Business support mechanisms are crucial to help social economy entities realise their full potential across the EU. Tailored financial, advisory, and market-access services enable these organisations to strengthen their capacity, innovate, and scale their impact. This chapter provides an overview of business support for the social economy in EU Member States, examining national, regional, and local initiatives led by both public and private actors. It analyses how institutions design and implement targeted instruments adapted to the legal forms and mission-driven nature of social economy entities. It also explores emerging trends, such as the establishment of competence centres, the integration of social enterprises into SME and innovation programmes, and the expansion of blended finance and impact investing. Drawing on diverse country experiences, it identifies key patterns, challenges, and promising practices, and concludes with policy recommendations to reinforce business support systems and foster the growth and resilience of social economy entities.
Social Economy in Europe
Abstract
Similar to traditional businesses, social economy entities – particularly those engaged in market-based activities – require targeted support schemes to facilitate their growth, innovation, and scaling. These support mechanisms encompass a wide range of activities designed to address the unique challenges faced at various stages of development and expansion. Tailored programmes often include specialised training, mentorship opportunities, expert consulting, and strategic business development services that help to launch enterprises, strengthen their operational capacity, improve management practices, and effectively reach new markets.
Business support typically provides access to a wide range of resources: Legal and regulatory guidance, and services such as access to finance – including grants and loans – alongside capacity-building initiatives in management, marketing, and technology. Advisory services provide expert guidance on business planning, legal compliance, and strategic development, providing social economy enterprises with the tools to navigate complex regulatory environments and seize new opportunities.
The importance of business support dedicated to the social economy is recognised at both European and international levels. The 2021 European Social Economy Action Plan emphasises the critical need to build capacity within social economy entities and create enabling environments that sustain their growth. Similarly, the 2023 EU Council Recommendation advocates for comprehensive framework conditions, including legal recognition, access to finance, tailored business support, and institutional backing, to promote the development and scaling of social economy activities across EU Member States and beyond. Together, these initiatives underscore a shared understanding that strategic, dedicated support is essential for harnessing the full societal and economic benefits of the social economy.
How does social economy business support differ from conventional business support?
While a number of support needs are similar to traditional businesses, business support for the social economy usually needs to be designed to match the structure of its entities as well as their focus on social impact. For example, social economy entities are required by law to reinvest surpluses or profits into social purposes. This fundamental difference with conventional business means that business support needs to prioritise social impact alongside economic viability (OECD, 2023[1]). In many countries where the social economy is well established – such as France, Italy, and Spain – public authorities increasingly recognise that social economy entities often require training, incubation, and funding programmes that align with their social missions (Interreg Europe, 2024[2]).
Business support needs to be provided for different stages of development. For the initial stages of the social enterprise where they need to develop their theory of change to identify and focus on their social goal and future impact as well as for later stages and for scaling-up. In all of these stages social economy organisations may have support needs that differ somewhat from traditional businesses.
However, social economy entities also exhibit significant diversity in terms of their specific objectives (mutual versus general interest), legal structures, business models, size, outreach and sectors. These characteristics imply that each type of entity faces specific challenges and needs, in particular regarding policy support (OECD, 2023[1]).
Business support needs to support social economy organisations with a view to contributing to social impact alongside surplus and scale in areas such as access to finance and markets, as well as other services (OECD, 2021[3]; OECD, 2023[4]). Table 4.1. summarises the specific business support needs of social economy entities.
Access to finance
Social economy entities face greater difficulties in obtaining loans or equity capital. They operate under legal forms (e.g. co-operatives, associations or nonprofits) that may not be eligible for SME grant programmes or collateralised lending, further restricting their access to finance. Traditional businesses generally rely on commercial banks, investors and standard SME finance schemes to fund their growth. Social economy entities often cannot meet the return expectations of mainstream investors because they limit profit distribution and prioritise social returns (Golka, 2022[5]). To address these constraints, tailored financial instruments have been developed – such as patient capital from ethical banks, social investment funds, or grant – loan hybrids – alongside public guarantees to share risk with lenders. These bespoke funding sources recognise that the social economy entities often have lower profit margins and longer payback horizons (Rousselière, Bouchard and Rousselière, 2024[6]) and thus require more support in financing their activities than profit-driven ventures.
Business development services
Social economy entities often report that conventional business support is insufficient or poorly adapted to their needs (Mazzei and Steiner, 2021[7]). Specialised incubators and capacity-building initiatives have emerged to fill this gap. These tailored services provide mentorship on social innovation, help in measuring social impact, and guidance on participative management (OECD, 2025[8]). These support areas are not commonly covered in traditional business advice. Conventional enterprises can draw on a wide array of incubators, accelerators, chambers of commerce, and consultancy programs that are designed for typical commercial startups or SMEs.
Legal and regulatory frameworks
Many countries have introduced dedicated legal frameworks or official definitions for social economy entities. Traditional enterprises often operate within long-established commercial legal codes and can access mainstream business law services and incentives. Social economy entities span diverse legal forms, which sometimes do not fit into existing business categories (Serres, Hudon and Maon, 2022[9]). This gap means that social economy entities can struggle with regulations not tailored to their hybrid social-commercial nature (OECD, 2022[10]), and they may be ineligible for standard business support measures that assume for-profit corporate forms.
Access to market and public procurement
Social economy entities may need/rely on social clauses and enabling policies in ways mainstream firms typically do not. For instance, this could entail helping social economy entities obtain social procurement labels or certifications, facilitating partnerships with municipalities and ethical buyers, and leveraging local markets that value social impact (OECD, 2023[11]). Given their structure and nature, conventional businesses generally compete in open markets on the basis of price, quality and efficiency, and public procurement contracts are usually awarded to the lowest-cost bidders under standard rules. These approaches often put social economy entities at a disadvantage, making it hard to win tenders decided solely on price, because their added social value or mission-driven underpinnings are not captured in the bidding criteria, so they cannot credibly compete just on cost terms. Even though EU law now allows social and environmental criteria in public purchasing, most contracting authorities have yet to fully embrace “socially responsible procurement” and still focus on economic value alone (European Commission, 2020[12]) (OECD, 2020[13]). As a result, social economy providers struggle to access these mainstream market opportunities despite often delivering broader societal benefits through their goods and services.
Skills development
Skills development and talent attraction in the social economy entail different approaches than in conventional businesses. Traditional enterprises typically attract talent through market-competitive salaries and tap into standard training programmes to improve productivity. Social economy entities, by contrast, often face skills gaps and need to attract mission-driven staff or volunteers, including individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, which creates additional training needs in areas like digital literacy, participatory leadership and resilience (Gururaja, 2024[14]). Tailored capacity-building initiatives have emerged to address these needs (e.g. under the EU Pact for Skills) aimed at upskilling social economy workers and leaders in competencies that mainstream firms do not prioritise. Public authorities are increasingly recognising that strengthening the workforce and volunteer base of social economy entities can help these entities to fulfil their dual economic and social mission alongside traditional business metrics.
Internal organisation
Both conventional and social economy enterprises need to establish effective internal structures and processes, but their needs may differ in terms of focus. Conventional businesses usually grow in a standard way, formalising internal functions such as accounting systems, HR policies and management structures, and implementing generic guidance on hiring staff or introducing new administrative systems. Social economy entities, on the other hand, may initially lack internal capacity in areas such as corporate governance, strategic planning, financial management and HR, particularly if a large proportion of their workforce is made up of volunteers (Oliveira et al., 2021[15]). Social economy entities require tailored support to professionalise their internal management while preserving their social mission. Specialised business support can help social enterprises to develop robust administrative processes (e.g. proper bookkeeping and compliance with employment regulations), implement participatory governance practices and build leadership skills (OECD, 2023[11]). Importantly, unlike mainstream firms, which focus primarily on financial metrics, social economy organisations must measure and manage their social impact as part of their organisational practices (Hehenberger and Buckland, 2023[16]). Implementing impact measurement systems requires additional effort and resources, so targeted guidance and tools in this area are essential to help social enterprises track their societal outcomes alongside their financial performance (OECD/European Union, 2024[17]).
Innovation and technology
Social economy entities often experience a delay in digital transformation due to limited skills and technology investment (OECD, 2025[8]). Conventional firms benefit from well-established R&D incentives, digitalisation grants, and innovation hubs focused on commercial tech advances, all geared towards boosting competitiveness and profit. Social economy enterprises, however, tend to lag and often have low levels of digitalisation due to limited skills and investment in technology, and thus take only partial advantage of new platforms or data-driven tools (Raman et al., 2025[18]). Moreover, many social innovations (such as new models for service delivery or community engagement) fall outside the scope of traditional business R&D support, prompting the creation of specialised programmes for “social innovation” (OECD, 2025[8]). Dedicated social incubators and innovation labs have emerged to help social entrepreneurs develop and test solutions to societal challenges, offering mentorship, co-creation workshops and safe spaces to prototype ideas that would not attract typical private investors. These tailored supports – often backed by public or philanthropic funding – recognise that innovation in the social economy pursues public value and inclusivity, requiring longer time horizons and collaborative methods rather than the quick market returns expected in mainstream business.
Partnership and scaling
Such strategies in business support programmes vary for social economy enterprises compared to conventional firms. Mainstream businesses generally expand by competing in open markets or through mergers and acquisitions, aided by industry associations, chambers of commerce and export promotion services that assume a profit-maximising model. Social economy entities on the other hand, achieve growth primarily via co-operation and network-building, since their mission-oriented approach and limited capital are not aligned with traditional scaling approaches (Bauwens, Huybrechts and Dufays, 2019[19]). They often form partnerships with municipalities, civil society or ethical businesses and rely on peer networks to replicate their models rather than simply out-compete rivals (Coviello et al., 2024[20]). Recognising this, policymakers have emphasised the need to better integrate social economy entities into existing business support networks – for example, by encouraging chambers of commerce and incubators to open their programmes to social economy entities. EU bodies have also highlighted the importance of inter-regional co-operation and consortia to help social economy entities reach wider markets, including across borders. Indeed, the obstacles to international expansion are typically more pronounced for social economy entities than for conventional companies, owing to legal form constraints and the primacy of social goals over profit, so targeted support (e.g. matchmaking platforms, social export facilitation and knowledge-sharing partnerships) is being developed to address these gaps (OECD, 2023[21]).
