Between 2017 and 2019, France implemented 106 projects focused on social innovation funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), primarily under Axis 3 of the national programme for social inclusion. These initiatives addressed long-term unemployment, fragmented service delivery and geographic isolation in rural areas. They improved access to jobs, services and training for disadvantaged groups, while enhancing local support structures. Coordination among entities such as integration companies, public authorities and businesses was key to success. Despite conceptual ambiguities and administrative barriers, the ESF helped scale innovation by supporting territorial clusters, incubators and social impact methodologies. However, reporting rules, small-scale funding gaps and challenges in measuring impact highlighted the need for more flexible, risk-tolerant frameworks to fully realise the potential of social innovation. Another ESF-funded project, implemented in France, aims to strengthen employment and social inclusion.
Integrating social innovation into the ESF national operational programme in France
Abstract
France is one of the leading countries in the social economy. The 2014 Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE), which regulates social economy entities, principles and governance, includes a definition of social innovation. Article 15 of the Law describes social innovation as a project developed by one or more enterprises offering products or services that address unmet or inadequately met social needs and/or use innovative methods. This Law also led to the establishment of an advisory body, the High Council on the SSE (Conseil Supérieur de L'Économie Sociale et Solidaire; CSESS) in 2014, and ESS France in 2017, which is recognised as the French Chamber of the SSE. ESS France brings together national SSE entities, Regional Chambers of the SSE (Chambres Régionales de l'Économie Sociale et Solidaire; CRESS), and other legal organisations within the SSE ecosystem such as the Société Coopérative et Participative (SCOP). To further support the development of the SSE, a specific delegation has been housed under the Directorate General of the Treasury within the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Digital Technology since 2016 (OECD, 2023[1]).
In 2017, the CSESS proposed a grid to characterise social innovation, in line with the definition introduced by the 2014 Law. This grid aims to facilitate social innovation’s recognition as a distinct innovation and ease access to traditional support and funding schemes. The grid used 20 criteria divided into three categories: social needs and stakeholder involvement, other positive effects, and experimentation and risk-taking (Avise, 2024[2]).
The Agence d'Ingénierie et de services pour entreprendre autrement (Avise), a non-profit organisation, is the Intermediary Body of the national ESF programme 2014-20 in France, also in charge of social innovation calls. Avise is responsible for initiating calls for projects to fund social innovation activities, including scaling up, providing tools and offering assistance for nationwide support programmes (Avise, 2024[3]). During the 2014-20 programming period, France received EUR 10.7 billion in ESF funding – including both EU and national co-financing – to support social inclusion, employment, and vocational training, as well as fostering crisis repair and resilience (European Commission, 2025[4]).
The ESF+ is mainly composed of two workstreams implemented at national level and one workstream managed at regional level. At national level, the Managing Authority is the Ministry of Labour, Health and Solidarity. The Ministry oversees the "European Support for Food Aid" and "Employment, Inclusion, Youth, Skills" programmes, the latter in coordination with Avise and the Departmental Councils. Regional Councils are responsible for the implementation of 17 programmes at the regional level, as shown in Figure 1.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on information provided by France.
France’s ESF-funded social innovation projects focus on structural and geographic inequalities. In remote or rural landlocked territories (territoires enclavés), basic services such as health, childcare or transport are scarce, leaving residents cut off. Projects are explicitly aimed at improving local access by developing new mobility platforms or one-stop public service hubs. Long-term unemployment and social exclusion were issues that many interventions aimed to address, focusing on reintegrating individuals who had been unemployed for a year or more. Governance of social inclusion initiatives was fragmented, particularly among insertion companies, local authorities, and mainstream employers. Social innovation projects operations sought to improve the coordination of employment pathways by connecting sheltered enterprises with private sector jobs and reforming local insertion schemes.
The projects address inequalities by promoting social inclusion through work integration, to achieve improvements locally and regionally. For example, the Passerelles vers l’Emploi scheme in Picardy united three associations to allow cooperation between insertion workers and local businesses, sharing staff to secure jobs for disadvantaged workers. In Burgundy, a Maison de Services Publics was established as a one-stop hub where citizens received combined support for health, housing and job queries via digital tools. The project even explored creating an employment-purpose company (entreprise à but d’emploi, EBE) to eradicate local long-term unemployment. In Brittany, the Territoire Zéro Chômeur de Longue Durée experiment helped provide jobs to those unemployed for over a year (Ministère du Travail, 2019[5]).
Across projects, disadvantaged beneficiaries had access to training, jobs or services that were previously unavailable, while at a systemic level, new models and networks emerged. Territorial clusters (PTCEs), social-innovation clusters and incubators were strengthened, and methodologies for social impact evaluation were developed. Overall, the operations renewed local integration pathways and fostered innovation in public/private/social partnerships. For example, by mobilising beneficiaries and employers in the co-design process, projects pioneered more integrated support schemes.
Several challenges emerged in designing and implementing these projects. Managers reported that complex eligibility and reporting requirements discouraged small-scale innovation and were challenging for experimentation. Many pilot projects faced financial risks. Additionally, the ESF performance framework favoured large participant volumes, which sometimes conflicted with the targeted nature of niche innovation initiatives. Stakeholders frequently disagreed on the definition of social innovation. Some noted the absence of a clear definition and the over-reliance on traditional social economy perspectives. Outside the ESF programme itself, social economy entities faced funding gaps in early stages and growth phases, with many organisations lacking the Entreprise Solidaire d'Utilité Sociale (ESUS) label to tap into dedicated funds. Finally, measuring impact proved difficult due to the absence of standard social impact metrics. As a result, many projects had to develop new evaluation frameworks, which was a significant challenge given the limited time and data available.
The ESF provided resources and strategic direction for these initiatives. In total, the evaluation identified 106 ESF-backed “social innovation” projects (2017–19), with a combined budget of approximately EUR 38 million. Of these, 51 were classified as innovation sociale territoriale and 19 as ingénierie et outillage (diagnostics and tools). Territorial projects mobilised EUR 11.6 million, while engineering projects were allocated EUR 7.3 million, reflecting roughly 17% and 11% of the ESF envelope, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of the projects were on Axis 3 (social inclusion) of the national programme, of which 26 projects (25%) were under Specific Objective 3, targeting innovative local inclusion measures (Ministère du Travail, 2019[5]).
References
[3] Avise (2024), Funding Social Innovation, https://www.avise.org/funding-social-innovation.
[2] Avise (2024), The main social innovation challenges in France, https://www.avise.org/main-social-innovation-challenges-france.
[4] European Commission (2025), Cohesion Open Data Platform - France, https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/FR/14-20.
[5] Ministère du Travail (2019), “Note sur la Prise en Compte de l’Innovation Sociale dans les POn FSE et IEJ pour le RAMO Renforcé 2018”, https://fse.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2022-09/Note%20d%27analyse_Innovation%20sociale%20RAMO%202018%20VF.pdf.
[1] OECD (2023), “Country Fact Sheet: France”, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/social-economy-and-social-innovation/country-fact-sheets/country-fact-sheet-france.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
Note by the Republic of Türkiye The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Photo credits: © Maskot/Getty Images Plus.
© OECD 2025
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
