Abstract
Social enterprises are becoming increasingly popular across the globe. They are seen, particularly by younger generations, as an exceptionally promising organizational model. More recently, the idea to tackle social challenges with entrepreneurial means has also been met warmly by policymakers. However, the legal framework for social enterprises remains poorly developed and legal analysis of the subject matter in academia is only slowly gaining momentum. Against this background, this article outlines the multifaceted, real-world phenomenon of social enterprises in business practice and management research, whereby different patterns of thought in Europe on the one hand and in the United States on the other can be identified. It then introduces the (corporate) law of social enterprises, especially the development of new organizational forms, and takes stock of this gradually emerging field of research in Germany, Europe, and the United States. Furthermore, it addresses research perspectives and open questions in the new field of social enterprise law, highlighting, inter alia, that one should distinguish more strongly than before between different models of social enterprises and organizational forms when considering a new legislative creation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Social entrepreneurship is a global trend. New initiatives, concepts, and organizational forms are constantly being developed by and for social enterprises.Footnote 1 The basic idea behind this movement – to tackle social challenges with entrepreneurial means – has meanwhile also been met warmly by policymakers.Footnote 2 In 2020, the European Commission dedicated to the topic a summary report of almost two hundred pages titled ‘Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe’,Footnote 3 and in December 2021 it presented an ‘Action Plan for the social economy’.Footnote 4 At the international level, the OECD published a guide on the legal frameworks for the social and solidarity economy in March 2023.Footnote 5 In Germany, the current coalition agreement proclaims that a modern corporate culture should also include new organizational forms such as social enterprises and raises the prospect of developing a national strategy for social enterprises to provide greater support for public-welfare-oriented economic activity and social innovation.Footnote 6
Legal commentators committed to analyzing and examining the subject matter can hardly keep pace with the developments. A recent monographFootnote 7 and a handbook on the ‘law of social enterprise’Footnote 8 deal mainly with the legal situation in the United States; a freshly published anthology provides a first international overview.Footnote 9 By comparison, studies from a German perspective have so far been extraordinarily rare.Footnote 10 Against this background, this article undertakes a tour through the ‘Social Enterprise Zoo’Footnote 11 from a corporate law perspective. For better orientation, it first outlines the multifaceted, real-world phenomenon of social enterprises in business practice and management research (Sect. 2). Subsequently, it explains the legal framework for social enterprises in Germany, Europe, and the United States (Sect. 3). Finally, it addresses research perspectives and open questions in the new field of social enterprise law (Sect. 4).
2 Social Enterprises in Business Practice and Management Research
Social enterprises come in numerous forms. The spectrum ranges from traditional associations aiming to integrate unemployed and disabled individuals into the workforce, to modern manufacturers of outdoor clothing attentive to the issue of sustainability.Footnote 12 To gain an impression of the multitude and diversity of actors, ideas, and forms of organization,Footnote 13 it is advisable to start chronologically with the figure of the social entrepreneurFootnote 14 and then to move on to the social enterprise. Along this path – and in this context – it is, however, important to keep in mind that the key terms of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur, and social enterprise are often associated with different meanings.
2.1 Social Entrepreneurs as Promoters in the United States and Asia
The start of the contemporary social entrepreneurship movement in the United States and Asia was characterized by the emergence of charismatic individuals, social entrepreneurs with sparkling ideas and an enormous drive to create positive change in society.Footnote 15
2.1.1 Bill Drayton as a Visionary and Supporter
Referred to reverently as the ‘Godfather of Social Entrepreneurship’, Bill Drayton (USA) was a central figure in recognizing the importance of social entrepreneurs as key drivers of economic change and social innovation.Footnote 16 Drayton studied economics at Oxford, earned a law degree at Yale, and worked for McKinsey for a number of years before joining the US Environmental Protection Agency. In 1980, he and several like-minded people founded the non-profit organization Ashoka, based in Arlington, Virginia.Footnote 17 Ashoka is devoted to identifying visionary social entrepreneursFootnote 18 around the world, nurturing these individuals with targeted support, and allowing them to proceed from small beginnings to greater success – in line with Drayton’s favorite saying: ‘From little acorns do great trees grow’.Footnote 19 The first Ashoka Fellow was Gloria de Souza, a 45-year-old primary school teacher from what was then Bombay, who introduced and disseminated new, interactive teaching methods that were more closely aligned with indigenous experiences.Footnote 20 Today, Ashoka operates in more than 95 countries on all continents.
2.1.2 Muhammad Yunus as a Pioneer and Idol
The best-known Ashoka Fellow and at the same time the shining example for many social entrepreneurs is Muhammad Yunus, a Vanderbilt-educated economist from Bangladesh. In 1976, he founded the Grameen Bank, based in Dhaka, which provides collateral-free microcredit to poor micro-entrepreneurs, mostly women, in order to help them to escape abject poverty. As ‘Banker to the Poor’ – the title of his autobiographyFootnote 21 – Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize together with the Grameen Bank in 2006. He has explained his concept of a ‘social business’ in various books.Footnote 22
2.2 Social Enterprises in Europe and Germany
In Europe, the idea of social entrepreneurship also took hold, albeit with a slightly different focus: it was not the individual social entrepreneur who was – and is – at the center of interest here, but rather the social enterprise as a collective entity,Footnote 23 a structure deemed more impactful than individuals acting alone.Footnote 24 In the beginning, mainly associations and cooperatives aggregated under the collective term ‘Work Integration Social Enterprise’ (WISE) emerged. They were products of the severe economic crisis witnessed at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, a dynamic which led to high structural unemployment in many European countries, and they primarily aimed to create employment opportunities for socially disadvantaged people.Footnote 25
2.2.1 Italy as a Forerunner
Social enterprises flourished first on Italian soil. Here, they emerged in the 1970s as a grassroots movement in response to serious weaknesses in the state welfare system.Footnote 26 Initially, in the 1980s, a manner of cooperative served as a loose organizational model for them,Footnote 27 and this structure took on a more solid form as a social cooperative after legislation was passed in 1991.Footnote 28 The cooperativa sociale – as it is known – comes in two sub-forms: the WISE cooperatives for labor market integration (type B); and the new, broad-purpose cooperatives providing social welfare and/or educational services (type A), which explicitly pursue the general interests of the community.Footnote 29 In 2005, the legislature subsequently introduced the legal status (or label) of an impresa sociale, thereby giving social enterprises access to other organizational forms outside of the cooperative sector.Footnote 30 In 2017, the ‘third sector’ was newly organized by a legislative decree.Footnote 31
2.2.2 Germany as a Latecomer
In Germany, social entrepreneurship was comparatively late in gaining a foothold,Footnote 32 despite the existence of certain historical models. Reference can be made in this regard to Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, one of the two fathers of the German cooperative movement together with Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch. As early as the middle of the nineteenth century, he had established cooperative loan funds that provided money to destitute farmers for operational resources – a social entrepreneur avant la lettre with a model that was not so dissimilar to that of Muhammad Yunus.Footnote 33 Subsequently, however, these early approaches petered out. In their place, and in the wake of Bismarck’s social legislation of 1883–1889, there grew an entrenched expectation that the state and the church, together with their welfare associations, were responsible for the social good.Footnote 34 This assumption, along with an underdeveloped entrepreneurial culture, a weakly developed commitment to civil society, and the comparatively minimal willingness to donate money, led to an infertile breeding ground for privately initiated social enterprises.Footnote 35 Initial approaches with WISE organizations in the form of social enterprises as well as employment and qualification companies in the mid-1990s did not offer what they had promised.Footnote 36
It was not until the end of the 1990s that social entrepreneurship gradually gained traction in Germany,Footnote 37 especially through external actors who dedicated themselves to the promotion of social enterprises. One of them is Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, who founded the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship together with his wife Hilde in 1999. The Schwab Foundation can in a certain way be seen as a German equivalent to Bill Drayton’s Ashoka.Footnote 38 Ashoka itself has been active in Germany since 2003,Footnote 39 and further support is offered by the Social Enterprise Network Deutschland e.V. (SEND), founded in 2017. According to the latter’s Social Entrepreneurship Monitor, social enterprises now exist in all sectors, most commonly in education, health, and social work, as well as in the areas of information and communication technology.Footnote 40 Clear statistics are lacking. One rough estimate puts the number of social enterprises between 2000 and 70,000,Footnote 41 while others speak of 70,000.Footnote 42 According to a third source, there are as many as 154,000 German social entrepreneurs.Footnote 43 Most of them are still in the implementation and growth phase.Footnote 44 Typically, these entities are founded by younger people in an urban milieu.Footnote 45 They are also referred to as ‘new-style social enterprises’.Footnote 46 A frequently cited example from Hamburg is GoBanyo, an organization which operates a shower bus for homeless people that is financed through crowdfunding.Footnote 47 However, GoBanyo’s entrepreneurial approach is not yet very developed.Footnote 48 A more suitable illustration might be Hinz&Kunzt, Germany’s most widely distributed street magazine sold by homeless people.
