPs’ in2018
Total number of entities with outturn data
|
Turnover <10.000€
|
Turnover 10.000€-24.000€
|
Turnover
24.000€ -50.000€
|
Turnover
>50.000€
|
518
|
310
|
73
|
56
|
79
|
Source: Special Secretariat of SSE, Yearly Report
2018, Ministry of Labour, Social Insurance and Social Solidarity, Athens,
2018.
|
||||
The aforementioned should not cloud the fact that social
entrepreneurship in Greece is a vehicle for some really robust interventions in
local development as well as in social inclusion. KOISPE, again, constitute the more durable example. Many of them have a turnover above 300.000€,
with the most successful reaching 1million €.
In addition, it seems that social entrepreneurship is a handy tool for
small agricultural initiatives throughout Greece. In many of them, membership
is comprised by women (SDG5 – gender
equality), reproducing thus in another scale an older successful example of
Women’s Cooperatives (Andreopoulou 2016, CICOPA-ILO 2013). It is also of
interest that these initiatives take place in the periphery, like the one in
Gennissea[9]
(Thrace) and in a remote island Kalymnos.
Some inclusion KOINSEPs are a tool for entrepreneurial activities of
well-established associations that deal with the problems of handicapped
people. Through social entrepreneurship, they promoted artifacts and products
made by the handicapped people, creating thus an income and empowerment for the
people themselves (SDG 10 and SDG1).
In addition, lately we are witnessing two phenomena. A number of local
initiatives that are transformed in KOINSEP in order to broaden their
activities, as well as many young people entering the field affected by the
cooperative spirit. It is characteristic though, of the low capabilities of
Greek civil society, that an initiative that emerged the first years of the
crisis, “choris mesazontes” (without intermediaries), which tried to address
the problem of the expensive agricultural products due to the fact of
intermediaries between farmers and consumers (ethical trade), didn’t manage to
be transformed in a network of groceries and farmers’ cooperatives. Only one such
example exist[10]
which suggests that probably the food sector is the most active in terms of
networking in the field of SSE in Greece[11].
This double picture and the fact that social entrepreneurship in Greece
is at the crossroad is depicted by two recent articles. The first talks about
the “social enterprise in Greece as a myth” (Nasioulas 2018), the second refers
to “a young and optimistic social economy in Greece” (Pybus 2018). The fact that
social entrepreneurship is still nascent is emphasized in a recent report by the
Britisch Council in Greece (BC 2017).
Another crucial issue regarding Greek social entrepreneurship is the
fields in which it is active. According to an older survey conducted by Tsoutsoura
(2015, 39-41), the category of Inclusion
KOINSEPs were the 4,5% of the total registered entities, while that of Social
Care the 9,7%, and the rest fell under
the category of Collective and Productive Purpose. As Tsoursoura points out the
Inclusion category is very small, given the fact of the broad social exclusion
problems that the country faced during the same period. The same holds true for
the social care category. This means, that Greek SEs are active in fields
dissimilar to those of their European counterparts. According to a European
survey the main sectors of activity in EU are: social and economic integration
of disadvantage persons, social services of general interest, other community
services, social care and so on (European Commission 2014a, 3; European
Commission 2014b).
Conducive to
this argument is the presentation of the current situation. According to the
data presented by the Special Secretariat’s of SSE Yearly Report (2018), the
picture is delineated in table 3[12].
Table 3: Major fields of SEs activities
Sector of economic activity
|
Number of active entities
|
% of entities
|
Services
for providing food and drinks
|
41
|
11
|
Education
|
38
|
10
|
Organizational
support
|
30
|
8
|
Retail
sale
|
28
|
7
|
Services
in art, leisure etc
|
21
|
6
|
Wholesale
trade
|
21
|
6
|
Services
for organization of scientific and cultural activities
|
18
|
5
|
Source: Special Secretariat of Social and Solidarity
Economy, Yearly Report 2018, Ministry of Labour, Social Insurance and Social
Solidarity
|
||
However, the
picture is bleaker if we take into account the detailed breakdown of the
different sectors. Thus, in the services for providing food and drinks, the
main activity is restaurants. In education, the issue is not providing
education for disadvantage people, but is mainly a reproduction of the whole
para-educational system of private coaching schools. It is not accidental that
both activities have faced heavy taxation in the years of the crisis. In addition,
it is impressive that the activities of social inclusion and social care are
totally absent in the first seven more common activities of social
entrepreneurship. As a result of this situation, it is understandable that
their potential to contribute to local sustainable development and the
implementation of SDGs at local level remained rather un-fulfilled.
