Labels are most effective when (i) their standards are aligned with their purpose, (ii) they have transparent and thorough verification mechanisms, (iii) they are widely recognised among stakeholders, and (iv) they are periodically evaluated. This section provides practical step-by-step guidance that is aimed at policy makers but can also be used by private label mangers when designing, implementing and evaluating labels for the social economy. Each phase is divided into distinct yet interconnected steps that policy makers are likely to face when managing labels for the social economy. Every step, in turn, is followed by guiding questions with some non-exhaustive examples of possible answers.
Labels for the Social Economy
Abstract
This section provides practical step-by-step guidance on the critical stages for social economy labels. While this guidance is primarily aimed at policy makers, it can also be relevant for private labels used by social economy entities.
The guidance follows the typical cycle of managing a label, which consists of three phases: design considerations, implementation strategies and evaluation approaches (Figure 3.1). Each phase is divided into distinct yet interconnected steps that policy makers are likely to face when managing labels for the social economy. The three phases do not necessarily occur in a chronological order; for instance, evaluation can take place throughout the label cycle and can provide evidence to implement changes at each stage. Throughout the label management cycle, consultations and communication campaigns can enhance the label’s relevance, credibility and recognition. Each action is followed by guiding questions that policy makers can ask when managing labels and provides some non-exhaustive examples of possible answers.
Source: Author’s elaboration
The guidance builds on good practices and learnings from various types of labels, including public and private labels. It also considers labels that are specific to the social economy and those that are not aimed at social economy entities but adopt some practices that can be used for labels that are specific to the social economy. The different types of labels covered in the guidance are summarised in Box 3.1.
Public labels that are specific to the social economy
Public labels that are specific to the social economy are often aimed at social enterprises. These labels are developed by public actors to identify social economy entities, target policy measures and enhance their visibility. They can apply to a broad range of social economy entities (e.g. ESUS accreditation in France, Societal Impact Companies in Luxembourg) or specific types of entities such as co-operatives (e.g. Social Enterprise accreditation in Belgium, Social Co-operative Enterprise mark in Greece) and work integration social enterprises (WISEs). The key criteria for these labels are the pursuit of a social mission, a (partial) profit lock (sometimes with an asset lock), consideration of stakeholder interests and periodic reporting.
Private labels that are specific to the social economy
Private labels that are specific to the social economy tend to emerge in countries with limited public recognition of social enterprises. They are often developed by grassroot movements or network organisations. The main aim of private labels is to facilitate recognition, enhance visibility, support identification and improve access to markets for social economy entities. For example, in the Netherlands, the Social Enterprise Code serves as a recognition tool for social enterprises in the absence of a legal status. The requirements for these labels include the pursuit of a social mission, stakeholder engagement and limits on profit distribution. Some private labels, such as Rec’Up in Belgium aimed at social economy circular economy entities, can apply to products and services.
Broader impact labels
Broader impact labels can be used by a wide range of organisations to signal their adherence to social or environmental standards. Labels for purpose-driven companies (e.g. Benefit Corporation designation in Italy, Mission-Driven Company status in France, B Corp certification), unlike specific labels for the social economy, do not have a profit lock requirement and therefore cannot be used to identify social economy organisations. Product-based labels such as the EU Ecolabel and Fairtrade are not specific to the social economy but can be used by social economy entities to attract socially and environmentally conscious consumers.
Financial labels
Financial labels can help to identify financial products or organisations supporting social economy entities. For example, the Finansol label (France) identifies financial products with a significant social impact that often finance social economy organisations. At EU level, the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF) label identifies funds investing in social businesses and the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision provides standards for microfinance providers across Europe. Broader environmental, social and governance (ESG) finance labels such as ISR (France), Greenfin (France) and Towards Sustainability (Belgium) are used to label sustainable financial products that are not focused on supporting the social economy.
Source: Author’s elaboration
1.1. Define the label’s purpose
Why is it important?
Labels serve various purposes, including identifying entities, channelling policy measures, enhancing consumer trust, or promoting socially and environmentally responsible consumption. The specific goal of a label influences its target audience, criteria and implementation strategies. For example, when a label’s primary aim is to identify social enterprises eligible for preferential tax treatment (such as the public benefit organisation status in Denmark and Hungary or the ESUS accreditation in France), the criteria are likely to include requirements related to public benefit, a worthy purpose, and/or a profit lock (OECD, 2020[1]). Conversely, if a label's main goal is to foster consumer trust and promote socially and environmentally conscious consumption (such as Ecolabel or Fairtrade), its standards focus more on product characteristics. Furthermore, these labels often place a greater emphasis on having an easily recognisable logo.
What can policy makers consider?
1.1.1. How can stakeholder needs be assessed to determine the label’s goals?
Social economy entities are more likely to use and comply with label criteria if these labels directly align with their needs. To determine the needs, policy makers or other label managers can conduct consultations with social economy networks or expert councils such as the High Council for the Social Economy in France, the Spanish Social Economy Employers’ Confederation (CEPES) and ADV Foundation in Romania. They can also rely on survey information such as the European Social Enterprise Monitor conducted in several European countries (30 in the 2023-2024 edition) or national surveys such as the Social Economy Barometer in Romania (ADV Romania, 2022[2]; European Social Enterprise Monitor, 2025[3]). The information from consultations and surveys can be complemented by framework conditions outlined in regional, national and international strategies such as the Aragon Region Plan for the Promotion of the Social Economy for 2022-2025 in Spain, the Strategy for Social Enterprises in Finland, the OECD Recommendation on the Social and Solidarity Economy and Social Innovation, and the EU Council recommendation on developing social economy framework conditions (Government of Aragon, n.d.[4]; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2022[5]; OECD, 2022[6]; Council of the European Union, 2023[7]).
Label managers can also consult or study other stakeholders, such as investors and consumers, to understand their preferences and estimate the potential demand for the label. For instance, FAIR, the manager of the Finansol label, and France Active conduct yearly population surveys to understand solidarity saving trends in France (Opinionway, 2024[8]; Opinionway, 2023[9]).
Labels can address some of the needs by identifying relevant entities or products that qualify for policy measures, guiding consumer and investor decisions, and encouraging labelled entities to measure their impact. For instance, the public benefit organisation status in several EU countries gives labelled entities access to preferential tax treatment thus freeing up some financial resources to dedicate to their initiatives. The Solid’R label in Belgium and the social enterprise status in Latvia give access to public procurement incentives, helping labelled entities to access markets. Moreover, periodic reporting requirements can encourage social economy organisations to measure their impact, facilitating their communication with stakeholders.
1.1.2. What complementary policies or incentives exist to meet the needs?
The introduction of a label needs to be supported by a well-functioning policy framework to encourage its adoption. This is particularly true for labels with policy measures tied to them such as public benefit status in many EU countries for tax measures and social enterprise status for procurement (such as the ESUS accreditation in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia, WISE status in Romania), public funding (such as ESUS in France, Social enterprise status in Latvia, Social Enterprise label in Bulgaria), business support services (such as the ESUS accreditation, Social Enterprise status in Latvia), and fiscal incentives (for example, the ESUS accreditation in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia). If, for instance, a label gives access to public procurement opportunities but in practice, social economy entities or civil servants are not aware of this advantage or are not familiar with social procurement, the label is less likely to be adopted. Moreover, if other policy areas, such as financial instruments for the social economy, are not developed, it is challenging to tie them to the label. Clear and effectively implemented incentives tied to the label strongly encourage its adoption. For example, the number of registered NGOs in Lithuania has increased from over 6 000 at end-2024 to more than 16 000 in June 2025, following the introduction of a requirement to be registered as an NGO to benefit from a voluntary allocation of up to 1.2% of an individual’s income tax (Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, 2025[10]; Registrų centras, 2025[11]).
1.2. Develop standards1
Why is it important?
Standards define the information that the label aims to convey, determine the eligibility of entities or products for the label and influence the measures that can be tied to the label. Clear standards are particularly important for labels that are specific to the social economy as the social economy is often mixed up with concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), purpose-driven companies and social innovation, among others (OECD, 2023[12]). A key differentiating standard for social economy-specific labels is the (partial) profit lock requirement (e.g. the ESUS accreditation in France, Social Enterprise status in Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania, Social Enterprise accreditation for co-operatives in Belgium, Registered Social Enterprise label in Denmark, Societal Impact Companies with impact shares in Luxembourg, Social Co-operative mark in Greece). This standard differentiates social enterprises from mission-driven companies and makes them eligible for preferential fiscal treatment (e.g. ESUS in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia, Social Impact Companies with 100% impact shares in Luxembourg). Social economy labels also usually have criteria related to inclusive governance and stakeholder involvement (e.g. Registered Social Enterprise label in Denmark, the ESUS accreditation in France, Social Enterprise label in Bulgaria) and sometimes an asset lock requirement (e.g. Belgian co-operatives recognised as social enterprises and Italian social enterprises) that prevents labelled entities, in the event of liquidation, from distributing its surpluses to shareholders (Mujica Filippi et al., 2021[13]). It is also important to allow for adjustments of standards that may be necessary during implementation to address challenges or comply with regulations.
