Developing the Social Economy: critical review of the literature

Research from Communities ScotlandReport 73

Developing the Social

Economy: critical review

of the literature

Developing the Social Economy:critical review of the literature

by

Declan Jones, Professor Bill Keogh and Heike O'Leary,Social Enterprise Institute (SEI), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

A Report to Communities Scotland

February 2007

Research and EvaluationCommunities Scotland, Thistle House91 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5HE

i

Developing the Social Economy: critical review of the literature

ii


The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect those of Communities Scotland.

Copyright © Communities Scotland 2006

Contents

1 Executive summary and key findings 1

2 Introduction 4

3 Background and policy context 6

4 Aims and objectives 7

5 Outputs 8

6 Methodology 9

7 Thematic analyses - literature 11

8 Issues for policy consideration 23

9 Conclusions and recommendations 24

10 Literature reference list and websites 26

iii


1 Executive summary and key findings

We have identified 111 documents from UK, North American and Europeansources. The literature highlights key areas that have been identified as themesfor this project. For the purposes of this review these are definition, regulation,policy, support and investment. Rather than just write a traditional review basedon subject expertise, experience, analysis, informed opinion and conjecture, wehave constructed the first classification framework for this literature. Thisframework will describe the various documents in a manner suitable for use byfuture researchers and will be updated and maintained by the Social EnterpriseInstitute on a periodic basis.

This classification framework sorts documents by the reference features,themes, analysis and comment. This framework classifies documents byauthor, title, publication type, geographical source, comments and anassessment of each document in terms of its connection to themes ofdefinition, regulation, policy, support and investment.

Further, the framework (to date) also analyses each Scottish and relevant UK-wide document, in terms of its robustness, conceptual and analytical featuresas well as an assessment of its empirical strengths and weaknesses with keypoints added for future researchers to review.

Clarke found in the earlier literature review that definitional disputes andambiguous use of language and terms to describe social economy activity,organisation, motivations and entrepreneurial orientation have created acomplex debate. This is reflected in the literature and the policy and advocacyposition of stakeholders. The result is that there is a lack of consensus on keyfeatures of the social economy per se and social enterprises and how theydiffer from traditional voluntary organisations.

The lack of consensus in relation to definitions and conceptual rigour presentsproblems for the sector. On one hand, it allows for a wide range oforganisations to be linked for research, analysis, evaluation, resourceallocation and policy purposes. It also reflects the views of many sectorstakeholders that consensus is unnecessary.

However, the lack of consensus poses problems for the development ofevidence led and differentiated public policies towards the different types oforganisation operating in the social economy. Differentiated policy wouldfacilitate more appropriate regulation and new forms of investment that aresuitable to each type of social economy organisation.

Unwillingness to contrast and compare different types of organisation mayreflect a cultural position within the sector that this could open the sector tounwanted external assessments of added value and performancemeasurement that do not sufficiently reflect the values and mission(s) of thesector. External evaluation may create a formal or de facto hierarchy oforganisations based on a set of different values, outputs and concerns fromthose of the people who operate within the sector - in particular between thosethat are more commercial than others in their activities and motivations.

As Clarke demonstrated, clarity of definition remains an issue because it isimportant for research, analysis, evaluation, resource allocation and policy

1


2


purposes. There is a 'broad', and a rival 'narrow' conceptualisation oforganisational form, attribute, social mission and motivation related to an'economic dimension'. The latter term is reflected in differing attempts to debatethe 'trading' activity and performance of these organisations.

There is a state led emerging policy development affecting the growth of thesector. Set against a policy driver of addressing social exclusion and promotingsocial inclusion, this seeks to decrease dependence on grants and increaseearned income for social economy organisations. In addition, a promotion ofnew social (capital) investment concepts has led to calls for innovation ininvestment from the state, ethical investors, private sector businesses andphilanthropists. New investment bodies known as Community DevelopmentFinance Initiatives (CDFIS)have emerged to address some of these matters.