The weakness of social
entrepreneurship in Greece, and consequently its low social, economic and
environmental impact, is clearly stated in a research conducted by PWC on
behalf of the EIB (European Investment Bank). The research was presented in the Special Secretariat of Social
and Solidarity Economy, and it was referring to the financing needs of the
SSEO’s in Greece. Questionnaires were sent to 980 KOINSEPs and the responses
were 164. According to their estimations around 400 KOINSEPs were active at the
period of the research, and the majority of them -57%- were at an early stage. Moreover,
during the three previous years only 17% of them pursued a financial instrument
–other than subsidy. Whilst, 16% of
them stated that they will need a financial
instrument in order to develop their activities and only 6,1% that they need
financing! The aforementioned relates to the fact that 30% had zero turnover,
which suggests that they had been waiting for a subsidy programme in order to
start their activities.
Factors
affecting the contribution of KOINSEPs to local sustainable development
The formerly presented facts and figures imply
that Greek SEs have a rather weak contribution to sustainable local development
and the implementation of the SDGs,
particularly of SDGs 1,3,5,10 and 12 that they had (mainly) the
potential to promote. Below, based on an extensive review of secondary data
(relevant literature, research,
legislation and practice), we identify factors located at the macro, meso and
micro (internal) level of SEs environment that put impediments to their
development and the strengthening of GSSE in general and hinder their potential
to contribute to sustainable local development.
Macro level
Top down approach to SSE
The Greek case is a characteristic case of
the precautionary note that “unless Laws and policies are accompanied by
enablers such as financial resources, training and spaces for meaningful
stakeholder dialogue, SSE will likely remain an extremely fragile form of
economy” (Steinman 2011).
The top down
approach that characterizes the Greek case is not only a contemporary
phenomenon. The fact that the multiplication of agents of social economy are an
outcome of state’s initiatives in the sector, characterizes and other instances
of social economy entities such as the cooperatives. It is well documented,
back in 1915, the initiative of the (then) General Secretary of the relevant
ministry, to introduce a cooperative Law. Thus, cooperatives in Greece emerged
not as a mature demand of a farmers’ movement, but as an expression of the
government’s desire to create new means for facilitating implementation of
agricultural policies. Even the fact that the Law was happily perceived by the
farmers was not, simply, due to a “cooperative” spirit. One, among many,
factors was that this specific form of organization provided a handy mean for
loans (Patronis 2004; Kappogianis 1999).
This top-down
approach has had many implications on the development of cooperatives. From
1915 to 1970 there have been 945 amendments of the cooperative Law 602/1915.
During the 1980s and 90s and the first decade of the 21st century the
interventions reached the number of 230!
(Iliopoulos 2012). As CICOPA report
states, the interference exercised by political forces could help explain the
hurdles met by Greek cooperatives in the establishment of an independent and
effective cooperative movement (CICOPA-ILO 2013, 10).
Similar
patterns can be detected in the case of the development of social
entrepreneurship. The difference here is that the initiative is not so much a
top-down governmental approach but rather as a European inspired and motivated
action (Ketsetzopoulou 2010; Geormas 2018).
The first form
of SE presented in Greece, KOISPE, was a result of a pan-European initiative
for the deinstitutionalization of the mental patients. These social
cooperatives aimed exclusively at the socio-economic re-integration of persons
with mental health disabilities.
The second
form, KOINSEP, was the result of a proposal by the European initiative Equal.
Nevertheless, KOINSEPs did not manage to develop to an archetype of a SE and
the outcome of this initiative was mainly a considerable number of research
projects funded by it, as well as a proposal for a legislative initiative.
Thus, as already mentioned earlier, in 2011 the first Law on social
entrepreneurship (Law 4019) - that introduced the notion of social economy and
social entrepreneurship in the Greek ecosystem- was inaugurated. And as it is pointed out by CICOPA, the new
legislation was a government initiative, reminding the case of the Law on
cooperatives (CICOPA-ILO 2013).
Weak and underdeveloped SSE and poor social national capital
A common theme that pervades the
literature on the Greek social entrepreneurship is that it is weak and
undeveloped (Balourdos & Geormas 2012). A number of reasons have been
provided to explain this point. First, the undeveloped welfare state in Greece (Ziomas
&Ketsetzopoulou & Bouzas 2001). Secondly, the fact that voluntary work
(Ziomas 2002), as well as the nature of Greek civil society are weak
(Sakellaropoulos 2007; Geormas 2013; Tsobanoglou 2012). As Sotiropoulos
(2014) has pointed out in the recent context of
crisis, one should understand the emergence of social solidarity networks and
groups, as an exceptional situation. Such groups and networks have attracted
wide publicity and have supported the newly impoverished Greeks, but have
certainly not lifted Greece’s rising poor population out of poverty, nor have
they signalled a large scale shift in Greece’s frail model of voluntarism. Moreover,
the undeveloped legislative environment as well as the inexistence of state
policies regarding local development are also crucial factors (Sakellaropoulos
2007).