2.3 Social Enterprises as an Object of Academic Research
Academic research into the new phenomenon did not take long to emerge. However, the discourse in the United States and Europe initially had only few intersections.Footnote 49
2.3.1 The Discussion in the United States
In the United States, 1983 is considered a ‘watershed year’:Footnote 50 in that year, two important papersFootnote 51 and a book publicationFootnote 52 on the entrepreneurial activities of non-profit enterprises appeared. Ten years later, Harvard Business School launched its ‘Social Enterprise Initiative’Footnote 53 and soon found followers among other leading business schools. Subsequently, competing theories for a better understanding of social enterprise mushroomed.Footnote 54 These include the cross-subsidy model, which sees social enterprises as the commercial arm of non-profit organizations;Footnote 55 the innovation school, which places social entrepreneurs in the ranks of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur;Footnote 56 the hybridity approach, according to which social enterprises are combinations of various types of social and business entities;Footnote 57 the institutional view, which emphasizes the historical and institutional context in which different varieties of social enterprises developed;Footnote 58 and the behavioral and evolutionary economics strand, which views social enterprises as a response over time to changing social needs and entrepreneurial motivations.Footnote 59
2.3.2 The European Discussion
An early point of scholarly crystallization in Europe was the founding of the journal ‘Impresa sociale’ on the initiative of the Centro Studi del Consorzio in 1990.Footnote 60 More recently, the EMES research group,Footnote 61 which was founded in 1996 with EC funds and led under the direction of the social economist Jaques Defourny from the University of Liège, has become a key source of impetus. The resulting EMES network is now one of, if not the leading institution in the field.Footnote 62 As a result of the ‘International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project’, its researchers have recently published a four-volume series of books dedicated to social enterprises in Asia, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and Western Europe.Footnote 63 The young discipline received further impetus from newly founded journals in the UK: the Social Enterprise Journal (since 2005, Cambridge)Footnote 64 and the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship (since 2010, Oxford).Footnote 65
2.4 Definitional Dilemma
Despite the enormous growth in knowledge, there is still no generally accepted definition of a social enterprise: ‘The concept of social entrepreneurship continues to mean different things to different people and there is no clear understanding on where to locate it and how to qualify social entrepreneurs.’Footnote 66 One article counted a total of 87 different definitions as early as 2009.Footnote 67
In a recent publication, the OECD characterizes social enterprises as providers of goods or services that fulfil a social objective and whose main purpose is not the maximization of profit for the owners but the reinvestment of profits generated for the continued attainment of its social goals.Footnote 68 A self-description elaborated by the German entity SEND reads as follows:
The primary goal of social entrepreneurship is to solve social challenges. This is achieved through the continuous use of entrepreneurial means and results in new and innovative solutions. Steering and control mechanisms ensure that social goals are lived internally and externally.Footnote 69
The aforementioned EMES research group retreated quite early to the position that it was unrealistic to think the essence of social enterprises could be captured in a concise and elegant definition and that it would in any event be preferable to identify and outline archetypal criteria – with EMES ultimately settling on four economic and entrepreneurial indicators and five that were social in nature.Footnote 70 More recently, EMES and many other researchers have emphasized that a uniform definition is impossible given the diversity of social enterprises.Footnote 71 Instead, actors in the field are shifting to an alternative research strategy that identifies different types of social enterprises and enquires as to the reasons for this diversity.Footnote 72 In a similar direction, from a US perspective, a well-received publication is guided by a taxonomical metaphor, with the Social Enterprise Zoo comprising six broadly conceived types of animals (or cross-breeds between them): ‘commercial nonprofits, social cooperatives, social businesses, sustainable businesses, public-private partnerships, and public sector social enterprises’.Footnote 73
2.5 Social Enterprises on a Spectrum of Organizational Forms
A valuable heuristic tool for locating social enterprises within the overall framework of business organizations is the approach of the spectrum school.Footnote 74 According to this approach, all organizational forms can be drawn on a spectrum with two endpoints: one end is marked by traditional non-profit organizations that yield a high social return and are financed exclusively by charitable donations; the other end is marked by classic for-profit companies that strive solely for a high financial return. In the middle range, various mixed forms having a ‘blended value’ can be found: non-profit companies generating income, for-profit companies that carry out CSR activities, and finally – and very centrally – social enterprises with a social mission whose income is distributed to investors only to a lesser extent (if at all) and to a greater extent is reinvested or used completely for social purposes.Footnote 75
2.6 Social Enterprises and the ‘Fourth Sector’ of the National Economy
According to a common classification, three sectors are distinguished in an economy: the state (first sector),Footnote 76 private for-profit enterprises (second sector), and the social economy (third sector).Footnote 77 The latter traditionally includes foundations, non-profit associations, non-profit limited liability companies, and various kinds of charitable corporations,Footnote 78 which are often also referred to as non-profit organizations.Footnote 79 This classic three-sector model might prove too narrow given the further rise of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises: a negative delimitation alone (‘non-profit’) is no longer sufficient.Footnote 80 Rather, such entities follow an institutional logic of their own that seeks to combine a public interest orientation with profit-making. Nationally and internationally, it is therefore increasingly common to speak of an emerging ‘fourth sector’.Footnote 81
3 Regulatory Framework for Social Enterprises Under Company Law
3.1 Absence of Special Regulations in Germany
In Germany, there is neither a legal definition nor a particular legal form for social enterprises. Rather, company founders can (and must) choose between the generally available company forms,Footnote 82 each of which has its advantages and disadvantages for social enterprises.Footnote 83 Of not least importance for this choice is whether the founders seek a non-profit status, which carries with it tax advantages but also organizational and financial restrictions.Footnote 84
According to surveys of the Social Enterprise Monitor, almost half of the social enterprises in Germany have non-profit status.Footnote 85 Notwithstanding, there is great heterogeneity with regard to the organizational forms chosen: 22.8% are organized as a profit-making limited liability company (‘GmbH’), 19.5% as a non-profit limited liability company (‘gGmbH’), 18.4% as a non-profit association, 10.6% as an entrepreneurial company with limited liability (‘Unternehmergesellschaft’, or ‘UG’), and 9.5% as a sole proprietor.Footnote 86 The two already mentioned companies, GoBanyo and Hinz&Kunzt, are both non-profit and use the form of a gGmbH. As a second option, the GoBanyo founders had considered choosing a registered association.Footnote 87
3.2 Organizational Forms Available in Selected European Jurisdictions
In Europe, the range of organizational forms specifically tailored to social enterprises is broad. This is due to different political, social, and economic contexts, but also to path dependencies and historical contingencies. Ground-breaking research has been done, above all, by the above-mentioned ‘International Comparative Social Enterprise Models’ project of EMES, which involved 250 researchers from 55 countries all over the world.Footnote 88 From a legal perspective, it is appropriate to single out the comparative work by Italian law professor Antonio FiciFootnote 89 as well as the EU study on social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, mentioned at the beginning of this article.Footnote 90
3.2.1 New Variants of the Cooperative
The most common organizational form for social enterprises in Europe is a further-developed version of the classic cooperative: the so-called social cooperative. It first appeared in Italy with the law of 8 November 1991 on cooperative sociali.Footnote 91 The main innovation is that the purpose of the cooperative is no longer limited to facilitating mutual self-help among the members, instead also including general social goals.Footnote 92 In practice, this modification of the cooperative was quickly adopted; today there are about 15,500 of them.Footnote 93 Following the Italian example, many neighboring countries have introduced variants of the social cooperative under different names, such as the cooperativa de soliedaridade social in Portugal (1997), the cooperativa de iniciativa social estatal in Spain (1999), or the société coopérative d’intérêt collectif in France (2001).Footnote 94
There are several reasons for the popularity of the cooperative system in the social economy, these including the historically grown importance of cooperative structures in Southern European countries and the legal anchoring of the cooperative in the constitutions of, for example, Italy, Portugal, and Spain,Footnote 95 and the participatory elements of cooperative law in the form of voting done according to headcount instead of capital shares. Against this background, the cooperative has been described as the ‘natural’ legal form for social enterprises.Footnote 96
3.2.2 Special Company Forms
Alongside Italy, the United Kingdom has emerged as an early promoter of social enterprises.Footnote 97 The UK Industrial and Provident Societies Act introduced the Community Benefit Society as early as 1965, but comparative research has hardly noticed it.Footnote 98 By contrast, the Community Interest Company (CIC), which was launched in 2005 as a special form of a company limited by guarantee or a company limited by shares, has received greater attention.Footnote 99 The British legislature designed it as an organizational subtype specifically for social enterprises.Footnote 100 Politically, its codification during the so-called New Labour government under Tony Blair was embedded in a larger strategy (the ‘Third Way’Footnote 101) that had as its aim a more intense privatization of public services as well as state social welfare measures.Footnote 102 The CIC is considered a success, with around 19,000 now to be found. Throughout Europe, however, social enterprises in the form of special subtypes of companies or corporations have remained rare, despite enjoying significant comparative advantages in terms of financing.Footnote 103
3.2.3 Legal Status for Different Organizational Forms
A third regulatory approach consists of assigning the label of ‘social enterprise’, and at present such a legal status is accessible to entities associated under a variety of organizational forms once certain requirements are met.Footnote 104 In Italy, this includes qualification as an impresa sociale, originally introduced by a 2006 legislative decree.Footnote 105 For tax reasons, the prospect of obtaining this status had little impact initially, but subsequently a 2017 legislative decree revised the designation such that it is linked to the pursuit of civil societal, charitable, and socially beneficial goals without the intention of making a profit.Footnote 106 In general, all private organizational structures, including corporations as well as cooperatives, can acquire this status.Footnote 107 Furthermore, the same regulatory technique was also used by the Italian legislature when it created the società benefit, which was introduced in 2016. However, this status does not follow the tradition of Italian social enterprises as it was instead inspired by the US benefit corporation.Footnote 108 Nevertheless, with its dual purpose of profit and public benefit, it can also be adopted by all partnerships and corporations as well as cooperatives.Footnote 109
In France, since 2014, all commercial enterprises may acquire the status of économie sociale et solidaire (ESS).Footnote 110 This gives rise to advantages, for example in public procurement procedures and in securing financing from the state investment bank, but it also entails significant restrictions on profit distribution, with the result that there has thus far been only sparse use of the ESS in practice. In 2019, a further status was added to French law with the société à mission, which was inspired by the US benefit corporation.Footnote 111 All commercial entities can obtain the status if certain statutory requirements are fulfilledFootnote 112 – legal benefits do not flow from this status, but it does offer possible reputational advantages.Footnote 113
3.2.4 Characteristics of the European Model
In searching for a common denominator of the special European organizational forms for social enterprises, which allow the use of a corresponding designation when doing business, we find one in the prioritization of the social objective. To ensure the pursuit of a social mission, which is (at least in part) being pursued with entrepreneurial means, particularly statutory distribution restraints are foreseen.Footnote 114 Admittedly, they vary in strength from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An Italian cooperativa sociale must use at least 50% of its profits to achieve its statutory objectives or to increase its assets.Footnote 115 A French société coopérative d’intérêt collectif is required to allocate at least 15% of its profits to a statutory revenue reserve and at least 50% of the remaining profits to a statutory development fund.Footnote 116 The British CIC is characterized by two safeguards, i.e., an asset lock on its shareholdersFootnote 117 and a dividend cap: it is allowed to distribute a maximum of 35% of the profit to its shareholders.Footnote 118
Another common feature is regular reporting requirements regarding those activities undertaken by a social enterprise to promote the common good. However, the specific reporting requirements and their form similarly vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.Footnote 119 For example, a CIC must submit annual community interest company reports,Footnote 120 and a société coopérative d’intérêt collectif has to integrate corresponding information into its financial statements and annual reports.Footnote 121
Differences in voting rights, on the other hand, depend on the basic organizational form: while the Italian and French variations of the social cooperative follow the basic cooperative model of ‘one member – one vote’, the British company subtype does not vote according to headcount but rather according to capital shares. Where social entrepreneurs assume a specified legal status, the voting rights follow the organizational model on which the status is based.