What can policy makers consider?
1.2.1. What standards and labels already exist?
Specific labels for the social economy are not numerous compared to broader impact labels. However, having several labels (specific labels for the social economy and broader impact labels) with similar criteria in one country can lead to confusion among stakeholders and increase the administrative burden for targeted organisations. Focus groups and interviews conducted for this work confirm this finding.
It is, therefore, best if labels complement or supersede existing identification tools to reduce the administrative burden for the labelled entities and minimise confusion. Additionally, research on consumer focused product labels shows that proliferation of labels with different standards and assessment methods risks confusing stakeholders and reducing trust in the labels and labelled products (France Stratégie, 2022[14]; WWF and Greenpeace, 2021[15]).
In some countries, labels developed by private entities can support the emergence of public labels. For instance, in the Netherlands, the private Social Enterprise Code acts as a blueprint for the potential social enterprise legal form (Social Private Limited Company - BVm). B Lab and the B Corp movement campaigned for the introduction of a benefit corporation legal status (not aimed at social economy) in more than 50 countries worldwide, including in Italy (introduced in 2016), France (introduced in 2019) and Spain (introduced in 2022) (B Lab, n.d.[16]). Drawing inspiration from existing private initiatives can facilitate the reflection of stakeholder needs and allow public authorities to learn from successes or challenges experienced with the private label. Moreover, it can allow for a smooth transition between labels. A legal status can also be used to meet the requirements of private labels. For example, the benefit corporation legal status can be used by a company to meet the legal requirement for the B Corp certification.
International definitions and standards can provide criteria and best practices for labels, facilitating their comparability and expansion across borders. Specific labels for the social economy can include standards from international social economy definitions. For example, the criteria for the Register of Social Enterprises in Denmark, the ESUS accreditation in France and the private Dutch Social Enterprise Code are based on the social enterprise definition in the EU Social Business Initiative (Hulgård and Chodorkoff, 2019[17]). Broader impact labels can use or be aligned with international sustainability and social impact standards (Box 3.2).
Social economy definitions set by international organisations
Social enterprise definition in the EU Social Business Initiative
The 2011 EU Social Business Initiative defines social enterprises as entities that prioritise social impact over profit. They operate in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion, reinvesting profits to achieve social objectives, and are managed through open and inclusive governance. This definition was used as the basis for the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands and is aligned with the criteria for the ESUS accreditation in France and Registered Social Enterprises in Denmark.
OECD definition of the social economy
The OECD defines the social economy as organisations (e.g. associations, co-operatives, mutual societies, foundations, and social enterprises) that are “driven by societal objectives, values of solidarity, the primacy of people over capital and, in most cases, by democratic and participative governance”.
EU definition of the social economy
The EU defines the social economy as a range of entities with the following overarching characteristics: “the primacy of people as well as social and/or environmental purpose over profit, the reinvestment of most of the profits and surpluses to carry out activities in the interest of members/users (“collective interest”) or society at large (“general interest”) and democratic and/or participatory governance”.
ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems
ISEAL is an international non-profit organisation that codifies best practices for the development of social and environmental standards. ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems defines practices for programs designed to measure and verify sustainability performance. The Code defines the key components of sustainability systems: standard-setting, assurance, monitoring and evaluation, and claims. ISEAL Community Members such as Greenseal, GOTS or GoodWeave, abide by ISEAL’s Code of Conduct. ISEAL Code Compliant organisations, such as Fairtrade International and Rainforest Alliance, go a step further by implementing ISEAL’s Standards-Setting, Impacts and Assurance Codes of Good Practice. Companies undergoing the B Lab Impact Assessment for the B Corp certification can automatically get credit if they are certified by any full ISEAL member.
ISO standards
Labels can comply with the standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO standards are created by international expert groups and provide a benchmark for businesses and public authorities to design and implement their own labels. ISO has not developed any standards specific to the social economy, however, several ISO standards are relevant for broader impact labels. For example, ISO 14024 standard on Type I environmental labelling sets principles for choosing product groups, criteria, compliance assessment and certification procedures for voluntary environmental labelling programmes such as the EU Ecolabel. In addition, ISO has developed a series of standards on the circular economy such as ISO 59020 on measuring and assessing circularity performance. The ISO Code of Good Practice for Standardization, used by B Lab, aims to ensure that standards are designed and implemented transparently and inclusively. As of March 2025, ISO is developing a standard for purpose-driven organisations.
Sources: ISEAL (2025[18]), OECD (2023[12]), European Union (2021[19]), B Impact Assessment (2020[20]), ISO (2018[21]), European Union (2011[22]), European Commission (n.d.[23]), ISO (n.d[24]), ISO (n.d[25]), Hulgård and Chodorkoff (2019[17])
1.2.2. Who can be involved?
Label managers can consult social economy entities and other label beneficiaries to reflect their needs and expertise in the standards. Public authorities usually consult a wide range of stakeholders, such as social economy entities, networks, advocacy groups and intermediaries, national and subnational policy makers from relevant ministries and departments, and academia on social economy laws that introduce a label (OECD, 2023[26]). For instance, Slovakia engaged in a two-year long consultation process to collect views from academics, social enterprises and (local) governments before adopting the Act on Social Economy and Social Enterprises in 2018, which introduced the Registered Social Enterprise status (OECD, 2023[26]; European Commission, 2020[27]). The Brussels-Capital region in Belgium ran a two-year consultation process with the Brussels Employment Office Actiris, the Brussels Social Economy Consultation Platform and additional stakeholders, including academics, social enterprise federations and individual social enterprises, before introducing the 2018 Ordinance on Social Enterprises (OECD, 2023[26]). Policy makers can also organise consultations specific to legal statuses. For example, the Dutch authorities conducted a public consultation with companies and the broader public on the proposed BVm legal scheme for social enterprises (Argyrou, Lambooy and van Schaik, 2024[28]).
Private label managers also conduct stakeholder consultations to determine their standards. For example, the update of the Dutch Social Enterprise Code’s standards will involve a consultation with social enterprises. The criteria for the Finnish Social Enterprise Mark were drawn up after an extensive consultation with stakeholders (European Commission, n.d.[29]). B Lab has conducted two consultations on the proposed change of standards for the B Corp certification with over 1 000 stakeholders, including existing and potential B Corps, other businesses, academics and civil society/NGOs (B Lab, n.d.[30]).
The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision was introduced after a consultation in the form of six workshops that were attended by microcredit providers, trade associations, academics and regulators. The workshops were complemented by six online questionnaires, circulation of draft versions for comments and meetings with European microfinance networks (European Commission, 2021[31]).
Labels can have independent expert committees that oversee standard development. For example, the principles for the Dutch Social Enterprise Code were developed by an autonomous commission of academics and practitioners. B Lab has a Standards Advisory Council, an independent body of experts in areas such as impact-driven companies, impact measurement and impact finance, among others, responsible for supporting the standard development process. Regional Advisory Groups aim to make sure that B Corp standards are applicable to a wide range of international contexts. The Multinational Standards Advisory Body is responsible for multinational company standards. The standards for ISR and Greenfin financial labels in France are developed and updated in consultation with label committees (Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de la Décentralisation, 2025[32]; Label ISR, n.d.[33]; Label ISR, n.d.[34]). The Advisory Commission gives advice to the Board of Directors on updates to the criteria of the Towards Sustainability financial label in Belgium (Towards Sustainability, n.d.[35]).
1.2.3. What is the scope of the standards?
The scope of the standards depends on the label’s purpose such as identification of social economy entities, channelling of preferential tax treatment or recognition of for-profit businesses that aim to have a positive social and/or environmental impact. If the main purpose is to identify social enterprises or co-operatives (e.g. the ESUS status accreditation in France, Social Enterprise Register in Denmark, Social Enterprise status in Bulgaria, Social Enterprise status for co-operatives in Belgium), the criteria typically include the defining characteristics of social enterprises such as profit lock and inclusive governance. If the main purpose is to channel preferential tax treatment (e.g. public benefit organisations), the standards tend to focus on a “worthy purpose” requirement, public as opposed to individual benefit and profit re-investment (OECD, 2020[1]). The labels that aim to identify entities that help with work integration (e.g. WISE statuses) usually have a requirement on the share of disadvantaged workers in the total workforce. If the label’s purpose is to identify commercial companies that engage in sustainable practices (e.g. B Corp certification, purpose-driven companies), the standards usually do not include a profit lock requirement. Labels that aim to facilitate responsible and sustainable consumption (e.g. EU Ecolabel, organic labels) focus on product characteristics. Financial labels, depending on their purpose, aim to strike a particular balance between the focus on financial and social/environmental return.