In addition,
one should take into consideration the Greek state characteristic related to a
cartel party system (Katz &Mair 1995) which does not
favour the emergence of an independent, citizens’ oriented and with democratic
accountability, social and solidarity,
sector. That is the reason why networking between entities of social economy is
not promoted and state interference through legislative acts is frequent. To these elements we should add the weak civil society that
does not seem to have at its disposal the appropriate means to build up the
necessary networks and gather the needed resources for a vibrant and viable SSE
able to contribute to localizing the SDGs.
Moreover, the
economic crisis has deprived social economy from much
needed resources, as well as the fact that due to the crisis, the most active
young educated people migrate to central and north Europe. The latest deprives
SSE from the skills that are necessary to achieve its role in local development
as well as fulfilling its role in general.
Undelivered
promises for a favourable ecosystem
At the macro level, there are also a
number of challenges related to government policies, or rather, non-implemented
policies. Thus, the introduction of the Law 4019/2011 foresaw a number of
crucial parameters related to the creation of an enabling ecosystem. Three were
the most crucial of these parameters. First, the creation of the social economy
registry. Secondly the foundation of the Social Economy Fund. Thirdly, the
public contracts of social reference, for which an inter-ministerial committee
was envisaged in the Law. In addition to
the Law, an experts’ steering committee was set up with the aim of setting up a
strategy and priorities of action for the development of social economy in
Greece (Ministry of Labour 2013).
It goes
without saying, that all four initiatives were hardly implemented. Regarding
the Social Economy Registry, it was severely understaffed given the fact that
it had to serve the entire country and also had undertaken the role of a
support-counselling unit (Geormas 2014).
The foundation
of the Social Economy Fund never took place. Although a version of an inter-ministerial
decree regarding its establishment was prepared, it never went ahead, due to
changes in the political personnel and politicians incapacity to comprehend its
role. It has to be stressed the fact that a social economy fund is badly needed
in the Greek case, for the social enterprises that do need funding in order to
scale up their activities or in order to start them, don’t have access to the
commercial banking system. This system is very hesitant in funding SEs to the
extent that very few KOINSEPs managed to get a loan. It has to be added here
that KOINSEPs have
faced the same treatment from cooperative banks. According to our knowledge
only two KOINSEPs managed to get loans from cooperative banks.
Politician
incapacity to comprehend the whereabouts of social economy was the reason that
the inter-ministerial committee for public contracts of social reference was
never formed. That is why a letter from the competent
minister addressed to the other ministries in order to appoint members for the
committee never received a response.
The Steering
Committee had the same fate. Although it produced a step by step and well detailed
action strategy (CICOPA-ILO 2013; Geormas and Graikioti 2013), it never assumed
the role that it was envisaged for it. A couple of actions mentioned in the
document, especially the ones for support centres for social entrepreneurship started
being implemented in November 2018! Whereas the support programmes for social
enterprises, with resources reserved through the European Social Fund from 2007
(!), are still, today, in the designing phase. It is worth mentioning that the
fact that no specific programme for SEs had been implemented was pointed out in
the relevant European Commission’s report (European Commission 2014).
Thus,
challenges that social entrepreneurship faces in the Greek context, such as
“the lack of appropriate and accessible support services provided to Social
Enterprises, the lack of specialized programmes of subsidizing the start-up
stage of Social Enterprises, the adverse financial environment for the
development of financial instruments, various complex administrative issues
relevant to the development of Social Entrepreneurship and the small visibility
of the new legal entity of Social Enterprises as well as of the value of social
entrepreneurship” (Geormas and Graikioti 2013, 1) were never addressed
effectively.
In addition to
these problems, new legislation was introduced in 2016. As Münkner (Münkner 2005)
points out organization Law needs to be stable, reliable and lasting. Contrary
to this and taking into account that Law 4019/2011 started been implemented in
2012, it took only four years for a new Law on social economy to be introduced
creating thus a new wave of uncertainty regarding the new model of social
cooperative enterprise.