3.3 Organizational Forms Offered in the United States
Just as in Europe, the legal landscape for social enterprises has changed considerably in the United States in recent times.Footnote 122
3.3.1 Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies
First of all, the low-profit limited liability company (L3C) was introduced in Vermont in April 2008 and later in seven other states.Footnote 123 Conceived by Robert Lang,Footnote 124 the organizational form had – like social entrepreneurship in the United States in general – close links to the third sector: it was, owing to the legal purpose of social and sustainable enterprises, supposed to allow such entities to receive special grants (program-related investments) from charitable foundations,Footnote 125 where such grants would otherwise be reserved for purely non-profit enterprises.Footnote 126 The new laws were, however, inadequately drafted and therefore failed to achieve their purpose.Footnote 127 Today, the L3C seems to have led to a dead end.Footnote 128
3.3.2 Social Purpose Corporation
Another variant is the Social Purpose Corporation (SPC).Footnote 129 It was introduced in California in 2011, under the name Flexible Purpose Corporation (FPC); it then appeared one year later in Washington and two years later in Florida. However, it failed to establish itself on the market of organizational formsFootnote 130 and can therefore be neglected here.
3.3.3 Benefit Corporation
In current US practice, the choice of an organizational structure for social entrepreneurs focuses almost exclusively on the so-called benefit corporation.Footnote 131 Its intellectual authorship lies with three student friends from Stanford who, after successful careers in business and investment banking, developed an increasingly strong aversion to the relentless pursuit of short-term profit.Footnote 132 With the help of a lawyer, they drafted a model law for a benefit corporation.Footnote 133 According to the model’s provisions, a benefit corporation must commit itself, in its articles of association, to creating a general public benefit.Footnote 134 The first version of this organizational form was introduced in Maryland in 2010.Footnote 135 Today, a total of 36 states and Washington D.C. allow the formation of a benefit corporation, among them Delaware with a slightly different version that is called a public benefit corporation. According to rough estimates, there are now between 7,000 and 10,000 benefit corporations in the United States.Footnote 136
3.3.4 Characteristics of the US Model
The US organizational forms for social enterprises are characterized by an anchoring of the pursuit of ‘social purpose’ or ‘general public benefit’ in their articles. The model legislation (MBCL § 301(a)(1)) obliges the directors of a benefit corporation to consider the impact of their conduct not only on shareholders but also on their employees, on suppliers, on the local and global environment, on the beneficiaries of their public-benefit efforts, and – not least – on the corporation itself in terms of its ability to achieve its public benefit goals. Furthermore, the mandatory ‘benefit report’ is intended to provide transparency by reporting on the company’s performance regarding its public purpose.
In a remarkable contrast to their European counterparts, the US models are not subject to any distribution restrictions, neither in the form of a dividend distribution constraint nor in the form of an asset lock. Although this is not explicitly regulated, it follows from the blanket reference to the general provisions of corporate law. For example, § 362a Delaware General Corporation Law clarifies that a public benefit corporation is a ‘for-profit corporation’. Unlike non-profit corporations in Germany, a prohibition on profit distribution is considered unnecessary for the benefit corporation also because it does not enjoy any tax benefits or other privileges.Footnote 137 Further, the general principles for corporations apply to voting rights: voting is not based on headcount but on capital shares. The basic democratic features of European social cooperatives are alien to the US benefit corporation.
Generally, the US legal understanding is based on a broader conception of a social enterprise than the continental European model of a social cooperative.Footnote 138 This is because the benefit corporation evolved from the notion of profit-oriented corporations, and the form remains available to enterprises that are of the opinion that financial returns should not fall short of social returns. Neither the Model Benefit Corporation Legislation nor the individual acts of state legislation require a prioritization of the social mission.
3.4 Definitions Under European Union Law
At EU level, various proclamations deal with social enterprises, starting with a Commission Communication of October 2011.Footnote 139 The first definition in a binding legal act can be found in the EuSEF Regulation of 2013.Footnote 140 An updated definition is contained in the Regulation establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) of 2021.Footnote 141 According to its Article 2, para. 1, no. 13, a ‘social enterprise’ is
an undertaking, regardless of its legal form, including social economy enterprises, or a natural person which:
- (a)
in accordance with its articles of association, statutes or with any other legal document that may result in liability under the rules of the Member State where a social enterprise is located, has the achievement of measurable, positive social impacts, which may include environmental impacts, as its primary social objective rather than the generation of profit for other purposes, and which provides services or goods that generate a social return or employs methods of production of goods or services that embody social objectives;
- (b)
uses its profits first and foremost to achieve its primary social objective, and has predefined procedures and rules that ensure that the distribution of profits does not undermine the primary social objective;
- (c)
is managed in an entrepreneurial, participatory, accountable and transparent manner, in particular by involving workers, customers and stakeholders on whom its business activities have an impact.
In this definition, it is noteworthy, on the one hand, that the early catalogue of EMES criteriaFootnote 142 has left deep traces and that the prioritization of the social objective is bindingly prescribed in the tradition of the European model. On the other hand, it is striking that some of the organizational forms or statuses for social enterprises in the Member States have already incorporated the requirements of EU law, presumably also to benefit from corresponding EU funding.Footnote 143
4 Open Questions and Research Perspectives in the Law of Social Enterprises
Social entrepreneurship is not merely a trend; rather, it will most likely remain a ‘growth industry’ also in the medium term.Footnote 144 There are at least three reasons for this. First of all, there are numerous overlaps with the key theme of sustainability, even if social and sustainable enterprises are not fully congruent.Footnote 145 Secondly, in the emerging ESG era, the social component will soon be spelt out in more detail alongside the environmental component. Thirdly, social entrepreneurship fits well into the socio-political zeitgeist that – rightly or wronglyFootnote 146 – sees the basic structures of capitalism subjected to fundamental criticism.Footnote 147 Considering this, the law of social enterprises will also gain in importance. Fundamental discussions at the national and international level will likely focus on the overarching legal framework, alternative regulatory techniques, and organizational forms for social enterprises.
4.1 A Framework Regulation for the Social Economy in Germany?
On a fundamental level, a first question is whether a framework regulation for the social economy is advisable. So far, such framework laws have been encountered particularly in countries of the Romanistic legal family. The Spanish Law on the Social Economy from 2011 is of a pioneering nature in this regard.Footnote 148 It creates a common legal framework for all social economy institutions (Art. 1), provides them with various guiding principles (Art. 4), and contains a catalogue of organizational forms found in the social economy (Art. 5). The French Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy of 2014 follows a similar approach.Footnote 149 Its introductory provision sets out various requirements that private enterprises must fulfil to belong to the ‘économie sociale et solidaire’. The main impetus for this law came from a thriving social economy and a new generation of entrepreneurs who seek to combine economic efficiency with social justice under the slogan ‘entreprendre autrement’.
