Labels for the social economy can broadly be classified into three categories: (i) specific labels for the social economy, (ii) broader impact labels and (iii) financial labels. Moreover, implicit labels can signal adherence to a set of standards without being explicitly defined as labels. This chapter provides an overview of labels with distinct goals and standards that can be used by and for social economy entities. It presents the benefits, challenges and comparisons of different types of labels for the social economy.
Labels for the Social Economy
Abstract
Labels for the social economy can broadly be classified into three different categories: (i) specific labels for the social economy, (ii) broader impact labels and (iii) financial labels. They can label organisations or products. Labelling can also be understood in broader terms as any action that signals an adherence to a set of defined standards, which in this guide will be referred to as “implicit labels”. For example, belonging to an industry association based on certain criteria can show that an organisation follows pre-defined principles. Implicit labels are not labels per se. They are not the main focus of this research and further work is required to assess their effectiveness. Examples of labels covered in this work are provided in Figure 2.1.
Source: Author’s elaboration
Some labels are designed exclusively for social economy entities. Most specific labels for the social economy are aimed at social enterprises as they usually do not have a dedicated legal form (OECD, 2022[1]). They can be developed and managed by public or private entities and either label a wide range of social enterprises or apply to a restricted group, such as social co-operatives or work integration social enterprises (WISEs). Other types of specific labels for the social economy include NGO and charity labels (e.g. in Lithuania and Ireland), usually managed by public authorities, and labels for social economy products (e.g. Rec’Up, Electrorev and co-operative brand labels), usually implemented by private actors.
Public labels for the social economy
Public labels for the social economy might take the form of a legal status. Legal statuses are public labels that are adopted by organisations based on predefined criteria to be eligible for some policy measures. They usually label social enterprises, including co-operatives and work integration social enterprises (WISEs), public benefit organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or charities.
Public labels typically aim to identify social economy entities, enhance their visibility, facilitate public support measures, nudge consumer behaviour and engage the private sector. In the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy, the most stated purpose of public labels was identification of social economy entities (75% of public label responses), followed by visibility (54%) and access to finance (46%), mainly in the form of regional funding or compensation for employment of individuals who are disadvantaged on the labour market (Figure 2.2). Access to markets, mainly through public procurement, is mentioned as a purpose in almost a third (29%) of public label responses, tax measures in almost a fifth (17%) of responses and nudging consumer behaviour in slightly more than one in ten (13%) of responses. Another survey and interviews conducted in 2019 among Dutch social entrepreneurs showed that a potential legal status for social enterprises (BVm) would facilitate their communication with funders, other businesses and consumers by explicitly showing their “impact first” mission. Moreover, having a legal status would simplify the organisational structure as many social enterprises currently have to set up a company and a foundation to operate (Argyrou, Lambooy and van Schaik, 2024[2]).
The share of public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned purposes
Note: Based on 24 public label responses to a multiple-choice question. As each respondent could choose several options, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Legal statuses for social enterprises
Legal statuses are often used to identify social enterprises where there is no dedicated legal form for them. The comparison of reviewed organisational impact labels, including social enterprise legal statuses, is presented in tables in Annex 2.A. This section will provide a typology of different types of legal statuses with examples and outline their key features.
Several countries have introduced social enterprise legal statuses available to social enterprises that can operate in many impact areas. For example, in France, the ESUS accreditation, introduced in the 2014 Framework Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy, allows commercial companies to become part of the social economy if they follow the requirements outlined in the law (Box 2.1).
The Entreprise Solidaire d'Utilité Sociale (ESUS) accreditation was introduced in the 2014 Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) law. It aims to formally recognise and support enterprises that have a primary social utility objective. At end-2024, there were almost 3 000 ESUS-labelled entities.
Standards
To qualify for the ESUS status, enterprises must meet the following standards:
1. Social and solidarity economy: The enterprise must be part of the social and solidarity economy, as defined in the 2014 Law. This includes mutual organisations, co-operatives, foundations, associations or commercial companies with social and solidarity economy status recorded in the trade and companies register.
2. Social utility objective: The primary objective must be to create social impact, such as supporting vulnerable populations, promoting social cohesion, contributing to environmental sustainability, enhancing citizenship education or supporting international solidarity.
3. Stakeholder involvement: The enterprise must have an advisory body or a consultation procedure that involves different stakeholders, whose participation is not linked to their financial contribution.
4. Allocation of resources: A significant portion of the enterprise's resources must be allocated to activities with social utility, ensuring that at least two-thirds of operating costs are directed towards achieving social impact. Additionally, the majority of profits must be reinvested, with at least 50% allocated to retained earnings and reserves, including 20% to a statutory development reserve. Reserves must not be used to increase share capital or be distributed among shareholders. Furthermore, enterprises cannot refund shareholders for their capital contribution using profits, except in case of a loss.
5. Public listing: The enterprise must not be publicly traded.
6. Salary restrictions: The highest remuneration must not exceed ten times the minimum wage and the average of the five highest salaries must be less than or equal to seven times the minimum wage.
Work integration enterprises, providers of welfare services to children, neighbourhood associations and adapted businesses do not need to justify their social utility objective but still need to respect the salary restrictions, must not be publicly traded and are required to apply for the status to benefit from the associated measures.
Assessment and monitoring
The ESUS status is granted by departmental prefects after an examination process usually performed by the Departmental Directorates for Employment, Labour and Solidarity (DDETS), or in some cases by Regional Directorates for the Economy, Employment, Labour and Solidarity (DREETS). The application process requires a self-declaration by the applying entity. The authority then verifies compliance with the criteria and decides on granting the ESUS status. The status is valid for five years, after which enterprises must reapply to maintain it. The duration is limited to two years for enterprises that have existed for less than three years.
Measures tied to the label
The label allows access to financing from solidarity-based financial products and additional funding from public development banks, fiscal advantages for investors, public procurement opportunities, increased ability to create or integrate a Territorial Economic Cooperation Cluster (PTCE), enhanced eligibility for local business support programs and broader access to voluntary calls for proposals from private and public actors, as well as the use of municipal buildings.
Success factors
The status has extensive policy measures tied to it and allows public authorities to clearly identify eligible entities.
Challenges
The awareness and uptake are low: only around 3 000 entities have the ESUS accreditation out of more than 155 000 enterprises in the social economy. The implementation of the status is not uniform across regions as the social criteria may be interpreted differently and some implementing entities lack qualified staff to evaluate applications.
In Denmark, a Registered Social Enterprise label can be obtained by all legal entities with limited liability (associations, foundations and companies) if (i) the purpose of the legal entity refers to social, employment, health, environmental or cultural aims, (ii) the surplus or profit generated is reinvested to support the social mission (a maximum of 35% of after-tax profits can be distributed to owners and investors); (iii) a significant share of revenues is generated through sales of goods and services, (iv) the management and operations are independent from the public sector; and (v) governance is inclusive and allows stakeholder involvement (Hulgård and Chodorkoff, 2019[7]). As of June 2025, there are more than 1 000 enterprises in the register (Central Business Register, 2025[8]). However, Social Entrepreneurs in Denmark estimate that the number of entities in the register that fulfil the criteria is around 500-600 (Bach and Langergaard, 2024[9]). The majority of stakeholders consulted for the 2018 evaluation of the label agreed that the registration scheme needs to be maintained but also outlined some challenges. These include difficulty with the registration process, especially for smaller entities, lack of awareness about reporting requirements, limited communication about the registration scheme and the lack of benefits associated with the registration, especially given the restriction on dividends that hinders the labelled entities’ access to external investments (Danish Business Authority, 2018[10]).
In Latvia, a Social Enterprise status was introduced in the 2018 Law on Social Enterprises and allows access to state grants for company development, subsidies for employment of individuals with a disability, some tax exemptions and access to public procurement (Box 2.2).
Introduced in 2018, the Social Enterprise status is aimed at limited liability companies focused on social impact. As of June 2025, there are more than 250 social enterprises registered with the status, a quarter (24%) of which operate in the education sector and a fifth (21%) in work integration. Almost half of the registered social enterprises are located in the Riga (capital city) region.
Standards
To qualify for the Social Enterprise status in Latvia, organisations must meet the following standards:
1. Clear social mission: The organisation must have a defined social mission, which is stated explicitly in its founding documents. The mission should focus on addressing societal challenges, such as unemployment, social exclusion or environmental sustainability.
2. Profit reinvestment: Profits must be reinvested into the organisation's social mission. Distribution of profits to owners or shareholders is restricted, ensuring that financial gains are used to advance social goals.
3. Stakeholder involvement: The organisation must involve its target beneficiaries in decision-making processes.
4. Economic activity: The organisation must engage in economic activities that contribute to its financial sustainability. The revenue generated should support the social mission and enhance the organisation’s capacity to create impact.
Assessment and monitoring
The Ministry of Welfare is responsible for granting and monitoring the Social Enterprise status. Applicants undergo an evaluation to ensure compliance with the required social criteria and commitment to social impact. Once granted, the status is subject to regular monitoring, with organisations required to submit annual reports detailing their social activities, financial performance and impact achieved.
Measures tied to the label
Organisations with a Social Enterprise status get access to grants for company development and compensations for employment of individuals with a disability, some tax exemptions and procurement incentives for companies employing persons with a disability and providing health, social and cultural services.
Success factors
Half of the respondents to the 2023-2024 European Social Enterprise Monitor in Latvia believe that the Social Enterprise status is valuable and fit for purpose. Social entrepreneurs with experience in administrative procedures do not face significant difficulties with meeting the criteria.
Challenges
A fifth of respondents to the 2023-2024 European Social Enterprise monitor agree that the Social Enterprise status is valuable but think that the existing framework needs to be improved or better implemented. Some social enterprises find the application and monitoring process burdensome and face challenges with defining their social purpose and measuring their impact. Moreover, some entities use the status just to get the associated benefits instead of signalling and focusing on their impact.
Sources: Latvian Ministry of Welfare (n.d.[11]), Latvian Ministry of Welfare (2025[12]), EKA University of Applied Sciences and Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (2025[13]), Licite-Kurbe and Groma (2021[14]), OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Lithuania introduced the Social Business legal status in October 2024. In the European Social Enterprise Monitor survey conducted just before the introduction of the status, more than half (66.7%) of surveyed social enterprises in Lithuania believed that a specific legal status/register/designation for social enterprises was needed (Žebrytė and Bražiūnaitė, 2025[15]). The status is available to micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs) that (i) use more than 50% of their profits (if any) for the creation of social and/or environmental impact, (ii) provide access to their financial statements in an orderly manner, and (iii) meet independence from the state requirements. The status is granted by the Innovation Agency under the Ministry of Economy and Innovation. Organisations with a Social Enterprise status can get access to financial and non-financial support from the state (Lietuvos Respublikos ekonomikos ir inovacijų ministerija, 2024[16]). As of June 2025, more than 60 enterprises have the Social Enterprise status (Inovacijų agentūra, 2025[17]).
In Luxembourg, the Societal Impact Company (la Société d’Impact Sociétal – SIS) is a ministerial accreditation that is available for any commercial company (public limited company, limited liability company, simplified limited liability company, co-operative society) that has a social, environmental and/or societal purpose. SIS companies must meet the following conditions: i) define precisely their social purpose and the social impact sought; ii) identify performance indicators to quantify the social impact achieved by their commercial activity; iii) re-invest profits with at least 50% of the share capital made up of impact shares that do not grant any dividend rights; iv) limit annual salaries to a maximum of six times the minimum wage; and v) not borrow from its associates or issue debt instruments. The advantages for societal impact companies include preferential tax treatment (for companies whose share capital fully consists of impact shares) and access to national and European public procurement (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2021[18]). According to the publicly available register, there are around 80 registered enterprises with 100% impact shares (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2025[19]). All societal impact companies benefit from the Impact Luxembourg label.
Some countries have introduced a social enterprise label for co-operatives. For instance, Belgium has a Social Enterprise national accreditation scheme that can be used only by co-operatives that pursue explicit social aims (Economie, 2024[20]). Greece also has a Social Co-operative Enterprise mark that prevents labelled entities from distributing profit among members, 60% of which has to be invested into job creation and the co-operative’s social and/or environmental mission. Members can be either individuals or legal entities and can only have one vote no matter the number of shares they own (Geormas and Glaveli, 2019[21]). As of March 2024, there are more than 1 500 registered social co-operatives (Greek Government, n.d.[22]). Czechia has introduced a Social Co-operative label for co-operatives providing long-term employment to individuals who experience difficulties on the labour market (European Commission, 2019[23]). In Italy, all types of co-operatives are subject to a profit and asset lock. In addition to this, social co-operatives have to contribute to the general interest that goes beyond their members. A-type social co-operatives engage in social welfare and educational activities and B-type co-operatives focus on work integration of disadvantaged workers, who must make up at least 30% of the employees (Borgaza, 2020[24]). As of June 2025, there are almost 10 000 Type A social co-operatives, more than 5 000 Type A and Type B social co-operatives and almost 5 000 Type B social co-operatives (Ministry of Enterprises, 2025[25]).