Academic criticism of the literature suggests that much of the literature isreiterative, stems mainly from advocacy sources and despite broad claimsabout these organisations, robust evidence of their value and contributionremains elusive. The paucity of empirical and longitudinal studies is a furtherobservation made about the sector. Further, it is suggested that evidencebased theories concerning the formation; management and performance ofsocial economy organisations are not yet fully expounded (Haugh 2005). Inaddition, there is little evidence that social entrepreneurs themselves havewritten much about the sector. What is apparent is that much of the literature isdominated by a prevalence of case study and exemplar or best practicereferences. Only recently (2005) has a dedicated journal to social enterprisebeen established with the first volume containing six papers and one casestudy. Furthermore, conference papers and academic and refereed papershave been making the point that there is not a lot of peer reviewed andempirical research being carried out in this field.

One crucial observation to be made is that the different types of literatureappear to operate in isolation with only their targeted audience being familiarwith the work. There seems to be little transferability of research and newfindings between different stakeholders with little evidence that academicfindings, are impacting on the output of advocacy documentation. This processof (two -way) knowledge transfer needs to be encouraged and concepts,observations and academic research output could provide benefits forpractitioners, particularly as academics will seek to use these organisationsand individuals as the research population for their own work.

Where major empirical studies have been completed, such as the GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Report and IFF Research Report for theDepartment of Trade and Industry (DTI), they have been criticised for empiricalweakness in terms of the population sample for the former and definitionalproblems for the latter. The DTI has produced mapping guidelines for surveysand it would now appear logical for some authoritative source to extendguidance to other empirical and definitional issues so that accurate comparisoncan be made.

In terms of new research themes, it is readily apparent that academic output isbeginning to link the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship per se withsector notions, concepts and actions concerning social entrepreneurship andthe business behaviours successes and failures of social economyorganisations. The literature on mainstream entrepreneurship does not providea definitive position on entrepreneurial meanings, characteristics and

behaviours and therefore, research and academic enquiry continues. It wouldseem inappropriate for other stakeholders to reject or to abandon definitionaland other enquiry concerning social entrepreneurship because somestakeholders are either tired of the debate or cannot link the debate, academicfindings and better evidence to better evidence led policy.

Other research themes have been identified by Haugh who lists eight themesfor future research. It is important to note that most of these themes are widelyresearched in mainstream entrepreneurship. These are:

• Defining the scope of social entrepreneurship• The environmental context• Opportunity recognition and innovation• Modes of organisation• Resource acquisition• Opportunity exploitation• Performance measurement• Training education and learning about social entrepreneurship.

3


4


2 Introduction

Communities Scotland commissioned the Social Enterprise Institute (SEI) atHeriot-Watt University to undertake a critical review of research work relating tothe social economy sector that will cover research outputs published from 2002onwards. The review concentrates on key pieces of work and draws onprevious summaries of research evidence relating to the topic.

This literature review considers how the literature reflects the major themesthat most commentators and stakeholders view as appropriate to thedevelopment of this sector. These include:

1 Definition and meaning of social economy, social enterprise and socialentrepreneurship.

2 New developments in charity law and associated regulation andmonitoring.

3 Developments in government policy, strategy and support that seek togrow the social economy sector.

4 The removal of barriers to entry in the public sector procurement market.5 The growth of new forms of financial support and investment for social

economy organisations.

The literature on the social economy and social enterprise in all its forms,motivations and achievements is emerging from a number of sources atpresent. These include government or official body publications, practitioner'sbooks and reports, sectoral trade associations and advocacy organisations,and various academic disciplines - including entrepreneurship, economics,management, sociology, political science and finance. The literature is alsoemerging from European and American sources with the latter being the mostproductive source of literature from both academic and popular sources.

There is also an ever increasing body of work emanating from web pages,conferences, seminars and presentations. The volume of literature and relevantoutput from other media has grown since 2002 - particularly as the issuesbecome an increasing part of government focus.

The complexity of the 'sector', as illustrated below, is such that relevantmaterial needs to be identified from multiple sources in order to create apicture of the importance of each constituent part of the sector and theavailable information from the variety of media sources.

(source: Jones, Keogh and McKinney, 2004)

A Social Economy Spectrum of Organisations

Art & SportInstitutions.