From the point of view of legal policy, the arguments in favor of such a framework are that it (a) creates definitional clarity about the specific features of social enterprises and thus facilitates their visibility and recognition, (b) offers political leverage to promote social enterprises in tax and public procurement law or with regard to corporate financing, and (c) improves the identification of social enterprises in the entrepreneurial continuum and distinguishes them from both non-profit enterprises without entrepreneurial activities and purely profit-oriented enterprises.Footnote 150 On the other hand, there are potential disadvantages in the form of considerable definitional difficulties and there is also the risk of future developments and innovations being cut off by premature codification.Footnote 151 In addition, there might be possible distortions of competition to the detriment of ordinary private sector enterprises. Furthermore, there are different assessments as to whether the social economy as such warrants such a degree of support.Footnote 152 Moreover, it is questioned whether further commercialization and privatization of the welfare state would be useful.
4.2 A Special Organizational Form for Social Enterprises in Germany?
From a comparative law perspective, the question arises as to whether an independent organizational form for social enterprises makes sense or is even necessary in Germany. After all, 21 of 28 Member States in the European Union have (at least) one specific organizational form for social enterprises.Footnote 153 In the United States, the benefit corporation is available in 36 states and Washington D.C.
According to a recent German survey, about 55% of the social enterprises surveyed are in favor of a special form.Footnote 154 The network organization SEND advocates, among other things, a reform of the cooperative.Footnote 155De lege ferenda, this would require a dilution of the legal tradition according to which cooperatives are, by virtue of their funding purpose, member-benefit institutions.Footnote 156 Other voices in academic literature, on the other hand, promote the introduction of a hybrid organizational form situated between profit motive and public welfare orientation, following the example of the US benefit corporation and/or the British CIC.Footnote 157 Opposing views doubt that there is such need because the German GmbH as well as the German joint-stock corporation are all-purpose vehicles and have, therefore, been sufficiently flexible to adapt to the concepts of social entrepreneurs.Footnote 158 The traditional forms, though, cannot emulate the signaling effect that could be achieved by an additional organizational form indicating the social mission of the enterprise.
In further discussions, it seems important to distinguish more strongly than before between different models for a new legislative creation. On the one hand, one can think of a social enterprise form in a narrow sense, with priority given to the social mission, far-reaching restrictions on profit distributions, and equal participation of all members, which is based on the Romanistic model of the social cooperative. On the other hand, a domestic version of the benefit corporation with a stronger capitalist flavor and greater leeway in balancing profit motive and public welfare orientation could be considered. The two regulatory models are not necessarily mutually exclusive; rather, they can coexist in the same legal system. In Italy, for example, we find both the cooperativa sociale and the società benefit, and in France the société coopérative d’intérêt collectif exists alongside the société à mission.
4.3 Regulatory Techniques for New Organizational Forms and Other Frameworks of Association
If a legislative reform impulse with regard to social enterprises is deemed sensible, then at least three regulatory approaches can be considered: a completely new version of a company, a mere organizational subtype, or a legal status; fourthly, also private certification can be considered as an alternative.Footnote 159
4.3.1 Creation of a New Organizational Form
A large-scale solution would be to develop a completely new version of a company, comparable to the invention of the cooperative, which was conceived in the Prussian GenG of 1867 and the later German GenG of 1889 as a special-purpose form falling between a commercial partnership (OHG) and a commercially operating joint-stock corporation (AG).Footnote 160 Most recently, the German Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum has indeed been pursuing a new organizational form with its project of a ‘corporation with tied assets’ (‘Gesellschaft mit gebundenem Vermögen, GmgV’),Footnote 161 whereas the two draft laws of an independent expert group from June 2020 and February 2021 were still conceived as special subtypes of the GmbH.Footnote 162 However, the choice of a social or non-profit purpose is not a ‘constitutive condition’Footnote 163 for a GmgV; thus, it cannot be classified as a form for social enterprises.Footnote 164
A new company form can make sense or even be necessary if its core elements differ significantly from those found in existing organizational forms or if one wants to leave behind their ballast and damaged reputation and instead initiate a legislative ‘fresh start’.Footnote 165
4.3.2 Subtypes of Existing Organizational Forms
As a small-scale solution, a subtype of an existing organizational form can be targeted, one which builds on the foundations of an established form and adds some special rules to it.Footnote 166 This was the approach taken, for example, by the Italian legislature with the cooperativa sociale, which is a special version of the cooperative. The same is true for the English CIC, which is based on the existing rules for companies,Footnote 167 and for the benefit corporation, which is a ‘subtype of the corporation’.Footnote 168 In Germany, organizational subtypes have been introduced at various occasions in recent times,Footnote 169 but not in the area of social enterprises.
The charm of a subtype lies both in its regulatory efficiency for the legislature and in advantages for legal practitioners: the latter have lower learning costs and can – at least in part – continue to draw on the wealth of experience they have accumulated from court decisions and contractual practice.Footnote 170
4.3.3 Legal Status
Adjacent to these two regulatory techniques lies a third, which is referred to internationally as legal status,Footnote 171 legal qualification,Footnote 172 or legal certification.Footnote 173 With such legal status, the legislature provides for certain special rules that are available as a regulatory option open to several or all forms of companies and associations. Early manifestations of this approach can be found in Belgium, where the société à finalité sociale, which is also open to corporations, was created in 1995,Footnote 174 and in the 2003 Finnish law on work-integrative social enterprises.Footnote 175 A better-known example is the Italian società benefit of 2016, which, unlike the US benefit corporation, is not an organizational subtype,Footnote 176 but with its dual purpose is available to all partnerships and corporations as well as cooperatives. The same applies to the French société à mission of 2019 – a status that all commercial companies can acquire.Footnote 177 Since 2017, there also exists, in Luxembourg, the société d’impact sociétal as a legal status for joint-stock corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperatives,Footnote 178 and since 2022 Spain allows joint-stock corporations and limited liability companies to be designated sociedades de beneficios e interés común,Footnote 179 though this status awaits further elaboration through a regulation. In Germany, although functioning from a slightly different perspective, companies can enjoy a non-profit tax status and be titled a gGmbH (§ 4 GmbHG), a gUG,Footnote 180 a gAGFootnote 181 and, according to the prevailing opinion, a geG;Footnote 182 there is, however, no similar designation for a non-profit partnership.Footnote 183 At the European Union level, the European Parliament has recommended the introduction of a label for social and solidarity-based enterprises.Footnote 184
The main advantage of a legal status is its holistic and universal approach to business associations: it is open to all forms of businesses equally or at least to several of them.Footnote 185 As a result, the company founders can choose the legal form that seems most suitable for their purposes.Footnote 186 This makes a prior change of form unnecessary, and it also eliminates the need for further conversion processes if the status requirements are no longer met at some point in the future.Footnote 187
4.3.4 Private Certification
Finally, one could consider private certification mechanisms for social enterprises. The international prototype is the Certified B Corporation (in short: B Corp), a private certificate from the non-profit organization B Lab, headquartered in Pennsylvania.Footnote 188 This certificate is awarded after successful completion of a standardized private certification process (B Impact Assessment) and should not be confused with the benefit corporation as an organizational form, even though the same idea generators stand behind both.Footnote 189 Today, B Corp is a globally established certificate of quality, and there are over 5,000 certified B Corporations in more than 70 countries across 150 different sectors.Footnote 190 As regards Germany, the B Corp directory now includes roughly 50 entries from 12 different business sectors. In addition, interested companies can also make use of domestic certification mechanisms: TÜV Rheinland, for example, offers several sustainability management certificates,Footnote 191 and non-profit organizations can obtain the ‘PHINEO Wirkt!’ seal.Footnote 192
An advantage of private certification is that it relies solely on market forces and does not require any legislative involvement.Footnote 193 In addition, competition between rival certifiers could serve to promote tailor-made certification criteria and effective autonomous control mechanisms.Footnote 194
4.4 Enforcement of the Social Mission and Prevention of Social Washing
A key legislative task in the design of a new regulatory regime is to ensure compliance with the stated social mission and prevent social washing. A central building block in this regard is the anchoring of the social purpose in the association’s statutes. The legal requirements for this can be strict or more forgiving and may concern not only the entity’s purpose but also its objects. Other options include provisions against a transfer of assets and a distribution of profits. In addition, carefully calibrated duties of board members as well as reporting and transparency requirements are suitable for counteracting ‘mission drift’.
With regard to enforcement of the social mission, both private and public enforcement can be considered. The spectrum of private law instruments includes rights and remedies granted to minority shareholders, stakeholders, and third-party beneficiaries, and it ranges on to the possibility of competitor claims for unfair competition. Public enforcement can be carried out by a specific authority, such as the UK Regulator of Community Interest Companies, or by a general competition authority such as the Italian Autorità Garante delle Concurrenza e del Mercato for the società benefit. As for Germany, reference should be made to the tax authorities as regards non-profit corporations and to the foundation oversight authorities with regard to foundations.