Over the past decade, European countries have shifted from ad hoc measures to comprehensive policies that support the social economy. Countries like France and Spain have established dedicated strategies and legal frameworks – Spain’s 2023–27 Social Economy Strategy was developed with 16 ministries and stakeholders, while France’s 2014 Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy legally defined the sector and created regional support structures. Poland’s 2022 Social Economy Act introduced official certification and a registry, unlocking support. Luxembourg and Belgium introduced new legal forms and labels to recognise social enterprises.
EU-level initiatives and governments increasingly include the social economy in economic policy and broader recovery efforts. EU funds like the Recovery and Resilience Facility and cohesion policy have allocated resources – Spain’s 2021 plan invested over EUR 800 million in social economy and care. The 2021–27 ESF+ Programme promotes social innovation and entrepreneurship, with regional projects accessing broader funding through initiatives like the EU Social Economy Gateway, fostering sustainability and growth across Europe.
As a result, business support for the social economy has expanded and evolved across EU countries. Governments at all levels, together with European institutions and private providers, have introduced new policies, funding instruments, and capacity-building initiatives to help social economy entities start and scale their impact. In particular, trends in business support for the social economy relate to the following elements:
Innovative financing instruments, impact investing and venture philanthropy networks.
The use of public procurement for better access to markets.
Skills development and capacity-building support.
Better use of technology to amplify social innovation.
Formation of networks, coalitions and knowledge-sharing platforms.
Innovative financing instruments, impact investing and venture philanthropy networks
Several countries have launched dedicated financial programmes to boost social economy finance. In Italy, for example, the Ministry of Enterprises introduced the “Italy Social Economy” incentive in 2022 with a budget of EUR 223 million, combining resources from a national revolving fund and the Sustainable Growth Fund. This scheme offers financing for social economy entities and co-operatives to expand projects that create jobs for disadvantaged groups, support environmental sustainability or preserve cultural heritage (Invitalia, 2022[22]). In Poland, affordable loan instruments for social economy entities have been scaled up under ESF-funded initiatives, leading to the establishment of a permanent National Fund for Social Entrepreneurship that continues to offer long-term, low-interest credit and mentoring for social economy entities (Republic of Poland, 2023[23]).
Innovative financing instruments blending public and private resources to finance the social economy are on the rise. While recognising that traditional grants alone are not sufficient to sustain and scale the social economy, many countries have piloted new funding models such as social investment funds, outcomes-based contracts, and blended finance schemes (Better Society Capital, 2021[24]). A flagship example is Portugal’s Social Innovation initiative, which since 2015 (and extended under Portugal Social Innovation 2030) has redirected EU Structural Funds into four tailored financial instruments: capacity-building grants, co-financing for projects via “Partnerships for Impact”, a Social Impact Bonds (SIB) programme, and a social investment fund. This model – backed by European Social Fund resources – demonstrated how public funding can leverage private investment.
Alongside public schemes, new impact investment platforms are emerging to inject private capital into the social economy. In France, three years after launching the first Social Impact Bonds fund, BNP Paribas in 2023 rolled out a second, larger European Impact Bonds Fund with a target size of EUR 70 million, in partnership with Banque des Territoires and the European Investment Fund. This fund finances outcome-based projects across EU countries – for example, initiatives for youth employment, prisoner reintegration, or carbon reduction – by attracting private investors to pre-finance services that government will pay for upon verified social results (Banque des Territoires, 2023[25]). In Germany, the state development bank KfW has also expanded its support: As part of the national Social Innovation Strategy, KfW opened its Start-Up Loan programme in late 2024 to non-profit and social economy entities, offering low-interest loans up to EUR 125 000 with an 80% state guarantee to encourage banks to lend to social business ventures (KfW, 2024[26]).
Venture philanthropy networks have grown across Europe, providing social economy entities with opportunities to access private capital. The European Venture Philanthropy Association – now rebranded as Impact Europe – reports a steadily growing pool of impact investment available for social purpose-driven entities (Impact Europe, 2024[27]). Venture philanthropy funds and social investment wholesalers co-invest alongside government, shifting the support model from pure grants to mixes of loans, equity, and guarantees aimed at sustainability. Public financial institutions are also joining in. For instance, in 2023 the European Investment Fund (EIF) used the new InvestEU programme to provide a EUR 53 million guarantee to Erste Bank and partners in Central Europe, unlocking over EUR 66 million in loans for social economy entities in Austria, Czechia, Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Romania (European Investment Fund, 2023[28]). Importantly, this deal not only improves access to finance but also comes with capacity-building and networking for the borrower enterprises.
The use of public procurement for better access to markets
National governments are embedding social considerations into procurement laws and targets, thereby expanding opportunities for social economy entities. France provides a leading example: Its 2021 Climate & Resilience Law require that from 2026 100% of public contracts above EU thresholds include at least one social clause, with an interim goal of 30% of all contracts doing so by 2025 under the National Sustainable Procurement Plan. This mandate means that public buyers must account for social impact (such as employment of vulnerable groups or social innovation in service delivery) in a large share of tenders (Légifrance, 2021[29]). Similarly, countries like Italy and Poland have integrated provisions for reserved contracts and social clauses in their procurement frameworks. Poland’s Social Economy Act explicitly introduced measures to make it easier for registered social economy entities to participate in public tenders – for example by allowing contracting authorities to reserve certain contracts for them and by simplifying procedures. Italy’s new Public Contracts Code (2023) continues to uphold mechanisms whereby social co-operatives and other Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) can secure contracts for community services, building on earlier rules that permitted reserving tenders for firms that employ disadvantaged workers (Codice Appalti, 2023[30]). Across Europe, these policy advances signal to contracting authorities that choosing a provider who delivers social value is not only permissible but encouraged, thereby mainstreaming the practice of “buying social” in public procurement.
As a result, public procurement arrangements are increasingly used to support social economy entities at local and regional levels. Governments are using their purchasing power to create markets for social economy entities and reward businesses that create social value. One approach is the inclusion of social clauses in public tenders – criteria that give preference or added points to bidders who generate social benefits. In Sweden, the municipality of Örebro is known for engaging a work integration social enterprise to handle tasks such as the cleaning of municipal vehicles, explicitly as a way to provide jobs to people facing difficulties in the traditional labour market (Sattari et al., 2022[31]). Across Europe, authorities may reserve contracts for social economy actors or include social value criteria – and many cities (from Paris to Copenhagen to Glasgow) have adopted “Buy Social” or socially responsible procurement strategies (OECD, 2023[11]). The trend here is twofold: It directly benefits social economy suppliers by giving them more business opportunities and revenue (thus reducing reliance on grants), and it also raises the credibility and visibility of social economy entities in the market.
Many local authorities partner with the social economy to deliver public services in innovative ways or to revitalise disadvantaged communities and neighbourhoods. This has led to innovative models of co-operation between municipalities and social economy entities, such as local governments providing free premises or seed funding for social co-operatives that run community cafés, care services, recycling workshops. By supporting experimentation and scaling what works, it helps the social economy grow in areas which private initiatives or market solutions might not reach (OECD, 2025[32]).
A noteworthy trend in Central and Eastern Europe is the entry of municipalities themselves into the social economy arena to address local challenges. In the Slovak Republic, this has taken shape through municipal social economy entities, businesses owned and run by local authorities with the explicit aim of creating social value – such as jobs for the long-term unemployed – in their communities. Enabled by a 2018 Slovak Act on social economy, many small municipalities, especially in economically lagging regions, set up social economy entities to perform services like public works, maintenance, waste management, or social care, which either were not being provided or were done via public works schemes. For example, a village might establish a social enterprise to refurbish public spaces and hire locals who were unemployed, thereby solving community problems while creating jobs. This model grew from the bottom-up: With nearly 3 000 municipalities in Slovak Republic (many very small), local leaders saw social economy entities as a tool to combat “institutional emptiness” and economic decline. The central government supported this by allowing municipalities to access national subsidies and EU funds earmarked for social economy projects.
This entails an innovative role of local government as an entrepreneur and supporter, where municipalities are not only regulators or funders but also implementers of social enterprise activity. This brings the benefit of rapidly expanding the social economy’s reach into remote areas and giving enterprises committed customers (i.e., the municipalities themselves). However, it also poses challenges, such as helping these enterprises remain sustainable and balancing their social goals with efficient service delivery. Nonetheless, the Slovak Republic’s experience is being watched by other countries as a bold way to galvanise the social economy where private initiatives alone might not emerge. It underscores the broader trend of local innovation in support of the social economy, complementing national programmes.
Source: European Commission (2024[33]), OECD (2023[34])
Another innovative development at the local level is the rise of social economy entities led by municipalities. In these cases, local governments themselves create and own social-purpose businesses to address community needs in an entrepreneurial way. A prominent example can be found in the Slovak Republic, where the 2018 Social Economy Act opened the door for municipalities (especially in economically lagging or rural areas) to establish social economy entities with the explicit aim of job creation and service provision for local benefit (European Commission, 2024[33]) (see Box 4.1). The national government in the Slovak Republic actively supports these municipal social economy entities by making them eligible for social economy subsidies and EU funds. The trend is gaining attention beyond the Slovak Republic: Other Central and Eastern European countries are watching this approach as a bold way to stimulate the social economy in regions with few private initiatives. It demonstrates how local authorities can innovate in service delivery through social enterprise models – achieving public missions (like village upkeep or social inclusion) more dynamically, and with community buy-in, than might be possible through standard public sector methods.