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Poland, Romania (Box 2.3), Slovenia and Spain have introduced a status for work integration social enterprises (WISEs) (European Commission, 2020[26]). Spain has two labels for work integration social enterprises: employment integration enterprises (EIs, Empresas de Inserción) and (ii) special employment centres of social initiative (CEEs) specifically targeting people with disabilities. Employment integration enterprises are limited liability companies or co-operatives that must have more than 30% of workers in the employment integration process during the first three years of activity, with this share rising to 50% from the fourth year onwards. An additional requirement is to provide services of general economic interest (Díaz, Marcuello and Nogales, 2020[27]).
The WISE status was introduced in the 2015 Social Economy Law. It aims to promote employment opportunities for vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities, long-term unemployed individuals and other marginalised groups. The status is only available for entities with a social enterprise certification. As of March 2025, more than 40 WISEs have a valid certificate for the mark.
Standards
To qualify for the WISE status, social enterprises must meet the following criteria:
1. Social mission: The organisation must aim to fight exclusion, discrimination and unemployment through providing employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups.
2. Employment focus: At least 30% of the organisation's workforce must be from disadvantaged groups, including individuals with disabilities, those facing long-term unemployment or those at risk of social exclusion. The total working time of employees from disadvantaged groups must represent at least 30% of the working time of all employees.
Assessment and monitoring
The WISE status is granted and monitored by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. Organisations seeking this status must undergo an evaluation to verify compliance with the eligibility criteria. Once approved, WISEs are subject to annual monitoring, during which they must submit reports detailing their employment outcomes, financial performance and progress towards their social mission. The labelled entities receive a certificate that is valid for three years and a logo that must be displayed on the organisation’s products or documents with the provision of their service.
Measures tied to the label
WISEs may receive support from local authorities, including access to public land, promotional help and local tax exemptions. They can also receive subsidies for hiring vulnerable individuals. Moreover, the public procurement law allows WISEs to benefit from special clauses.
Success factors
A wide range of policy measures is tied to the label.
Challenges
The policy measures associated with the mark are not implemented in practice. For instance, according to the 2021 Barometer of the Social Economy in Romania, only 0.5% of the surveyed entities benefited from special procurement clauses. The label is little known among businesses and the media. As a result, very few entities have the mark: only 19% of the responding entities to the 2021 Barometer integrating vulnerable groups had the mark.
Sources: Romanian Government (2015[28]), National Employment Agency (2025[29]), Vamesu (2021[30]), OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
The Social Enterprise status was introduced in the 2019 Law on Enterprises of the Social and Solidarity Economy. As of June 2025, more than 180 social enterprises (7 Type A+ and the rest Type A) have been officially registered under this label and 11 are under review.
Standards
The law allows social enterprises to register as Type A or Type A+. Organisations must fulfil requirements 1, 2 and either 3 or 4 to be eligible for the Type A social enterprise label:
1. Social mission: The organisation must engage in activities with a social value (e.g. accessible tourism for people with disabilities, food delivery for the elderly, social integration activities), according to the methodology published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy.
2. Inclusive governance: The organisation is managed in a transparent and inclusive way. Members and employees participate in decision-making process.
3. Profit reinvestment: More than half and at least BNG (Bulgarian leva) 7 500 (around EUR 3 800) of the business profits after tax for the most recent accounting period funding a social activity or objective.
4. Inclusive employment: At least 30% and not less than 3 individuals of the company's workforce must come from disadvantaged groups.
To qualify for the Type A+ label, organisations must meet all Type A requirements and at least one of the following criteria:
1. Local impact: The enterprise’s social added value is concentrated in municipalities with unemployment rates during the past 12 months equal or higher than the national average.
2. Larger profit reinvestment: More than 50% and not less than BGN 75 000 (around EUR 38 000) of the after-tax profits are spent on initiatives or projects addressing social issues.
3. Continuous inclusive employment: People from disadvantaged groups make up at least 30% of the workforce and have been employed continuously by the company for the past six months.
Assessment and monitoring
The Social Enterprise label is granted and monitored by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The Ministry reviews the application and issues a decision within 14 days. Once approved, social enterprises are required to undergo evaluations every three years for Type A organisations and every two years for Type A+ organisations.
Measures tied to the label
Organisations with the Social Enterprise status get funding support, access to vocational training programs and can use a logo for their entity, products or services. Donations of up to 10% of accounting profit are considered tax deductible if a corporate taxpayer makes a donation in favour of registered social enterprises. Additionally, Type A+ social enterprises have the right to use municipal and state buildings, and receive financial support for their employees’ vocational training.
Sources: Bulgarian Government (2019[31]), Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (n.d.[32]), Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (2019[33]), Lex.bg (2007[34])
Some countries allow registered social enterprises to use a social enterprise label on their products. For example, in Romania, labelled WISEs must place a dedicated label on their products or documents demonstrating service provision (Box 2.3). In Bulgaria, every social enterprise registered in the register of social enterprises receives a logo that can be placed on their products (Box 2.4).
Common features of public social enterprise labels include a profit and sometimes an asset lock requirement, inclusive governance standards and reporting obligations. The profit lock requirement is introduced to ensure that the labelled companies prioritise impact over profit by reinvesting all or a share of the profit into their purpose. The share of the profit that can be distributed is either capped at a fixed percentage rate (e.g. 50% of the annual profits in the case of ESUS companies in France, social enterprises in Bulgaria and social businesses in Lithuania), a fixed yield rate based on the amount that an individual shareholder pays (e.g. a Belgian co-operative with a Social Enterprise label can distribute no more than the yield of 6% on the capital paid by the shareholders) or a mix of both approaches (e.g. an enterprise with an Italian social enterprise label can distribute up to 50% of the yearly profits if the distribution is not greater than the yield of 2.5% on the capital paid by the shareholders). Some public Social Enterprise labels (e.g. Belgian co-operatives recognised as social enterprises and Italian social enterprises) also have an asset lock requirement that prevents labelled entities, in the event of liquidation, from distributing its surpluses to shareholders (Mujica Filippi et al., 2021[35]).
Governance standards usually require considering the interests of stakeholders (e.g. the ESUS accreditation in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia and Bulgaria) or restrict shareholder voting power, which is more common for co-operatives (e.g. Social Enterprise label for co-operatives in Belgium). Most public labels (e.g. Latvian Social Enterprise status, Belgian Social Enterprise status for co-operatives, Italian Social Enterprise label) require labelled organisations to submit an annual activity report that outlines the actions and funding dedicated to its social purpose (Mujica Filippi et al., 2021[35]).
Public benefit status
In many EU countries, entities established in legal forms such as an association, foundation or limited liability company can obtain the public benefit organisation (PBO) legal status. This legal status usually qualifies entities for preferential tax treatment. For example, in Denmark and Hungary, PBOs are exempted from paying corporate income tax on economic activities that support their social mission (OECD, 2023[36]; European Commission, 2023[37]).
NGO and charity statuses
Some countries have a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or a charity public label that identifies organisations meeting its criteria. For example, in Lithuania, the NGO label introduced by the Ministry of Social Security and Labour targets organisations such as associations, foundations and public establishments that are “a public legal person, independent from state and municipal institutions and agencies, established on a voluntary basis for the benefit of the public or of a group thereof, which does not have as its aim the pursuit of political power or the achievement of religious objectives”. Entities can note their NGO character in the Register of Legal Entities (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas, 2022[38]). The label allows entities to benefit from state funding and other support programmes for NGOs and facilitates the monitoring of the sector by public authorities. From January 2025, organisations with an NGO label can get access to a voluntary allocation of up to 1.2% of an individual’s income tax (Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, 2025[39]). As of June 2025, there are more than 16 000 registered NGOs (Registrų centras, 2025[40]).
In Ireland, entities with a charitable purpose defined in the Charities Act that perform all their activities to advance this purpose and have a public benefit can get a charitable status. Certain organisations, such as those promoting athletic sports, political parties or causes, trade unions and chambers of commerce cannot get the status. The Charities Regulator, an independent statutory body, maintains a public register of charities and ensures compliance with the Act (Charities Regulator, n.d.[41]). As of June 2025, there are more than 14 000 charities registered with the Charities Regulator (Charities Regulator, n.d.[42]).
Impact of public labels
The benefits and challenges of public social economy labels for different stakeholders are summarised in Table 2.1. In the 2023-2024 Social Enterprise Monitor, 63.8% of responding social enterprises saw a value in an existing or potential social enterprise legal status in their country (Gazeley, Bennett and Dupain, 2025[43]). The most common positive implication of public social economy labels mentioned in the OECD/ European Commission survey on labels for the social economy is identification and recognition of social economy entities (57% of respondents), followed by increased social impact (19%), access to markets (14%), policy support (14%) and funding (14%) (Figure 2.3). Moreover, almost all public label responses (91%) identified labels that are free to obtain and maintain. Focus groups and stakeholder interviews also highlight that public labels can enhance consumer and investor trust in the social economy, improve its visibility and act as an incentive for improvement of the labelled entities.
The share of public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned positive consequences.
Note: The share is based on the author’s interpretation of 21 open-ended responses identifying public labels. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
While benefits are clear as outlined above, the uptake of public labels for the social economy in some countries remains low. It is difficult to estimate the number of eligible social enterprises for a label and calculate the uptake rate in the absence of other identification mechanisms. However, the number of labelled social enterprises remains limited. For instance, only around 3 000 entities have the ESUS accreditation in France out of more than 155 000 enterprises in the social economy (Direction Générale du Trésor, 2025[4]; Avise, 2025[5]). There are 45 entities with a valid certificate for a Social Mark in Romania, around 80 registered enterprises with 100% impact shares in Luxembourg, 181 registered Social Enterprises in Bulgaria and 264 entities with a Social Enterprise status in Latvia (National Employment Agency, 2025[29]; Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[32]; Latvian Ministry of Welfare, 2025[12]; Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2025[19]).
The most common identified challenge for public authorities (Figure 2.4) is limited awareness and understanding of the social economy ecosystem’s needs (36%), followed by providing the right incentives to adopt the label (29%) and communication about the label (14%). Other challenges for public authorities include ensuring that the labelled organisations do not have an unfair advantage over other businesses (7%), creating an enabling environment for the social economy (7%) and the lack of funding and resources to implement the label (7%). Focus groups and interviews confirm these findings.
The most common identified challenge for social economy entities (Figure 2.5) is the administrative burden associated with labels (36%), followed by limited awareness and understanding of the label (29%) and criteria that exclude some social economy entities (21%). Focus groups and interviews confirm these findings and further highlight that public labels can take a long time to amend, which can render them less relevant for the social economy as the needs of the ecosystem evolve. Moreover, trust in the labelled entity can be tied to the label’s reputation and consumers and investors might not be aware of public labels as they are primarily designed to support the channelling of policy measures.
The share of public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned challenges.
Note: The share is based on the author’s interpretation of 14 open-ended responses identifying public labels. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
The share of public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned challenges.
Note: The share is based on the author’s interpretation of 14 open-ended responses identifying public labels. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Sources: Author’s elaboration based on OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy, consultations and background research
Private labels for the social economy
In some countries private social economy labels have emerged from grassroot movements or network organisations, usually in the absence of a public sector alternative. For example, the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands (Code Sociale Ondernemingen) (Box 2.5) was developed by an independent committee in collaboration with Social Enterprise NL to recognise social enterprises as the legal form for social enterprises (Besloten Vennootschap maatschappelijk - BVm) is still under development (Argyrou, Lambooy and van Schaik, 2024[2]). The overview of organisational impact labels, including private labels for the social economy, reviewed for this work is available in Annex 2.A. This section will present some examples and common features of private social economy labels, compare them with public labels and consider some benefits and challenges associated with them.
The Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands (Code Sociale Ondernemingen) was developed in 2017 by an independent committee in partnership with Social Enterprise NL and was officially launched in 2018. The Code maintains a register of social enterprises in the Netherlands, as of June 2025 totalling 80.
Standards
The Code is principle- rather than rule-based, which gives enterprises the flexibility to decide on how to implement the principles. The registered enterprise must prioritise impact over profit and follow 5 principles that align with the European definition of social enterprises:
1. Impact-first mission: The social enterprise commits to an impact-first mission, clearly outlined in legal documents, with measurable goals and transparent methods for achieving impact.
2. Stakeholders: The enterprise identifies key stakeholders and engages in continuous dialogue with them to foster support and drive systemic change.
3. Finance: Financial policy incorporates measures to limit profit distribution to shareholders and align all financial activities with the mission. The renumeration policy needs to be moderate.
4. Implementation: The enterprise registers in the social enterprise register and actively engages with the social enterprise community through constructive feedback on areas for improvement.
5. Transparency: The enterprise commits to transparency, openly sharing information on how it fulfils its mission, impact measurement, financial structure and operations, making it accessible or readily available on request.
Assessment and monitoring
The enterprises wishing to be in the register must fill out an application form that is reviewed by two already-registered enterprises. The two reviewers write a report for the Independent Board, which decides whether to include the candidate in the register. The enterprises that do not meet all the principles can be displayed as ‘pending’ in the register for up to two years. The registered enterprise must conduct self-evaluations of compliance annually and needs to be reviewed by two peers in the register at least every two years or as often as it wishes. The two reviewers write a report focusing on areas for improvement. The report must be sent to the Independent Board and key take-aways should be made public. As of January 2025, a verification fee of EUR 275 and an annual fee of EUR 350 must be paid.