5 Conclusion
In social-economic literature, the task of surveying social enterprises has been compared to the mapping of stars and constellations in the galaxy.Footnote 195 The same applies to the law of social enterprises, a field whose systematic study has only just begun in Germany and abroad. From a company law perspective, the various regulatory techniques for new organizational forms and other frameworks of association deserve particular attention. When it comes to concrete design, it is of particular importance to adopt suitable safeguards so as to enforce adherence to the social mission and to prevent ‘social washing’.
Notes
For a good overview of the ‘global social enterprise lawmaking phenomenon’, see Liao et al. (2019).
European Commission (2020).
European Commission (2021).
OECD (2023).
Explicitly stating as much, Coalition Agreement 2021–2025 ‘Mehr Fortschritt wagen’ between SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and FDP, November 2021, p 24 et seq.; see, most recently, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (2023).
Brakman Reiser and Dean (2017).
Means and Jockey (2018).
Peter et al. (2023).
Young et al. (2016), subtitled ‘A guide for perplexed scholars, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, leaders, investors and policymakers’.
On Patagonia as a pioneer of a new economy and as an icon of the US sustainability movement, most recently, Weitemeyer and Waltz (2022).
See Teasdale (2012), p 99: ‘[A] fluid and contested concept constructed by different actors promoting different discourses connected to different organisational forms’.
Similarly, Momberger (2015), p 5.
For biographies of key social entrepreneurs, Bornstein (2007), a book considered ‘a bible in the field’ according to the New York Times.
For more information on Drayton, see Bornstein (2007), p 11 et seqq.
The name (Sanskrit for the ‘active absence of sorrow’) derives from the Indian emperor Ashoka, who ruled in the 3rd century BC and is seen as one of the world’s earliest great social entrepreneurs; see on this, Bornstein (2007), p 15: ‘Drayton considered Ashoka to be one of history’s most tolerant, global-minded, and creative leaders.’
On the importance of visionary social entrepreneurs, Drayton (2002), p 123 et seq.: ‘First, there is no entrepreneur without a powerful, new, system change idea. The entrepreneur exists to make his or her vision society’s new pattern. He or she is married to that vision, in sickness or in health, until it has swept the field. There are four other ingredients: creativity, widespread impact, entrepreneurial quality, and strong ethical fibre.’
See Bornstein (2007), p 15. In addition to the visionary idea, Ashoka demands creativity, entrepreneurial quality, widespread social impact of the idea, and ethical fibre from prospective fellows – on this and on the selection process, see https://www.ashoka.org/en-us/program/venture-selecting-our-ashoka-fellows.
Yunus (1999).
See Defourny and Nyssens (2008), p 203: ‘In Europe, on the contrary, the emphasis has been much more often put on the collective nature of the social enterprise ... .’
Pointedly, Defourny and Nyssens (2021c), p 354: ‘The founder’s profile and the social innovation he or she brings in are presented as central pieces of such beautiful “stories”. However, the bulk of theoretical and empirical literature demonstrates that social innovation is more often rooted in collective dynamics than in individual trajectories’; similarly, from an English perspective, Leadbeater (2013), p 78: ‘The only really successful social ventures are built on teams not individuals. Entrepreneurship involves the combination of different skills, over time, to resolve the multiple challenges a venture will face. Social entrepreneurs only succeed when they are both charismatic but also team players’; for a different perspective, see the earlier discussion by Leadbeater (1997), p 11 et seqq.
For more information on this point, see Poledrini and Borzaga (2021), p 134 et seqq.
Poledrini and Borzaga (2021), p 133: ‘In those new, so-called social-solidarity cooperatives, in comparison to traditional cooperatives, elements of internal mutuality were attenuated, while those concerning solidarity were boosted’.
In retrospect, OECD (2022), p 75 et seqq.
Zoppini (2022).
Decreto legislativo no. 112/2017 of 4 July 2017.
Leppert (2013), p 19: ‘In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon discussion, the discussion about social entrepreneurship in Germany is relatively young’ (translation by the authors).
Similarly, Weitemeyer (2022), p 630: ‘Thus, already in the middle of the 19th century, the founders of the cooperative movement, Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen and Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch, acted in a socially entrepreneurial way according to today’s understanding’ (translation by the authors); in detail on the ‘social-ethical content of the cooperative idea’, Beuthien (1989), p 12 et seqq.
Achleitner et al. (2007), p 12 et seq.
Leppert (2013), p 44 et seqq.; see also Göler von Ravensburg et al. (2021), p 93: ‘The likelihood that individuals set up a[n] SE venture is reduced by cultural predispositions in Germany, which tend to discourage social enterprise in three ways: entrepreneurial failure is viewed particularly critically, entrepreneurial culture is not very well developed in comparison to what is the case in other industrialised countries, and Germans are not overly apt to set up a business.’
Achleitner et al. (2007), p 13; see also Cagarman et al. (2020), para. 2.3.3: ‘Since the beginning of the twenty first century, however, the scene has also started to gain importance, ... and, at the latest, when Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the topic finally reached the centre of society.’
See Karré (2021), p 293: ‘Especially two non-profit foundations played a role in this, namely Ashoka and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship.’
See Göler von Ravensburg et al. (2021) p 91: ‘One of the milestones in the promotion of social entrepreneurship in the country was the foundation of Ashoka Germany, in 2003.’
Social Entrepreneurship Netzwerk Deutschland (SEND) (2022), p 23 et seq.
Karré (2021), p 295: ‘In Germany, estimates range from 2,000 to 70,000 social enterprises, based on either a stringent focus on social start-ups only or a more comprehensive approach that also counts traditional social enterprises.’
Göler von Ravensburg et al. (2021), p 85: ‘Although the term social enterprise (SE) is not legally defined and no precise common understanding of the concept exists in Germany today, around 70,000 German entrepreneurial organisations aim to promote the common benefit rather than individual gain.’
Cagarman et al. (2020), para. 2.3.3: ‘According to a study by Kreditanstalt für Wirtschaft (KfW), there were 154,000 young entrepreneurs in 2017 who described themselves as social entrepreneurs ... .’
SEND (2022), p 22 et seq.
Göler von Ravensburg et al. (2021), p 97.
Karré (2021), p 292: ‘new-style social enterprises’.
See Flachsenberg (2022), with the explanation of co-initiator Gülay Ulas: ‘In the medium term, it is our dream to finance the shower bus 100 per cent through our own product ... . A shower gel of our own would be conceivable’ (translation by the authors).
Defourny and Nyssens (2010), p 32 et seqq.
Young et al. (2016), Preface, p xiii.
Crimmins and Keil (1983).
In retrospect from today’s perspective, Harvard Business School, Social Enterprise, https://www.hbs.edu/socialenterprise/about/: ‘Since 1993, HBS faculty have researched and written over 800 social enterprise books, cases and teaching notes.’
Summarized by Young and Brewer (2016), pp 8 et seq., under the subheading ‘Social enterprise: competing intellectual frameworks’.
Weisbrod (1998).
See, for example, Shockley and Frank (2011).
Billis (2010).
See, for example, Kerlin (2013).
See, for example, Borzaga and Tortia (2010).
See the editorial in Imprese Sociale 1990, p 3: ‘Impresa sociale: area tematica, obiettivi, linea editoriale. perché una rivista?’.
The name comes from an acronym of the first research assignment: ‘L’Emergence des Entreprises Sociales’.
See EMES’ own presentation at https://emes.net/who-we-are.
Individual references are cited in footnote 1 above.
Introductory essay by Haugh (2005).
The opening editorial by Nicholls (2010) includes the following assessment: ‘In a Kuhnian sense, social entrepreneurship is still in a pre-paradigmatic state of development as a legitimate field of ‘scientific’ study. There is little consensus as yet over the key research questions, appropriate methodologies, available data sets, or theoretical perspectives most suitable to identify and analyze social entrepreneurship.’
Galera and Borzaga (2009).
Fojcik and Koch (2009), p 78 et seqq.; other compilations in Cagarman et al. (2020), para. 2.2, with the addition: ‘This plethora of perspectives makes it difficult to find a common ground. Although the term has been used in scientific discourse for several decades and the number of published papers has increased tremendously, there is, as yet, no generally applicable definition’; see also Aliaga-Isla and Huybrechts (2018); Persaud and Bayon (2019).
OECD (2023), p 13.
SEND (2022), p 17.
See Borzaga and Defourny (2001), p 16 et seqq., where the author states: ‘Let us begin with the economic and entrepreneurial dimensions for which four criteria have been put forward: a continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services; a high degree of autonomy; a significant level of economic risk; a minimum amount of paid work. To encapsulate the social dimensions of the initiative, five criteria have been proposed: an explicit aim to benefit the community; an initiative launched by a group of citizens; a decision-making power not based on capital ownership; a participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity; limited profit distribution.’ (The respective individual explanations have been omitted without notation.)
Defourny et al. (2021a), p 1: ‘In spite of all these efforts, it is today acknowledged, to a large extent, that the SE field is too wide and too diversified to be embraced by a single definition which would be unanimously accepted’.
In this sense, ibid.