Skills development and capacity-building support
Training, mentoring, and educational programmes specifically tailored to social entrepreneurship are expanding (Catala, Savall and Chaves-Avila, 2023[35]). In several countries, social enterprise modules and courses have been introduced into mainstream business education – for example, major Spanish business schools now offer social entrepreneurship specialisations, and Italian co-operative federations run management training academies for co-operative and social enterprise managers. There has also been an emergence of dedicated social entrepreneurship bootcamps and accelerators (often supported by public or philanthropic funding) which provide mentorship by experienced entrepreneurs.
Other programmes seek to strengthen the skills and operational capacity of social economy entities. For instance, Ireland has developed a suite of supports through its Dormant Accounts Fund to build capacity in the sector. Since 2018, the Irish government (in partnership with philanthropic sponsors) has co-funded the Social Enterprise Development Fund, a EUR 4.4 million programme that annually awards cash grants and provides non-financial coaching and business development support to high-potential social economy entities (Government of Ireland, 2024[36]). In addition, Ireland’s Dormant Accounts schemes have included targeted training and mentoring initiatives, start-up funds, scaling-up grants and small capital grants for hundreds of social economy entities across the country. These measures are indicative of a broader push to professionalise the social economy through structured learning and financial assistance, providing social entrepreneurs with access to the same quality of business support as traditional SMEs.
The private and non-profit sectors are also involved in capacity-building for social economy entities, often via accelerators and international collaborations. One example is IKEA Social Entrepreneurship, which partnered with impact investor NESsT to launch a three-year accelerator programme in 2022 for social economy entities in Poland and Romania. Under this programme, ten selected social entrepreneurs receive tailored technical assistance, mentorship from business experts, help with market access, and even financing to scale up their impact-driven models (Impact Europe, 2025[37]). Similar multi-sector initiatives are present elsewhere – for example, Impact Hub innovation centres in numerous cities offer training workshops, incubation programs and mentorship specifically designed for social innovators. These hubs function as learning communities where social entrepreneurs can develop business skills (from digital marketing to impact measurement) in a peer-to-peer environment.
At the EU level, capacity-building schemes are available to the social economy. The Erasmus+ programme now funds projects for social enterprise education, and the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs exchange scheme actively welcomes aspiring social entrepreneurs to learn from host SMEs in another country (Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs, 2025[38]). This cross-border exchange helps new social founders gain management experience and build international networks. Such initiatives are leading to more opportunities for social entrepreneurs to improve competencies like measuring social impact, designing hybrid business models, accessing public procurement, or governance in participatory organisations.
Use of technology to amplify social innovation
Digital transformation has become a growing focus in social economy support, acknowledging that better use of technology can significantly amplify social innovation (OECD, 2025[8]). In the past, many social economy entities lagged in digital capacity due to resource constraints (Buck et al., 2025[39]). Governments and networks are working to bridge this gap. A few countries have launched targeted programmes to boost ICT skills and digitalisation in the social sector – for example, training non-profits in digital marketing, or helping co-operatives develop online platforms. In Belgium, the “Social Tech Academy” was created as an EU-supported platform to improve digital competencies in social economy entities, offering resources on topics like data analytics for social impact and transitioning to a platform (Social Tech Academy, 2024[40]). Some national initiatives provide small grants for IT upgrades or free/discounted software to social economy entities, understanding that even modest technology investments (such as adopting a customer relationship management system or better data management tools) can increase efficiency and impact.
Targeted support for digitalisation in the social economy is often backed by recovery funds such as the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) under NextGenerationEU. Spain offers a particularly instructive case through its Plan Integral de Impulso a la Economía Social 2024–25, which earmarks RRF funding for technological modernisation of social economy entities. Under the plan’s “IMPULSA-TEC” programme, grants are available for projects that create digital platforms, automate processes or deploy new tech tools to improve social economy business operations and community services – with particular encouragement for initiatives benefiting rural areas (Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social, 2024[41]). Even smaller measures, such as government vouchers for non-profits to obtain software or NGO-tech support platforms (e.g. TechSoup offering discounted IT products), are helping social economy entities adopt technology that amplifies their reach and efficiency.
Some support providers/initiatives align social economy development with the green transition and other major societal challenges. Some incubators and funding programmes explicitly target social economy entities working on climate and sustainability solutions. For instance, the city of Amsterdam has integrated social entrepreneurship into its circular economy agenda: Through Impact Hub’s Circular Ecosystem, Amsterdam brings together impact start-ups, investors, corporates and the local government to accelerate circular business models. This platform runs acceleration programmes and competitions to scale up enterprises in areas such as waste recycling, sustainable fashion and renewable materials, having already facilitated millions of euros in investment for circular startups (Impact Hub Amsterdam, 2024[42]). Similar trends are observed elsewhere – Athens’ Green and Social Innovation incubator focuses on eco-social start-ups, and in Italy and France, calls for projects under recovery plans have prioritised social economy entities in sectors such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture or eco-tourism.
Formation of networks, coalitions and knowledge-sharing platforms
At national and regional levels, governance structures now embed the social economy more formally into decision-making and co-ordination processes for social, fiscal, economic, and public policy. In Poland, for example, the 2022 Social Economy Act not only defined social economy entities but also established a multi-level governance framework: A National Committee for the Development of the Social Economy and parallel regional committees have been set up to bring together government officials and social economy representatives to steer policies and programmes (Republic of Poland, 2023[43]). A similar trend is seen in other countries – Spain’s government works closely with CEPES (its national social economy confederation) through a permanent dialogue platform, and Italy’s national council for the third sector includes social enterprise networks as key stakeholders. Furthermore, thematic coalitions spanning multiple countries have arisen to tackle specific support gaps. One recent example is the Buy Social Europe B2B initiative launched in 2023, which unites 23 partner organisations from 17 countries to promote socially responsible purchasing across borders. Led by Euclid Network and others, this coalition connects established “Buy Social” networks (from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) in a joint effort to link social enterprise suppliers with mainstream corporate and public buyers at a European scale (Euclid Network, 2023[44]).
International mutual-learning events and platforms have multiplied, creating a true pan-European community for the social economy. The European Commission and Social Economy Europe now co-host high-profile conferences – notably the European Social Economy Summits (EUSES). In May 2021, EUSES in Mannheim brought together policymakers and practitioners to adopt the Mannheim Declaration on social economy’s future, and in November 2023 the Social Economy Conference in San Sebastián (Donostia) convened around 2 000 participants from across Europe and beyond (Diesis Network, 2023[45]). These gatherings, alongside global forums like the Social Enterprise World Forum, facilitate intensive exchange of ideas, tools and partnerships. They have led to joint declarations and action plans that align efforts across countries. Importantly, digital knowledge platforms have emerged as well: The EU Social Economy Gateway (launched 2023) serves as an online hub aggregating resources, while projects like the ESF+-funded Competence Centres for Social Innovation are linking experts across member states to share best practices (EU Social Economy Gateway, 2025[46]). Through such networks, innovations pioneered in one locality – whether a successful incubator model or a financing tool – can be disseminated and adapted elsewhere, accelerating the overall development of supportive ecosystems. The Better Incubation initiative worked to equip mainstream business support organisations with new tools and practices to better serve social and inclusive entrepreneurship, thereby strengthening the linkages between business support networks and the social economy ecosystem (Better Incubation, 2022[47]).
Access to business support for the social economy has improved significantly. However, it remains inconsistent due to fragmented policy frameworks. This fragmentation is partly due to the relatively recent emergence of the social economy on some policy agendas – i.e. consistent national strategies or “one-stop” support structures are not yet widespread. Where mainstream businesses might turn to unified enterprise agencies, social economy entities often must navigate a patchwork of smaller initiatives (Budumuru and Paruchuru, 2025[48]). Moreover, there is a legal ambiguity around what constitutes a social economy entity in some EU countries. Different definitions and legal forms abound, which makes it difficult for authorities to design and target support measures effectively (OECD, 2022[10]). This challenge is pronounced in countries where only certain types of social enterprise, for example, e.g. work-integration enterprises, are officially recognised, leaving other socially-driven businesses outside the scope of support schemes.
Traditional funding models often are not equipped to prioritise social returns. Many social economy entities face challenges in obtaining bank loans or private investment due to a lack of collateral and modest financial returns (Liñares-Zegarra and Wilson, 2024[49]). Conventional support funds may exclude social economy actors when eligibility focuses on high growth or commercial metrics (Kraemer-Eis et al., 2023[50]). In Germany, for instance, social entrepreneurs have faced bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of financial support. Similarly, in Central and Eastern Europe, reliance on short-term EU grants creates challenges for sustainable financing post-grant. EU instruments like InvestEU aim to bridge this gap, but awareness among commercial investors regarding social economy entities’ business models remains limited (OECD, 2025[8]).
Skills shortages undermine social economy entities’ potential to scale. Unlike start-ups that can join accelerators, social entrepreneurs may find that conventional incubators do not address their need to balance mission and margin. While social economy entities' support needs are broadly similar to other SMEs, there are important differences, such as a need for help with measuring social impact and accessing networks that value their mission. Currently, business support organisations for regular SMEs often do not have the expertise to advise on these areas. Additionally, the social economy faces a talent attraction and retention issue, partly because salaries can be lower and career paths less defined than in the corporate sector (World Economic Forum, 2023[51]).
The social economy’s contribution is not yet fully understood by the broader public and business community (Spanuth and Urbano, 2023[52]). Without widespread awareness, support schemes may be underused. Social entrepreneurs might not know about them, and public procurement officers may not incorporate social clauses. Additionally, changing societal perceptions, such as the misconception that social economy entities are merely small charities rather than innovative businesses, remains an ongoing challenge across EU Member States.