When determining the scope of the standards, label managers face a trade-off between the label’s universality and specificity. For instance, social enterprise labels (such as the ESUS accrediation in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia, Societal Impact Companies in Luxembourg) can include criteria such as a clearly defined social purpose, inclusive governance and a profit lock requirement that can be applied to a broad range of organisations. Similarly, the criteria for public benefit statuses in many EU countries, NGO (Lithuania) or charity (Ireland) labels can be applied to different legal forms. Some social enterprise labels are more restrictive as they can only be applied to co-operatives (e.g. Social Enterprise national accreditation scheme in Belgium, Social Co-operative Enterprise mark in Greece, A-type social co-operatives in Italy) or enterprises employing vulnerable individuals (e.g. Social Enterprise status in Bulgaria, WISE statuses in Romania and Spain).
Some private labels (e.g. Dutch Social Enterprise Code, People and Planet First verification) rely on broader standards that are based on principles. Principles usually do not have predetermined thresholds such as the share of disadvantaged workers or salaries. This can make the label applicable to a wide range of organisations and national contexts. Nevertheless, broad standards can make it more difficult for stakeholders to narrow down organisations based on specific criteria.
To address this trade-off, labels can have some core overarching principles that must be met by all labelled entities or products and include a subset of standards adapted to different contexts. For example, the Social Enterprise status in Bulgaria distinguishes between Type A and Type A+ social enterprises. Type A+ social enterprises must meet all the Type A requirements that include social impact, inclusive governance, profit reinvestment and employment of disadvantaged individuals and meet one of the three additional conditions that include local impact, larger profit reinvestment and continuous employment of people with disadvantaged backgrounds (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[36]). In Italy, A-type social co-operatives engage in social welfare and educational activities and B-type co-operatives focus on work integration of disadvantaged workers (Borgaza, 2020[37]).
All companies (outside of the social economy) wishing to undergo the B Corp certification must complete the B Impact Assessment that focuses on (i) governance, (ii) workers, (iii) community, (iv) environment and (v) customers (under the old standards) or (i) purpose and governance, (ii) fair work, (iii) justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, (iv) human rights, (v) climate action, (vi) environmental stewardship and circularity, and (vii) government affairs and collective action (under the new standards) (B Lab, 2025[38]). The ways in which the criteria must be met depend on the company’s size and sector. For example, in the Human Rights Impact topic, smaller organisations are required to take into account human rights when making procurement decisions, whereas bigger companies need to develop a supplier engagement and monitoring strategy, among other requirements. Under the Equity mechanism, companies operating in countries where their ability to meet B Corp standards may be affected by cultural, regulatory or geographical barriers can avoid meeting 10-15% of sub-requirements (B Impact Assessment, 2025[39]).
However, having subsets of standards for different entities can cause confusion among stakeholders over what the label is aiming to signal. Clarity is particularly important in the context of the social economy, as it is often mixed up with concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), purpose-driven companies and social innovation, among others (OECD, 2023[12]). If a label aims to identify social economy entities, one of the core requirements should be the reinvestment of profits into the organisation’s purpose. The subset standards, can, for example, focus on work integration activities to differentiate work integration social enterprises (WISEs) from others.
The standards need to be clear, both for the targeted entities and broader stakeholders. All standards should be publicly available to ensure transparency and allow entities to prepare for the labelling process. A common practice (e.g. Finansol in France, Dutch Social Enterprise Code) is to have a summary of the standards on the label’s website and more detailed requirements in a separate downloadable document. The Danish Business Authority has introduced a “help area” on the registration website explaining what a Registered Social Enterprise is. Moreover, an information box with the label’s criteria appears when choosing the option to register as a social enterprise (Danish Business Authority, 2018[40]). Some standards, such as the share of profits that need to be reinvested or the share of workers from disadvantaged groups, are easily quantifiable and measured. The more qualitative standards, such as social purpose and stakeholder engagement, can be harder to understand and assess. In these cases, it is useful to provide a list of non-exhaustive examples of how the criteria can be met and identify a set of indicators for impact measurement (Conseil supérieur de l'économie sociale et solidaire, 2024[41]). A frequently asked questions (FAQs) webpage can further enhance the understanding of the label among different stakeholders. Such a webpage can be complemented by an online chatbot to answer questions, with the possibility to be transferred to a specialist if needed.
2.1. Consider relevant legal frameworks
Why is it important?
Legal frameworks allow policy makers to define the standards, implementation modalities and evaluation approaches for public labels and regulate private ones to prevent misleading label use. Public labels that are specific to the social economy are usually defined in framework laws on the social economy (e.g. Bulgaria, France, Slovakia) or specific statutory laws (e.g. Denmark, potentially the Netherlands). The measures tied to labels also need to avoid conflict with tax and competition law. For private labels, legal instruments usually protect stakeholders such as label managers, consumers, investors and businesses, from misleading label use.
What can policy makers consider?
2.1.1. Who manages the label?
Labels can be managed by either public or private entities, which can be non-profit or not-for-profit organisations. Label management includes overseeing and coordinating processes such as standard development, verification and award of the label, even if other stakeholders are involved. The review of labels conducted for this work shows that if the primary goal is to channel policy measures, in particular preferential tax treatment for entities or tax incentives for measures directed to the labelled organisations (e.g. Social Enterprise status in Latvia, the ESUS accreditation in France) or public funding (e.g. European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision), labels are usually managed by public authorities. If, on the other hand, the main goal is to increase visibility and foster interactions between labelled entities, private management can be considered (e.g. Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands, Finnish Social Enterprise Mark, People and Planet First verification). Product and financial labels can be managed by either public authorities (e.g. EU Ecolabel, EU and French organic labels, EuSEF, ISR in France) or non-profit entities (e.g. Fairtrade, co-operative product labels, Finansol in France, Towards Sustainability in Belgium). The choice between public and private management determines the laws that are relevant for the label.
2.1.2. What are the relevant laws?
Public labels for social economy entities can be introduced through social economy framework laws, specific statutory laws or SME development laws. For example, the ESUS accreditation in France was included in the 2014 Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy. The Registered Social Enterprise status in Slovakia was introduced in the 2018 Act on Social Economy and Social Enterprises (European Commission, 2020[27]). Bulgaria introduced registration for social enterprises in the 2018 Social and Solidarity-Based Enterprises Act (European Commission, 2019[42]). In Denmark, on the other hand, the Registered Social Enterprise label was introduced through the specific statutory 2014 Act on Registered Social Enterprises (European Commission, 2019[43]). In Lithuania, the Social Business status was introduced in the 2023 amendment to the law on SME development (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas, 2023[44]).
The policy measures tied to labels need to consider competition and tax law implications. In particular, tax measures and subsidies must not contradict national and international state aid and competition laws. Labels such as social enterprise or public benefit status can be a way to address diverging approaches between organisation and tax law (OECD, 2023[26]). Moreover, the labels can be used to identify entities that provide services of general economic interest and the support to which, under certain conditions, is potentially exempt from EU State Aid rules.2
Private labels usually operate without a specific legal basis and typically are governed by trademark and/or competition law. In this case, legal instruments are used to make sure that only organisations that have undergone the labelling process claim to have the label. This can be facilitated through trademark registration (e.g. B Corp certification) under trademark law or, where there is no registered trademark, benefitting from the ban on misleading advertising under competition law (e.g. PHINEO label in Germany) (Möslein, 2021[45]). From September 2026, private labels will need to comply with the requirements of the Empowering consumers for the green transition directive (Directive 825/2024/EU), which prohibits the use of sustainability labels3 unless they are based on a third-party certification scheme4 or are established by public authorities, encourages their harmonization and introduces stricter substantiation requirements for sustainability claims (EUR-Lex, 2024[46]).
2.2. Identify and mitigate risks
Why is it important?
When implementing labels, there can be several challenges and risks, including limited benefits, administrative burden, insufficient financial and administrative resources, and unclear standards. By identifying these potential risks before scaling the label, policy makers can assess its feasibility, evaluate different options and establish mechanisms to address these challenges effectively.
What can policy makers consider?