It is not the
place here the place for a presentation of the pro and cons of the new Law (see:
Nasioulas 2016; Adam, Kornilakis, and Kavoulakos 2018; Geormas 2018). But it is
of interest to point out that crucial provisions such as the establishment of
the Social Economy Fund as well two committees envisaged in the Law, the
National Committee on Social and Solidarity Economy and the Coordinative
Committee on Social and Solidarity Economy have not been formed yet.
So, lack of
policy enablers is one of the central issue for the weak and deformed
development of social entrepreneurship in Greece. Should government had the
competence and the political will to put “policy enablers” in place together
with a system of thorough monitoring and evaluation, the social economy’s
impact would have been much more stronger.
Meso level
Local
governance
In Greece, despite the recent attempt for
the transformation of local governance (Kallikratis reform in 2010) through
administrative and fiscal decentralization, the outcome of the implementation could
be characterized as a rather moderate “success” story (Kalimeri 2018). Amongst
the reasons that could be held responsible for this result, are that the reform
coincided with the beginning of the severe economic crisis, arose from external
pressures and was put into place quite fast without the necessary consultation
at the local and regional levels (Koinoniko Polykentro ADEDY 2014). Moreover,
the distribution of power and responsibilities remained unclear among the state
administration, regions and municipalities. Thus, local entities lack the
statutory power to regulate local affairs and the regulatory power to be
self-organised entities and operate as independent tax authorities. The latest,
inhibits local authorities’ independence from state funds (which were cut by
60%) and limits their power to deal with local issues (Kalimeri 2018).
As a result,
local authorities face a number of competing pressures and demands for economic efficiency/effectiveness, equitable decision
making though the empowerment and democratic participation of citizens and
successful local development outcomes, without actually having neither the
power nor the funding to be effective in strategically (through consultation)
planning for local sustainable development. However, most local authorities
have taken initiatives to coordinate actions of volunteer groups (i.e.
social markets, health and welfare services) and other actions in the interest
of the citizens (Triantafyllopoulou 2017).
The case regarding their
relation with SEs is somewhat different. Regarding KOINSEPs, limited support
has been provided, mainly in the form of procurement contacts (Glaveli, and
Vairami 2015). Not an easy task though due to contradictions found in the legal
framework. Law 4019/2011 provided for a direct procurement to KOINSEPs. Yet,
the Court of Auditors, in one of its verdicts maintained
that this was against European Law. The
outcome was mixed, since some municipalities followed the ruling, but
others ignored it. Law 4430/2016 didn’t clarify the situation, and although an article was
devoted to direct contracts between KOINSEPs and public authorities, no public
authority or municipality has used it till now due to its vagueness.
The entire notion of
social contracts has been misused. It seems that due to municipalities’ budgets cuts, as well as
the prohibition to hire new employees, municipal authorities have
used KOINSEPs in order to fill the gaps in municipal services. Thus, KOINSEPs were
mainly used as subcontractors for public spaces maintenance, the provision of health
or childcare services, running ski
resorts and beach cafes, municipal auditoriums, stay dog shelters etc. In
other words, KOINSEPs operated as staffing companies or as a means to mayors to
provide jobs for their clientele.
The
case of an island is emblematic in that perspective. The mayor there formed
fourteen KOINSEPs, and he funded them through direct contracts and subsidies.
The activities that these SEs undertook were related to running the municipal movie theater, a coffee shop at
the center of the town, the municipal childcare facility, the municipal
slaughterhouse, a company for municipal studies and so on. Four years later, when a new mayor was elected, most of these
contracts were sent to court and nowadays only two of these KOISEPs are still
operating.
As stated
above, local authorities’ support towards KOINSEPs in Greece
was rather limited, due to the medium level of success of the decentralisation
reform and inconsistencies in the legal framework. Thus, an opportunity for co-production
of economic,
social, environmental and cultural value and local sustainable development that
promotes the successful implementation of the SDGs was wasted. It is also
worth mentioning, that although both SSE Laws (4019/2011 and 4430/2016)
permitted the participation of municipalities as members in Inclusion KOINSEPs,
no municipality took advantage of this provision.
Trust and
local level of social capital
The strength of social capital,
particularly at the local community level, is also a factor to be considered. According
to Christoforou (2005), Demertzis (2006) and Jones et al. (2009) Greece has a
weak level of social capital and social trust which have produced a low levels
of civicness and inhibited the emergence of citizen-led, anti-hierarchical,
horizontal networks that create alternatives to the current democratic and
economic model. Nevertheless, the economic crisis seems to have boosted a
bottom-up approach of citizens’ organization (Pantazidou 2013).