Table 4.2. summarises the barriers identified in this section. These classifications are based on whether they are encountered by the public or private sector, and whether they are more commonly observed at the national or subnational level. The remainder of this section offers additional details on each of the points outlined in the table.
Barriers encountered by the public sector in providing business support for the social economy
National level
In some countries, social economy policy is still nascent or not unified, leading to uncertainty about definitions and responsibilities. For example, in countries like Lithuania, the legal definition of “social enterprise” (focused mainly on work integration of persons with disabilities) excluded many community-oriented businesses from official support. This lack of a unified definition or legal status made it hard for national programmes to target social economy entities – many were assimilated into regular SMEs or non-profits. Designing effective support is challenging when the eligible beneficiaries are not clearly identified in law. Some governments are now attempting to pass framework laws, as with the “Law on Social Business” in Lithuania (see Box 4.2) (European Commission, 2023[53]).
Co-ordination across ministries and government levels remains challenging for policymakers. The social economy cuts across labour, social affairs, the economy, and other ministries. Without clear co-ordination, one ministry’s SME programme might exclude social economy entities, while another ministry might have small grant schemes for non-profits, resulting in a disjointed landscape. The OECD’s Recommendation on the Social and Solidarity Economy and Social Innovation (OECD, 2022[54]) highlights the importance of clarifying government responsibilities and establishing one-stop-shop support structures. Only a few Member States (such as Spain, France, and Luxembourg) have central co-ordination units for social economy policy – others are still developing these.
Lithuania illustrates how a narrow legal framework can pose challenges for national support of the social economy. As of 2021, Lithuania’s law attributed “social enterprise” status mainly to work integration social enterprises (WISEs) employing disabled people, under legislation dating back to 2004. While this law allowed the government to channel wage subsidies and tax breaks to those WISEs, it left out a broader universe of social economy actors – such as community co-operatives, social startups in environmental sectors, or civic initiatives – which legally fell under general NGO or SME categories. National support programs, consequently, struggled to reach the broader social economy. For example, a social co-operative providing community childcare might not qualify for SME innovation grants (since it’s non-profit), nor for WISE support (since it doesn’t meet the strict criteria), effectively slipping through the cracks.
Recognising this challenge, the Lithuanian government drafted a new “Law on Social Business” to expand recognition to a wider range of social economy entities. However, progress has been slow, and until a comprehensive law is adopted, national policy remains piecemeal. This situation has hampered national initiatives: Authorities find it difficult to design targeted support or fiscal incentives when the target group is not clearly defined in law. It also creates confusion – social entrepreneurs are unsure which support they are eligible for, and some traditional SME support providers are unsure whether to adapt their services. Lithuania’s case underlines a fundamental challenge for national governments: Establishing a clear, inclusive policy framework so that support measures can be effectively tailored to all social economy entities.
Source: European Commission (2023[53]).
Scaling up funding to meet sector demand poses a structural challenge for national programmes, as EU‑backed pilots often lack sustainability once project grants expire. Dedicated funding for the social economy remains relatively limited in many state budgets. This funding gap poses a challenge to the sustainability of support programmes. For instance, a national fund for social innovation pilots may be launched using EU recovery funds, but questions arise on how to maintain financing after EU project timelines (Hüsken et al., 2024[55]). Additionally, making sure national programs reach local grassroots organisations (not just well-established social economy entities) is an ongoing concern. There can be an urban bias in uptake of national schemes, as social economy entities in remote or rural areas find it challenging to access central support due to distance or lack of information (Olmedo, van Twuijver and O’Shaughnessy, 2023[56]). Overcoming these access barriers through outreach or decentralised delivery remains a challenge for national agencies.
Balancing flexibility with accountability in public funding is a recurring issue, particularly when social economy entities need patient support. Social economy projects may pivot as social needs change, which doesn’t always fit into government funding criteria. Funding criteria that value social impact and enterprise viability equally is complex. An interesting example comes from Hungary, where the government, informed by an Interreg project, adjusted a national grant scheme (“MarketMate”) to include new pre-qualification criteria focusing on social impact alongside business viability (OECD, 2023[57]).
Subnational level
Many municipalities or regions, especially in remote areas, have constrained budgets and few personnel dedicated to economic development, let alone specialised social economy units (Bourdin and Jacquet, 2025[58]). Thus, even if a city recognises the value of social economy entities (for job inclusion or service delivery), it may struggle to allocate funding for grants, incubation spaces, or staff to liaise with the sector. This can result in well-meaning local strategies with modest impact due to underfunding (European Investment Bank, 2025[59]).
Emilia-Romagna, a northern Italian region, provides a case of a subnational authority addressing the challenge of integrating social economy entities into mainstream economic programs. The challenge was twofold: Social economy entities in the region lacked managerial skills and innovation training, yet the existing ESF calls did not attract these organisations – either because they were unaware, or the call criteria didn’t fit social enterprise profiles.
ART-ER, the Emilia-Romagna joint stock consortium company, supported the region in adjusting an ESF-funded call titled 'Skills for Social Innovation' through its participation in the Interreg Europe RaiSE project. This was done to better support social economy entities. It was realised that these entities needed outreach and possibly tailored criteria in order to compete for funding. The challenge for the region was to promote social enterprise participation without creating a separate, duplicative programme. They modified the call’s guidelines to explicitly encourage projects led by or serving social economy entities, and relaxed requirements such as co-funding levels and profit-based indicators that had unintentionally favoured traditional firms. Despite these changes, uptake was initially slow – many social economy entities had no experience of applying for ESF calls.
In response, the region hosted information sessions and engaged with local social economy networks to spread the word. Over time, a higher number of social cooperatives and associations applied for the adjusted programme, seeking support to train their staff in business planning, digital skills and impact measurement. Over the next few years, the Emilia-Romagna Region changed its approach to social economy and social innovation, and the ecosystem gradually became broader and richer, incorporating new actors and sectors. In 2023, the region started a co-design process with ART-ER for the establishment of a Research and Social Innovation Hub, involving local stakeholders, with the aim of creating a platform for the co-design of social innovation policies. Today, the Hub comprises 57 organisations representing the entire ecosystem, including social enterprises.
Since 2024, ART-ER has been a partner in the Interreg Europe project RESEES, which is dedicated to strengthening the capacity of the social economy and its stakeholders. As part of this project, ART-ER is working with the Emilia-Romagna Region's Productive Activities sector to develop a roadmap to improve the 'Social Innovation Projects Call' (Measure 1.3.5. PR ERDF 21-28). The Emilia-Romagna experience highlights a broader local challenge: adapting existing support instruments to the realities of the social economy. This often requires procedural flexibility, dedicated outreach and sustained effort to help fledgling or under-resourced organisations develop the institutional knowledge, skills and systems required to engage with formal support mechanisms.
Source: Borzaga (2020[60]).
Funding streams and state‑aid rules may limit local innovation by risk‑averse municipalities. Local initiatives often depend on national or EU funding. If higher-level funding streams are rigid or not aligned with local needs, it constrains what can be done. Additionally, bureaucracy and state aid rules can impede local innovation. Public officers at municipal level might fear that offering preferential treatment (like a rent-free space or a reserved contract) to social economy entities could violate procurement or competition rules (European Parliament, 2023[61]). Interpreting these rules in a socially proactive way is a challenge, as many local governments prefer to be cautious, which can stifle support for creativity. The EU guidance in the Social Economy Action Plan, encouraging the use of socially responsible public procurement, is helpful, but it takes time and training for local procurement officials to adopt these practices (European Commission, 2021[62]).
Stakeholder engagement mechanisms are still underdeveloped. The social economy thrives on partnership, but local governments might not have established processes to co-create policies with co-operatives, associations and citizens. Engaging a wide array of stakeholders in programme design can be challenging due to power imbalances or a lack of experience. Regions that have set up structured dialogues or councils (like the Social Economy Promotion Council in some Spanish regions) have had to invest effort to sustain meaningful participation. In places without such tradition, public officials may design support programs in isolation, which risks undermining effectiveness. Additionally, measuring the impact of social economy initiatives at local level is challenging but necessary to justify ongoing support (OECD, 2025[8]). Many local governments lack data on how social economy entities improve social inclusion or save public money. Developing impact evaluation methods can highlight the economic and social benefits and even potential cost savings that social economy initiatives bring to subnational governments (Cunha, Alves and Araujo, 2024[63]).
Transferring successful business support programmes for the social economy from one locality to another is often thwarted by legal, institutional and contextual differences. There are good examples of city-level support (e.g. Barcelona’s robust strategy for the social and solidarity economy, or Bologna’s co-design labs for social innovation), but transferring these models to other cities or rural regions is not easy (OECD, 2025[8]). Each locality has different legal competencies and stakeholder landscapes. For instance, a small town may not have any social finance institution, making it hard to implement a local social business loan scheme even if desired.
Barriers to business support for the social economy by the private sector
While impact investing and social finance have grown in Europe, they are still niche compared to mainstream venture capital or banking. Convincing private investors to accept lower financial returns in exchange for social impact remains challenging (Luz, Schauer and Viehweger, 2024[64]). Many social economy entities report that banks and investors apply the same risk-return expectations to them as to conventional firms, which can lead to financing rejections due to lower profitability. This highlights that mainstream financiers often lack understanding and impact assessment tools to evaluate social business models (Nachyła and Justo, 2024[65]). As a result, national social finance intermediaries (e.g. social investment funds, ethical banks) carry a heavy burden but have limited scale. They also face the challenge of blending public and private funds to share risk, something that requires complex arrangements and trust-building between sectors.