2.2.1. Can the label be tested before scaling?
Testing the label with target beneficiaries can help identify potential challenges before expanding it. This can be achieved by running pilot projects with selected beneficiaries. For example, the principles of the Dutch Social Enterprise Code were tested with a few social enterprises affiliated with Social Enterprise NL before the label was launched on a larger scale. A similar approach is expected to be implemented by the national government for the BVm legal form. The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision was tested through a pilot in 2013-2017, which led to an update of the Code’s standards in 2019. Before coming into force, the new standards were tested with 24 microcredit providers (European Commission, 2021[31]). This method can also raise awareness of the label, as the participants in the pilot projects share their experiences with others.
Label design can be assessed through behavioural experiments that evaluate how consumers behave in different situations. For instance, the European Commission conducted two experiments to evaluate the impact of different energy label designs on consumer understanding and purchasing choices. The experiments showed that the version with letters (e.g. a label that goes from A to G) was better understood and led to a more frequent choice of energy efficient products than the label with numeric scales (e.g. 30 to 100). However, the results of experiments may not necessarily hold true outside of the controlled environment such as a lab or online questionnaire (OECD, 2017[47]).
2.2.2. How can the label be made accessible?
The OECD/European Commission survey on labels for the social economy and stakeholder consultations highlighted administrative burden as one of the main challenges for the accessibility of labels. This issue impacts in particular small social economy entities, which may lack the capacity and knowledge to ensure compliance with the label requirements. To address this challenge, it is important to establish clear, publicly available standards, alongside straightforward application processes and monitoring procedures while maintaining their rigour to prevent misleading label use. Policy makers can create a publicly available guide, such as the Provider Guidelines for the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision, that explains to target entities on what happens before, during and after the assessment for the label (European Commission, 2021[31]). Additionally, public authorities could consider funding the steps necessary for compliance with these labels. For example, microfinance institutions can seek technical assistance from the Social Inclusive Finance Technical Assistance (SIFTA) under the InvestEU Advisory Hub to help implement the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision. Furthermore, support for impact measurement through initiatives such as training, resources, incubators and accelerators can enhance the ability of labelled entities to meet the reporting obligations associated with the label (OECD, 2023[48]).
2.3. Assess compliance with the standards
Why is it important?
A transparent, thorough and independent verification of compliance with standards can significantly strengthen the label’s credibility by ensuring that only eligible entities get the label. Selecting the relevant type of assessment can enhance the label's independence while managing costs and minimising the administrative burden for both the labelled entity and the label manager. Furthermore, this process provides an opportunity to engage stakeholders by including them in independent assessment and award committees. This collaboration can foster consensus on the standards and broaden the label’s impact and reach.
What can policy makers consider?
2.3.1. Who verifies compliance with the standards?
Organisations or their products are usually evaluated against the label’s standards through three different types of assessment summarised in Figure 3.7.
First-party conformity assessment involves a self-declaration by the organisation based on a self-assessment.
Second-party conformity assessment is performed by an organisation that has a direct interest in the assessed entity’s products, such as consumers or public authorities managing tenders. First- and second-party assessments usually lead to a declaration of conformity with a set of standards.
Third-party conformity assessment is performed by an independent organisation or a certifying body and results in a certification. The certifying bodies, in turn, can undergo accreditation, which assesses their ability to award certifications according to a pre-defined set of standards (IEC, ISO and UNIDO, 2023[49]; KPMG, 2023[50]). It is important to note that from September 2026, any private sustainability label in the EU will need to be assessed and awarded by a third party, in line with the requirements of the Empowering consumers for the green transition directive (Directive 825/2024/EU). The certifying body needs to comply with international, EU or national standards or procedures such as ISO 17065 ‘Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services’ (EUR-Lex, 2024[46]).
Source: Author’s elaboration
First-party conformity assessment or a self-assessment involves the labelled entity evaluating itself against its own or outside standards. This includes sustainability and social claims made by organisations without any outside verification such as CSR communication. For social economy entities, this can take the form of communication about their impact that is not verified by third parties. While such an approach is usually regulated by a ban on misleading advertising and can be less costly to implement than an outside label, it lacks an independent verification mechanism, which can undermine the label’s credibility. Moreover, as the standards are not always publicly communicated and might not be aligned with similar initiatives, self-assessed labels cannot be easily compared by stakeholders (Grigus et al., 2017[51]).
Second-party conformity assessment is common among public labels for the social economy. Public authorities usually assess compliance with their labels and tie policy measures to them. For instance, compliance with the ESUS accreditation in France is assessed 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) (Conseil supérieur de l'économie sociale et solidaire, 2024[41]). The compliance with the Social Enterprise status in Bulgaria is assessed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, 2019[36]). Such an approach allows public entities to have full control over the assessment process and possibly lowers the assessment cost as a third-party certifier does not need to be paid. However, it requires the development of internal competencies to assess compliance and well-functioning electronic systems to submit and review the necessary documents.
Private social economy labels often rely on verification by independent parties. The verification is usually conducted through an independent committee, a review by other labelled entities or, more rarely, a third-party assessment. For example, compliance with criteria for the Finnish Social Enterprise Mark and the Rec’Up label in Belgium is verified by independent committees. The verification for the Dutch Social Enterprise Code is performed by two already-registered enterprises. Compliance with criteria for the People and Planet First verification is assessed through partner networks that either review the submitted documents or award labels that match or exceed the requirements, in which case no review is needed. The compliance with the standards of the Solid’R label is verified by Forum Ethibel, an independent verification organisation. Some public labels are also managed by third-party entities. For instance, the Societal Impact Company status in Luxembourg was instituted by the Ministry of Labour but is administered and monitored by the Luxembourg Social and Solidarity Economy Union (ULESS), a third-party organisation (Impact Luxembourg, 2025[52]).
Broader impact organisation, product and financial labels are often assessed by independent third parties, resulting in a formal certification. For example, the mission of a Mission-Driven Company (Société à Mission) in France needs to be audited by an independent third-party (Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr, 2024[53]). B Lab will introduce a third-party verification mechanism for the B Corp label. The compliance with standards for the EU Ecolabel is assessed through third parties (European Commission, n.d.[23]). The compliance with the criteria for the Fairtrade label is checked by FLOCERT, an independent certification body (Fairtrade, n.d.[54]). ISR (France), Greenfin (France) and Towards Sustainability (Belgium) finance labels rely on independent third-partes to perform verification audits (Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de la Décentralisation, 2025[32]; Label ISR, n.d.[34]; Towards Sustainability, n.d.[35]). The reliance on third parties can show that the label is impartial, enhance its credibility and allow label managers to focus on other priorities. Nevertheless, third-party assessments usually incur a higher cost than other types of assessments and third-party certifiers might not have the required expertise to assess small social economy entities with a different business model to commercial companies.
Certifiers can undergo accreditation to be allowed to perform assessments. For instance, only authorised control agencies or bodies are allowed to perform the certifications for the EU organic logo (European Social Enterprise Law Association, 2015[55]). The audit for the ISR label in France can only be performed by entities accredited by COFRAC, a semi-public body that ensures the quality of certifiers. As of February 2025, the accredited entities include Afnor Certification, Deloitte and EY France (Label ISR, n.d.[34]). Such an approach can enhance the label’s credibility, especially if it has a large geographic scope. However, it also requires substantial resources for implementation, which might not be available for smaller-scale labels.
2.3.2. What documentation needs to be submitted as proof?
The submitted documentation needs to clearly show how targeted entities meet the label’s criteria while not overburdening them with administrative work. For instance, to acquire the ESUS status in France, an entity must submit its current by-laws, the extract from the Trade and Companies Register, the last three financial statements and the most recent activity report, financial projections, a statement from the company’s management confirming that its shares are not listed on financial markets, salary compliance proof and, if relevant, any proof showing the organisation’s eligibility for not justifying their social utility objective (Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique, 2024[56]). For the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands, aspiring organisations must fill out an online questionnaire and submit documents such as articles of association, the annual plan on how to achieve their mission, profile and names of their stakeholders, the renumeration policy, among others, all of which must be published on the company’s website (Commissie Code Sociale Ondernemingen, 2017[57]). The evaluation of the Danish Act on Registered Social Economy Enterprises shows that smaller and newer entities have issues with uploading the right documents. To overcome this challenge, the Danish Business Authority created a guidance on the registration process (Danish Business Authority, 2018[40]).