Local authorities are
called to direct community development strategies towards interventions that
will help (re)build social capital. Sustaining, social enterprises is
definitely a strategy. Social enterprises have the ability to generate social
capital in their area, mostly by using social capital (Kay 2005). However,
social capital alone cannot build the social economy and develop communities.
It has to be used in conjunction with the other forms of capital – financial,
human, environmental and cultural. Adding to social capital within a local area
is not a substitute for other forms of capital and will not be able to grow the
social economy on its own.
Networking of
SCEs at local, regional and national level
The emergence of SEs in countries where
networks are weak, or almost non-existent, has been much slower and more
complex than in countries where strong networks -that accomplish their fundamental role to provide
access to knowledge, information and resources- exist (Johannisson 2000). In Greece, KOINSEPs were not successful in developing
synergies with each other to a point that would foster their sustainability and
autonomy vis-à-vis the state and/or the conventional market. Recently, there
has been an interest in developing networks. However, these initiatives were
mostly driven by the need to fulfil a European call for subsidising regional support centres. It is
characteristic that in Attiki, exist three, rather competitive, networks with
no will to cooperate.
Micro (internal
environment) level
Necessity –
not a choice out of passion
Glaveli and Vairami (2015) in their
research indicate that the members of KOINSEPs are well-educated individuals
between the age of 30-50 who decided to establish a KOINSEP mainly out of
necessity (unemployment due to economic crisis; 52%) and the need to combine
their competences (51%). So, individual motives rather than collective value
production was the main reason behind the establishment of most KOINSEPs.
Whilst, the choice of a KOINSEP, as we
have already mentioned, may have been affected by the fact that they cheap to
establish, subsidies oriented and targeting public demand due to the diminishing
role of the state (Nasioulas and Mavroeidis 2013). The previously mentioned
facts seem to have undermined their social mission and consequently KOINSEPs’
effectiveness in promoting sustainable local development.
Lack of
entrepreneurial orientation and clear vision
Besides the development of practices to
accelerate the growth of the social enterprise ecosystem (Urban and
Kujinga 2017), it is also important for SEs to operate as entrepreneurial
organizations and adopt strategic behaviours which will help them develop
comparative advantage, compete (even) on equal terms with private for-profit
organizations and grow, preserving however
their social character. For example, as Glaveli and Geormas (2017) indicate the
adoption of strategic/market orientation (SO/MO) behaviour and a clear
social vision articulated and clearly understood by the KOINSEPs’ members and employees, enables them to adapt to their
environment and subsequently channel their resources appropriately to design
goods and services (product/ technology orientation) of superior value that
better satisfy their customers’ needs reaching thus more effectively their commercial goals (commercial
effectiveness, e.g. higher level of sales and market share, positive customer
attitudes; Liu, Takeda and Ko 2012).
Moreover, SO/MO behaviour permits a SE to better understand its customers
(often also the beneficiaries and/or users of the provided service or product)
and be more efficient in identifying emerging needs and in developing
innovative/bottom-up responses to meet social needs that the public entities or
for-profit organizations overlook, ignore or unsuccessfully address (Elkington
and Hartigan 2008; Kerlin 2009).
Limited
financial and other resources
The data illustrated earlier related to
the level of the value of SEs share and income generation ability, coupled with
the lack of financing alternatives and the heavy dependence on public contacts,
impose serious resource constraints on them. Based on research evidence from
Greek social enterprises financial resources scarcity is the main internal
development obstacle (Glaveli, and Vairami 2015). Others issues such as: lack
of competences and expertise, inability to deliver innovative products, difficulties
in co-operation, speed of decision making, usually traced in the co-operatives’
research were not considered as obstacles.
Probably, this is the case because most social entrepreneurs, members of the
KOINSEPs, are well-educated individuals with knowledge and expertise. In fact,
resource constraints
have pushed some social entrepreneurs into finding innovative ways of using
existing resources and acquiring new resources in order to achieve both
financial sustainability and generate social outcomes.
Conclusions
and suggestions
Social and solidarity development in
Greece is at a crossroad. Till today, steps that are taken are fragile and
precarious. As Ziomas (2014) points out
“There is a need for reorientation of the course of
social economy in Greece, based on the promotion of its collective and
solidarity character”. This reorientation has to take into account the
challenges that were pointed out in this paper. Moreover, we have to agree with
Hadzi-Miceva and Bullain (2007, 215) who stress that the social economy
experience in Central and Eastern Europe “Social economy organizations still
need guidance and capacity building to strengthen their internal governance
structures and perform their activities in a professional and responsible
manner”
In order for the above to be achieved there are certain policies that
have to be implemented. First, and foremost the strengthening of the identity
of the social cooperative enterprises. That needs a strict enforcement of the
obligations that accrue out of the membership in the Social and Solidarity
Registry. Moreover, every state policy regarding subsidies or financing must
take into account the social impact of KOINSEP’s activity.