Reaching grassroots enterprises with private support programmes remains limited, especially in rural areas or among mission‑driven ventures led by women or underrepresented groups. For example, a large corporation might run a national social enterprise accelerator or grant competition (as some European banks and firms do), but making sure that grassroots social entrepreneurs across all regions know about and can access these opportunities is not straightforward. Private programs sometimes concentrate in capital cities or rely on digital applications, which can leave out those without the savvy or networks to apply (Toukola and Ahola, 2022[66]). Diversity and inclusion in these programs (e.g. reaching social economy entities led by women, or in less urbanised regions) remain ongoing difficulties. Additionally, private actors supporting the social economy must balance their own objectives with the needs of the social economy entities. A corporate sponsor may prioritise certain thematic areas (digital innovation for good) that not all social economy entities align with, potentially skewing support towards those that fit the corporate strategy rather than those with highest community need (Park and Kim, 2020[67]).
In Central and Eastern Europe, nurturing a social investment ecosystem has been particularly challenging. A recent example is the NESsT CEE Accelerator, a program targeting social enterprises and socially-impactful businesses in Poland and Romania which was launched by NESsT (an impact investment NGO) with corporate partners like IKEA Social Entrepreneurship and Cisco Foundation. The challenge addressed by this initiative is illustrative: although Poland and Romania have growing numbers of social enterprises tackling issues of poverty and job inclusion, the supply of private capital and business support for these enterprises is very low. Mainstream investors in these countries rarely fund social businesses, and local banks have little experience offering “patient” loans.
The NESsT CEE Accelerator seeks to mobilise private capital by blending it with philanthropic and corporate funds – providing patient, equity-free financing alongside tailored mentorship. Despite its innovative design, the program faces ongoing work in building awareness among social enterprises (many have never engaged with investors) and engaging local corporate mentors. As part of this learning process, the due diligence process had to be adapted (since traditional investment criteria didn’t fit), and NESsT works closely with IKEA and other corporate partners on evaluating social impact and business performance.
Furthermore, convincing private investors to eventually step in remains an uphill battle. Early-stage social enterprises often need multiple rounds of concessional support before they become attractive to commercial funders. The CEE experience underlines that private initiatives in nascent markets must overcome not only the lack of investor familiarity but also the low density of investment-ready social enterprises, creating a classic chicken-and-egg scenario. NESsT and similar actors play a crucial intermediary role, but scaling such efforts requires broader buy-in from the private sector which is still a work in progress.
Source: NESsT (2025[68]).
Market integration of social economy entities depends on changing corporate culture. One goal of many private support initiatives is to link social economy entities with traditional markets – for instance, through corporate procurement or supply chain inclusion (Serres, Hudon and Maon, 2022[9]). However, internal resistance or inertia within large companies can impede such efforts. Procurement officers might be hesitant to change suppliers to social economy entities due to perceptions of higher risk or simply lack of knowledge. Private networks advocating for social procurement, like national CSR forums, encounter the challenge of shifting corporate culture to value social outcomes. Similarly, organisations like national chambers of commerce or industry associations are just beginning to open up to social economy entities; integrating these new players into established business networks is slow. The lack of a common impact measurement standard is another issue that private supporters grapple with. Investors and companies often find it challenging to quantify the social return on investment, which can make it harder to justify or optimise their support for social economy initiatives (Nielsen, Lueg and Van Liempd, 2020[69]) (OECD, 2020[13]).
Local private and community‑led initiatives fail to achieve scale, as they depend on a few key champions and face challenges in financial sustainability. Grassroots social economy support networks often rely on a few passionate individuals or organisations. This can make them fragile, and if key people move on or funding ends, the initiative may stall (Brzustewicz et al., 2022[70]). Unlike national or corporate programmes, local private initiatives may lack formal structure or steady income, which threatens their longevity. For example, a community co-working space for social innovators might initially be launched with a grant and run by volunteers. The challenge becomes how to make it financially self-sustaining in a community that may have limited paying capacity.
Limited links across sectors and geography undermine the potential for collective support. While the social economy ethos encourages co-operation, on the ground, local social economy entities can be dispersed or siloed by sector (Steiner, Calò and Shucksmith, 2023[71]). A city may have separate networks for cultural associations, work integration co-operatives or for other entities, which may not naturally collaborate. A private local initiative aimed at supporting the social economy needs to bring these sub-communities together, which can be difficult.
Formal collaboration between grassroots initiatives and municipalities is not being developed. A related challenge is demonstrating impact locally to stakeholders. While national programmes might use broad statistics, a local initiative might need to show its direct benefit (e.g. how many social economy entities were created in town, how many people got jobs) to secure ongoing community support (CAN Europe, 2025[72]). Gathering such data and stories is not always straightforward, especially for volunteer-run efforts that lack monitoring and evaluation expertise.
Access to broader knowledge networks remains a barrier for subnational private schemes. Local private initiatives might not have access to best practice examples or networks beyond their locality. EU-level projects and networks (like REVES or Social Economy Europe’s regional exchanges) attempt to share models, but small grassroots groups may not partake due to language or capacity barriers. This means some local private support stays rudimentary (i.e., limited to informal advice or meet-and-greet events) rather than evolving into more sophisticated services like incubation or financing (European Investment Bank, 2024[73]).
When developing business development support for social economy entities, such support needs to be:
Accessible: the variety of support services should be provided, in both urban and rural areas.
Adapted: because social economy entities seek to combine financial sustainability with maximising social impact
Affordable: social economy entities might not easily afford to pay for support services. Therefore, smart pricing mechanisms, costs and third-party financing may be required.
This section sets out policy orientations to reinforce the social economy across the EU, drawing upon best practices. As shown in Table 4.3. , it is structured around national and sub‑national, public and private roles and entails dedicated strategies and institutional co-ordination, supportive legal recognition, tailored financing, inclusive SME support, socially responsible procurement, skills development, co‑production models and monitoring systems that are data-driven and capable of adaptation to evolving conditions.
At the national level
A strategy or action plan for the social economy at the national level helps address fragmentation by providing a unified framework for support measures. Strategies set a vision with measurable objectives (e.g. improving social economy entities’ access to finance, increasing employment of disadvantaged groups) and co-ordinate policy across ministries. They need to be developed in consultation with social economy stakeholders and updated regularly to remain relevant. National strategies can also map existing support and identify gaps to fill (e.g. lack of incubators or finance in certain regions). This is the case of the two Spanish Social Economy Strategies (2017-20 and 2023-27), co-designed with social economy stakeholders and various ministries. It is seen as a milestone that provides a unified framework for the sector, giving greater visibility and aligning efforts towards shared objectives (Ministry of Labour and Social Economy (Spain), 2023[74]).
Clear responsibility for social economy policy and “one-stop shop” bodies make it easier for social entrepreneurs to navigate available support, thereby tackling the co-ordination challenge. This could be a national Social Economy Agency or an online gateway that centralises information on funding, training, legal advice, and market opportunities for social economy entities. Launched in 2023, the EU Social Economy Gateway acts as a one-stop-shop to provide social economy entities with centralised information and resources on funding, training opportunities, events, country-specific support (EU Social Economy Gateway, 2024[75]).
Policymakers and support organisations could use the Better Entrepreneurship Policy Tool (BEPT) to assess their current social economy framework, identify gaps, benchmark against good practices, and align their policies accordingly. As a joint online self-assessment and guidance platform, the BEPT includes a dedicated social entrepreneurship module, guidance notes on the dimensions of culture, institutions, finance, markets and impact, and a questionnaire that helps jurisdictions identify gaps and benchmark their ecosystem for the social economy (Better Entrepreneurship Policy Tool, 2023[76]).
If current laws are too narrow (e.g. only WISE are recognised), it could be particularly useful to broaden their scope to include a wide range of social economy models. Additionally, legal frameworks can provide advantages such as simplified registration, partial tax exemptions, or the ability to receive preferential public contracts. Incorporating a legal status for social economy entities with clear social impact and reinvestment criteria into company law enables easier identification and targeted support. Defining and clarifying criteria also tackles the confusion that complicates support provision. In Belgium, the 2019 national Companies and Associations Code (CAC) allows co-operatives to apply for ‘social enterprise’ status if they pursue a general-interest mission and agree to strict reinvestment rules (Federal Public Service Economy Belgium, 2019[77]).
Establishing or scaling up social investment funds, guarantee schemes, or credit lines dedicated to social economy entities can help bridge funding gaps. Using EU instruments like InvestEU guarantees can encourage banks to lend more to the social economy by derisking such loans (InvestEU, 2024[78]). Governments can also offer tax incentives to investors providing patient capital to social economy entities. Another key measure is supporting the growth of impact finance by, for instance, co-investing in impact venture funds or setting up outcome payment frameworks for projects by social providers. By improving financial support, governments address the challenge of capital access and help social economy entities scale their impact. In Spain, the government launched a Social Impact Fund in 2024 with a budget of EUR 400 million from EU recovery funds, co-investing alongside private capital to provide tailored financing for social enterprises (President of the Government of Spain, 2025[79]).
To provide social economy entities with the same benefits from general business support, national programmes for SMEs, startups and innovation could be adjusted to include social economy criteria. For instance, innovation grants or accelerators could explicitly encourage applications from social economy entities if applicable and adapt selection criteria to recognise social impact alongside commercial potential. National export promotion agencies could add services for social economy entities (as seen in Catalonia, Spain), and digitalisation initiatives (such as national digital skills training for SMEs) could target social economy entities as well. This “inclusive mainstreaming” allows social economy entities to be included in the larger pool of business resources, rather than being on a separate track (European Commission, 2021[80]). It addresses the challenge of parallel siloed support by building capacity and competitiveness of social economy entities within existing structures.