2.3.3. How is the label awarded?
Labels are often awarded by or after consulting expert commissions that discuss and evaluate the results of the verification. For example, the Social Enterprise status in Latvia is awarded by the Ministry of Welfare after a consultation with the Social Enterprise Commission, which includes representatives from five ministries and five individuals nominated by associations and foundations (Latvian Cabinet of Ministers, 2018[58]). The decision to include an entity in the register of the Dutch Social Enterprise Code is taken by an Independent Board based on the report from two peer-reviewers. The committee for the Finansol label in France meets six to nine times a year to evaluate new applications. The certificate of compliance with the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit provision is awarded by the Code Steering Group, which includes voting members (European Commission and industry representatives) and non-voting members (EIF, EIB and Microfinanza Rating), based on the evaluation performed by a third-party (Microfinanza Rating). The Eligibility Commission for the Towards Sustainability label in Belgium gives its opinion on label award based on evaluation reports received from the third-party verifier. Such an approach can safeguard the label’s independence and credibility, while allowing label managers to collect perspectives from different stakeholders. It is important to note that from September 2026, any private sustainability label will need to be assessed and awarded by a third party, in line with the requirements of the Empowering consumers for the green transition directive (EUR-Lex, 2024[46]).
2.4. Monitor compliance with the standards
Why is it important?
Monitoring compliance with standards over time maintains the label’s credibility and relevance. It does so by ensuring that labelled entities continue to meet the label’s criteria and minimising the risk of mission drift and green washing. Moreover, it allows labelled entities to track their impact. However, burdensome and frequent reporting requirements can result in a heavy administrative burden for social economy entities and deter them from getting and maintaining the label.
What can policy makers consider?
2.4.1. For how long is the label awarded?
Labels are usually awarded for a limited period to enhance their validity and reliability. For example, the ESUS accreditation in France is awarded for five years (two years for enterprises that have operated for less than three years), after which labelled entities must reapply to keep the status. The certificate of compliance with the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision is valid for four years. The WISE status in Romania, the Finnish Social Enterprise Mark and the B Corp certification are valid for three years. The Impact Score in France is valid for two years. Some labels, such as the Social Enterprise accreditation for co-operatives in Belgium and the Social Business status in Lithuania, are awarded for an indefinite period but are subject to periodic reporting requirements (Economie, 2024[59]; Lietuvos Respublikos ekonomikos ir inovacijų ministerija, 2024[60]).
2.4.2. What are the monitoring requirements?
Labelled entities are often subject to periodic reporting requirements to ensure continued adherence to the label’s criteria. For instance, the Dutch Social Enterprise Code requires registered enterprises to publish an annual impact report on their website (Commissie Code Sociale Ondernemingen, 2017[57]). Organisations with a Social Enterprise status in Latvia are required to submit annual reports with their social activities, financial performance and impact. Registered WISEs in Romania must annually submit reports with employment outcomes, financial performance and progress towards their social mission. Businesses with a People and Planet First badge are required to undergo an annual review. Benefit Corporations in Italy must publish an annual impact report to be evaluated by stakeholders. Financial products with the French Finansol label are reviewed annually with financial institutions having to submit annual reports on project progress, any product changes and transparency measures. Mission-driven companies in France must undergo an independent audit every two years (every three years for companies with less than 50 employees) and its results must be publicly available for at least five years. The institutions compliant with the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision are required to report on progress every two years. In Bulgaria, Type A social enterprises must be evaluated every three years and Type A+ entities every two years. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with a Solid’R label must undergo an on-site audit every three years, while microenterprises do it online.
While periodic reporting requirements build trust in the label and promote progress tracking, they can impose a significant administrative burden on smaller entities. A way to address this challenge is to have less frequent audits (e.g. Mission-Driven Companies status in France) or introduce a different form of assessment (e.g. Solid’R label) for smaller organisations. Moreover, some entities may not be aware what annual reporting needs to include. For instance, the evaluation of the Act on Registered Social Economy Enterprises in Denmark shows that some entities, especially smaller ones, are not aware of the requirements. Out of 72 entities that submitted an annual report in 2016, only 15 (21%) have fulfilled the reporting requirements (Danish Business Authority, 2018[40]). Label managers could consider providing clear guidelines on the reporting requirements and de-registering entities that do not submit the right evidence.
Some labels rely on a community of labelled entities to monitor compliance. For example, enterprises registered in the Dutch Social Enterprise Code must be reviewed by two already-registered entities at least every two years. The peer reviewers focus on areas for improvement. Sites with the Belgian Rec’Up label are regularly reviewed by other labelled entities to monitor ongoing compliance. Such an approach can strengthen ties between labelled organisations.
Labels need to have a publicly available register to ensure transparency and facilitate stakeholder trust. Some registers take the form of uploaded documents with a list of labelled enterprises (e.g. ESUS accrediation in France, Social Enterprise status in Latvia, European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision), others have registers integrated into their website (e.g. Social Business status in Lithuania, Dutch Social Enterprise Code, Finnish Social Enterprise Mark, People and Planet First verification). Some registers (e.g. Social Business status in Lithuania, Dutch Social Enterprise Code, Finnish Social Enterprise Mark, Finansol label in France, Finance solidaire label in Belgium) allow users to filter based on characteristics such as sector, enterprise type, impact area, geographic scope and product type, among others. Some labels such as the Impact Score in France and People and Planet First verification do not make it mandatory for the assessed entities to display their score publicly (Impact Score, n.d.[61]; People and Planet First, n.d.[62]).5 This is done to prevent comparison between organisations operating in different contexts and allow entities to use the score for self-improvement purposes. Some labels, such as the Bulgarian Social Enterprise status, the Dutch Social Enterprise Code and the B Corp certification, have introduced a ‘pending’ status in their registers for enterprises that are undergoing assessment and/or are integrating feedback from the verifier to improve their compliance with the standards (Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, n.d.[63]; Code Sociale Ondernemingen, 2024[64]; B Impact Assessment, n.d.[65]). It is a way to show that an enterprise is implementing the necessary changes and is committed to getting labelled.
2.4.3. What are the complaint mechanisms?
Complaint mechanisms allow stakeholders to challenge the decision on label award and to flag any information that does not comply with the label’s standards. The decision on the award of public labels can be challenged through administrative procedures. For example, in Belgium, an annulment of administrative decision regarding the recognition of a co-operative as social enterprise is possible if the labelled organisation does not respect the criteria or believes that the label has been withdrawn without sufficient proof.6 In Italy, the withdrawal decision of the social enterprise recognition is taken by the Ministry of Labour and Social policies but can be annulled by the administrative court.7
Private labels usually do not have the same level of judicial protection but are bound by reputational risks tied to the trust in the label. As a result, some labels have introduced a complaint procedure. For instance, B Lab addresses complaints that are filed through an online form related to (i) “intentional misrepresentation of practices, policies or outcomes claimed during a company’s certification process” and (ii) “breaches of the B Corp Community’s core values” among existing B Corps. B Lab does not investigate complaints regarding “customer service, pending legal actions, issues not related to a currently certified B Corp, practices not related to the B Corp certification, and complaints containing illegal actions or threats”. The complaint can result in either certification being revoked, suspended until changes are implemented, or maintained with or without the need for changes and disclosures. If a B Corp does not agree with the decision of the Standards Advisory Council regarding the complaint, it can appeal to B Lab’s Board of Directors (B Lab, n.d.[66]).
2.5. Scale the label
Why is it important?
Expanding the label's reach can enhance its visibility and ensure that eligible entities benefit from the associated measures. As more entities across sectors and geographic areas become labelled, the label gains recognition. This increased visibility fosters the creation of a community among labelled entities, offering opportunities for networking, sharing best practices and accessing new markets. However, expanding the label also risks making its standards too broad, which could compromise the ability to accurately identify specific entities and weaken the rigour of assessments. This, in turn, may undermine the label's credibility.
What can policy makers consider?
2.5.1. What is the promotion strategy?
An effective promotion strategy can significantly increase awareness of the label among targeted entities and other stakeholders. This heightened awareness can lead to a greater number of labelled entities and enhance the benefits of being labelled, as more consumers, investors and other stakeholders become familiar with the label.
Communication about organisation-based labels typically occurs through networks, communities of labelled entities, as well as information campaigns for stakeholders and the general public. For instance, the Dutch Social Enterprise Code was established at the initiative of Social Enterprise NL, the Dutch social enterprise network. The People and Planet First verification is promoted through a network of networks. Promotion partners advertise the verification to their members but do not participate in the review process. Single badge partners assist with reviewing documents from their network members, while double badge partners manage an existing label that meets or surpasses the verification standards. These partners can offer the People and Planet First badge without requiring a document review. Active communities of labelled entities, such as companies in the Dutch Social Enterprise Code register, B Corps, and the French community of Mission-Driven Companies, can further enhance the visibility of the label. In France, the Movement of Ecological, Social and Solidarity Enterprises (Le Mouvess), an association representing interests of SSE entities, initiated an “ESUS tour”. The initiative organises events across France and has the goal of bringing together 800 SSE stakeholders, including SSE entities, experts, financial players, entrepreneurs, public institutions and elected officials, with the aim of raising awareness of benefits associated with the ESUS label among the stakeholders and the general public (ESS et société, n.d.[67]).