Secondly, formation of support centers. These centers will provide start
up support, as well as business planning, consultation, coaching and other
needed services in order for KOINSEPs to become viable and increase their
social impact. Yet, one crucial element is education, so as to augment the
cooperative spirit and develop the cooperative values in every stakeholder in
Greek social economy.
Thirdly, designing and implementation of local development plans, in
which SEs will comprise a crucial and active element. We do believe that an
implementation of a strategic plan like the one of the City of Barcelona (City
of Barcelona 2016), with full and equal participation of every stakeholder, is
a prerequisite so as the social economy in Greece to deliver its promises.
References
Adam,
Sofia, 2014, “Social economy and active inclusion policies. Results from field
work in Work Integration Social Enterprises in Greece, in Studies (Athens)”, Observatory of economic and social
developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour (in
Greek).
Adam,
Sofia, Angelos, Kornilakis and Iosif,
Kavoulakos. 2018. The Institutional Framework of Social and Solidarity Economy
in Greece, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Thessaloniki (in Greek)
Andreopoulou,
Zacharoula. 2016. “Women’s Agricultural Cooperatives”, presentation at the
Seminar “Social Entrepreneurship and Mountaineer Regions”, Pertouli Trikallon, (in Greek).
Balourdos,
Dionnysis and Konstantinos, Geormas, 2012, “Social Economy in Greece: From
Childhood to Adolescence”, Peer Review on the Social Economy: Social Economy –
laying the groundwork for innovative solutions to today’s challenges, Paris.
British
Council, 2017, Greece: Social and Solidarity Economy Report.
Budd,
Leslie, 2003, “Can social enterprise succeed in building the regional agenda?.”
Regions 243(1): 7–11.
Christoforou,
Asimina, 2005, “On the Determinants of Social Capital in Greece Compared to
Countries of the European Union”. FEEM
Working Paper, 68.
CICOPA-ILO,
2013, Promoting Cooperatives and the Social Economy in Greece. How to promote
the social economy in Greece through social cooperatives, worker cooperatives,
and cooperatives of artisan and of SMEs, Final Report to the ILO, September.
City
of Barcelona, 2016, The Impetus Plan for the Social and Solidarity Economy.
Dees,
J. Gregory, 1998, “Enterprising nonprofits.”
Harvard Business Review, 76(1): 54-69.
Defourny,
Jacques and Marthe, Nyssens, 2008. “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and
Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and
Divergences”, EMES working paper, June.
Demertzis,
Nikos, 2006, “Trust as a social emotion, Science and Society.” Journal of Political and Moral Theory
16: 39-67 (in Greek).
Duniam, Mary
and Eversole, Robyn, 2013, Social
Enterprises and Local Government: A Scoping Study, Australian Centre of
Excellence for Local Government, Sydney:
https://eprints.utas.edu.au/23970/1/Duniam_whole_thesis.pdf
Elkington,
John and Pamela, Hartigan, 2008, The
Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets that
Change the World. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
European
Commission, 2014a, A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe.
Synthesis Report, European Commission.
European
Commission, 2014b, A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe.
Country Report: Greece, European Commission.
Geormas,
Konstantinos and Stella, Graikioti, 2013, Social Economy: The Greek Case,
Peer Review on Social Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship and Other
Models to Secure Employment for Those Most on Need, Croatia.
Geormas,
Konstantinos, 2013, “The challenge of social economy and its contribution to the Greek model of future
development”, in Konstantinos Geormas (edit.) Social Economy. Theory,
Experience, Prospects, Alternative Publications, Athens, (in Greek).
Geormas,
Konstantinos, 2014, “The contribution of Social
Economy General Registry in the development of Social Enterprises:
Review and Future Agenda,” Co-Enterprise Socially, Conference Organized
by the Periphery of Crete and the Network of Development Agencies of Crete,
Crete, 27-28 November (in Greek).
Geormas, Konstantinos, 2016, “Uses and Misuses
of social entrepreneurship: The Greek case”, in Ioannis Nasioulas (ed.), Issues
of Social Economy, Institute of Social Economy, Thessaloniki, (in Greek).