Achieving greater visibility and consumer recognition, while also expanding access to wider markets, requires providing guidance and, where feasible, setting targets or requirements for contracting authorities to integrate social considerations into procurement processes. It involves encouraging the use of reserved contracts for social economy actors in certain services or adding criteria that reward bidders delivering social inclusion or community benefits. National policy can also support the creation of “social marketplaces” or labels. These measures orient support toward creating demand for social economy products and services, thereby addressing the market access challenge. For example, in Valladolid (Spain), 8-10% of its public contracts are reserved for work-integration social economy entities and sheltered workshops, guaranteeing a stable market for social economy products and services (European Commission, 2020[81]). The EU Social Economy Gateway’s focus on socially responsible procurement also promotes these approaches more broadly, providing guidance, tools and case studies to help public and private buyers integrate social considerations into procurement practices across Europe (EU Social Economy Gateway, 2025[82]) (European Commission, 2020[83]).
An important step toward attracting talent and mitigating the capacity deficit challenge is to fund training programmes, management scholarships, and exchanges targeted at social entrepreneurs and their staff. For example, national training vouchers or an entrepreneurship curriculum tailored for social economy entities can be established. Since 2021, the RÉALIS programme in Occitanie has been supporting committed social economy entities through training, specialised mentoring and monitoring on topics such as shared governance and impact measurement, which helps to strengthen the region's skills in the social economy (Région Occitanie, 2024[84]). Additionally, fostering research and data collection on the social economy (e.g. via observatories or partnering with universities) can produce evidence of impact and needs, guiding better support.
The facilitation of regular dialogue and partnership between public, private, and civil society actors around social economy development fosters ecosystem-building. By involving multi-stakeholder consultation bodies, policies and support schemes can tap into the expertise of the social economy community. Moreover, encouraging partnerships means supporting networks by, for instance, funding national federations or networks that provide support services to their members. Overall, a collaborative ecosystem where knowledge is shared and roles are clear – i.e., public sector providing an enabling environment, private sector and civil society delivering support on ground – is more resilient and effective. As an example, Luxembourg’s Ministry of Labour launched in 2024 working groups to develop a national strategy for the social economy and social innovation (Portail de l'Économie Sociale et Solidaire, 2024[85]).
At the subnational level
Regional and municipal authorities can explicitly incorporate social economy development as a pillar in their economic strategies. This could take the form of dedicated chapters in regional development plans or stand-alone local social economy strategies. Key elements include mapping local social economy actors, setting targets (e.g. number of new social economy entities to be created, sectors to be developed), and aligning local resources to support these targets. For example, Barcelona’s City Council co-created a Social and Solidarity Economy Strategy for 2030 that mapped hundreds of SSE actors and set concrete growth objectives, embedding social economy firmly in the city’s development agenda and supporting long-term initiatives like a permanent social enterprise incubator (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2022[86]).
Local governments can orient their procurement practices to support the social economy. This includes adopting “social clauses” in tenders – requiring or rewarding inclusion of target groups (workers with disabilities, long-term unemployed, etc.) by bidders – and setting aside certain contracts for social economy entities and co-operatives where allowed. Local councils can also practice “community commissioning,” co-designing services with social providers and users. Training procurement officials in these practices is also crucial, as is sharing model clauses and success stories to build confidence. By redirecting a small percentage of city/regional procurement to social economy providers, authorities generate stable income streams for them, directly addressing market access challenges. The Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region in Slovak Republic piloted the use of reserved public contracts in 2021 for school catering, meaning only registered social economy entities or sheltered workshops could bid to supply local canteens; this led to a network of 11 new local social suppliers (co-operatives and farms) and created 19 jobs in its first year of implementation (Interreg Danude Region, 2024[87]).
Subnational authorities can create local support centres acting as one-stop shops at the city or regional level. These hubs can offer business development services, networking, and signposting to funding opportunities. Crucially, they need to be tailored to local context. For instance, a rural region’s hub might focus on co-operative agriculture and multi-stakeholder community enterprises, whereas an urban hub might emphasise tech social startups and creative social businesses. Municipalities can also provide spaces and infrastructure by offering unused public buildings at nominal rent for social enterprise co-working or retail (as some cities do with “social enterprise zones”). Advertising these centres and connecting them to national resources will help maximise their effectiveness. Local hubs embody the idea of bringing support closer to beneficiaries and can significantly reduce barriers to entry for new social entrepreneurs. As an example, the city of Athens repurposed its historic Kypseli Municipal Market into a social enterprise hub managed by a non-profit organisation. After reopening in late 2018, the city provided the renovated space rent-free for five years, and within one year the market housed numerous social businesses, hosted 68 community events and created 37 local jobs, turning an unused public building into a thriving social economy zone (Impact Hub Athens, 2021[88]).
Another avenue for support to explore could be to involve social economy actors in co-producing public services and local solutions. This entails setting up permanent multi-stakeholder forums or councils where social economy entities, co-operatives, citizen groups and businesses sit together with local officials to identify community needs and design initiatives. For example, a city might have a Social Economy Council that meets regularly to guide how the city can support and leverage the social economy in tackling issues like homelessness or environmental goals. Additionally, local authorities can support the creation of community-led enterprises such as energy co-ops or community development corporations by providing seed funding and technical help. Embracing co-production addresses the challenge of low stakeholder involvement, helping support measures become finely tuned to real needs. The Croatian city of Križevci partnered with a local energy co-operative in 2020 to co-produce a 50 kW solar power plant on a municipal building roof through a citizen crowdfunding scheme. The city provided administrative support and guarantees to repay community investors from energy savings, enabling residents (including marginalised groups) to co-own a renewable energy project that serves local needs (REScoop, 2025[89]).
Developing simple indicators and evaluation processes at local level can help to track the outcomes of social economy support initiatives. Examples include the number of jobs created, people trained, or services delivered. The broader social impact, such as inclusion or reduced public expenditures through preventive action, also needs to be considered. Collaborating with local universities or using participatory evaluation methods can be useful for publicising success stories and impact data, thereby building public and political support (Servin et al., 2025[90]) (OECD, 2023[91]).
For private sector-based business support
Private financial institutions are key in developing and scaling investment vehicles that could support social economy entities. Banks can create specialised loan products with flexible terms (longer grace periods, lower collateral) for social businesses, potentially backed by guarantee schemes. Impact investors and philanthropies can collaborate to establish funds offering patient equity or revenue-based financing to social economy entities. Large institutional investors could allocate a portion of their portfolios to impact funds, with government incentives as catalysts. This endeavour tackles funding gaps by mobilising private capital. For example, in 2024, a Danish impact investor launched Den Sociale Kapitalfond Invest II, a EUR 90 million social innovation fund co-financed by pension funds and a public investment bank, to provide patient growth capital to social economy entities (Den Sociale Kapitalfond, 2024[92]). The private sector could also push for standardising impact measurement, using frameworks like IRIS+ or ESG metrics, to build confidence in investing in social outcomes, addressing the risk perception challenge.
Corporations and conventional businesses can integrate the social economy into their value chains and CSR strategies. Corporations can commit to sourcing a percentage of goods or services from social economy entities (e.g. a food retailer sourcing from social farming co-ops). They can also offer their expertise through mentorship programs, secondments, or pro-bono services to social entrepreneurs. Business associations and chambers at the national level could open membership to social economy entities and create forums for exchange to break down barriers between traditional and social business communities. Moreover, corporate foundations can focus grant programs on capacity-building for social economy entities, moving beyond charity to strategic social investment. For example, IKEA’s Social Entrepreneurship programme partners with social businesses in its value chain. In 2024, it collaborated with 11 social economy entities and supported 104 social ventures across 2 countries to co-create products that generate livelihoods for marginalised communities (IKEA Social Entrepreneurship, 2024[93]).
Private actors, especially national networks (NGOs, think tanks, academic centres), can enhance collaboration to provide cohesive support services. Establishing “centres of excellence” or online portals by private sector coalitions (with case studies, toolkits, databases of support programmes) can address the information asymmetry and help social entrepreneurs find the help they need. This is the case of Italy’s Forum del Terzo Settore, acting as a single umbrella network for social economy associations, co-ordinating advocacy and support services for social economy entities across the country (Borzaga, 2020[94]).
Traditional businesses and investors can embed social impact criteria into their decision-making to adopt social impact considerations and reporting. For instance, banks can incorporate social impact scoring when evaluating SME loan applications (potentially giving favourable terms to those with positive impact), and investors could report the social outcomes of their portfolios. This creates an environment where doing business with social economy entities is valued. National industry codes or principles for responsible investment that explicitly include social economy engagement can also formalise this. As more companies embrace ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards, affirming that the ‘S’ includes partnering with or supporting the social economy is a smart orientation. For example, an InvestEU guarantee enables Triodos Bank to lend to social entrepreneurs at reduced interest rates and collateral, rewarding positive social impact across the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Germany (European Investment Fund (EIF), 2023[95]).
Community actors and local businesses can form networks or consortia to achieve economies of scale and mutual support. For example, forming local consortium co-operatives or associations that jointly market products, share back-office services, or bid for larger contracts can greatly enhance the viability of individual social economy entities. This orientation addresses the fragmentation challenge by pooling resources, as a group of social economy entities in a region could, for instance, create a shared training academy or a joint financing vehicle through a credit union. Encouraging the creation of local umbrella groups can institutionalise these networks. Such networks also provide a unified interface to interact with local authorities and national bodies. In Italy, the Sale della Terra consortium in Campania brings together multiple social co-operatives to pool their resources and co-ordinate services. It provides shared administrative support, training and credit access to member co-ops, offers political representation, and even acts as a general contractor to jointly bid on public tenders that would be too large for a single co-operative (Action Research for Co-Development, 2021[96]).
Local private sector, including large employers like hospitals, universities, and factories, can commit to supporting the social economy in their community. Local chambers of commerce or SME associations can play a role by promoting business-to-business linkages where mainstream firms subcontract work to social economy entities. In 2022 the city of Poznań (Poland) launched an Anchor Institutions Network that brings together its major universities, large companies (such as Volkswagen), municipal agencies and community organisations to collaborate on local development – a key focus is to co-ordinate procurement and supply chains so that these anchors increase sourcing from local social economy entities and co-operatives. Through this network, anchor institutions in Poznań have started jointly designing procurement criteria and community projects to channel more business toward social economy providers, demonstrating the private sector’s role in local social value creation (Urbact, 2022[97]).