Measures tied to the label
Certified enterprises benefit from local authority initiatives, including procurement incentives and contracts that prioritise sustainable and socially responsible suppliers.
Success factors
The Code increases the visibility of labelled entities and implementation structure creates a community of labelled entities.
Challenges
There is limited awareness of the label among local authorities and social finance providers, and it is challenging to communicate about the benefits of joining the register. Only around 80 enterprises are fully registered with the Code as of June 2025 out of an estimated 5 000 – 6 000 social enterprises in the country (data for social enterprises is from 2016).
Sources: Code Sociale Ondernemingen (2024[44]), Code Sociale Ondernemingen (n.d.[45]), OECD (2023[46]), OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
The most stated purpose of private labels in the OECD/European Commission survey is to increase the visibility of labelled entities, with 71% of private label responses choosing this goal. This is followed by identification of social economy organisations (57%) and better access to markets (52%) (Figure 2.6). It is worth noting that compared to public labels, a greater share of private label responses identified visibility (71% for private labels vs. 54% for public labels), access to public and private markets (52% vs. 29%) and nudging consumer behaviour (48% vs. 13%) as a purpose. Tax treatment of social economy entities was identified as a purpose only in public label responses.
The share of responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned purposes.
Note: Based on 21 private and 24 public label responses to multiple-choice questions. As each respondent could choose several options, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Some private labels focus either on specific sectors or impact areas. For instance, the Wirkt Siegel (“Seal of Impact”) label is given by PHINEO to German non-profit organisations working on a particular topic that is specified in the call for proposals. In 2025 the focus is on actions to fight discrimination (PHINEO, n.d.[47]). Solid’R (Box 2.6) and Rec’Up (Box 2.7) labels managed by the Belgian Federation of Social Economy and Circular Economy Enterprises (RESSOURCES) focus on social economy organisations that collect second-hand goods.
Most of the private labels for the social economy reviewed for this work are aimed at organisations. However, a few, such as the Rec’Up (Box 2.7) and ElectroRev labels managed by RESSOURCES, focus on products and services sold and provided by social economy entities. Moreover, some co-operative grocery chains have a label for their products. For instance, Biocoop and La Vie Claire organic co-operatives in France place their own logos on many products sold in their stores.
Solid’R was established in 2002 by the Belgian Federation of Social Economy and Circular Economy Enterprises (RESSOURCES). It labels enterprises that collect second-hand goods and prioritise social welfare over profit. As of June 2025, Solid’R labels 25 organisations in Belgium, Italy, France and Spain.
Standards
To qualify for the Solid’R label, organisations must meet seven core standards:
1. People and labour over capital: Most income must support employee development and fair pay, not profit distribution.
2. Democratic decision-making: All employees participate in strategic decisions; training supports active involvement.
3. Voluntary and open membership: Membership is open to all, with no exclusions based on political, religious or philosophical beliefs.
4. Balancing member and public interests: Enterprises follow social, tax and environmental laws to protect public and member interests.
5. Solidarity and responsibility: Employees act responsibly, promoting a culture of support and collaboration.
6. Management autonomy: Enterprises operate independently of controlling shareholders.
7. Service over profit: Activities must primarily benefit the community over financial gain.
Assessment and monitoring
Solid'R labelled enterprises undergo a structured assessment process, including an annual independent audit performed by Forum Ethibel, to verify adherence to its seven core principles. Every three years, large, medium and small-sized companies must complete a physical audit, while micro-sized organisations participate via video conference.
Measures tied to the label
Certain municipalities in Belgium allow Solid’R-labelled enterprises to place donation boxes to collect household items such as books, clothing and furniture. The collection boxes are also advertised on the RESSOURCES website. In Italy and the Brussels-Capital Metropolitan Area in Belgium, Solid’R labelled organisations get access to public support and procurement incentives.
Source: Solid’R (n.d.[48])
Private social economy labels can be principles-based, which makes their criteria applicable to a wide range of contexts. Principle-based criteria, which are used by labels such as the Dutch Social Enterprise Code (Box 2.5) and the People and Planet First verification (Box 2.8), do not have strict thresholds or requirements. Instead, they rely on a set of principles common to social economy entities and allow the awarding entities to determine compliance on a case-by-case basis. This facilitates the international operation of private labels such as the People and Planet First verification as the criteria can be applied to different national contexts.
The Rec’Up labelling scheme is aimed at social economy sites such as retail stores, repair shops or recycling facilities that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. The label aims to promote sustainability by recognising locations that adopt circular economy principles, such as waste reduction, product reuse and sustainable resource management. As of June 2025, there are 51 labelled sites and 18 labelled members.
Standards
The label is based on 120 product and service criteria:
Product criteria: Sites must offer sustainable products, such as reused, repaired or upcycled items, contributing to material life cycle extension and waste minimisation.
Service criteria: Certified sites must provide services supporting sustainable resource management, such as repair services, upcycling workshops or waste reduction initiatives. Services are evaluated based on their ability to promote reuse and reduce environmental impact.
Assessment and monitoring
The Rec’Up label is awarded after an assessment by an independent committee, which evaluates adherence to product and service standards. This assessment considers actions taken to reduce waste, promote reuse and provide sustainable services. Labelled sites are reviewed regularly by other labelled entities to ensure ongoing compliance, with the label subject to suspension or revocation if standards are not maintained.
Measures tied to the label
Entities labelled with the Rec’Up label benefit from two types of subsidies in the Walloon region. The employment subsidy covers the training costs of disadvantaged workers. The environmental subsidy is calculated by multiplying the number of tonnes of goods reused in Wallonia by a coefficient that depends on the product type. The more reused goods companies put on the Walloon market, the higher their subsidy.
Source: RESSOURCES (n.d.[49])
People and Planet First is a global verification created by the Social Enterprise World Forum. It aims to enhance the ability of social enterprises or the local equivalent that meets the criteria, to access global opportunities and increase their visibility. As of June 2025, over 800 entities worldwide have the verification badge.
Standards
The criteria of People and Planet First are designed to prevent profit maximising businesses from co-opting the label and to be applicable in a wide range of local contexts:
1. Purpose: The enterprise must exist to address a social or environmental problem. This purpose needs to be publicly communicated and embedded in its governing documents.
2. Operations: The enterprise should prioritise its purpose, people and the planet over profit in its operational decisions, meeting minimum sector standards and monitoring relevant social and environmental metrics.
3. Revenue: The enterprise must have a self-sustaining revenue model, with earned income covering its expenses and a plan for long-term financial sustainability.
4. Use of surplus: The enterprise should reinvest the majority of any surplus towards its purpose.
5. Structure: The enterprise must adopt legal structures and financing that safeguard and lock in its mission long-term, with arrangements to protect its purpose during periods of transition.
Assessment and monitoring
The People and Planet First badge was designed as a participatory verification and not as a third-party certification. Certifications usually rely on a limited number of actors (the standards owner, an independent certifier and an accreditation body) and imply a high cost, whereas participatory verification relies on a wide range of stakeholders. The verification process is implemented through a network of partner networks. Promotion partners advertise the verification to their members but do not participate in the review process and are not paid. Single badge partners help with reviewing documents of their network members and are paid 60% of the verification fee. Double badge partners manage an existing label that aligns with or exceeds the standards of the People and Planet First verification and can offer the PPF badge with no additional payment or document review.
The verification process begins with enterprises submitting an online application form that can be used to apply to other verifications on the Good Market platform. Once approved, enterprises are prompted to pay a USD 85 (as of January 2025) verification fee online. Next, they complete a short verification form, selecting points for each of the five standards. The scores are not shared publicly to prevent comparison of organisations that exist in different local contexts and legal frameworks. If enterprises score at least one point for each standard, they receive a welcome pack that includes the verification certificate and badge. To ensure ongoing compliance, verified businesses must undergo an annual review, resubmit evidence and pay a USD 70 renewal fee to maintain their verified status.
Measures tied to the label
Verified social enterprises can show their status on the SAP Business Network, benefit from pro-bono legal services and access GrantStation, a platform that helps to identify potential funding sources, among other benefits
Sources: People and Planet First (n.d.[50]), People and Planet First (n.d.[51])
Private labels for the social economy are usually managed by social economy organisations, have an independent committee or board and can resort to a third-party to verify compliance. For example, the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands is managed by the Social Enterprise Code Foundation with an Independent Board that takes the final decision on the award of the Code. The Social Enterprise Mark in Finland was introduced by the Association of Finnish Work and is awarded by the Social Enterprise Label Committee of independent experts appointed by the board of the association (Box 2.9). Compliance with the criteria for the Solid’R label is evaluated by Forum Ethibel, and independent organisation with a focus on social impact and sustainable finance.
It is also sometimes necessary to be part of the association managing the label to qualify for it. For instance, an entity needs to be a member of the Association of Finnish Work to be able to obtain their labels (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[52]).
The Finnish Social Enterprise Mark is a label introduced by the Association for Finnish Work for enterprises that prioritise social impact while engaging in financially sustainable economic activities. As of June 2025, more than 300 organisations have the Social Enterprise Mark out of around 3 000 social enterprises in Finland.
Standards
To qualify for the Finnish Social Enterprise Mark, businesses must be members of the Association of Finnish Work, comply with priority conditions and meet one or more of the secondary criteria.
Priority Conditions
1. Social mission: The organisation must clearly outline its social mission in its business strategy. The enterprise must demonstrate a focus on creating social value, such as employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups or solutions to environmental challenges.
2. Profit distribution: The enterprise must use the majority of its profits to advance its mission, either reinvesting them back into the organisation or directing them toward causes aligned with the common good. The organisation must limit profit distribution by documenting it in the company's articles of association or equivalent.
3. Openness and transparency: Operations need to be communicated in an open and transparent way.
Secondary Conditions
1. Governance: The enterprise needs to allow employees to participate in decision-making and implement employee ownership.
2. Impact measurement: The enterprise needs to measure its impact.
3. Employment of vulnerable individuals: The enterprise needs to employ individuals who are disadvantaged on the labour market.
4. Social innovation: The enterprise needs to adopt a socially innovative operational model.
Assessment and monitoring
The Finnish Social Enterprise Mark is awarded by the Social Enterprise Label Committee of independent experts appointed by the board of the Association for Finnish Work. Labelled enterprises are required to submit an annual electronic notification, with a comprehensive review and renewal process every three years to confirm adherence to the criteria. Recently created organisations that do not yet have a financial statement can be labelled for an initial period of one year if all the other criteria are met. The total cost of the labels consists of the association membership fee and a label fee, which are calculated based on the enterprise’s turnover.
Measures tied to the label
The labelled entities benefit from marketing materials, access to training and peer-learning trips.
Sources: Association for Finnish Work (n.d.[53]), European Commission (n.d.[54]), Kaisu et al. (2025[55])
The impact of private labels for the social economy
The benefits and challenges of private social economy labels for different stakeholders are summarised in Table 2.2. In the OECD/European Commission survey, recognition and identification (78% of private label responses) is by far the most mentioned positive consequence of private labels, followed by channelling of policy measures, mainly in the form of public procurement opportunities (28%), and increased social impact (17%) (Figure 2.7). It is worth noting that access to funding was identified as a positive consequence in a greater share of public than private label responses (14% vs. 6%).
The share of responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy outlining mentioned positive consequences.
Note: Based on 18 private and 21 public label responses. The share is based on the author’s interpretation of 18 private and 21 public label open-ended responses. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of eligible entities for social economy private labels, the uptake remains low. As of June 2025, more than 300 organisations have the Social Enterprise Mark out of around 3 000 social enterprises in Finland (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[53]; Kaisu et al., 2025[55]). There are 80 social enterprises in the Dutch Social Enterprise Code register out of the estimated 5 000 – 6 000 social enterprises in the Netherlands (Code Sociale Ondernemingen, n.d.[45]; OECD, 2023[46]). As of June 2025, there are 51 labelled sites and 18 labelled organisations with the Rec’Up label and the Solid’R label identifies 25 organisations in Belgium, Italy, France and Spain (RESSOURCES, n.d.[49]; Solid’R, n.d.[48]). As of June 2025, over 800 entities worldwide have the People and Planet First verification badge (People and Planet First, n.d.[51]).
The most commonly identified challenges associated with private labels for public authorities (Figure 2.8) are limited awareness and understanding of the label (44% of private label responses), followed by tying incentives to the label (22%) and coordination with policy (11%).
The most commonly identified challenges for social economy entities (Figure 2.9) are communication about the label (36%) and lack of incentives to adopt the label (36%). The lack of incentives to adopt the label might be explained by the fact that few policy measures are tied to private labels. The most common policy measure attached to the reviewed private labels is public procurement incentives, as is the case with the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands and the Solid’R label in Belgium. However, none of the private social economy labels reviewed for this work give labelled entities access to preferential tax treatment. Moreover, private social economy labels tend to incur a financial cost. In the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for social economy, private labels incurred a cost to social economy entities in 80% of responses. The comparison of public and private social economy labels is summarised in Table 2.3.
The share of private and public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned challenges.
Note: Based on the authors’ interpretation of 9 private and 14 public label open-ended responses. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
The share of private and public label responses to the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy stating mentioned challenges.
Note: Based on the authors’ interpretation of 11 private and 14 public label open-ended responses. As each respondent could mention several options in the same answer, the response total is above 100%.