Brewer (2016), p 34.
For example, Nowotny and Zagler (2022).
Brewer (2016), p 35: ‘[C]onventional legal forms generally assume that all organizations fall within and fulfill the legal purposes of one of the three sectors of the economy: government (“public”), for-profit (“private”), and nonprofit (“voluntary”). Any given legal form is primarily adapted to survive and thrive within its associated sector.’
See, internationally, OECD (2023): ‘The SSE is typically made up of entities such as associations, non-profit organisations, cooperatives, mutual societies, foundations, and, more recently, social enterprises.’
See, for example, Simsa et al. (2023).
Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2021), p 9: ‘The traditional division of economic sectors into first, second, and third sectors is slightly out of date. The new socioeconomic landscape is characterized by entrepreneurial ecosystems looking for sustainability, and new goals emerge such as eradication of poverty, gender equality, social justice, and environmental protection. Accompanying this trend, new business models appear that are difficult to classify into a traditional sector.’
Through the German lens, see Weitemeyer (2022), p 630 et seq.; similarly, Mittwoch (2022), p 240: ‘[I]t already makes them appear as a new and emerging economic sector that expands and at the same time frays the traditionally modelled triad of market, state and non-profit enterprises’ (translation by the authors); internationally, e.g., Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2021), p 7: ‘The fourth sector can be defined as the group of organizations, models, and practices whose objective is to solve the great problems of the twenty-first century, combining elements from the traditional sectors: the public, the private, and the nongovernmental.’
See Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2018), p 32: ‘The topic of choosing an organizational form regularly plays a central role in start-up seminars. However, there is no general recommendation on the question of the right organizational form for social enterprises – just as in traditional entrepreneurship. Rather, the appropriate organizational form depends on a variety of factors’ (translation by the authors).
SEND (2022), pp 16, 50.
On this and on the other organizational forms, SEND (2022), p 25.
See co-founder Gülay Ulas in Flachsenberg (2022): ‘In an association, however, you have to do many more loops, coordinate every big step with the general meeting. That would have been too slow for us as a founding team’ (translation by the authors).
For details, see Defourny et al. (2021a), p 2 et seqq.
European Commission (2020).
Legge no. 381/1991.
See Art. 1 para. 1 L. no. 381/1991: ‘Le cooperative sociali hanno lo scopo di perseguire l’interesse generale della communità alla promozione umana e all’integrazione sociale dei cittadini ... .’
Figures according to Fici (2023), p 155 et seqq.
Hernández Cáceres (2023), p 175 et seqq., with further references.
For more on this development, see Douvitsa (2018).
For example, Hernández Cáceres (2023), p 174: ‘European legislators found the cooperative model to be the most appropriate, or the most natural, for framing the phenomenon of social enterprises ...’; similarly, Fici (2023), p 163: ‘[T]he idea that the cooperative form is the “most natural” for a social enterprise’.
See Brewer (2016), p 48: ‘Although Italy may be regarded as the first country to identify social enterprises as unique, the United Kingdom arguably provides the strongest government support to such organizations.’
Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, c. 12, § 52 (U.K.); viewing this institution negatively, Lloyd (2010), p 33: ‘these old-fashioned industrial and provident societies ˗ the law for which has not been updated since 1965’.
From the internal perspective of the spiritual father, Lloyd (2010), p 33.
See UK Cabinet Office (2006), p 10: ‘A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners.’
Giddens (1998).
More closely, Liptrap (2021b), p 628: ‘Policymakers originally introduced the CIC to spin off some level of centralised public responsibility to non-state actors for the implementation and financing of social welfare policy’; from a comparative perspective, Fleischer (2022), p 834: ‘Interaction between the political and legal subsystem’.
See Fici (2023), p 163: ‘Furthermore, SEs in the company form might be more effective in fulfilling their objectives, given their greater financial capacity compared with SEs established in other legal forms. [As their structure is] based on the capital individually held (one share, one vote), these companies should potentially attract more investors than other types of organizations, such as cooperatives, in which capital held is irrelevant to governance (one member, one vote).’
See Art. 2, para. 1 Decreto legislativo no. 112/2017.
See Art. 1, para. 1 Decreto legislativo no. 112/2017.
Art. 1, para. 1 Decreto legislativo no. 112/2017: ‘Possono acquisire la qualifica di impresa sociale tutti gli enti privati, inclusi quelli costituti nelle forme di cui al libro V del codice civile ... .’
On this organizational form, Section 3.3.3, below.
See Cian (2020), p 50.
Loi n° 2014-856 of 31 July 2014; in more detail, Cozian et al. (2022), para. 51 et seq.
Cozian et al. (2022), para. 63.
From a comparative perspective, Fleischer and Chatard (2021).
See Cozian et al. (2022), para. 66.
With further details, Neri-Castracante (2023), p 62 et seqq.
Decreto legislativo 112/2017, Art. 3, para. 3.
Loi n° 47-1775 of 10.9.1947, Art. 16 and Art. 19 nonies.
Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s. 30(1).
Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s. 30(3), in conjunction with the Community Interest Company Regulation, reg. 19.
Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s. 34; for details, see Community Interest Company Regulation, reg. 26 et seq.
Loi n° 47-1775 of 10 September 1947, Art. 19 terdecies in conjunction with Décret n° 2015-1381 of 29 October 2015.
For more details on what follows, see Fleischer (2023a), margin no. 26 et seqq., with further references.
See Lang in Lang and Minnigh (2010), p 15: ‘I first conceived of the L3C business organization form in 2005. That name has created some issues. It does not mean that L3C cannot make a substantial profit or that the investors cannot make a substantial profit. The name comes from the basis for the 1969 law that authorized Program-Related Investments (PRIs).’
Lang in Lang and Minnigh (2010), p 15: ‘PRI was designed to provide capital to those enterprises that operated in the space between the nonprofit and the place where traditional for-profits existed. That space is the low-profit-zone. In that space, the profit earned is insufficient to meet the risk/reward parameters of normal for-profit-investors. It is that space for which I designed the L3C.’
In greater detail, Murray (2016), p 543 et seq.
Bishop (2010), p 246.
Along these lines, Manesh (2019), p 607, n. 9.
For greater detail, see Plerhoples (2023), p 910 et seqq.
For a good overview, Cox and Hazen (2020), p 71 et seqq.
Reprinted in Alexander (2014), Appendix A.
Model Benefit Corporation Legislation (MBCL), § 201(a).
In greater detail Marquis (2020), p 90 et seqq.
For a compilation of the available data, Fleischer (2023a), margin no. 17 et seq., with further references.
On this point, Möslein and Mittwoch (2016), p 427.
Ventura (2023), p 10: ‘In Europe, social enterprise is traditionally considered an alternative to charities, while the United States has embraced a broader view of SE, including profit-oriented business organisations involved in socially beneficial activities, hybrid dual-purpose businesses mediating profit goals with social objectives, and non-profit organisations engaged in mission-supporting commercial activity.’
European Commission (2011), p 2 f.
Art. 3(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds, OJ L 115/18, 25.4.2013.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1057, OJ L 231/21, 30.6.2021.
See footnote 70 above, as well as the corresponding text.
As previously and accurately assessed by Möslein (2017), p 175.
On both aspects, see Mittwoch (2022), p 240 et seqq.
See the worthwhile treatise by Plumpe (2019).
Ley 5/2011, de 29 de marzo, de Economía Social.
Loi n° 2014-856 du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire.
In detail, OECD (2022), p 27 et seq.
Karré (2021), p 296: ‘The main question here is whether social businesses can or should be seen as a group or subset of organisations that differ so significantly from more traditional organisations operating in social-welfare provision and have such a big beneficial impact on society that a special treatment is warranted.’
Fici (2023), p 155.
SEND (2022), p 16 with footnote 14.
Ibid.; from an academic perspective, see also Momberger (2015), p 307 et seqq.
On what follows, see already Fleischer (2023b), under V.
Beuthien (1989), p 11, with further references.
Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum (2023), p 2.
This is clarified by Sanders (2022), p 628.
Fleischer (2022), p 830.
Lieder (2018).
See Lloyd (2010), p 33: ‘... the CIC piggybacks on existing company legislation’.
Manesh (2019), p 610.
See Fleischer (2022), p 830 f.
See Fleischer (2014), p 1089, with further references.
Fici (2023), pp 153, 165 et seqq.
Liao et al. (2019), p 97 et seq.
Loi of 13 April 1995; on this law, see Hiez (2023), p 445 et seqq., with further references. However, this legal status was abolished in 2019 in the course of the reform of Belgian company law and replaced by a cooperative variant, the société coopérative comme entreprise sociale. For more details, see Aydogdu and Nickels (2018), p 98 et seq; Cools (2023), p 98.
Law No. 1351/2003 of 31 December 2003; in more detail, Kostilainen et al. (2021), p 55 et seqq.
See Cian (2020) p 50: ‘non un nuovo tipo societario’.
See Jean-Noel Guerini, in Rapport Lescure et al., N° 1237, Assemblée Nationale, Enregistré à la Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale le 15 septembre 2018, Tome II, p 127: ‘[Ce] statut se cumulera avec les statuts existants: société anonyme à mission; société par actions simplifiée (SAS) à mission; société à responsabilité limitée (SARL) à mission; entreprise unipersonnelle à responsabilité limitée (EURL) à mission. Il ne s’agit pas de créer un statut d’entreprise supplémentaire’; from a comparative perspective, Fleischer and Chatard (2021), p 1525.