Geormas, Konstantinos, 2018, “New legal
Environment of the Greek Social and Solidarity Economy: Impediments and
Opportunities for the Development of the Sector”, paper presented at the 2nd
International Forum of Cooperative Law, 26-29 September, Athens.
Glaveli,
Niki and Konstantinos, Geormas, 2017,
“Doing well and doing good: Exploring how strategic and market orientation impacts
social enterprise performance.” International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 24(1): 147-170.
Glaveli,
Niki and Evi, Vairami,2015, “Research on Social Cooperative Enterprises in
Greece, Summary Report.” Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of
Economics, MBA Programme (in Greek).
Hadzi-Miceva
Katerina and Nilda, Bullain, 2010, “A Supportive Framework for Social Economy
Organisations”, in Antonella Noya & Emma Clarence (edit.), The Social
Economy. Building Inclusive Economies, OECD.
Hope,
David Thomas and Angelo, Martelli,2017, “The transition to the knowledge
economy, labour market institutions, and income inequality in advanced
democracies.” Working paper 18, The London School of Economics and Political
Science, accessible through:http://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/
Working-Papers/III-Working-Paper-18-The-transition-to-the-knowledge-economy-labour-market-institutions-and-income-inequality-in-advanced-democracies.pdf
Iliopoulos,
Constantine and Vladislav, Valentinof, 2012, “Opportunism in Agricultural
Cooperatives in Greece”, Outlook on
Agriculture, Vol. 41, No 1, 2012, pp 15-19.
Johannisson,
Bengt, 2000, Networking
and entrepreneurial growth, in Sexton, D. and Landstrom, H. (eds) Handbook of
Entrepreneurship (London: Blackwell):368–386.
Jones,
Nikoleta, Marc, Sophoulis, Theodoros, Iosifides, Iosif, Botetzagias and Konstantinos,
Evangelinos, 2009, “The influence of social capital on environmental policy
instruments.” Environmental Politics
18 (4):595-612
Kalimeri,
Vassiliki, 2018, “The Kallikrates vs the
Kapodistrias Reforms in Greece: A Story of Moderate Success. Politics
in Central Europe.”14, (1): DOI:
10.2478/pce-2018-0003
Kapogiannis,
Dimitris, 1999, “Agricultural Cooperatives” in the inset Epta Imeres: Greece
the 20th Century, 1910-1920, Kathimerini, 24.10.1999 (in Greek).
Kasapleri,
Maria and Niki, Glaveli, 2016, “Social
Co-operative and value creation.” Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School
of Economics, MBA Programme (in Greek).
Katz, Richard S. & Peter Mair, “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party
Democracy”, Party Politics 1, no.1 (1995), p. 5-18.
Kay, Alan, 2005, “Social capital, the social economy and
community development.” Community Development Journal 41(2):160– 173.
Kerlin,
Janelle, 2009, Social enterprise: A
global comparison. New England: University Press
Ketsetzopoulou,
Maria. 2010, WP3 “Research on Social Entrepreneurship” – Social
Entrepreneurship in Greece, ISEDE-NET, May.
Kim,
Donghyun and Lim, Up, 2017, “Social Enterprise as a Catalyst for Sustainable
Local and Regional Development.” Sustainability/MDI,
9(8): 1-15.
Koinoniko
Polykentro ADEDY, 2014, Local Governance: Economic Situation, Conferral of Responsibilities, Impact on Municipalities’ Human Resources
and Public Goods, Athens, (in Greek).
Liu,
Gordon, Takeda, Sackiko and Ko, Wai-Wai, 2012, “Strategic orientation
and social enterprise performance.” Non-Profit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(3):480-501
Ministry of
Labour, Social Security and Welfare, 2013, Outline Strategy and Priorities for
Action to develop the Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship in Greece,
Recommendations of the Expert Steering Committee on Social Economy and Social
Entrepreneurship, Athens, January 28, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/news/130708_social-economy-strategy-greece_en.pdf
Münkner (2005) A comparative perspective on legal frameworks
for the social economy, Trento, 22-24 September
Nassioulas,
Ioannis and Vasileios, Mavroeidis, 2013, The
Social Business Sector in Greece. Systemic Failures and Positive Action.
Potentials based on strengths of the Hellenic Ministry of Development and
Competitiveness, Report #10, European Commission, Social Business
Initiative Group of Experts on Social Entrepreneurship, Thessaloniki, 25
November.
Nassioulas,
Ioannis, 2016, The Greek Law 4430/2016 on Social and Solidarity Economy:
Breakthroughs and Backdrops, Policy Briefs, Social Economy Institute,
Thessaloniki.