Source: OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Sources: Author’s elaboration based on the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy, consultations and desk research
Sources: Author’s elaboration based on the OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy and (Möslein, 2021[56])
Increasing environmental and social concerns among consumers, investors, businesses and governments have led to the emergence of the so-called “impact labels”. Such labels can identify either organisations or products. The Ecolabel index, the largest global directory of ecolabels, lists more than 400 existing ecolabels in 199 countries and 25 industry sectors (such as agriculture, construction, textiles and tourism) that identify organisations and products based on pre-defined environmental and social standards (Ecolabel Index, 2024[57]).
Impact labels are not specific to the social economy. Some of such labels, such as purpose-driven companies or the B Corp certification, are aimed at for-profit entities that do not have a profit lock in place, which is one of the major differences with specific labels for the social economy. As such, they cannot be used to differentiate social economy entities from other impact-driven organisations. Product impact labels are available to a wide range of organisations, including social economy entities, as long as their products meet the label’s standards.
The most prominent public label for businesses that do not have a profit lock is a purpose-driven company or a benefit corporation. Italy was the first country in Europe to create a Benefit Corporation legal status in 2016 (Box 2.10). It identifies companies that aim to pursue a common benefit with no restrictions on profit distribution and sets some purpose, transparency, governance and reporting requirements.
Italy was the first European country to introduce a Benefit Corporation status (Società Benefit) in 2016. Società Benefit companies must integrate social and environmental objectives into their corporate purpose and operations. At end-2024, there were more than 4 500 Benefit Corporations in Italy, an almost 40% increase from the previous year.
Standards
Key standards include:
Dual purpose requirement: Società Benefit companies must explicitly state in their bylaws that they are dedicated to acting in the interest of the common benefit alongside financial profitability. This purpose may include environmental protection, social cohesion, educational support, or health and wellness initiatives.
Commitment to transparency: The company must publish an annual impact report detailing its social and environmental performance. This report should follow recognised standards to ensure objectivity and be made publicly available to promote accountability.
Governance: A Benefit Corporation is a for-profit organisation and does not need to restrict the distribution of dividends to its shareholders. However, the governance structure must reflect a commitment to considering the impact of business decisions on all stakeholders, including employees, customers, communities and the environment, beyond just shareholders. Moreover, it must choose one or more person responsible for the achievement of the purpose.
Resource allocation and reporting: Companies are required to dedicate resources and design a strategy to achieve their social goals and report on specific metrics, such as carbon footprint, community engagement or employee well-being, as part of their annual impact report.
Assessment and monitoring
There is no specific regulatory authority in charge of monitoring Benefit Corporations; however, companies must comply with mandatory reporting standards to maintain transparency. Annual impact reports are evaluated by stakeholders and may be verified by third-party agencies to ensure accuracy and alignment with benefit objectives. In cases where a company does not meet its stated social goals, it may face reputational risk or scrutiny from stakeholders. Renewal of the designation is not required, but consistent reporting is essential to demonstrate ongoing commitment. Benefit corporations have to abide by the Antitrust Authority measures on misleading advertising and unfair commercial practices.
Measures tied to the label
Benefit Corporations are not subject to preferential fiscal treatment since there is no restriction on profit distribution. In 2019, the Public Contract Code was amended to introduce procurement reward criteria for companies that publish an impact report required for Società Benefit companies.
Sources: Camera dei Deputati (2016[58]), Nativa et al. (2024[59]), Nativa et al. (2024[60]), Mujica Filippi et al. (2021[35]), Ventura (2022[61])
In 2019, France introduced a Mission-Driven Company (Société à Mission) status that allows companies to define one or more social and/or environmental “mission” and how it will be achieved in their bylaws. Enterprises with more than 50 employees need to establish a mission committee (or a mission referent in companies with less than 50 employees) to check on how the company implements the mission. The mission committee presents an annual report to the general assembly, which is submitted together with management report. The company’s mission needs to be audited by an independent third-party organisation every 2 years (every 3 years for companies with less than 50 employees) and the audit must be publicly available for at least 5 years. There are no fiscal incentives for mission-driven companies (Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr, 2024[62]). As of June 2025, there are more than 2 000 mission-driven companies in France (Observatoire des sociétés à mission, n.d.[63]). In both Italy and France, mission-driven companies are not required to have a profit lock but must dedicate significant resources to achieve the stated purpose (Mujica Filippi et al., 2021[35]). The concept of purpose-driven companies is being developed in other European countries, including Belgium, Spain and Sweden (Communauté des Entreprises à Mission, 2024[64]).
For example, in Spain a Benefit and Common Interest Corporation (Sociedades de Beneficio e Interés Común, SBIC) is a legal form that combines profit-making with a commitment to positive social and environmental impact. The status was introduced in Law 18/2022 and is aimed at capital companies that integrate social and environmental objectives into their corporate purpose and meet standards related to transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement. The criteria and methodologies for validating the SBIC status are still under development and will align with international standards for benefit corporations (Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2022[65]).
A private label for purpose-driven companies is the B Corp certification managed by the B Lab non-profit network (Box 2.11). The certification requires companies to undergo the B Impact Assessment that focuses on seven impact areas, undergo a risk assessment and incorporate the stated environmental and/or social purpose into its legal documents to safeguard its commitment to impact. The legal requirement can be met through becoming a purpose-driven company if the company’s jurisdiction allows it.
B-Corp certification is granted to businesses that meet pre-defined standards of social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency. Managed by the non-profit B Lab network founded in 2006, the B-Corp certification recognises companies that pursue purpose alongside profit. As of June 2025, there are almost 10 000 Certified B Corporations across 104 countries and 160 industries, more than 2 000 of which are in Europe (excluding the UK).
Standards
B Lab updated the B Corp standards in April 2025. Companies re-certifying before 30 June 2025 could use the old criteria to obtain the certification and those certifying for the first time have until the end of 2025 to be certified under the old standards. B Lab recommends that all businesses operating in the EU start to self-assess against the new standards as they align with the requirements of the Empowering consumers for the green transition directive (Directive 825/2024/EU), which will be applied from September 2026.
Old standards
To achieve B-Corp certification, companies must score at least 80 out of 200 in the B Impact Assessment that focuses on 5 key areas:
1. Governance: Companies are assessed on their ethics, transparency and accountability practices. This includes structures that ensure responsible decision-making and transparency in reporting impact and financial performance.
2. Workers: B-Corps must demonstrate fair treatment of employees, including factors such as wages, benefits, work environment and career development. The certification values diversity, inclusion and worker satisfaction.
3. Community: The certification requires companies to consider their impact on the communities they operate in, from local job creation and community engagement to supporting suppliers with ethical practices and contributing to economic empowerment.
4. Environment: Companies are assessed on their environmental impact, including resource use, carbon footprint, emissions, waste management and sustainable supply chains. B-Corps commit to reducing their ecological impact and promoting environmental sustainability.
5. Customers: B-Corps are evaluated on their dedication to serving their customers responsibly, ensuring that products or services create positive social impact and prioritise customer welfare.
In addition, the enterprises must legally commit to consider the impact of their actions on all stakeholders. The specific legal requirement depends on the company legal form but usually involves an update to the company’s Articles of Incorporation. If the local legal environment does not allow stakeholder governance, certified B Corps need to sign a B Corp Agreement to commit to meet the legal requirement once it becomes legally possible in their jurisdiction.
New standards
In the new standards framework, the score system has been replaced by a threshold without a numerical score. The requirements are designed in a phased approach: for an initial certification, enterprises must meet Y0 sub-requirements and progressively align with Y3 and Y5 sub-requirements that depend on the company’s size, sector, industry and location. The new standards focus on seven key areas:
1. Purpose and stakeholder governance: New requirements in this area include the implementation of a mandatory grievance mechanism for all companies, new rules on dividends and stock buyback for larger firms, and responsible marketing and communication as a required area of action.
2. Fair work: B-Corps must provide good quality jobs and positive workplace cultures. The updated standards introduce mandatory practices such as integrating worker feedback into decision-making, ensuring fair wage policies, and monitoring and improving workplace conditions.
3. Justice, equity, diversity and inclusion: B-Corps will need to introduce plans including the principles of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion at their workplaces and value chains with the final objective of building diverse and inclusive workplaces.
4. Human rights: Businesses are obligated to respect human rights through the adoption of robust due diligence processes. This includes the identification, prevention, mitigation and remediation of negative human rights impacts, along with ongoing monitoring and adaptation of due diligence practices over time.
5. Climate action: B-Corps are required to measure their emissions, establish reduction targets and implement climate transitions plans that support the global objective of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
6. Environmental stewardship and circularity: Companies must conduct environmental impact assessments, except for small and low-impact service sector firms. The standards include the development of environmental strategies focused on circular economy principles and biodiversity protection. Service-based companies must evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with their clients and projects.
7. Government affairs and collective action: B-Corps must ensure responsible lobbying practices through transparent disclosures. Fiscal transparency must also be enhanced by publishing tax policies and reports by country of operation.
Assessment and monitoring
B-Corp certification is awarded after companies complete the B Impact Assessment, a comprehensive review that evaluates performance across the five (under old standards) or seven categories (under new standards) and pass a risk assessment. Additionally, they are required to amend their legal structure to incorporate stakeholder interests in decision-making. The assessment with standards, as of April 2025 is performed by B Lab staff but will transition to a third-party certification model to align with the requirements of Empowering consumers for the green transition directive (Directive 825/2024/EU). Certified B Corps must publish information about their performance in a dedicated profile on B Lab’s website. Certification is valid for three years, after which companies must undergo a reassessment to maintain their status. As of January 2025, companies wishing to become a B Corp must pay a verification fee that ranges from EUR 2 500 to EUR 10 000 and an annual certification fee that ranges from EUR 1 000 to EUR 50 000, depending on their annual sales.
Measures tied to the label
B Lab states that the B Corp certification allows B corps to connect with each other, attract talented workforce, improve internal impact management practices and protect their mission through changing the legal form.
Sources: B Lab (n.d.[66]), B Lab (n.d.[67]), B Lab (2025[68]), B Lab Europe (n.d.[69]), B Lab Europe (n.d.[70]), B Impact Assessment (2025[71])
Some organisation-based impact labels act as a self-improvement tool for entities that wish to assess and showcase their impact. For instance, Impact Score, developed by the Impact France movement, allows any organisation to undertake an online self-assessment free of charge to get a score that reflects their impact across several dimensions (Box 2.12). Organisations can choose whether to make their Impact Score public or just use it internally to assess their social and environmental impact.
Impact Score is a French platform initiated by 30 enterprise networks in 2019 and managed by the Impact France movement that allows organisations to assess, compare and improve their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance through a transparent and accessible scoring system. An organisation of any size or legal form can complete the Impact Score assessment. It is neither a certification nor a label but rather a tool that helps organisations to improve their impact practices. As of June 2025, almost 10 000 organisations have performed an Impact Score, more than a quarter of which (27%) have made their result public and almost all of which (95%) are micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. Social economy entities tend to have higher scores than other types of organisations.
Standards
The score out of a 100 is calculated based on a questionnaire of around 60 questions (depending on the size of the business) in the following areas:
1. Minimising negative impact: This category focuses on social and ecological impact such as work integration, support for vulnerable populations, gender equality, carbon footprint, biodiversity and circular economy.
2. Sharing power and value: This category assesses areas such as an organisation’s interaction with its stakeholders, the role of employees in decision-making, job stability, the differences in pay and responsible investing.
3. Positive impact strategy: This category includes the presence of a social or environmental purpose related to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), impact measurement, and sustainable and inclusive procurement.
Assessment and monitoring
An organisation wishing to perform an impact score needs to fill out a free online questionnaire. Depending on the size of the company, which determines the number and types of questions to be answered, the questionnaire takes less than 2 hours to complete. The questions ask for concrete numbers or facts, which makes it more difficult to lie or engage in green- or social- washing. No supporting documents are required, and the score is automatically calculated at the end of the process. The score is valid for 2 years. Companies can choose to make their Impact Score public on a dedicated online register, which implies that their responses become accessible to all, increasing the score’s accountability and reliability. If the score is not made public, it still acts as a progress monitoring tool for the assessed organisation.
Measures tied to the label
Impact France has partnered with the Occitanie region in France, which in its Regional Plan for Economic Development, Innovation and Internationalisation aims for 50% of the enterprises in the region to start an ecological or social transformation by 2028. Since April 2023, it is compulsory for an enterprise to go through the Impact Score assessment to receive regional subsidies.
Sources: Impact Score (n.d.[72]), Impact Score (n.d.[73])
Labels dedicated to sustainable practices in a given sector and the circular economy are available to social economy organisations. For instance, social economy entities active in the tourism sector tend to contribute to fostering inclusive tourism practices such as catering towards persons with disabilities, adapting to local cultural practices, operating in remote areas while also contributing to work integration (European Commission, 2024[74]). These entities can amplify their visibility and impact through obtaining a sustainable tourism certification. For instance, the Green Key certification, managed by the Foundation for Environmental Education, labels service providers in 6 categories: hotel and hostel, campsite and holiday park, small accommodation, attraction, restaurant and conference centre. The standards are tailored to each category but broadly focus on staff involvement, environmental management, guest information, waste management, administration and corporate social responsibility, among other areas (Green Key, n.d.[75]). As of June 2025, there are almost 8 000 certified establishments in more than 90 countries (Green Key, n.d.[76]).