Key players in embedding social enterprise in the local culture include civil society groups, schools and local businesses. This entails, for instance, social entrepreneurship modules in school curricula or local youth programs, organising community idea competitions for social innovation, or celebrating local social entrepreneurs through awards. Local media or sponsors can help highlight success stories to the wider community. Senior entrepreneurs in a community can also mentor emerging social entrepreneurs, fostering inter-generational knowledge transfer. Essentially, cultivating a supportive culture at the grassroots level helps build a pipeline of new social economy initiatives and broad-based buy-in. Over time, a culture that values social economy entities as much as any business will ease many of the soft challenges (like stigma or misunderstanding) that the social economy faces, especially in areas where it’s not well known (Jungsberg et al., 2020[98]).
Local private initiatives can leverage digital tools to overcome geographic and resource limitations. This could be achieved, for instance, by creating local online marketplaces (as seen in Flanders with People Made) to improve market access, or by using social media groups for knowledge exchange among social entrepreneurs in a rural area. Embracing innovative models like time-banking, co-operative platforms, or community crowdfunding can mobilise new resources and participants. A town could also start a local “social venture crowdfunding” festival, with residents directly funding and voting on projects. Additionally, local support actors can connect virtually with other regions to learn and share. By being tech-enabled and innovative, subnational private support can punch above its weight, mitigate isolation, and tap into the collective intelligence of the wider social economy movement. In Belgium, the Flemish social economy sector launched the People Made online marketplace to showcase and sell products created by local social economy entities. It functions as a digital platform where a network of social economy organisations (e.g. upcycling workshops, circular economy initiatives) can reach consumers beyond their immediate locality, thereby significantly expanding market access for small social economy entities (Van Opstal, Pals and Sangers, 2025[99]).
Finally, as private and community actors build the social economy locally, they need to include diverse voices and target underserved populations. This means creating opportunities for women, youth, migrants, and marginalised communities to lead and benefit from social enterprise development. For example, a local social enterprise incubator could run cohorts specifically for migrant entrepreneurs or people with disabilities, providing tailored support. Community foundations and NGOs can provide micro-grants or mentoring to those groups to encourage their initiatives. Cultivating inclusive growth in the social economy will maximise its social impact and help address equity challenges that mainstream economic development often leaves behind. For example, the SINGA social incubator network has expanded across France and Germany to support refugee and migrant entrepreneurs at the city level. By 2022, new SINGA chapters in cities like Nantes and Lille were offering dedicated training programmes, mentoring and seed funding to hundreds of newcomer entrepreneurs, resulting in successful migrant-led start-ups that would likely not have emerged without such inclusive support (SINGA Global, 2025[100]).
References
[96] Action Research for Co-Development (2021), “Setting up a consortium of social cooperatives: Insights from the consortium Sale della Terra in Italy”, https://www.arcolab.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Fiche_SaleDellaTerra.pdf.
[86] Ajuntament de Barcelona (2022), “What is the 2030 Strategy?”, https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/economia-social-solidaria/en/strategy-essbcn2030/what-2030-strategy.
[25] Banque des Territoires (2023), “BNP Paribas, en partenariat avec la Banque des Territoires et le Fonds Européen d’Investissement, lance une initiative de place : un fonds pour soutenir le déploiement des Contrats à Impact dans l’Union Européenne”, https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/bnp-paribas-en-partenariat-avec-la-banque-des-territoires-et-le-fonds-europeen-dinvestissement.
[19] Bauwens, T., B. Huybrechts and F. Dufays (2019), “Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 33/2, pp. 195-219, https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619837126.
[76] Better Entrepreneurship Policy Tool (2023), “Social Entrepreneurship Self-Assessment”, https://betterentrepreneurship.eu/en/node/add/social_quiz.
[47] Better Incubation (2022), “How We Will Achieve our Objectives?”, https://betterincubation.eu/2021/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Bi-leaflet-V3.pdf.
[24] Better Society Capital (2021), Our 2025 Strategy – Scaling Impact, https://bettersocietycapital.com/latest/our-2025-strategy-scaling-impact/.
[60] Borzaga, C. (2020), Social Enterprises and their Ecosystems in Europe - Country Report: Italy, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16380&langId=en.
[94] Borzaga, C. (2020), Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Updated country report: Italy, https://doi.org/10.2767/173023.
[58] Bourdin, S. and N. Jacquet (2025), “Closing the loop at the local scale: Investigating the drivers of and barriers to the implementation of the circular economy in cities and regions”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 231, p. 108542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108542.
[70] Brzustewicz, P. et al. (2022), “Emergence of social impact in company–NGO relationships in corporate volunteering”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 140, pp. 62-75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.089.
[39] Buck, C. et al. (2025), “Making the most of digital social innovation: An exploration into success factors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 190, p. 115215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115215.
[48] Budumuru, U. and M. Paruchuru (2025), “Tracing the evolution of ecosystems in social entrepreneurship: Perspectives on innovation and sustainability”, Sustainable Futures, Vol. 9, p. 100645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100645.
[72] CAN Europe (2025), NEW REPORT: Community Engagement and Fair Benefit Sharing of Renewable Energy Projects, https://caneurope.org/community-engagement-and-benefit-sharing/.
[35] Catala, B., T. Savall and R. Chaves-Avila (2023), “From entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems to the social economy ecosystem”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 163, p. 113932, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113932.
[30] Codice Appalti (2023), “Public Contracts Code Implementing Article 1 of Law 21 June 2022, n.78, containing Delegation to the Government Regarding Public Contracts”, https://www.codiceappalti.it/Home/Legge/?legge=Italian_Procurement_Code_Decree_36/2023.
[20] Coviello, N. et al. (2024), “Organizational scaling, scalability, and scale-up: Definitional harmonization and a research agenda”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 39/5, p. 106419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2024.106419.
[63] Cunha, J., W. Alves and M. Araujo (2024), “Social impact measures for social innovation: Challenges and pathways”, RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, Vol. 25/3, https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramr240012.
[92] Den Sociale Kapitalfond (2024), “Den Sociale Kapitalfond raises a record fund of DKK 670 million”, https://densocialekapitalfond.dk/en/den-sociale-kapitalfond-raises-a-record-fund-of-dkk-670-million/.
[45] Diesis Network (2023), “Social Economy Conference 2023: Uniting for People, Planet, and Action in San Sebastián, Spain”, https://www.diesis.coop/social-economy-conference-2023-uniting-for-people-planet-and-action-in-san-sebastian-spain/.
[38] Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (2025), New entrepreneurs – how to qualify for the scheme, https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/running-business/start-ups/erasmus-young-entrepreneurs/index_en.htm.
[46] EU Social Economy Gateway (2025), “EU Social Economy Gateway”, https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/index_en.
[82] EU Social Economy Gateway (2025), “Socially Responsible Procurement”, https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/topics-focus/socially-responsible-procurement_en.
[75] EU Social Economy Gateway (2024), “Social Economy Strategies”, https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/topics-focus/social-economy-strategies_en.
[44] Euclid Network (2023), “Buy Social Europe B2B”, https://euclidnetwork.eu/portfolio-posts/buy-social-europe-b2b/.
[33] European Commission (2024), EU Social Economy Gateway - Social Economy at Glance: Slovakia, https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/my-country/slovakia_en.
[53] European Commission (2023), EU Social Economy Gateway - Social economy at a glance: Lithuania, https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/my-country/lithuania_en.
[80] European Commission (2021), “Building an economy that works for people: An action plan for the social economy”, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24986&langId=en.
[62] European Commission (2021), Social Economy Action Plan, https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/eu-employment-policies/social-economy-and-inclusive-entrepreneurship/social-economy-action-plan_en.
[83] European Commission (2020), “Making Socially Responsible Public Procurement Work : 71 Good Practice Cases”, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e8cf51d0-f632-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[12] European Commission (2020), Making Socially Responsible Public Procurement Work: Good Practice Cases, EU Publications Office, https://knowledgecentre.euclidnetwork.eu/2023/03/22/making-socially-responsible-public-procurement-work-good-practice-cases/.
[81] European Commission (2020), “Valladolid’s Strategy to boost socially efficient public procurement: strategic, honest and sustainable”, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/42753/attachments/13/translations/en/renditions/native.
[59] European Investment Bank (2025), The State of Local Infrastructure Investment in Europe 2024-2025, https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20250028_080425_municipalities_survey_en.pdf.
[73] European Investment Bank (2024), Investment barriers in the European Union 2023, https://www.eib.org/en/publications/20230330-investment-barriers-in-eu-2023.
[28] European Investment Fund (2023), InvestEU: EIF support to strengthen Europe’s cultural and creative businesses with a strong boost to the audiovisual sector, https://www.eif.org/InvestEU/news/2023/investeu-eif-support-to-strengthen-europes-cultural-and-creative-businesses-with-strong-boost-to-the-audiovisual-sector.htm.
[95] European Investment Fund (EIF) (2023), InvestEU: Triodos Bank increases support to social enterprises with EU backing, https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/guarantees/news/2023/investeu-triodos-bank-increases-support-to-social-enterprises-with-eu-backing.htm.
[61] European Parliament (2023), The social impact of public procurement, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/740095/IPOL_STU(2023)740095_EN.pdf.
[77] Federal Public Service Economy Belgium (2019), Recognition as a Social Enterprise, https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/starting-business/steps-starting-business/forms-companies/cooperative-societies/recognition-social-enterprise.
[5] Golka, P. (2022), “The allure of finance: Social impact investing and the challenges of assetization in financialized capitalism”, Economy and Society, Vol. 52/1, pp. 62-86, https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2023.2151221.