Nassioulas,
Ioannis, 2018, “Why social enterprise in Greece is a modern day myth”, Thomson
Reuters Foundation News.
Pantazidou,
Maro, 2013, “Treading new ground: A changing moment for citizen action in
Greece.” Development in Practice 23
(5-6):755-770
Patronis,
Vassilis and Konstantinos, Mavreas, 2004, “Agricultural Cooperative
Organizations in Greece throughout the 20th Century: A Critical Overview”, Journal of Rural Cooperation, 32(1) 2004:51-62.
Poschke
Markus, 2010, «Entrepreneurs out of Necessity: a Snapshot», IZA DP 4893, April
2010.
Pybus,
Julie, 2018, “Greek social economy is young and optimistic, research finds”, Pioneers
Post, British Council, 22 May 2018.
Sakellaropoulos,
Theodore (scientific director), 2007, Targeted studies for the development
of social entrepreneurship, Panteion University of Social and Political
Sciences, Reserarch-Writing: Theodoros Sakellaropoulos & Charalambos
Oikonomou, Research Assistants: Antonios Kostas & Theodoros Fouskas,
Athens, (in Greek).
Sotiropoulos,
Dimitris and Dimitris, Bourikos, 2014
“Economic Crisis, Social Solidarity and the Voluntary Sector in Greece”, Journal of power, politics and governance
2(2): 33-53.
Special
Secretariat of Social and Solidarity Economy, 2017, Yearly Report 2017 and
Action Plan for the Development of the Ecosystem of Social and Solidarity
Economy 2017-2023, Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity,
(In Greek).
Special
Secretariat of Social and Solidarity Economy, 2018, Yearly Report 2018.
Steinman,
Susan and Jerome, van Rooij, 2011, National Case Study Republic of South
Africa, International Forum on the Social and Solidarity Economy, FIESS.
Triantafyllopoulou,
Athanasia, 2017, “Local Government and Citizen in the Period of Crisis in
Greece.”Review of European Studies
9(4):42
Tsobanoglou, George, 2012, “Barriers to
participation in the Social Economy in Greece.” Oñati Socio-Legal Series 2(2) – Cooperatives and
Collective Enterprise in the Social Economy.
Tsoutsoura,
Eleni, 2015, The role of social
entrepreneurship in European Strategy 2020 and possibilities for its utilization in Greece, National School of
Public Administration and Local Administration, Department of Administration
and Financial Management, Athens (in Greek).
UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for
Social Development), 2017, Research and Policy Brief, September 24th,
accessible through: http://www.unrisd.org/
Urban,
Borris and Leanne, Kujinga, 2017, “The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship
intentions.” International of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 23(4):638-655
Ziomas Dimitris, Maria Ketsetzopoulou and Nikos Bouzas. 2001, Greece. Social
Enterprises responding to welfare needs, in Carlo Borzaga and Jacques Defourny
(edit.), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York:
Routledge.
Ziomas, Dimitris, 2002, “Social Economy
sector in Greece under the prism of contemporary international developments”,
in Aliki Mouriki et al.(edit), The Social Portrait o Greece, 2001, National
Centre of Social Research, Athens, (in greek).
Ziomas,
Dimitris, 2014, The crossroad of the development of Social Economy in Greece. Prospects,
dangers and choices, Co-Enterprise Socially, Conference Organized by the
Periphery of Crete and the Network of Development Agencies of Crete, Crete,
27-28 November (in Greek).
[1]KOISPE: Social Cooperatives of Limited Liability
(KOISPE) which target at the social inclusion and employment of people with psycho-social
disabilities.
[3]The minimum number of members
required to establish a KOINSEP is five or seven in the case of Inclusion type.
[5] Data as of August 2018. All data are from Social and Solidarity
Economy Registry.
[6] The Ministerial Decrees regarding the implementation of law
4019/2011 and law 4430/2016 maintain the provision that KOINSEPs are obliged to
submit every year a report of their economic/social activities in order to
maintain the status of the social enterprise, the “member certificate” [Ministerial
Decree 61621/D5.2643/18.01.2017]. So, active/per year refers to the number of SEs that have actually
submitted the relevant report (in the following year) and got the “member certificate”.
[7] Data come from the Social and Solidarity Economy Registry.
[8] The programmes were addressing all entrepreneurial activities and
not specifically social enterprises.
[9] See www.zaxarokalamo.gr
[10] https://www.facebook.com/tokoskino/
[11] Also IT is very active, yet the number of the SCEs in this sector
is still small.
[12] Note that data refer to social
enterprises registered to the Social and Solidarity Economy Registry.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.