The social economy contributes to circular economy through (i) recycling electronics and textiles, (ii) producing reusable consumer goods, (iii) repairing activities that extend the lifespan of materials and products, and (iv) restoring natural ecosystems, among other activities (OECD/European Commission, 2022[77]). Social economy entities can use circular economy labels, such as the quality label for refurbished products developed by a Paris-based non-profit association RCube or the recycled content labels developed by Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Forest Stewardship Council (SFC) (Laubinger and Börkey, 2021[78]).
Social economy entities also use environmental labels to signal their commitment to ethical and sustainable practices. For instance, the EU Ecolabel is an environmental label that covers a broad range of products and is quite widely recognised in Europe (Box 2.13). It is used by some co-operative supermarkets such as Coop Italia, which sells around nine million products every year with an EU Ecolabel. The supermarket chain has marketed its own Vivi Verde brand alongside the Ecolabel to build credibility and boost sales (European Commission, n.d.[79]).
The EU Ecolabel is a voluntary ecolabel, established by the European Union in 1992, to promote products and services with a lower environmental impact throughout their lifecycle. It aims to help consumers identify eco-friendly products that meet high environmental standards. The label covers a broad range of products, including household items, cleaning supplies, textiles and services, but excludes food and pharmaceuticals. As of June 2025, more than 100 000 products and services have been awarded the EU Ecolabel. Data from the 2023 Eurobarometer on the Ecolabel show that almost 4 in 10 (38%) Europeans have seen the label before, compared to slightly more than a quarter (27%) in 2017. In the same survey, three-quarters of respondents agree that they trust the lower environmental impact of the labelled products and around 4 in 10 of respondents often or sometimes purchase products with the EU Ecolabel.
Standards
To receive the EU Ecolabel, products and services must meet stringent criteria across various environmental and often social categories. These criteria are specific to each product group and are developed and regularly updated by the European Commission in consultation with the EU Ecolabelling Board. The Board consists of representatives of National Competent Bodies and 13 stakeholder organisations, as well as 3 EU and UN bodies. Technical manuals are published for each product category, which provide general information on the application process and the product-specific criteria.
Assessment and monitoring
The EU Ecolabel is awarded by National Competent Bodies within EU Member States, which receive and assess applications. They are tasked with ensuring that third-party verification is done in a consistent, neutral and reliable way. The application process requires documentation from the producer demonstrating compliance with criteria specific to their product category. Certification is valid for a period specified by the category guidelines, after which products may need to be reassessed under updated standards.
Measures tied to the label
Certain regions in the EU use the Ecolabel for their green procurement. For example, the City of Kolding in Denmark uses the EU Ecolabel alongside other ecolabels to procure products such as cleaning supplies, paper and uniforms.
Sources: European Commission (n.d.[80]), Ipsos European Public Affairs (2023[81]), TNS Political (2017[82]), European Commission (2016[83])
Launched in 1992, the Fairtrade mark is a widely recognised ethical label for goods/products that is used by some social economy entities. It has various economic, social and environmental standards depending on the type of organisation that produces the product (co-operatives and associations vs. large plantations and farms with hired workers) and the place of the entity in the value chain (producers vs. traders who buy and sell Fairtrade products). The producers selling through Fairtrade must be paid at least Fairtrade Minimum Price, which depends on the product, and get access to a Fairtrade Premium, which can be invested in their chosen projects. Fairtrade products, as well as products with other ethical labels, are often sold at co-operative grocery stores such as Biocoop in France (Biocoop, n.d.[84]). Other product labels that social economy entities can consider include schemes in the fields of textile and waste separation, sustainable fishing and organic production, among others.
Impact of broader labels on the social economy
The benefits and challenges associated with broader impact labels are presented in Table 2.4. The main benefit for social economy entities is greater access to markets, including consumers, other businesses and governments. For instance, recent studies show that consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products (Merbah and Benito-Hernández, 2024[85]; De Canio and Martinelli, 2021[86]). The EU Ecolabel is sometimes used as criteria for procurement decisions (European Commission, 2016[83]). Sustainable tourism certifications have a positive impact on hotels’ financial metrics by attracting a growing number of customers who are willing to pay a higher price for a sustainable accommodation option (Bianco, Bernard and Singal, 2023[87]).
However, the proliferation of labels can lead to an information overload. This makes it harder for consumers and buyers to compare different products, negating the labels’ original purpose of providing clear and accessible information (France Stratégie, 2022[88]; WWF and Greenpeace, 2021[89]). Moreover, some focus groups and interviews conducted in the context of this work highlighted that broader organisation-based impact labels can lead to confusion over the definition of the social economy. This confusion might result in the broadening of the social economy criteria and channel consumer, investor and government support away from social economy entities.
Note: The benefits and challenges are presented in the context of labels being used by social economy entities
Sources: Author’s elaboration based on focus group discussions and desk research
The comparison between specific labels for the social economy and broader impact labels is presented in Table 2.5. Broader impact labels tend to cover both organisations and products, label entities without a profit lock, focus on consumer attraction and choice, have more product- and sector-based criteria and be more often assessed by third-party organisations than reviewed specific labels for the social economy.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on desk research
Solidarity and impact finance labels
A number of financial labels identify products that finance the activities of social economy entities. For instance, the Finansol Label in France identifies savings products with a strong social impact (Box 2.14). In Belgium, the Finance Solidaire label developed by Financité labels all financial resources available to an entity that finance social economy activities (Financité, 2023[90]). As of June 2025, more than 100 enterprises across Belgium have the label (Finance solidaire, n.d.[91]).
The Finansol label, established in 1997 and managed by the FAIR association, labels savings products with a solidarity-based focus in France. In 2024, solidarity-based savings in France reached EUR 29.4 billion, representing a 7% increase compared to the previous year. As of June 2025, approximately 200 financial products hold the label.
Standards
The Finansol standards focus on three key areas:
1. Social impact: All or part of the collected funds must support social impact activities or at least 25% of interest must be regularly donated to entities engaging in social impact activities. Social impact includes initiatives in the areas such as access to employment and housing, health, mobility, culture, education, international development and environment.
2. Transparency and investor information: Financial institutions must provide comprehensive information about supported projects, fund usage and social impact, both at subscription and during the investment period.
3. Coherence: All assets, not just the solidarity component in a labelled product, must be managed according to sustainable finance principles, including environment, social and governance criteria. Institutions must also commit to product development, fair promotion and reasonable management fees aligned with investors' interests.
4. Impact investing: The investor or the financier must show intention to contribute to social impact, additionality of investment and measure its social and environmental impact.
Assessment and monitoring
The Finansol label is awarded to members of the FAIR association through a rigorous process managed by an independent committee of experts from social enterprises, finance, academia and civil society. The committee meets six to nine times a year to evaluate new applications and ensure ongoing compliance. Products undergo an initial assessment and are reviewed annually to verify adherence to the label's standards. Financial institutions must submit annual reports on project progress, product changes and transparency measures. Non-compliant products may face suspension or withdrawal of the label.
Measures tied to the label
The label allows consumers to differentiate savings products and increases the visibility of social financial products.
Sources: FAIR – Finance à impact social (n.d.[92]), FAIR – Finance à impact social (2024[93]), FAIR – Finance à impact social (2024[94]), FAIR – Finance à impact social (n.d.[95]), FAIR – Finance à impact social (2025[96])
Some EU-level labels are aimed at funds or organisations that provide financing to social economy entities. The European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF) label is applied to funds that focus on social businesses. The label can be awarded to a fund that directs at least 70% of its investments towards entities that have a primary objective of achieving “measurable, positive social impacts”, as stated in its articles of incorporation. These entities must not be publicly listed and have to use their profits to pursue a social mission. To ensure transparency and accountability, labelled funds must present the achieved social impact and the impact measurement methodology in their annual report. They must also report a number of investment-specific aspects such as the targeted impact area, the selection criteria for investment and the investments’ risk profile (European Union, 2013[97]; OECD, 2015[98]). As of June 2025, there are 19 labelled funds, most of which are located in Spain (European Securities and Markets Authority, 2024[99]).
The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision is a voluntary set of ethical standards for microcredit providers across Europe, some of which are social economy entities themselves or provide loans to social economy organisations (Box 2.15). Compliance with the Code is necessary for microcredit providers to access EU financial support.
The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision is a voluntary set of standards established by the European Commission to promote best practices among microcredit providers across Europe. It is aimed at non-bank financial institutions that provide loans of up to EUR 50 000 to microentrepreneurs. Banks have the option to endorse the Code. The Code aims to ensure that microcredit providers across Europe, which operate under different regulatory frameworks, adhere to a set of common ethical standards. As of February 2025, 58 microfinance providers have a certificate of compliance with the Code.
Standards
The Code’s clauses are divided into five key areas and consist of priority and non-priority clauses. To be certified, the microfinance provider needs to comply with all priority clauses and at least 80% of the weighted total of all clauses. All clauses have a level of difficulty assigned to them and some clauses are only applicable to large financial institutions. The criteria are grouped in the following way:
1. Customer and investor relations: The standards for the treatment of customers and investors as well as their rights, including information provision, avoiding over-indebtedness, customer care and staff behaviour.
2. Governance: The standards for governance and management structures, including strategic documents, board of directors, management qualifications and external audit.
3. Risk management: The common procedures to manage risk, including processes to identify, assess and prioritise risks, a senior staff member responsible for risk management, minimising credit risk, established anti-money laundering standards and an internal audit function.
4. Reporting standards: The section outlines the indicators that microcredit providers should collect, report and communicate, including portfolio at risk, operational sustainability ratio, institution’s mission and the number of registered complaints.
5. Management information systems: Standards for management information systems, including for production of main financial reports, publications on the quality of the loan portfolio as well as management and maintenance of client information.
Assessment and monitoring
The Code evaluation is funded by the Social Inclusive Finance Technical Assistance (SIFTA) under the InvestEU Advisory Hub managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB). The first step is to contact the EIB to receive the Code sign-up form. Then, the microfinance provider needs to fill out a self-assessment tool, and, if needed, to request technical assistance to support the implementation of the Code’s clauses. The microfinance provider is also required to make public its financial and operational information. The institution needs to commit to implementing the Code in the 18 months (or 36 months for institutions younger than 3 years) that follow its sign-up. At the end of the implementation period, the assessed institution can choose to be evaluated by a third-party (Microfinanza Rating). Based on this evaluation, the Code Steering Group, which consists of voting members (European Commission and industry representatives) and non-voting members (European Investment Fund (EIF), EIB and Microfinanza Rating), decides on the award of certificate of compliance with the Code. The certification is valid for 4 years and certified institutions are required to report on progress half-way through the period.
Measures tied to the label
Compliance with the Code or its endorsement are compulsory for microfinance providers to get access to EU funding under the InvestEU Social Investment and Skills Window and the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) strand of the European Social Fund Plus.
Success factors
There are clear benefits associated with the certificate of compliance. The technical assistance to support the implementation of the Code’s clauses helps entities to comply with criteria and makes the label more accessible.
Challenges
The Code’s clauses do not consider all the national microfinance regulation specificities and are not adapted to all business models of microfinance providers.
Sources: European Union (2011[100]), European Commission (n.d.[101]), European Commission (2024[102]), OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy
Broader ESG finance labels
Broader environment, social and governance (ESG) financial labels are increasingly used. The number of ESG-labelled funds in Europe has increased from 806 at end-2019 to 2 733 in July 2023, more than a three-time increase (Novethic, 2022[103]; Novethic, 2023[104]). This growth can be explained by a high demand for sustainable financial products from consumers, especially young people, the increased awareness among investors about the impacts of climate and social risks on financial returns, and the evolving regulatory environment (OECD, 2023[105]; OECD, 2022[106]). More than 6 in 10 respondents to the 2022 Eurobarometer survey on retail financial services and products state that it is important for them that their savings and investments do not have a negative impact on the planet. Around half of the respondents are more likely to invest in a financial product if they are aware that it is sustainable. However, less than a third of respondents have access to information related to the sustainable impact of financial products or services (Ipsos European Public Affairs, 2022[107]). This highlights the need for clear and transparent labelling systems to identify sustainable finance products.
The French ISR and Greenfin labels, created and managed by French public authorities, have among the highest numbers of labelled funds in Europe (Novethic, 2023[104]). The ISR (investissement socialement responsable or socially responsible investing) label was created by the Ministry of Economy and Finance in 2016. It labels funds that consistently outperform their benchmark index or investment universe on at least two out of the four proposed ESG criteria. The standards are grouped into environment (e.g. carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions etc.), social (e.g. employee development, gender equality, etc.), governance (e.g. transparency on management pay, anti-corruption measures etc.) and the respect of human rights (e.g. fight against poverty) (Label ISR, n.d.[108]). As of May 2025, almost 1 000 funds are labelled (Label ISR, 2025[109]).
The Greenfin label was launched at the end of 2015 by the Ministry of Ecological Transition. It labels funds that invest in green projects such as energy, buildings, clean transportation and agriculture, exclude several activities, monitor and manage ESG controversies in their portfolio and measure their environmental impact. As of June 2025, there are more than 100 funds with a Greenfin label (Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de la Décentralisation, 2025[110])..