[36] Government of Ireland (2024), “Social Enterprise Funding Allocations”, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-rural-and-community-development-and-the-gaeltacht/collections/social-enterprise-funding-allocations/.
[14] Gururaja, B. (2024), “Barriers to the Social Enterprise Performace: A Literature Review”, European Economics Letters, Vol. 23/3, pp. 1-7, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11353534.
[16] Hehenberger, L. and L. Buckland (2023), “How impact measurement fosters the social economy”, in Social Economy Science, Oxford University PressOxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192868343.003.0007.
[55] Hüsken, L. et al. (2024), “Money talks. A systems perspective on funding and financing barriers to nature-based solutions”, Nature-Based Solutions, Vol. 6, p. 100200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100200.
[93] IKEA Social Entrepreneurship (2024), IKEA Social Entrepreneurship: a year in review, https://www.ikeasocialentrepreneurship.org/en/annual-review.
[37] Impact Europe (2025), “Corporate Impact Investing Case Study – IKEA Social Entrepreneurship”, https://www.impacteurope.net/insights/corporate-impact-investing-case-study-ikea-social-entrepreneurship.
[27] Impact Europe (2024), The Size of Impact - Main takeaways from the European impact investing market sizing exercise, https://www.impacteurope.net/sites/www.evpa.ngo/files/publications/The-Size-of-Impact-2024.pdf.
[42] Impact Hub Amsterdam (2024), “Impact Hub Circular Ecosystem”, https://amsterdam.impacthub.net/ecosystems/circular/.
[88] Impact Hub Athens (2021), “Kypseli Municipal Market”, https://athens.impacthub.net/kypseli-municipal-market/?lang=en.
[87] Interreg Danude Region (2024), “D4SEecosystem - Best Practice Catalogue”, https://interreg-danube.eu/storage/media/01JFD2G8YDXB70BVD0K1AXYMPV.pdf.
[2] Interreg Europe (2024), Business incubation – from startup to scaleup, https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/2024-04/Policy%20brief%20on%20business%20incubators%20from%20startup%20to%20scaleup.pdf.
[78] InvestEU (2024), “InvestEU Programme”, https://investeu.europa.eu/investeu-programme_en.
[22] Invitalia (2022), “Italy Social Economy”, https://www.invitalia.it/en/incentives-and-tools/italy-social-economy.
[98] Jungsberg, L. et al. (2020), “Key actors in community-driven social innovation in rural areas in the Nordic countries”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 79, pp. 276-285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.004.
[26] KfW (2024), “Non-profit enterprises now also benefit from the ERP Start-up Loan – StartGeld”, https://www.kfw.de/About-KfW/Newsroom/Latest-News/News-Details_827008.html.
[50] Kraemer-Eis, H. et al. (2023), The European Small Business Finance Outlook 2023, https://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/eif_working_paper_2023_96.pdf.
[29] Légifrance (2021), “LOI n° 2021-1104 du 22 août 2021 portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement de la résilience face à ses effets”, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000043956924.
[49] Liñares-Zegarra, J. and J. Wilson (2024), “Access to finance for UK social enterprises”, The European Journal of Finance, Vol. 30/15, pp. 1757-1784, https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847x.2024.2332712.
[64] Luz, V., V. Schauer and M. Viehweger (2024), “Beyond preferences: Beliefs in sustainable investing”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 220, pp. 584-607, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.02.018.
[7] Mazzei, M. and A. Steiner (2021), “What about efficiency? Exploring perceptions of current social enterprise support provision in Scotland”, Geoforum, Vol. 118, pp. 38-46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.12.002.
[41] Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social (2024), “Plan Integral de Impulso a la Economía Social 2024-2025”, https://sede.mites.gob.es/inicio/detalleProcedimiento/361.
[74] Ministry of Labour and Social Economy (Spain) (2023), Spanish Strategies in the Social Economics, https://www.mites.gob.es/EconomiaSocial/en/iniciativas-financiacion/estrategias-espanolas/index.html#).
[65] Nachyła, P. and R. Justo (2024), “How do impact investors leverage non-financial strategies to create value? An impact-oriented value framework”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 21, p. e00435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2023.e00435.
[68] NESsT (2025), The NESsT Central-Eastern Europe Accelerator Program, https://www.nesst.org/cee-opencall.
[69] Nielsen, J., R. Lueg and D. Van Liempd (2020), “Challenges and boundaries in implementing social return on investment: An inquiry into its situational appropriateness”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 31/3, pp. 413-435, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21439.
[32] OECD (2025), Case Study: Strengthening employment and social inclusion in France, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/starting-scaling-and-sustaining-social-innovation_e870b06b-en/strengthening-employment-and-social-inclusion-in-france_a7df7c86-en.html.
[8] OECD (2025), Starting, Scaling and Sustaining Social Innovation: Evidence and Impact of the European Social Fund, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec1dfb67-en.
[11] OECD (2023), “Buying social with the social economy: OECD Global Action “Promoting Social and Solidarity Economy Ecosystems””, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2023/19, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c24fccd0-en.
[34] OECD (2023), Country Fact Sheet: Slovak Republic, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/social-economy-and-social-innovation/country-fact-sheets/country-fact-sheet-slovakrepublic.pdf.
[57] 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.
[91] 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.
[21] 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.
[4] OECD (2023), Regional social economy strategies, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/regional-social-economy-strategies_558dc0a4/cef31b9c-en.pdf.
[1] 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.
[10] OECD (2022), Designing Legal Frameworks for Social Enterprises: Practical Guidance for Policy Makers, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/172b60b2-en.
[54] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on the Social and Solidarity Economy and Social Innovation, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/api/print?ids=680&lang=en.
[3] OECD (2021), “Social impact measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy: OECD Global Action Promoting Social & Solidarity Economy Ecosystems”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d20a57ac-en.
[13] OECD (2020), Integrating Responsible Business Conduct in Public Procurement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02682b01-en.
[17] OECD/European Union (2024), Measure, Manage and Maximise Your Impact: A Guide for the Social Economy, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2238c1f1-en.
[15] Oliveira, M. et al. (2021), “Strategy and Human Resources Management in Non-Profit Organizations: Its Interaction with Open Innovation”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 7/1, p. 75, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010075.
[56] Olmedo, L., M. van Twuijver and M. O’Shaughnessy (2023), “Rurality as context for innovative responses to social challenges – The role of rural social enterprises”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 99, pp. 272-283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.020.
[67] Park, J. and C. Kim (2020), “Social Enterprises, Job Creation, and Social Open Innovation”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 6/4, p. 120, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040120.
[85] Portail de l’Économie Sociale et Solidaire (2024), Minister Mischo announces the launch of working groups to define a national strategy for the social economy and social innovation at the recent “Social Innovation Lab”, https://economie-sociale-solidaire.public.lu/fr/actualites/20222/juillet/social-innovation-lab.html.
[79] President of the Government of Spain (2025), Saiz presents the Spanish Social Impact Fund, the fourth largest in the world, to Guy Ryder, head of UN Social Policies, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/paginas/2025/20250206-spanish-social-impact-fund.aspx.
[18] Raman, R. et al. (2025), “Social entrepreneurship and sustainable technologies: Impact on communities, social innovation, and inclusive development”, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4/3, p. 100110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2025.100110.
[84] Région Occitanie (2024), “Accompagnement des entreprises engagées et de l’ESS - REALIS”, https://www.laregion.fr/Accompagnement-des-entreprises-engagees-et-de-l-ESS-REALIS.
[23] Republic of Poland (2023), “PLN 22 million for social enterprises”, https://www.gov.pl/web/family/pln-22-million-for-social-enterprises2.
[43] Republic of Poland (2023), “Social economy – development directions”, https://www.gov.pl/web/family/social-economy--development-directions.
[89] REScoop (2025), “Success story: Launching Croatia’s first citizen-owned solar power plant”, https://www.rescoop.eu/news-and-events/stories/success-story-launching-croatias-first-citizen-owned-solar-power-plant.
[6] Rousselière, D., M. Bouchard and S. Rousselière (2024), “How does the social economy contribute to social and environmental innovation? Evidence of direct and indirect effects from a European survey”, Research Policy, Vol. 53/5, p. 104991, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104991.
[31] Sattari, S. et al. (2022), “Socially responsible ideas among Swedish public procurers: An exploratory study”, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Vol. 7/4, p. 100251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100251.
[9] Serres, C., M. Hudon and F. Maon (2022), “Social corporations under the spotlight: A governance perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 37/3, p. 106192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106192.
[90] Servin, J. et al. (2025), “Indicator Development for Measuring Social Solidarity Economy”, Social Sciences, Vol. 14/6, p. 329, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14060329.
[100] SINGA Global (2025), “SINGA Lille”, https://wearesinga.org/lille/.
[40] Social Tech Academy (2024), Project Overview, https://www.socialtechacademy.eu/.
[52] Spanuth, A. and D. Urbano (2023), “Exploring social enterprise legitimacy within ecosystems from an institutional approach: A systematic literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 26/2, pp. 211-231, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12349.
[71] Steiner, A., F. Calò and M. Shucksmith (2023), “Rurality and social innovation processes and outcomes: A realist evaluation of rural social enterprise activities”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 99, pp. 284-292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.006.
[66] Toukola, S. and T. Ahola (2022), “Digital tools for stakeholder participation in urban development projects”, Project Leadership and Society, Vol. 3, p. 100053, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100053.
[97] Urbact (2022), “Focus On: Poznan - How is the city building on its strengths?”, https://urbact.eu/articles/focus-poznan-how-city-building-its-strengths.
[99] Van Opstal, W., E. Pals and D. Sangers (2025), “Mapping the prevalence and size of the informal circular economy in an industrialised region”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 218, p. 108268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108268.
[51] World Economic Forum (2023), How can we engage and motivate people to work in the social sector?, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/05/engage-and-motivate-people-to-work-in-the-social-sector/.