Loi de 12.12.2016.
Ley no. 18/2022, 28.9.2022.
Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 28.4.2020 – II ZB 13/19, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 2020, 781.
Rozwora (2021).
Oldemeier and Seeck (2023).
Fici (2017), p 21.
See the monograph by Chris Marquis (2020).
In greater detail, Fleischer (2023a), margin no. 3 et seqq., with further references.
In closer detail, https://www.bcorporation.de.
Spindler (2023), p 595.
See Möslein (2021), p 11.
Defourny et al. (2021b), p 6.
References
Achleitner A-K, Heister P, Stahl E (2007) Social Entrepreneurship – Ein Überblick. In: Achleitner A-K, Pöllath R, Stahl E (eds) Finanzierung von Sozialunternehmern. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 3–25
Alexander F (2014) Benefit corporation law and governance. Pursuing profit with purpose. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland
Aliaga-Isla R, Huybrechts B (2018) From ‘push out’ to ‘pull in’ together: an analysis of social entrepreneurship definitions in the academic field. J Clean Prod 205:645–660
Alter K (2007) Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC
Anastasiadis M (2016) Work integration social enterprises in Austria. Nonprof Pol Forum 7:541–564
Aydogdu R, Nickels L (2018) La société à responsabilité limitée et les autres formes de sociétés. In: Aydogdu R, Caprasse O (eds) Le Code des sociétés et des associations. Introduction à la réforme du droit des sociétés. Anthemis, pp 65–100
Beuthien V (1989) Genossenschaftsrecht: woher - wohin? Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen
Beuthien V (2018) Genossenschaftsgesetz, 16th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Bidet E, Defourny J (2019) Social enterprise in Asia: theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London
Billis D (2010) Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Bishop C (2010) The low profit LLC (L3C). Ark Law Rev 63:243–267
Bornstein D (2007) How to change the world. Oxford University Press, New York
Borzaga C, Defourny J (2001) Conclusions: social enterprises in Europe: a diversity of initiatives and prospects. In: Borzaga C, Defourny J (eds) The emergence of social enterprise. Routledge, New York and London, pp 350–370
Borzaga C, Tortia E (2010) The economics of social enterprises: an interpretative framework. In: Becchetti L, Borzaga C (eds) The economics of social responsibility. Routledge, London and New York, pp 15–34
Brakman Reiser D (2012) The next big thing: flexible purpose corporation. Am Univ Bus Law Rev 2:55–83
Brakman Reiser D, Dean SA (2017) Social enterprise law. Oxford University Press, New York
Brewer C (2016) The ongoing evolution in social enterprise legal forms. In: Young D, Searing E, Brewer C (eds) The Social Enterprise Zoo. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 33–66
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2018) Praxisleitfaden Soziales Unternehmertum. https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Mittelstand/praxisleitfaden-soziales-unternehmertum.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (2023) Nationale Strategie für Sozialunternehmen und Soziale Innovationen. www.bmbf.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/de/2023/230912-sigustrategie-download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1. Accessed 2 Feb 2024
Cagarman K, Kratzer J, Osbelt K (2020) Social entrepreneurship: dissection of a phenomenon through a German lens. Sustainability 12:7764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187764
Cian M (2020) Diritto delle società. Giappichelli, Torino
Clarke C (2012) California’s flexible purpose corporation: a step forward, a step back, or no step at all? J Bus Entrep Law 5:301–328
Cools S (2023) Social entrepreneurship: the choice between labels, variants, dedicated and conventional corporate forms. ECFR 20:85–108
Cox J, Hazen T (2020) Business organizations law, 5th edn. West Academic Publishing, St. Paul, Hornbook Series
Cozian M, Viandier A, Deboissy F (2022) Droit des sociétés, 35th edn. LexisNexis, Paris
Crimmins J, Keil M (1983) Enterprise in the nonprofit sector. Partners for Livable Places, Washington
de Bruin A, Teasdale S (2019) A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Dees JG (1996) The social enterprise spectrum: philanthropy to commerce. Harvard Business School, Boston
Dees JG (1998) Enterprising nonprofits. Bus Rev 76:54–67
Defourny J (2021) Introduction: from third sector to social enterprise. In: Borzaga C, Defourny J (eds) The emergence of social enterprise. Routledge, New York and London, pp 1–28
Defourny J, Nyssens M (2008) Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Soc Enterp J 4:202–228
Defourny J, Nyssens M (2010) Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: convergences and divergences. J Soc Entrep 1:32–53
Defourny J, Nyssens M (2021a) Social enterprise in Western Europe: theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London
Defourny J, Nyssens M (2021b) Social enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge, New York and London
Defourny J, Nyssens M (2021c) Conclusion – social enterprise, welfare regimes and policy implications. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 351–357
Defourny J, Nyssens M, Adams S (2021a) Documenting, theorising, mapping and testing the plurality of SE models in Western Europe. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 1–17
Defourny J, Mihály M, Nyssens M, Adams S (2021b) Documenting, theorising, mapping and testing the plurality of SE models in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge, New York and London, pp 1–20
Díaz-Foncea M, Marcuello C (2023) Social enterprises: conceptual debates and approaches. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 133–151
Douvitsa I (2018) National constitutions and cooperatives: an overview. Int J Coop Law 1:128–148
Drayton B (2002) The citizen sector: becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. Calif Manag Rev 44:120–132
European Commission (2011) Social business initiative. Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation, COM(2011) 682 final
European Commission (2020) Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4985a489-73ed-11ea-a07e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF. Accessed 2 Feb 2024
European Commission (2021) Building an economy that works for people: an action plan for the social economy, COM (2021) 778 final
Fici A (2016) Recognition and legal forms of social enterprise in Europe: a critical analysis from a comparative law perspective. Eur Bus Law Rev 27:639–667
Fici A (2017) A European statute for social and solidarity-based enterprise. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2017)583123. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Fici A (2020) European social enterprise law after the ‘Social Business Initiative’ Communication of 2011: a comparative analysis from the perspective of worker and social cooperatives. CECOP, Brussels
Fici A (2022) Social enterprises and social cooperatives in the new Italian legal framework for third sector organizations. In: Tadjudje W, Douvitsa I (eds) Perspectives on cooperative law. Festschrift in honour of Professor Hagen Henrÿ. Springer Nature, Singapore, pp 77–88
Fici A (2023) Models and trends of social enterprise regulation in the European Union. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 153–171
Flachsensberg H (2022) Wie sozial sind Sozialunternehmen? Spiegel-Online, 19 July 2022. https://www.spiegel.de/start/social-entrepreneurship-wie-man-ein-sozialunternehmen-gruendet-a-8aa6fc29-7e27-46e4-9610-efcdf6e11368. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Fleischer H (2014) Internationale Trends und Reformen im Recht der geschlossenen Kapitalgesellschaft. Neue Zeitschrift Für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 17:1081–1090
Fleischer H (2022) Ein Rundflug über Rechtsformneuschöpfungen im in- und ausländischen Gesellschaftsrecht. Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 25:827–835
Fleischer H (2023a) Die US-amerikanische Benefit Corporation als Referenz- und Vorzeigemodell im Recht der Sozialunternehmen. Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 68:1–14
Fleischer H (2023b) The menagerie of organizational forms in German company law. ECGI Working Paper N° 735/2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4587511
Fleischer H, Chatard Y (2021) Gesetzliche Zertifizierung nachhaltiger Unternehmen: Die französische ‘société à mission.’ Neue Zeitschrift Für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 24:1525–1532
Fojcik T, Koch G (2009) ‘Social Entrepreneurs’ – Fakt oder Fiktion? Eine kritische Untersuchung. In: Henkel M, Gebauer J, Leodemann J, Mohaupt F, Partzsch L, Wascher E, Ziegler R (eds) Social entrepreneurship – status quo 2009. Geozon Science Media, Greifswald, pp 78–98
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2023) Unternehmen ohne Dividende, 14 March 2023
Gaiger LI, Nyssens M, Wanderley F (2019) Social enterprise in Latin America. Routledge, New York and London
Galera G, Borzaga C (2009) Social enterprise: an international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Soc Enterp J 5:210–228
Giddens A (1998) The Third Way: the renewal of social democracy. Polity Books, Cambridge
Göler von Ravensburg N, Mildenberer G, Krlev G (2021) Social enterprise in Germany: between institutional inertia, innovation and cooperation. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 85–101
Habersack M (2020) Gemeinwohlbindung und Unternehmensrecht. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 220:594–663
Hall G (2022) Virtue and social enterprise: ethical alternatives to capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Hamburger Abendblatt (2022) Hamburger Duschbus-Gründer bekommt Bundesverdienstkreuz, 6 December 2022, p 11
Haugh H (2005) A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Soc Enterp J 1:1–12
Hernández Cáceres D (2023) Social enterprises in the social cooperative form. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 173–191