Some sustainable finance labels are managed by private not-for-profit entities. The Towards Sustainability label in Belgium is managed by the Towards Sustainability Labelling Agency (CLA), a not-for-profit association. It labels financial products that (i) ‘do no harm’ on any of the ESG criteria (including exclusion of sectors such as weapons, tobacco and coal), (ii) have a positive impact (being best-in-class/best-in-universe or engaging in impact investing), and (iii) are transparent about their investment policies (Towards Sustainability, n.d.[111]). As of June 2025, more than 700 products have obtained the Towards Sustainability label (Towards Sustainability, n.d.[112]).
EU regulation requires a classification of sustainable finance funds. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), although not a labelling regime, describes how financial market actors should disclose sustainability information. It aims to inform investors in a standardised way about the impact of their investments and the sustainability risks that can affect their value (European Commission, n.d.[113]). Under SFDR, financial products need to be classified into one of the three categories by the fund manager in a legal document such as the prospectus. Article 9 SFDR funds pursue sustainable investments as their main goal. Article 8 funds align with certain environment and/or social characteristics. Article 6 funds do not have formal sustainability objectives. The classification determines the level of required sustainability disclosure using the EU Taxonomy Regulation (Magaeva, Engelen and Van Liedekerke, 2023[114]). Based on Morningstar data, at end-March 2025, the Article 8 category included more than 11 700 funds (47% of total number of funds), whereas the Article 9 group accounted for only 4.2% of total EU funds, or slightly more than 1 000 funds (Bioy et al., 2025[115]).
Comparison of solidarity/impact and broader ESG finance labels
The main difference of solidarity/impact finance labels with ESG finance labels is the intentionality and strength of social impact. For instance, the Finansol label covers solidarity products that invest in social economy entities or engage in impact investing through intentionally investing in social and environmental initiatives and measuring their impact (FAIR, 2023[116]). On the contrary, ISR, Greenfin and Towards Sustainability labels identify products that maximise financial return and only consider ESG criteria in their investment decisions without intentionally generating impact. The ISR and Towards Sustainability labels compare the product’s ESG impact to the impact of similar products, which is a broader standard than impact intentionality. The stricter criteria partly explains the lower number of funds with a Finansol label than those with the French ISR label: as of June 2025, approximately 200 financial products hold the Finansol label compared to almost 1 000 funds with the ISR label (FAIR - Finance à impact social, n.d.[95]; Label ISR, 2025[109]).
The impact of financial labels on the social economy
Benefits and challenges associated with financial labels are presented in Table 2.6. The main benefit of these labels for social economy entities is access to finance. This is particularly important as external financing represented on average 89.1% of the total financial needs among surveyed enterprises in the 2023-2024 European Social Enterprise Monitor. The most requested funding was from public sources (46.3% of surveyed enterprises requested it and 12.5% fully received it), followed by private donations (30% and 4%) and funding from foundations (27.4% and 5.6%). Financing from venture capital, venture debt, business angels and impact investment is less requested and had a greater share of respondents not receiving the funding than those who did (Gazeley, Bennett and Dupain, 2025[43]). As the strain on public budgets grows, private financing will be playing a more important role in the development of social enterprises. Given the increasing demand for sustainable investment, solidarity and impact finance labels can act as a tool to channel private funds to social economy entities. Moreover, compliance with some financial labels, such as the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision, is required for microfinance institutions to access some EU funding.
Note: The benefits and challenges are presented in the context of labels being used for investments in social economy entities
Sources: Author’s elaboration based on consultations and desk research
Membership in a network or association can signal an adherence to a set of standards and indirectly act as a quality label. For instance, the National Union of Credit Unions for Employees in Romania includes 37 territorial units, which consist of more than 1 000 credit unions with about 900 000 members. The role of the Union is to represent the members’ interests in meetings with stakeholders and ensure their financial sustainability through engaging in prudential supervision and monitoring performance and risks. Moreover, the Union contributes to the development of the credit union system through organising training and borrowing external funds (UNCARSR, n.d.[117]). Each member uses the logo of the Union, which acts as a quality stamp for credit union members and other stakeholders. Belonging to national and EU social economy networks such as CEPES (Spain), ESS France and the Third Sector Association (Italy) can also signal that the entity is part of the social economy and is committed to advancing the field.
Receiving funding and other types of support from a reputable impact investor or entity can show that social economy organisations adhere to the standards set by the counterparty. There is evidence to suggest that venture capital investments from the public sector facilitate companies’ access to private venture capital through signalling to the market that the company is ready for investment (Guerini and Quas, 2016[118]). In this case, the government venture capital firms are “labelling” that the targeted firms meet their standards without delivering a traditional label or certificate.
Local currencies can act as a guarantee label of products and services for which it pays. They are used in parallel to national currencies for exchanges of specific goods and services in a given area. The use of local currencies can contribute to local economic development through encouraging trade and production (Rivero Santos, 2017[119]). For instance, the Sol Violette currency, introduced in Toulouse, France in 2011, is aimed at social and solidarity economy entities. To use the currency, individuals need to subscribe to the association, get a subscription card and bring it to one of the exchange counters. There is also an option of exchanging euros for sols in some local branches of Crédit Municipal and Crédit Coopératif. The currency can then be used in the participating local, responsible and solidarity organisations and circulates among them. That way, the currency encourages short, local and responsible value chains (Sol Violette, n.d.[120]). As of June 2025, there are more than 150 organisations that accept the currency and 83 000 sols (1 sol = 1 EUR) are in circulation (Sol Violette, 2025[121]). For every sol in circulation, a euro is placed in bank accounts that finance either microcredit programmes or social economy projects in Toulouse (Sol Violette, n.d.[120]).
The impact of implicit labels on the social economy
While their main objective is not labelling or identifying social economy entities, implicit labels can promote the development of the social economy. For example, membership in umbrella organisations, associations or federations can encourage knowledge exchange, access to markets and spur discussions on policy developments for the social economy. Funding from a reputable investor can allow social economy entities to diversify their funding sources, become financially sustainable and support their impact measurement. Local currencies can expand the social economy entities’ customer base and encourage local community development, thereby creating favourable conditions for the social economy to operate. These initiatives can also increase the awareness and visibility of the social economy without the need for entities to undergo lengthy and sometimes costly certification and reporting procedures.
Implicit labels might not completely fulfil the functions of a label. Focus group discussions and interviews highlight that the standards of implicit labels are not always publicly available or are not very strict, which carries the risk of green and impact washing. Moreover, smaller organisations might not have the resources or knowledge to apply for membership and funding. In fact, less than a third of the surveyed social enterprises in the 2021-2022 Social Enterprise Monitor reported being part of a national network or association and less than one in ten (6.4%) belong to an international membership or network organisation (Dupain et al., 2022[122]). Consumers might also have limited awareness of professional associations, funders and local currencies. Implicit labels are not the focus of this research and further work is required to assess their effectiveness.
Purpose of cross-border labels
Some social economy entities might choose to operate across EU borders and beyond to maximise their impact and have access to larger markets. Almost a third (29.8%) of the surveyed social enterprises in the 2023-2024 European Social Enterprise Monitor operated beyond national borders, either at the European level (15.5%) or beyond European borders (13.3%) (Gazeley, Bennett and Dupain, 2025[43]). Social economy entities can either be global from their creation to address an international issue or internationalise in the later stages of their development to increase the number of their beneficiaries, scale their solution or gain access to global value chains (OECD, 2023[123]).
Cross-border labels can facilitate the activities of social economy entities across borders as well as their access to markets, funding and support measures. In the EU, cross-border expansion of social economy entities should be facilitated by Single Market principles, in particular the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide goods and services (European Union, n.d.[124]). Labels recognised across borders can facilitate the functioning of the Single Market for social economy entities through reducing the effort needed to register in another country and possibly allowing them to benefit from its support measures. Moreover, international labels can raise the labelled organisation’s visibility among consumers and other businesses, giving entities access to larger markets. Lastly, international funders such as multilateral development banks tend to be more familiar with labels that are consistently used in different countries.
The sections below outline existing social economy cross-border labels and explore some challenges associated with cross-border labels brought up in focus group discussions and interviews conducted for this work. Further policy considerations on cross-border labels are provided in the Guidance section (Chapter 3).
Existing cross-border labels
Public social economy labels still face challenges to operate across borders, despite the availability of EU frameworks for some legal forms to enable such activities. The European Co‑operative Society legal form (SCE) was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in 2006 to facilitate cross-border activities of co-operatives (Council of the European Union, 2003[125]). It is an optional legal form that can be adopted by co-operatives with members from at least two Member States. As of June 2024, there are 113 registered SCEs, of which 75 are active. The number is small given that there are around 250 000 co-operatives in the EU (EURICSE, 2024[126]) . The European Foundation and European Mutual Society legal forms have been proposed and then withdrawn (European Union, 2012[127]; European Parliament, 2013[128]). A European Cross-Border Association legal form is currently being discussed in the European Parliament and Council (European Commission, 2023[129]). Public labels specific to the social economy reviewed for this work do not operate across borders.
Some private labels specific to the social economy such as Solid’R and People and Planet First verification are available in several countries. This might be explained by fewer policy measures tied to them and their less specific standards that can be applied to a range of contexts. Sectoral (such as green tourism labels) and product labels (such as the EU Ecolabel and Fairtrade) also tend to be international because they aim to facilitate the organisation’s access to socially and/or environmentally conscious (potential) consumers in different countries.
Mutual recognition can be applied to social economy products. It is used to remove barriers to the functioning of the Single Market by ensuring that goods lawfully sold in one Member State can be sold in others, even if they do not fully comply with the rules of the other country (with a few exceptions related to public safety, the environment or health). The rules usually refer to technical aspects such as designation, form, size, weight, composition, etc. Businesses that would like to sell their goods in other EU countries can present a voluntary mutual recognition declaration to show that their goods are “lawfully marketed in another EU country” (European Commission, n.d.[130]).
Challenges associated with cross-border labels
Interviews and focus group discussions conducted for this work highlighted the following challenges:
Setting standards that allow the label to serve the same purpose in different countries. National definitions of the social economy vary, which makes it complex to define criteria that could be applied to different contexts (OECD, 2024[131]). The definition relevant to a range of countries needs to be quite broad, which may undermine the label’s rigour and credibility as broader standards can be more difficult to interpret and verify. Moreover, it may be challenging for a label to serve the same purpose in different national contexts, especially if the main goal is access to policy measures, due to the different legal environments and policy priorities (OECD, 2023[36]).
Harmonising national laws for labels to serve the same policy implications in different countries. If a label does not have the same advantages in different countries, it can lower the incentive to adopt it and create confusion for the labelled entities. Moreover, as EU countries have different levels of social economy ecosystem development, not all of them may want to support the social economy in the same way and may lack incentives to harmonise the relevant laws.
Challenges with implementation. For a label to remain credible and relevant, the standards need to be implemented uniformly. As the geographic reach of a label increases, it may be difficult to ensure the same interpretation of the criteria by the implementing bodies. Moreover, the rigour of the compliance assessment may vary, which can undermine the label’s credibility. The implementation of cross-border labels also requires extensive communication campaigns, which may be difficult to coordinate as the label expands.
Social economy organisations might prioritise having an impact at local or national level. It might also be difficult to maintain the participatory governance structure characteristic of social economy entities as they expand. Moreover, internationalisation of the social economy can result in mission drift as entities might prioritise economic motives over social impact. Lack of access to funding and business development support in some countries can also hinder the expansion of social economy organisations across borders. (OECD, 2023[123])
Note: The table is based on desk research, was last updated in June 2025 and might not include all the information available on each label.
Sources: Belgium (Ministry of Economy Belgium, 2024[132]); Bulgaria (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[33]); Denmark (Danish Business Authority, 2019[133]; Danish Business Guide, n.d.[134]); Finland (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[53]; Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[135]); France (French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, 2024[136]; Business Public Service France, 2024[137]; Impact Score, n.d.[138]); Greece (Greek National Registry of Administrative Procedures, 2025[139]); Italy (Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[140]; Benefit Corporation Italy, n.d.[141]); Latvia (Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (SEAL), 2021[142]); Lithuania (Innovation Agency Lithuania, 2025[143]); Luxembourg (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2021[18]); Netherlands (Code Sociale Odernemingen, 2025[144]); Romania (Romanian Government, 2015[28]); Slovakia (Social Economy in Slovakia, 2023[145]); Spain (Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, n.d.[146]); International (People and Planet First, n.d.[50]; B Lab, n.d.[66]; Solid’R, n.d.[48]).
Note: The table is based on desk research, was last updated in June 2025 and might not include all the information available on each label.
Sources: Belgium (Ministry of Economy Belgium, 2024[132]); Bulgaria (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[33]); Denmark (Danish Business Authority, 2019[133]; Danish Business Guide, n.d.[134]); Finland (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[53]; Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[135]); France (French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, 2024[136]; Business Public Service France, 2024[137]; Impact Score, n.d.[138]); Greece (Greek National Registry of Administrative Procedures, 2025[139]); Italy (Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[140]; Benefit Corporation Italy, n.d.[141]); Latvia (Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (SEAL), 2021[142]); Lithuania (Innovation Agency Lithuania, 2025[143]); Luxembourg (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2021[18]); Netherlands (Code Sociale Odernemingen, 2025[144]); Romania (Romanian Government, 2015[28]); Slovakia (Social Economy in Slovakia, 2023[145]); Spain (Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, n.d.[146]); International (People and Planet First, n.d.[50]; B Lab, n.d.[66]; Solid’R, n.d.[48]).