An easily recognisable logo can help to promote labels. Research shows that simple, minimalistic and flat logos tend to attract most attention, be the most memorable and create the most positive attitudes among consumers (Bossel, Geyskens and Goukens, 2019[68]). Logos are especially important for product-based labels as they offer a quick way to differentiate products to consumers who might not be aware of the entity producing and/or selling the product.
2.5.2. What is the financial model?
A sustainable financial model can contribute to the label manager’s long-term operations and maintain a thorough implementation of standards. Public social economy labels are usually free to obtain, and their implementation is funded by public budgets, while private labels often charge a fee. The cost of private labels usually consists of a verification and an annual fee. Some labels, such as the Social Enterprise Code in the Netherlands and the People and Planet First verification badge, charge all candidates and labelled enterprises equally. Other labels, such as the Finnish Social Enterprise Mark and the B Corp certification, vary their fee depending on the enterprise’s turnover or annual sales. While charging a fee contributes to financial sustainability and therefore continuity of private labels, it is important to have control mechanisms. This is to ensure that the label manager does not relax the standards and/or the rigour of their implementation to increase the number of labelled entities and improve its financial performance (Möslein, 2021[45]). Examples of such control mechanisms include reliance on third parties for assessment and involving independent committees in the award of the label.
2.5.3. Should and can the label operate across borders?
Label managers can consider whether their labels would benefit from being available across borders. The need for a cross-border label can depend on the characteristics and needs of the national social economy ecosystem (e.g. social economy entities may prefer to keep operating at a local level to maximise their impact or expand across borders to get access to funding, members or markets), the conditions of supra-national (e.g. EU) funding that may specify types of eligible organisations, as well as social economy definitions and policies in other countries (e.g. if they differ, a cross-border label might be difficult to implement). This section will explore some implementation options for a cross-border label. The research is at an exploratory stage and requires a more in-depth review to assess the feasibility of different options.
The introduction of an EU social enterprise legal status similar to the Societas Unius Persone (SUP) could be explored. The SUP form was presented by the European Commission in 2014 as a response to the rejection of the European Private Company legal form. Instead of a proper supranational legal entity, the proposal included a common national company option to be adopted by all Member States, part of which had to be regulated in a uniform manner in all concerned jurisdictions. A similar option for social enterprises would mandate all Member States to introduce partially harmonised social enterprise laws, which can include key characteristics of social enterprises outlined in the 2011 Social Business Initiative, while allowing to tailor other aspects to national law (European Parliament, 2017[69]; European Commission, 2015[70]). Such an approach would entail using similar standards to assess compliance with the label and the measures tied to it to avoid creating confusion among stakeholders over the standards.
A de facto recognition of equivalence between existing social economy labels could be a way to facilitate cross-border operations and the channelling of EU support measures. For instance, hypothetically, the French ESUS accreditation could be recognised as equivalent to the Italian Social Enterprise status. For this type of recognition to work, the labels’ criteria need to be similar and the countries in question need to agree with the measures tied to the label, which can be affected by laws and policy priorities in both states.
International labels require an implementation structure that ensures an accurate assessment based on common standards while leaving room for adjustment to local contexts. This can be done through relying on national social economy networks. For instance, the verification process for the international People and Planet First badge managed by the Social Enterprise World Forum is implemented through a network of networks. The system relies on partner networks’ knowledge of the local ecosystem to promote the badge and to perform the document review. As labels expand, it can also be helpful to introduce an accreditation scheme for verifying or competent bodies in each country, as is the case for the EU Ecolabel, to ensure rigour and uniformity (European Commission, n.d.[23]).
Policies that facilitate the internationalisation of social economy entities can increase the demand for existing or new cross-border labels. The inclusion of internationalisation considerations into Social Economy Strategies such as the 2023-2027 Spanish Strategy for Social Economy can support the channelling of policy measures that support internationalisation of the social economy. The creation of regional social economy clusters such as the Grande Region Cluster for Social and Solidarity and Circular Economy (Cluster Grande Region de l’économie sociale, solidaire et circulaire) in Belgium, France and Luxembourg can facilitate cross-border partnerships and operations. The provision of business development support focused on internationalisation of social economy organisations, as is done by the Catalan Agency for Business Competitiveness (ACCIÓ) in Spain, can increase their international competitiveness (OECD, 2023[71]).
3.1 Assess effectiveness and adapt over time
Why is it important?
Periodic evaluations bring many benefits such as ensuring that the label continues to meet the needs of stakeholders, communicating the label’s impact, enhancing its visibility and encouraging more organisations to adopt it. Results of evaluations can also provide an evidence base that helps build consensus for changes to the label’s standards, implementation processes and associated measures.
What can policy makers consider?
3.1.1. Which considerations can be included?
The evaluation considerations typically cover the label’s standards, implementation structure, associated measures and the label’s reach. Box 3.3 presents some questions that can be considered when evaluating label performance. They need to be tailored to specific contexts depending on the label’s purpose, targeted entities or products and the available resources to conduct the evaluation.
Standards
1. Are the standards in line with the label’s purpose?
2. Are the standards communicated in a clear manner?
3. Is the difference with other labels clear?
Implementation
1. Are relevant actors aware of the label?
2. Is the logo design appealing and memorable?
3. Is the verification process clear, transparent and efficient?
4. Is the monitoring periodic and credible?
5. Is the register easily accessible and up-to-date?
6. Are complaints handled in a transparent and efficient manner?
Benefits
1. Are the measures tied to the label sufficient?
2. Are the measures tied to the label implemented efficiently?
Impact
1. What is the label’s reach?
2. Does the label create a community of labelled organisations?
Sources : Author’s elaboration based on Conseil supérieur de l'économie sociale et solidaire (2024[41]), B Lab Europe (2024[72]), Danish Business Authority (2018[40])
3.1.2. What data can be used?
The most common way to track a label’s progress is to analyse data from label registers. They usually provide information on the number of labelled entities or products, geographic and sectoral distribution, legal form, organisations’ purpose and date of label award. These indicators can help to assess the label’s reach (Question 12 in Box 3.3) and give an indication on label awareness (Question 4), the state of the register (Question 8) and potential benefits of the label (Questions 10 and 11).
The information from registers needs to be complemented with stakeholder consultations to answer the other questions and provide more detailed insights on the label’s impact. Consultations with a wide range of stakeholders can allow policy makers to see the label’s impact that goes beyond the direct effect on the labelled entities (Jellema et al., 2022[73]). Policy makers can use consultation guidance for inclusive and open legal and regulatory processes outlined in the OECD 2012 Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance and the 2014 Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation (OECD, 2012[74]; OECD, 2014[75]). A range of approaches can be used by public and private label managers such as written contributions, public hearings, creation of advisory bodies and stakeholder surveys. Box 3.4 gives some examples of these methods being used to collect information about labels.
Written contributions, expert consultations, workshops and seminars
Written contributions, expert consultations, workshops and seminars allow label managers to get detailed stakeholder feedback. They usually take a long time and require significant resources to organise but can provide more detailed feedback than surveys. Moreover, the follow-up process can be easier as usually less stakeholders are involved than in surveys.
The 2024 evaluation of the ESUS accreditation in France was conducted by the High Council for the Social and Solidarity Economy through consulting three experts, the public bodies implementing the label and social economy and financial networks through eight written contributions.
The Danish Business Authority evaluated the 2014 Act on Registered Social Economy Enterprises in 2018 using interviews with social enterprises that have chosen to register and those that preferred not to do so, researchers, employer and employee organisations, and municipalities.
The Luxembourg Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidarity Economy conducts regular consultations, such as workshops, expert interviews, surveys and stakeholder seminars to evaluate the 2016 law regulating the Societal Impact Companies (Sociétés d’Impact Sociétal – SIS) status.
B Lab ran two consultations in September-November 2022 and January-March 2024 on proposed changes to the B Corp certification standards through surveys, virtual focus groups with certified B Corps and interviews with subject matter experts.
The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision was revised in 2019 after consulting microcredit providers, microfinance networks, EU institutions, banks, investors and experts through five stakeholder workshops held between December 2018 and May 2019.
Stakeholder surveys
Surveys can allow to gather and analyse information from many stakeholders. They can be relatively quickly shared with relevant entities such as labelled organisations, potential beneficiaries of the label such as businesses, financial institutions and government agencies, and subject matter experts. They can include questions with pre-defined answer options, which allow to get quantitative data, as well as qualitative open-ended answers. Quantitative responses can be used to create indicators to track progress over time.
B Lab Europe conducts B Corp Community surveys among certified B Corps across Europe that focus on satisfaction with certification, value of B Corp community membership, use of the B Impact Assessment tool, resources and engagement opportunities, and B Lab’s strategic priorities. The 2024 edition took place in October and received answers from 615 B Corps across 22 European countries, or 30% of the B Corp community. The sample was designed to reflect all sectors and company sizes.