Hiez D (2023) The suitability of Belgian law to B Corp. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 441–453
Houlahan B, Kassoy A, Gilbert JC (2017) Berle VIII: benefit corporations and the firm commitment universe. Seattle Univ Law Rev. 40:299–302
James E (1983) How nonprofits grow: a model. J Policy Anal Manag 2:350–365
Karré P (2021) Social enterprise in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands: where the old meets the new. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 288–300
Kerlin J (2013) Defining social enterprise across different contexts: a conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 42:84–108
Kiesswetter O (2018) Genossenschaften made in Italy – Ein Erfolgsbericht. Books on Demand, Hamburg
Kostilainen H, Houtbeckers E, Pättiniemi P (2021) A new typology of social enterprise in Finland: capturing the diversity. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 52–68
Lang R, Minnigh EC (2010) The L3C, history, basic construct, and legal framework. Vt Law Rev 35:15–30
Leadbeater C (1997) The rise of social entrepreneurs. Demos, London
Leadbeater C (2013) The social entrepreneur. In: Scott R, Goodheart D (eds) Twenty years of ideals. Demos, London, pp 75–80
Leppert T (2013) Social entrepreneurship in Deutschland. Verlag Dr Kovač, Hamburg
Liao C, Tawfik EU, Teichreb P (2019) The global social enterprise lawmaking phenomenon: state initiatives on purpose, capital, and taxation. Windsor Y.b. Access Just 36:84–114
Lieder J (2018) Rechtsformvariante und Rechtsscheinhaftung – Ein Beitrag zur Institutionenbildung im Gesellschaftsrecht. Festschrift 25 Jahre Notarinstitut. C.H. Beck, München, pp 503–526
Liptrap JS (2020) The social enterprise company in Europa: policy and theory. J Corp Law Stud 20:495–539
Liptrap JS (2021a) A social enterprise company in EU organisational law? Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 23:193–227
Liptrap JS (2021b) British social enterprise law. J Corp Law Stud 21:595–630
Lloyd S (2010) Transcript: creating the CIC. Vt Law Rev 35:31–43
Manesh M (2019) Introducing the totally unnecessary benefit LLC. N.C. Law Rev 97:604–671
Marquis C (2020) Better business. How the B Corp movement is remaking capitalism. Yale University Press, New Haven and London
Means B, Jockey JW (2018) The Cambridge handbook of social enterprise law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mittwoch A-C (2022) Nachhaltigkeit und Unternehmensrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Momberger B (2015) Social entrepreneurship. Bucerius Law School Press, Hamburg
Möslein F (2017) Reformperspektiven im Recht sozialen Unternehmertums. ZRP 50:175–179
Möslein F (2021) Zertifizierung nachhaltiger Kapitalgesellschaften: Regimevergleich und flankierende Maßnahmen. In: Burgi M, Möslein F (eds) Zertifizierung nachhaltiger Kapitalgesellschaften. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 3–30
Möslein F, Mittwoch A-C (2016) Soziales Unternehmertum im US-amerikanischen Gesellschaftsrecht. Rabelsz 80:399–434
Murray J (2016) The social enterprise law market. Md Law Rev 75:541–589
Neri-Castracante G (2023) The governance patterns of social enterprises. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 47–75
Nicholls A (2010) Editorial: continuations and beginnings. J Soc Entrep 1:1–4
Nowotny E, Zagler M (2022) Der öffentliche Sektor. Einführung in die Finanzwissenschaft, 6th edn. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Obernosterer V (2023) Die GmbH mit gebundenem Vermögen – eine GmbH mit beschränkter Niederlassungsfreiheit? GmbHR 114:434–443
OECD (2022) Designing legal frameworks for social enterprises. https://www.oecd.org/publications/designing-legal-frameworks-for-social-enterprises-172b60b2-en.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2024
OECD (2023) Policy guide on legal frameworks for the social and solidarity economy. https://www.oecd.org/publications/policy-guide-on-legal-frameworks-for-the-social-and-solidarity-economy-9c228f62-en.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2024
Oldemeier L, Seeck B (2023) Genossenschaft und Gemeinnützigkeit. Zeitschrift für das Recht der Non Profit Organisation (npoR) 15:16–20
Orth M (2022) Gemeinnützige Personengesellschaften. Deutsches Steuerrecht (DStR) 60:864–868
Persaud A, Bayon M (2019) A review and analysis of the thematic structure of social entrepreneurship research. Int Rev Entrep 17:495–529
Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (2023) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham
Pistor K (2019) The code of capital. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Plerhoples A (2023) Social enterprises and benefit corporations in the United States. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 903–919
Plumpe W (2019) Das Kalte Herz: Kapitalismus. Geschichte einer andauernden Revolution. Rowohlt, Berlin
Poledrini S, Borzaga C (2021) Social enterprise in Italy: a plurality of business and organisational models. In: Defourny J, Nyssens M (eds) Social enterprise in Western Europe. Theory, models and practice. Routledge, New York and London, pp 131–148
Pöllath R (2007) Rechtsformfrage. In: Achleitner A-K, Pöllath R, Stahl E (eds) Finanzierung von Sozialunternehmern. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 44–54
Rozwora I (2021) Die gemeinnützige Aktiengesellschaft als Akteurin der Zivilgesellschaft. De Gruyter, Berlin
Sánchez-Hernández MI, Carvalho L, Rego C, Lucas MR, Noronha A (2021) Social innovation and entrepreneurship in the fourth sector. Springer, Cham
Sanders A (2022) Binding capital to free purpose: steward ownership in Germany. ECFR 19:622–653
Sanders A, Dauner-Lieb B, Kempny S, Möslein F, Veil R (2021) Entwurf eines Gesetzes für die Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung mit gebundenem Vermögen. Partly reprinted in GmbHR 112:285–290
Schäfer H-B (2021) Nationalreichtum und private Armut durch Zivilrecht? – Eine Besprechung des Buchs ‘The Code of Capital’ von Katharina Pistor. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 85:854–875
Shockley G, Frank P (2011) Schumpeter, Kirzner and the field of social entrepreneurship. J Soc Entrep 2:6–26
Simsa M, Meyer R, Badelt C (2023) Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management, 6th edn. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart
Skloot (1983) Should not-for-profits go into business? Harv Bus Rev 61:20–27
Social Entrepreneurship Netzwerk Deutschland SEND (2021) Rechtsformen für Social Enterprises. Ein Ratgeber zu Rechtsformen und Gemeinnützigkeit von Social Enterprises. https://fit-fuer-sozialunternehmen.de/#publikationen. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Social Entrepreneurship Netzwerk Deutschland (SEND) (2022) 4th German Social Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021/2022. https://www.send-ev.de/projekte-items/dsem/#:~:text=Vierter%20Deutscher%20Social%20Entrepreneurship%20Monitor,gesellschaftliche%20Herausforderungen%20innovativ%20angegangen%20werden. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Sørensen K, Neville M (2014) Social enterprises: how should company law balance flexibility and credibility? EBOR 15:267–308
Spindler G (2023) Social purposes in German corporate law and benefit corporations in Germany. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 585–599
Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum (2023) Eckpunktepapier, 1 March 2023. https://stiftung-verantwortungseigentum.de/downloads. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
Teasdale S (2012) What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Publ Policy Adm 27:99–119
Thomas A (2004) The rise of social cooperatives in Italy. Voluntas 15:243–263
UK Cabinet Office (2006) Social enterprise action plan: scaling new heights
Vargas Vasserot C (2023) Social enterprises in the European Union: gradual recognition of their importance and models of legal regulation. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 27–45
Ventura L (2023) The social enterprise movement and the birth of hybrid organisational forms as policy response to the growing demand for firm altruism. In: Peter H, Vargas Vasserot C, Alcalde Silva J (eds) The international handbook of social enterprise law. Springer, Cham, pp 9–25
Wedemann F (2016) Gemeinnützige Personengesellschaften? Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 19:645–650
Weisbrod B (1998) To profit or not to profit. The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Weitemeyer B (2022) Alternative Organisationsformen im Trend – Unternehmensstiftung, gemeinnützige GmbH, Benefit Corporation. ZGR 51:627–663
Weitemeyer B, Waltz A (2022) Patagonia – Vorreiter einer neuen Wirtschaft? npoR 14:277–279
Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages (2016) Geeignete Rechtsformen für Sozialunternehmen in Deutschland. Az. WD 7 - 3000 - 148/16 of 12 October 2016
Young D, Brewer C (2016) Introduction. In: Young D, Searing E, Brewer C (eds) The Social Enterprise Zoo. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 3–14
Young D, Searing E, Brewer C (2016) The Social Enterprise Zoo. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Yunus M (1999) Banker to the poor. PublicAffairs, New York
Yunus M (2009) Creating a world without poverty: social business and the future of capitalism. PublicAffairs, New York
Yunus M (2011) Building social business. Hachette Book Group USA, New York
Zoppini A (2022) Le società ‘benefit’ e le società ‘imprese sociali.’ In: Donativi V (ed) Trattato delle società, vol 4. Utet Giuridica, Turin, pp 1089–1106
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no known conflict of interest or competing interest that could have influenced the work presented in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fleischer, H., Pendl, M. The Law of Social Enterprises: Surveying a New Field of Research. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 25, 269–297 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-024-00314-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-024-00314-9