Note: The table is based on desk research, was last updated in June 2025 and might not include all the information available on each label.
Sources: Belgium (Ministry of Economy Belgium, 2024[132]); Bulgaria (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[33]); Denmark (Danish Business Authority, 2019[133]; Danish Business Guide, n.d.[134]); Finland (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[53]; Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[135]); France (French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, 2024[136]; Business Public Service France, 2024[137]; Impact Score, n.d.[138]); Greece (Greek National Registry of Administrative Procedures, 2025[139]); Italy (Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[140]; Benefit Corporation Italy, n.d.[141]); Latvia (Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (SEAL), 2021[142]); Lithuania (Innovation Agency Lithuania, 2025[143]); Luxembourg (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2021[18]; Impact Luxembourg, 2025[147]); Netherlands (Code Sociale Odernemingen, 2025[144]); Romania (Romanian Government, 2015[28]); Slovakia (Social Economy in Slovakia, 2023[145]); Spain (Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, n.d.[146]); International (People and Planet First, n.d.[50]; B Lab, n.d.[66]; Solid’R, n.d.[48]).
Note: The table is based on desk research, was last updated in June 2025 and might not include all the information available on each label.
Sources: Belgium (Ministry of Economy Belgium, 2024[132]); Bulgaria (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[33]; Lex.bg, 2007[34]); Denmark (Danish Business Authority, 2019[133]; Danish Business Guide, n.d.[134]); Finland (Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[53]; Association for Finnish Work, n.d.[135]); France (French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, 2024[136]; Business Public Service France, 2024[137]; Impact Score, n.d.[138]); Greece (Greek National Registry of Administrative Procedures, 2025[139]); Italy (Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[140]; Benefit Corporation Italy, n.d.[141]); Latvia (Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (SEAL), 2021[142]); Lithuania (Innovation Agency Lithuania, 2025[143]); Luxembourg (Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2021[18]); Netherlands (Code Sociale Odernemingen, 2025[144]); Romania (Romanian Government, 2015[28]); Slovakia (Social Economy in Slovakia, 2023[145]); Spain (Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, n.d.[146]); International (People and Planet First, n.d.[50]; B Lab, n.d.[66]; Solid’R, n.d.[48]).
References
[65] Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado (2022), Ley 18/2022, de 28 de septiembre, de creación y crecimiento de empresas, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2022/09/28/18/con.
[2] Argyrou, A., T. Lambooy and M. van Schaik (2024), “Novel company law forms for social change: The development of tailor-made legislation for social enterprises in the Netherlands”, Societal Impacts, Vol. 3, p. 100038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2024.100038.
[52] Association for Finnish Work (n.d.), Brand and Company Search, https://suomalainentyo.fi/merkki-ja-yrityshaku/?merkki-ja-yrityshaku-tyyppi=yritys.
[53] Association for Finnish Work (n.d.), Eligibility requirements and requirements for awarding the Finnish Work Social Enterprise label, https://suomalainentyo.fi/jasenyys-ja-merkit/merkkien-saannot-ja-kayttoehdot/yhteiskunnallinen-yritys-merkin-saannot/.
[135] Association for Finnish Work (n.d.), Social Enterprise Label, https://suomalainentyo.fi/jasenyys-ja-merkit/yhteiskunnallinen-yritys-merkki/.
[5] Avise (2025), Chiffres clés de l’ESS en France [Key figures for SSE in France], https://www.avise.org/comprendre-ess/economie-sociale-solidaire-ess-contexte.
[71] B Impact Assessment (2025), How the new B Lab Standards requirements are tailored to each company’s context?, https://kb.bimpactassessment.net/en/support/solutions/articles/43000747439-standards-tailoring-to-company-context.
[68] B Lab (2025), Explore B Lab’s new standards - A new framework for lasting business impact, https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/standards/performance-requirements/.
[67] B Lab (n.d.), A formal complaint process is an essential complement to the B Corp Certification verification and review, https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/standards/complaints/.
[66] B Lab (n.d.), B-Corp Certification., https://bcorporation.net/.
[69] B Lab Europe (n.d.), Certification Pricing, https://bcorporation.eu/become-a-b-corp/pricing/.
[70] B Lab Europe (n.d.), Why join the movement?, https://bcorporation.eu/become-a-b-corp/why-join-the-movement/.
[9] Bach, P. and L. Langergaard (2024), European Social Enterprise Monitor. Dansk rapport, https://knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/2024/06/18/danish-social-enterprise-monitor-2023-2024/.
[141] Benefit Corporation Italy (n.d.), What is the difference between a certified B Corp and a Benefit Corporation?, https://www.societabenefit.net/b-corp-e-societa-benefit-tabella-comparativa/.
[87] Bianco, S., S. Bernard and M. Singal (2023), “The impact of sustainability certifications on performance and competitive action in hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 108, p. 103379, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103379.
[84] Biocoop (n.d.), Logos et labels du Commerce Equitable : décryptage [Fair trade labels and logos: decryption], https://www.biocoop.fr/logos-et-labels-du-commerce-equitable-decryptage.
[115] Bioy, H. et al. (2025), SFDR Article 8 and Article 9 Funds: Q1 2025 in Review, Morningstar Sustainalytics, https://www.morningstar.com/en-uk/business/insights/research/sfdr-article8-article9.
[24] Borgaza, C. (2020), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Italy.
[31] Bulgarian Government (2019), The Law on Enterprises of the Social and Solidarity Economy, https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2137187968.
[33] Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (2019), Regulatory Guide for the implementation of the Enterprise Act, https://seconomy.mlsp.government.bg/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/PRAVILNIK_za_prilagane_na_Zakona_za_predpriqtiqta_na_socialnata_i_solidarna_ikonomika.pdf.
[32] Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (n.d.), Registered Social Enterprises, https://secprod.mlsp.government.bg/index.php?section=REG.
[137] Business Public Service France (2024), Qualité de « société à mission », https://entreprendre.service-public.fr/vosdroits/F37408.
[58] Camera dei Deputati. (2016), Legge 28 dicembre 2015, n. 208 - Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (Legge di stabilità 2016), https://www.societabenefit.net/.
[8] Central Business Register (2025), Search CVR, https://datacvr.virk.dk/soegeresultater?sideIndex=0&virksomhedsstatus=aktive&virksomhedsmarkering=social_oekonomisk_virksomhed&size=10.
[42] Charities Regulator (n.d.), Search the Register of Charities, https://www.charitiesregulator.ie/en/information-for-the-public/search-the-register-of-charities.
[41] Charities Regulator (n.d.), What is a charity?, https://www.charitiesregulator.ie/media/eqvh32ky/what-is-a-charity-rev-001.pdf.
[144] Code Sociale Odernemingen (2025), Admission criteria for the Register of Social Enterprises, https://codesocialeondernemingen.nl/het-register/toelatingscriteria/.
[44] Code Sociale Ondernemingen (2024), Wat is de Code?, https://codesocialeondernemingen.nl/over-de-code/wat-is-de-code/.
[45] Code Sociale Ondernemingen (n.d.), Zoek onderneming [Company search], https://codesocialeondernemingen.nl/het-register/onze-deelnemers/.
[64] Communauté des Entreprises à Mission (2024), Congrès français et européen des entreprises à mission, https://www.entreprisesamission.org/.
[6] Conseil supérieur de l’économie sociale et solidaire (2024), Avis du Conseil supérieur de l’économie sociale et solidaire sur L’agrément Entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale (ESUS), https://www.ess-france.org/system/files/inline-files/Avis%20CSESS%20agr%C3%A9ment%20ESUS%20VF.pdf?utm_.
[125] Council of the European Union (2003), Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE).
[133] Danish Business Authority (2019), Registration as a registered social economy enterprise, https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/vejledning-registrering-som-registreret-socialoekonomisk-virksomhed#chapter2-1.
[10] Danish Business Authority (2018), Evaluering af lov om registrerede socialøkonomiske virksomheder [Evaluation of the Act on Registered Social Enterprises], https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/evaluering-af-lov-om-registrerede-socialokonomiske-virksomheder.
[134] Danish Business Guide (n.d.), Social economy enterprise, https://virksomhedsguiden.dk/content/ydelser/socialoekonomisk-virksomhed/2a14c59e-9c27-4a37-9213-1c735aa2b06c/.
[86] De Canio, F. and E. Martinelli (2021), “EU quality label vs organic food products: A multigroup structural equation modeling to assess consumers’ intention to buy in light of sustainable motives”, Food Research International, Vol. 139, p. 109846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109846.
[27] Díaz, M., C. Marcuello and R. Nogales (2020), Social Enterprises and their Ecosystems in Europe. Spain Country Report.
[4] Direction Générale du Trésor (2025), Liste Nationale des Agréments ESUS, https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/banque-assurance-finance/finance-sociale-et-solidaire/liste-nationale-agrements-esus.
[122] Dupain, W. et al. (2022), The European Social Enterprise Monitor Report, 2021-2022, Euclid Network.
[57] Ecolabel Index (2024), Ecolabel Index, https://www.ecolabelindex.com/.
[20] Economie (2024), Recognition as a Social Enterprise, https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/starting-business/steps-starting-business/forms-companies/cooperative-societies/recognition-social-enterprise.
[13] EKA University of Applied Sciences and Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (2025), Latvian National Social Enterprise Monitor, https://knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/2025/02/13/latvian-social-enterprise-monitor-2023-2024/.
[62] Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr (2024), Qualité de « société à mission », https://entreprendre.service-public.fr/vosdroits/F37408#:~:text=La%20qualit%C3%A9%20de%20%C2%AB%20soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9%20%C3%A0,fonctionnement%20pour%20garantir%20leur%20atteinte.
[126] EURICSE (2024), Report on Council Regulation (EC) No. 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 - Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE). Synthesis Report, https://euricse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Synthesis-report-on-Council-Regulation-No.-1435.2003-Statute-for-a-European-Cooperative-Society.pdf.
[74] European Commission (2024), Benchmarking the socio-economic performance of the EU social economy - Improving the socio-economic knowledge of the proximity and social economy ecosystem.
[102] European Commission (2024), List of awarded microfinance institutions.
[129] European Commission (2023), Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European cross-border associations.
[37] European Commission (2023), “Relevant taxation frameworks for Social Economy Entities”.
[26] European Commission (2020), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report.
[23] European Commission (2019), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Czech Republic, Publications Office of the European Union.
[83] European Commission (2016), Buying green! A handbook on green public procurement.
[80] European Commission (n.d.), About the EU Ecolabel, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/about-eu-ecolabel_en.
[79] European Commission (n.d.), Coop Italia – EU Ecolabel inspires culture change in supermarket chain, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/articles-and-success-stories/cultivating-sustainability-coop-italias-transformation-eu-ecolabel-supermarket-practices_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[101] European Commission (n.d.), European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision, https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/funding/microfinance-and-social-enterprise-finance/european-code-good-conduct-microcredit-provision_en#:~:text=The%20Code%20aims%20to%20set,their%20internal%20processes%20and%20operati.
[54] European Commission (n.d.), Mutual Learning Programme Database of National Labour Market Practices. Finland - Finnish Social Enterprise Mark, https://ec.europa.eu/social/PDFServlet?mode=mlpPractice&practiceId=85.
[130] European Commission (n.d.), Mutual recognition of goods, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/goods/free-movement-sectors/mutual-recognition-goods_en.
[113] European Commission (n.d.), Sustainability-related disclosure in the financial services sector, https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/disclosures/sustainability-related-disclosure-financial-services-sector_en.
[128] European Parliament (2013), European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on the Statute for a European mutual society (2012/2039(INL)).
[99] European Securities and Markets Authority (2024), AIF/EuSEF/EuVECA funds register, https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/searchRegister?core=esma_registers_funds.
[97] European Union (2013), Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European social entrepreneurship funds.
[127] European Union (2012), Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the Statute for a European Foundation (FE) /* COM/2012/035 final - 2012/0022 (APP) */.
[100] European Union (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 th, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52011DC0682.
[124] European Union (n.d.), Single market, https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/single-market_en.
[116] FAIR (2023), Périmètre de FAIR : la finance à impact social, https://www.finance-fair.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/P%C3%A9rim%C3%A8tre%20de%20FAIR%20MAJ23.pdf.
[94] FAIR - Finance à impact social (2024), Guide du label Finansol, https://www.finance-fair.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Guide%20du%20label%20finansol%202024_1.pdf.
[93] FAIR - Finance à impact social (2024), Zoom 2024 sur la finance solidaire., FAIR., https://www.finance-fair.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Zoom%202024%20sur%20la%20finance%20solidaire_0.pdf.
[92] FAIR - Finance à impact social (n.d.), A label, what for ?, https://www.finance-fair.org/fr/node/71.
[95] FAIR - Finance à impact social (n.d.), Quels sont les placements labellisés Finansol?, https://www.finance-fair.org/fr/quels-sont-les-placements-labellises-finansol.