Social Enterprise NL initiates evaluation surveys in partnership with the Social Enterprise Code Foundation to get information on experiences with the Dutch Social Enterprise Code.
Consumer behavioural surveys can be used to evaluate product labels. They can help to determine factors that affect consumer decision making and behaviour by asking questions to a large number of consumers about, for example, their attitudes, beliefs and expectations. However, as the data is self-reported, the answers might not be honest, and the questions might not be interpreted in the same way by the respondents and the organisation initiating the survey.
Sources: Conseil supérieur de l’économie sociale et solidaire (2024[41]), OECD (2023[48]), B Lab (n.d.[30]), B Lab (n.d.[30]), B Lab Europe (2024[72]), OECD (2017[47]), European Commission (2021[31]), Danish Business Authority (2018[40])
3.1.3. How often can evaluations be conducted?
Evaluation could happen at every stage of the label cycle through collecting regular stakeholder feedback when designing and implementing labels. More structured assessments usually happen every few years. The laws introducing social enterprise legal statuses can specify the periodicity of assessments. For instance, in France, the 2014 Law on Social and Solidarity Economy, which introduced the ESUS accreditation, includes the need to assess the law every two years. In Luxembourg, the 2016 Law that created the Societal Impact Company (Société d’Impact Sociétal) status states that the law must be assessed in the three years after its introduction (OECD, 2023[26]). The 2014 Act on Registered Social Economy Enterprises in Denmark specifies that an evaluation of the Act must be conducted in the three years after its entry into force (Danish Business Authority, 2018[40]). The Dutch Social Enterprise Code is evaluated every two to three years under the responsibility of the Board of the Foundation. B Lab Europe conducted the Brand Awareness survey aimed at consumers in 2023 and the B Corp community survey aimed at B Corps in 2024 (B Lab Europe, 2024[72]).
3.1.4. How can evaluation results be used?
Evaluation results, when made public, can enhance transparency and credibility for potential changes to the label. For instance, the results of the ESUS evaluation in France and the Act on Registered Social Economy Enterprises in Denmark are publicly available (Conseil supérieur de l'économie sociale et solidaire, 2024[41]; Danish Business Authority, 2018[40]). B Lab made the reports summarising two consultations about the change to the B Corp standards available on its website (B Lab, 2023[76]; B Lab, n.d.[30]). Summary reports usually include information on the methodology of the consultation, the key findings and recommendations.
Evaluation results can also help label managers adjust or adapt the label’s purpose, standards, benefits and implementation mechanisms. For example, after an evaluation, the 2016 law regulating the SIS status in Luxembourg was amended in 2018 to extend tax exemptions to SISs. As a result, the number of registered SISs increased to 31, 25 of which obtained the status after the 2018 change. Moreover, the 2021 amendment reduced the administrative burden of the SIS status (OECD, 2023[26]). Social Enterprise NL can set up a commission with the mandate to adjust the Dutch Social Enterprise Code based on the evaluation results. The European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision was amended in 2019 after stakeholder consultations (European Commission, 2020[77]).
3.2. Manage change
Why is it important?
Changing the label’s standards, implementation procedures or associated incentives can ensure it continues to meet stakeholder needs. This change needs to be communicated and implemented in a predictable and transparent way to help maintain the label’s credibility and minimise the administrative burden for the (potentially) labelled entities and label managers.
What can policy makers consider?
3.2.1. What is the implementation timeline?
When evaluation leads to changes in the label, it is important to set a clear timeline for their implementation. This allows stakeholders, including label managers, current and potential labelled entities, policy makers, consumers and financial institutions, to prepare for the change and start implementing new processes if needed. For instance, B Lab has made the timeline of the B Corp certification standards change publicly available on its website soon after initiating the change. The timeline was periodically adjusted based on the received feedback. The main shown steps included stakeholder workshops, the release of draft standards, testing period, public consultation dates and review by the Standards Advisory council and Board of Directors (B Lab Global, 2021[78]; B Lab Global, 2022[79]).
A gradual introduction of the new standards can minimise the disruption to labelled organisations or those that do not have the label but have implemented actions to meet the old criteria. For instance, microcredit providers that submitted a request for evaluation before the publication date of the updated European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision could choose to be evaluated using either the old or the new criteria. The certificates of compliance awarded before the change remained valid until their expiration date (European Commission, 2020[77]). The new B Corp standards will be rolled out in a phased manner to ensure that certified and aspiring B Corps have enough time to comply with the updated criteria (B Impact Assessment, 2025[80]).
3.2.2. How to communicate about the change?
Clear and timely communication about the proposed changes can allow stakeholders to adapt to the changes. An effective communication strategy can include publicly available information on i) why the standards are evolving; ii) what is changing, iii) the timeline, including what has been done and what is planned; iv) any evidence from consultations showing the demand and consensus for the new standards, and; v) frequently asked questions on the purpose, implementation and implications of the new standards for labelled and non-labelled organisations (B Lab, n.d.[30]; B Impact Assessment, 2025[80]). The communication can be done through a range of channels such as the label’s website, relevant networks and communities and well-known organisations holding the label. For example, the updates to the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision were communicated on official European Commission webpages and through European microfinance networks (European Commission, 2020[77]; European Commission, 2021[31]; European Microfinance Network, 2021[81]; Microfinance Centre, 2021[82]).
Source: Author’s elaboration
References
[2] ADV Romania (2022), Social economy monitor – insights across Romania, https://alaturidevoi.ro/en/social-economy-monitor-romania-2022/.
[28] 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.
[80] B Impact Assessment (2025), Frequently Asked Questions - Evolving the Standards for B Corp Certification, https://kb.bimpactassessment.net/en/support/solutions/articles/43000651678-frequently-asked-questions-about-b-corporation-performance-requirements-2020-2021-review.
[39] 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.
[20] B Impact Assessment (2020), Certifications that are eligible to receive credit in the B Impact Assessment, https://kb.bimpactassessment.net/en/support/solutions/articles/43000583499-certifications-that-are-eligible-to-receive-credit-in-the-b-impact-assessment.
[65] B Impact Assessment (n.d.), Pending B Corp Eligibility (FAQs), https://kb.bimpactassessment.net/en/support/solutions/articles/43000578843-pending-b-corp-eligibility-faqs-.
[38] 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/.
[76] B Lab (2023), Evolving the Standards for B Corp Certification. Summary Report from B Lab’s 2022 Preliminary Consultation, https://bcorp.imagerelay.com/share/3d011b0bbfb84f0ea7153911bec5ee0a?utm_source=ENG+Report&utm_medium=Full+Report&utm_campaign=EoS+PCSR.
[66] 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/.
[16] B Lab (n.d.), B-Corp Certification., https://bcorporation.net/.
[30] B Lab (n.d.), Evolving the standards for B Corp certification. Advancing business performance to meet the magnitude of today’s global challenges., https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/standards/performance-requirements/.
[72] B Lab Europe (2024), 2024 European B Corp Community Survey. Key Findings & Insights, https://blabeu.infogram.com/2024-b-corp-community-survey-report-1hnq41oq57xrp23.
[79] B Lab Global (2022), Update on the Future of the B Corp Certification Performance Requirements: February 2022, https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/news/blog/update-future-b-corp-certification-performance-requirements-february-2022/.
[78] B Lab Global (2021), Performance Requirements Review, https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/news/blog/performance-requirements-review-update-survey-results-and-next-steps/.
[37] Borgaza, C. (2020), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Italy.
[68] Bossel, V., K. Geyskens and C. Goukens (2019), “Facing a trend of brand logo simplicity: The impact of brand logo design on consumption”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 71, pp. 129-135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.009.
[36] 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.
[63] Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (n.d.), Registered Social Enterprises, https://secprod.mlsp.government.bg/index.php?section=REG.
[64] Code Sociale Ondernemingen (2024), Wat is de Code?, https://codesocialeondernemingen.nl/over-de-code/wat-is-de-code/.
[57] Commissie Code Sociale Ondernemingen (2017), Code Sociale Ondernemingen, https://codesocialeondernemingen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Vastgestelde_versie_Code_Sociale_Ondernemingen-.pdf.
[41] 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_.
[7] Council of the European Union (2023), Council Recommendation of 27 November 2023 on Developeing Social Economy Framework Conditions.
[40] 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.
[59] 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.
[53] 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.
[67] ESS et société (n.d.), ESUS-Tour : un événement clé pour promouvoir l’agrément ESUS !, https://www.ess-et-societe.net/ESUS-Tour-un-evenement-cle-pour-promouvoir-l-agrement-ESUS.