[96] FAIR – Finance à impact social (2025), 23e édition du Baromètre de la finance solidaire 2025 : + 2 milliards d’euros pour la finance solidaire !, https://www.finance-fair.org/fr/actualites/23e-edition-du-barometre-de-la-finance-solidaire-2025-2-milliards-deuros-pour-la-finance.
[91] Finance solidaire (n.d.), Toutes les entreprises du label, https://labelfinancesolidaire.be/entreprises-label/.
[90] Financité (2023), Règlement du label finance solidaire, https://labelfinancesolidaire.be/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Reglement-du-label-finance-solidaire-20230207.pdf.
[88] France Stratégie (2022), Affichage social sur les biens et services, https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-2022-rse-avis-affichage_social_sur_les_biens_et_service-fevrier.pdf.
[136] French Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty (2024), Economie sociale et solidaire : qu’est-ce que l’agrément « Entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale » ?, https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/agrement-entreprise-solidaire-utilite-sociale-ess.
[43] Gazeley, T., T. Bennett and W. Dupain (2025), The State of Social Enterprise in Europe: European Social Enterprise Monitor 2023-2024.
[21] Geormas, K. and N. Glaveli (2019), The Undelivered Potential of the Greek, Economic Crisis Born, Social and Solidarity Economy for People-Centred Local Sustainable Development. The Case of GReek Social Cooperative Enterprises, https://knowledgehub.unsse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/133_Geormas_Greek-Social-Cooperative-Enterprises_En.pdf.
[22] Greek Government (n.d.), Register of Social and Solidarity Economy Entities, https://www.gov.gr/ipiresies/epikheirematike-drasterioteta/adeiodoteseis-kai-summorphose/metroo-phoreon-koinonikes-kai-allelegguas-oikonomias.
[139] Greek National Registry of Administrative Procedures (2025), Establishment and registration in the General Register of Bodies of Social Cooperative Enterprise or Workers’ Cooperative, https://mitos.gov.gr/index.php/%CE%94%CE%94:%CE%A3%CF%8D%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%B5%CE%B3%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%86%CE%AE_%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF_%CE%93%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C_%CE%9C%CE%B7%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8E%CE%BF_%CE%A6%CE%BF%.
[76] Green Key (n.d.), Benefits of Our Certificate, https://www.greenkey.global/why-green-key.
[75] Green Key (n.d.), Green Key Criteria, https://www.greenkey.global/criteria.
[118] Guerini, M. and A. Quas (2016), “Governmental venture capital in Europe: Screening and certification”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31, pp. 175-195.
[7] Hulgård, L. and L. Chodorkoff (2019), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Denmark, European Commission.
[147] Impact Luxembourg (2025), IMPACT LUXEMBOURG – SOCIÉTÉ D’IMPACT SOCIÉTAL, https://www.impactluxembourg.lu/fr/obtenir-le-label/.
[138] Impact Score (n.d.), Impact Score - Tout Comprendre, https://www.impactscore.fr/tout-comprendre.
[73] Impact Score (n.d.), Tout comprendre, https://www.impactscore.fr/tout-comprendre.
[72] Impact Score. (n.d.), Impact Score: A French platform for environmental, social, and governance assessment., https://www.impactscore.fr.
[143] Innovation Agency Lithuania (2025), Obtaining social business status, https://socialinisverslas.inovacijuagentura.lt/socialinio-verslo-statuso-igijimas/.
[17] Inovacijų agentūra (2025), Socialiniai verslai [Social businesses], https://socialinisverslas.inovacijuagentura.lt/businesses/?searchInput=&municipalities=§or=&status=1.
[81] Ipsos European Public Affairs (2023), Flash Eurobarometer 535 The EU Ecolabel Report.
[107] Ipsos European Public Affairs (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 509. Retail financial services and products. Report.
[140] Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (n.d.), Impresa Sociale, https://www.lavoro.gov.it/temi-e-priorita/terzo-settore-e-responsabilita-sociale-imprese/focus-on/impresa-sociale/pagine/default.
[55] Kaisu, P. et al. (2025), European Social Enterprise Monitor. Raportti Suomen kyselyn tuloksista 2023–2024, https://knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/2025/02/10/finnish-social-enterprise-monitor/.
[109] Label ISR (2025), Les fonds labellisés, https://www.lelabelisr.fr/comment-investir/fonds-labellises/.
[108] Label ISR (n.d.), Quelles sont les exigences du Label ISR?, https://www.lelabelisr.fr/faq/quelles-sont-les-exigences-du-label-isr/.
[12] Latvian Ministry of Welfare (2025), Sociālo uzņēmumu reģistrs, https://www.lm.gov.lv/lv/socialo-uznemumu-registrs.
[11] Latvian Ministry of Welfare (n.d.), Social Entrepreneurship, https://www.lm.gov.lv/lv/sociala-uznemejdarbiba-1.
[78] Laubinger, F. and P. Börkey (2021), “Labelling and Information Schemes for the Circular Economy”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/abb32a06-en.
[19] Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2025), Directory, https://economie-sociale-solidaire.public.lu/en/decouvrir/annuaire-de-l-ess.html.
[18] Le gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2021), Société d’impact sociétal (SIS), https://guichet.public.lu/fr/entreprises/creation-developpement/forme-juridique/societe-capitaux/societe-impact-societal.html.
[34] Lex.bg (2007), ЗАКОН ЗА КОРПОРАТИВНОТО ПОДОХОДНО ОБЛАГАНЕ [CORPORATE INCOME TAX ACT], https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135540562.
[14] Licite-Kurbe, L. and L. Groma (2021), “Evaluation of social enterprise criteria in Latvia”, Research for Rural Development, Research for Rural Development 2021 : annual 27th International scientific conference proceedings, Vol. 36, pp. 226-232, https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.27.2021.032.
[16] Lietuvos Respublikos ekonomikos ir inovacijų ministerija (2024), Dėl Socialinio verslo subjekto statuso įgijimo ir netekimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo [On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Acquisition and Loss of the Status of a Social Business Entity], https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/24be6d92867511ef84ff9693ecd03ff5?positionInSearchResults=0&searchModelUUID=a27c08fa-1eae-4f2d-8b04-2880cfd98833.
[38] Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas (2022), Republic of Lithuania Law on Development of Non-governmental Organisations, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/6d325472a0c111ec9e62f960e3ee1cb6?jfwid=9h3zy9ph.
[114] Magaeva, K., P. Engelen and L. Van Liedekerke (2023), “New Trends in European Sustainable Finance Labels”, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4688587.
[85] Merbah, N. and S. Benito-Hernández (2024), “Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Sustainable Coffee: Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Fairtrade and UTZ Certification”, Sustainability, Vol. 16/8.
[110] Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de la Décentralisation (2025), Le label Greenfin, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/label-greenfin.
[3] Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique (2024), Economie sociale et solidaire : qu’est-ce que l’agrément « Entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale » ?, https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/agrement-entreprise-solidaire-utilite-sociale-ess.
[132] Ministry of Economy Belgium (2024), Recognition as a Social Enterprise, https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/starting-business/steps-starting-business/forms-companies/cooperative-societies/recognition-social-enterprise.
[25] Ministry of Enterprises (2025), Albo Cooperative, https://portaledati.mimit.gov.it/banca-dati/albo_coop.
[146] Ministry of Labour and Social Economy (n.d.), Empresas de Inserción, https://www.mites.gob.es/es/sec_trabajo/autonomos/economia-social/EmpresasInsercion/index.htm.
[56] Möslein, F. and M. Burgi (eds.) (2021), Zertifizierung nachhaltiger Kapitalgesellschaften: Regimevergleich und flankierende Maßnahmen [Certification of sustainable corporations: regime comparison and accompanying measures], Mohr Siebeck.
[35] Mujica Filippi, J. et al. (2021), Purpose-driven companies and the regulation of the fourth sector in Ibero-America. Continental Europe Jurisdictional Report.
[29] National Employment Agency (2025), Registrul unic de evidență a întreprinderilor sociale [Single register of social enterprises], https://www.anofm.ro/registrul-unic-de-evidenta-a-intreprinderilor-sociale/.
[60] Nativa, I. et al. (2024), Ricerca Nazionale sulle Società Benefit 2025, https://www.societabenefit.net/ricerca-nazionale-sulle-societa-benefit/#downlod-ricerca-2024.
[59] Nativa, I. et al. (2024), Ricerca Nazionale sulle Società Benefit 2024. Partie 1. Risultati analisi descrittiva e di redditività.
[104] Novethic (2023), Fonds durables labellisés en Europe, https://www.novethic.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_ausynovethicetudes/pdf_complets/Novethic_octobre_2023_plus_de_2000_fonds_labellises_aux_promesses_confuses.pdf.
[103] Novethic (2022), Panorama des labels européens de finance durable. L’influence de la réglementation eropéene, https://www.novethic.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Novethic_Panorama_des_Labels_2022_Mai_Etude_FR.pdf.
[63] Observatoire des sociétés à mission (n.d.), Sociétés à mission référencées, https://www.observatoiredessocietesamission.com/societes-a-mission-referencees/.
[131] OECD (2024), “Insights from social and solidarity economy data: An international perspective”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2024/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/71d212f3-en.
[46] OECD (2023), Country Fact Sheet: Netherlands, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/social-economy-and-social-innovation/country-fact-sheets/country-fact-sheet-netherlands.pdf.
[105] OECD (2023), “Financial consumers and sustainable finance: Policy implications and approaches”, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 32, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/318d0494-en.
[36] OECD (2023), Policy Guide on Legal Frameworks for the Social and Solidarity Economy, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9c228f62-en.
[123] OECD (2023), “Promoting internationalisation of the social and solidarity economy: From local to global”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2023/12, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7287db10-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Designing Legal Frameworks for Social Enterprises: Practical Guidance for Policy Makers, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/172b60b2-en.
[106] OECD (2022), “Unlocking the potential of youth-led social enterprises”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2022/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5bddad8-en.
[98] OECD (2015), Social Impact Investment: Building the Evidence Base, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233430-en.
[77] OECD/European Commission (2022), “Policy brief on making the most of the social economy’s contribution to the circular economy”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2022/01, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9eea313-en.
[50] People and Planet First (n.d.), Get Verified, https://peopleandplanetfirst.org/get-verified/.
[51] People and Planet First (n.d.), Verified Enterprise Directory, https://verified.peopleandplanetfirst.org/directory.
[47] PHINEO (n.d.), The Seal of Impact, https://www.phineo.org/en/seal-of-impact.
[40] Registrų centras (2025), JAR pirminiai duomenys (raw data), https://www.registrucentras.lt/p/1094.
[49] RESSOURCES (n.d.), Rec’UP, https://www.res-sources.be/fr/recup/.
[119] Rivero Santos, A. (2017), “Contributions of Social Currencies to Alternative Short Food Supply Chains”, Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, Vol. 2/1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.2134/urbanag2016.07.0005.
[28] Romanian Government (2015), Romanian Law on Social Economy (Law No. 219/2015), https://mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/2014-domenii/munca/economia-sociala?highlight=WyJlY29ub21pZSIsInNvY2lhbCJd.
[145] Social Economy in Slovakia (2023), Registration of a social enterprise, https://socialnypodnik.gov.sk/registracia-socialneho-podniku/index.html.
[142] Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia (SEAL) (2021), How to get social enterprise status?, https://sua.lv/en/how-to-get-social-enterprise-status/.
[121] Sol Violette (2025), Sol Violette, https://sol-violette.fr/.
[120] Sol Violette (n.d.), Nos défis, https://sol-violette.fr/nos-defis/.
[48] Solid’R (n.d.), About Us., https://www.solidr.eu/about-us/.
[82] TNS Political (2017), Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment.
[112] Towards Sustainability (n.d.), A sustainable product for everyone, https://towardssustainability.be/products.
[111] Towards Sustainability (n.d.), The Quality Standard for sustainable investing, https://towardssustainability.be/the-label/quality-standard.
[117] UNCARSR (n.d.), Despre noi [About us], https://www.uncar.ro/despre-noi.aspx.
[39] Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (2025), DĖL LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS LABDAROS IR PARAMOS ĮSTATYMO 7 STRAIPSNIO PAKEITIMO, https://www.vmi.lt/evmi/documents/20142/737112/06200.pdf/1d886bfb-1792-edc0-2478-6e620084f015?t=1655726955121.
[30] Vamesu, A. (2021), Annual research report on the Social economy in Romania. Barometer of the Social Economy in Romania =, https://alaturidevoi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Barometer-of-the-social-economy-in-Romania.pdf.
[61] Ventura, L. (2022), “Social Enterprises and Benefit Corporations in Italy”, in The International Handbook of Social Enterprise Law, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14216-1_31.
[89] WWF and Greenpeace (2021), Étude de démarches de durabilité dans le domaine alimentaire. Raport d’analyse transverse, https://cdn.greenpeace.fr/site/uploads/2021/09/Etude-demarches-durabilites-GREENPEACE_WWF-BASIC-1.pdf.
[15] Žebrytė, I. and V. Bražiūnaitė (2025), European Social Enterprise Monitor Lithuanian Report, https://knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/2025/03/13/lithuanian-social-enterprise-monitor-2023-2024/.