[46] EUR-Lex (2024), Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj/eng.
[83] EUR-Lex (2019), State aid — application of rules for services of general economic interest (SGEI), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/state-aid-application-of-rules-for-services-of-general-economic-interest-sgei.html.
[31] European Commission (2021), European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision. Provider Guidelines - Update 2021.
[27] European Commission (2020), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4985a489-73ed-11ea-a07e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[77] European Commission (2020), The updated European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision has been published, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=9726&furtherNews=yes.
[42] European Commission (2019), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Bulgaria, https://euricse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bulgaria_BG_Country-report_2019.pdf.
[43] European Commission (2019), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Denmark.
[70] European Commission (2015), Social Business Initiative, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14583.
[23] European Commission (n.d.), About the EU Ecolabel, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/about-eu-ecolabel_en.
[29] 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.
[81] European Microfinance Network (2021), “The Code”gets updated to reflect market reality and microfinance diversity, https://www.european-microfinance.org/news/code-gets-updated-reflect-market-reality-and-microfinance-diversity.
[69] European Parliament (2017), A European Statute for Social and Solidarity-Based Enterprise, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583123/IPOL_STU(2017)583123_EN.pdf.
[55] European Social Enterprise Law Association (2015), Social Enterprise in Europe. Developing Legal Systems which Support Social Enterprise Growth, ESELA.
[3] European Social Enterprise Monitor (2025), Latest Insights from the EU Social Enterprise Sector, https://socialenterprisemonitor.knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/#:~:text=The%20European%20Social%20Enterprise%20Monitor%20%28ESEM%29%20is%20a,builds%20on%20the%20editions%20of%202020-21%20and%202021-22.
[19] European Union (2021), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Building an economy that works for people: an action plan for the social economy, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0778.
[22] 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.
[54] Fairtrade (n.d.), Who we have standards for, https://www.fairtrade.net/en/why-fairtrade/how-we-do-it/fairtrade-standards/who-we-have-standards-for.html.
[14] 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.
[4] Government of Aragon (n.d.), Aragonese Plan to Promote the Social Economy, https://transparencia.aragon.es/sites/default/files/documents/plan_aragones_impulso_economia_social_2022_2025.pdf.
[51] Grigus, O. et al. (2017), Social Entrepreneurship Labelling. An analytical report on existing social value labelling practices and a way forward for Latvia, Estonia and Denmark.
[17] Hulgård, L. and L. Chodorkoff (2019), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Denmark, European Commission.
[49] IEC, ISO and UNIDO (2023), Building trust. - The conformity assessment toolbox.
[52] Impact Luxembourg (2025), IMPACT LUXEMBOURG – SOCIÉTÉ D’IMPACT SOCIÉTAL, https://www.impactluxembourg.lu/fr/obtenir-le-label/.
[61] Impact Score (n.d.), Tout comprendre, https://www.impactscore.fr/tout-comprendre.
[18] ISEAL (2025), ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems, https://www.isealalliance.org/defining-credible-practice/iseal-code-good-practice.
[21] ISO (2018), New version of ISO 14024 on ecolabelling, https://www.iso.org/news/ref2273.html.
[24] ISO (n.d), About ISO, https://www.iso.org/about.
[25] ISO (n.d), ISO standards - Circular economy, https://www.iso.org/sectors/environment/circular-economy.
[73] Jellema, S. et al. (2022), “Questioning Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of Certification Standards for Sustainability”, Business & Society, Vol. 61/5, pp. 1042-1082, https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211056332.
[50] KPMG (2023), Sustainability standards and labels. Navigating the jungle - How to demonstrate purpose and create value by selecting the right sustainability standards and labels.
[34] Label ISR (n.d.), Comment est attribué le Label ISR ?, https://www.lelabelisr.fr/faq/comment-est-attribue-le-label-isr/.
[33] Label ISR (n.d.), Notre organisation, https://www.lelabelisr.fr/label-isr/organisation/.
[58] Latvian Cabinet of Ministers (2018), Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 101 of 20 February 2018, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/297301.
[60] 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.
[44] Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas (2023), Lietuvos Respublikos smulkiojo ir vidutinio verslo plėtros įstatymo Nr. VIII-935 2, 3 ir 4 straipsnių pakeitimo įstatymas [Law on the Amendment of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Small and Medium-sized Business Development], https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/legalAct.html?documentId=ae2b0300a16411eea5a28c81c82193a8.
[82] Microfinance Centre (2021), Updated European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision Enters Into Force, https://mfc.org.pl/updated-european-code-of-good-conduct-for-microcredit-provision-enters-into-force-on-1-january-2021/.
[32] Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de la Décentralisation (2025), Le label Greenfin, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/label-greenfin.
[56] 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.
[5] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland (2022), Strategy for Social Enterprises, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/163807.
[45] 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.
[13] Mujica Filippi, J. et al. (2021), Purpose-driven companies and the regulation of the fourth sector in Ibero-America. Continental Europe Jurisdictional Report.
[26] 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.
[48] OECD (2023), Policy Guide on Social Impact Measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/270c7194-en.
[71] 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.
[12] OECD (2023), “What is the social and solidarity economy? A review of concepts”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2023/13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dbc7878d-en.
[6] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on the Social and Solidarity Economy and Social.
[1] OECD (2020), Taxation and Philanthropy, OECD Tax Policy Studies, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df434a77-en.
[47] OECD (2017), “Use of Behavioural Insights in Consumer Policy”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2203c35-en.
[75] OECD (2014), OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214453-en.
[74] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.
[8] Opinionway (2024), Les Français et l’épargne solidaire. Vague 3 – Septembre 2024, https://www.finance-fair.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/OpinionWay%20pour%20FA%20%26%20FAIR%20-%20Les%20Fran%C3%A7ais%20et%20l%27%C3%A9pargne%20solidaire%20-%20202409.pdf.
[9] Opinionway (2023), Les Français et l’épargne solidaire. 2ème édition, https://www.finance-fair.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/OpinionWay%20pour%20France%20Active%20et%20Fair%20-%20Les%20Fran%C3%A7ais%20et%20l%27%C3%A9pargne%20solidaire%20-%20Septembre%202023.pdf.
[62] People and Planet First (n.d.), Get Verified, https://peopleandplanetfirst.org/get-verified/.
[11] Registrų centras (2025), JAR pirminiai duomenys (raw data), https://www.registrucentras.lt/p/1094.
[35] Towards Sustainability (n.d.), Independent supervision and verification, https://towardssustainability.be/the-label/third-party-verification.
[10] 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.
[15] 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.
← 1. The terms ‘standards’ and ‘criteria’ are used interchangeably in the guidance.
← 2. “Services of general economic interest (SGEI) are “economic activities, such as transport networks and postal and social services, regarded by public authorities as being particularly important to citizens, and that would not be supplied (or would be supplied under different conditions) if there were no public intervention” …. According to the 2003 Altmark judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), public service compensation does not constitute State aid when 4 cumulative conditions are met
the recipient service provider must have clearly defined public service obligations;
the method for calculating the compensation must be objective, transparent and set out in advance;
the compensation cannot exceed the relevant costs and a reasonable profit, i.e. no overcompensation; and
the provider is either chosen through a public procurement procedure or the level of compensation is calculated based on an analysis of the costs of an average ‘well-run’ business in the sector concerned.
Where 1 or more of these conditions is not fulfilled, the public service compensation will be examined under State aid rules” (EUR-Lex, 2019[83]).
← 3. “ “Sustainability label” means any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent, either public or private, that aims to set apart and promote a product, a process or a business by reference to its environmental or social characteristics, or both, and excludes any mandatory label required under Union or national law (EUR-Lex, 2024[46]).”
← 4. “ “Certification scheme” means a third-party verification scheme that certifies that a product, process or business complies with certain requirements, that allows for the use of a corresponding sustainability label, and the terms of which, including its requirements, are publicly available and meet the following criteria:
(i) the scheme is open under transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory terms to all traders willing and able to comply with the scheme’s requirements;
(ii) the scheme’s requirements are developed by the scheme owner in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders;
(iii) the scheme sets out procedures for dealing with non-compliance with the scheme’s requirements and provides for the withdrawal or suspension of the use of the sustainability label by the trader in case of non-compliance with the scheme’s requirements; and
the monitoring of a trader’s compliance with the scheme’s requirements is subject to an objective procedure and is carried out by a third party whose competence and independence from both the scheme owner and the trader are based on international, Union or national standards and procedures.” (EUR-Lex, 2024[46]).
← 5. Links to mentioned registers:
← 6. Article 14 – 16 of the Coordinated Laws on the Council of State (Belgium).
← 7. Article 15 of the Italian Decree 2017/112.