Universities & CollegesCharities& organisations withcharitable status

Non-GovernmentalOrganisations (NGOs)

Churches Scottish Private SchoolsEnglish “Public” Schools

Unincorporated Incorporated Organisations Social MassOrganisations and The Formal Voluntary Sector Enterprises Mutuals

and RetailCo-ops

The spotlight has also fallen on the involvement of 'social entrepreneurs' - aterm that seeks to describe people who found and/or manage social economyorganisations and social enterprises but which is also taken to include 'changeagents' who seek to radically alter society in socio-economic terms.

The terms 'social enterprise' and 'social entrepreneur' lack consensus as totheir precise meaning and definition. In addition there is an absence ofprecision in relation to how they are used by a whole range of stakeholdersand this is reflected in the literature from practitioner, academic andgovernment sources. Other matters that often add to uncertainty are the issuesof corporate social responsibility and the changing nature of (venture)philanthropy.

This literature is growing because of increased interest in what the sector isand what it does but also because of external (mainly state led) interest in thepotential of the sector to deliver public services. This comes about due to thepressure on welfare systems to respond to an increasing number and range ofsocio-economic problems that the original architects of welfare systems couldnot have envisaged.

In examining the complexity of the social economy, the literature is concernedwith amongst other things: concepts and definitions, organisational models,differences between social economy entities and public and private sectorentities, business activities, entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, profitorientation, social mission, added value, social capital, double and triple bottomlines, public services, social inclusion, regulation, policy, support, andinvestment.

Given the wide range of issues identified above, the current position is that theliterature has so far failed to provide a consensus on what socialentrepreneurship is; what a social enterprise is, and how these latter termsrelate to earlier and other notions of voluntary and charitable activity,organisation and values. A recurring feature of the literature however is that it ischaracterised by a 'heroic rhetoric'. However, a criticism of this can be madedue to a lack of evidence linked to a theoretical framework, despite lots of(increased) activity.

This literature is complemented by a growth of development andrepresentational organisations, academic centres of study, and policy andsupport units from within government departments and agencies. In addition,the private sector in relation to corporate social responsibility concerns, as wellas support from wealthy philanthropists has offered resource and reputationalsupport to a variety of initiatives seeking to grow this sector in all its forms.What all this does reflect however, is the increase in the volume and extent ofthe literature, and a new and extended vocabulary, concerning these forms oforganisations and their stakeholders.

5


3 Background and policy context

The policy context for this review is to increase and improve the knowledgebase concerning the social economy for the purpose of raising the contributionof the sector and its constituent parts to the socio-economic goals of the stateparticularly in relation to the provision of public services.

The Scottish Executive affirmed its commitment to develop the Social Economyin the publication of the Social Economy Review in 2003. The review confirmedthe Executive's view that the Social Economy in Scotland can offer addedvalue to the delivery of public services. In particular it believes that:

• There is scope for the social economy to increase its contribution tothesocial and economic well-being of Scotland.

• Social economy organisations are particularly effective in working withexcluded and disadvantaged people.

• The social economy should be encouraged to help tackle poverty anddeprivation wherever it exists.

This review of relevant literature will serve to identify where and whatinformation is currently held; what the gaps in knowledge are; and whatinformation requires to be updated.

6


4 Aims and objectives

The overall aim of the research is to appraise recent research relating to thesocial economy.

The review covers the following objectives:

• To undertake a critical appraisal of research undertaken since 2002. Forthe purposes of this brief the review focused on Scotland but also includedany relevant UK or international work. The review assesses theconceptual, analytical and empirical strengths and weaknesses of theevidence base. In addition, there is an assessment of the robustness ofthe research methodologies employed, including sampling strategies, dataquality, validity of the findings and conclusions drawn.

• Identify key research findings on the nature of the sector.

• Identify remaining gaps in knowledge.

• Propose appropriate research strategies for future use.

7


5 Outputs

After consultation with Communities Scotland representatives it was decided toexpand the output of the review. In addition to a standard analytical report itwas agreed that the SEI would design and construct the first classificationframework for the sector literature. The framework would list all the documentsfound in the initial literature trawl, fish for relevant materials and sort theliterature into a number of different classification themes. These themes wouldform the basis for further analysis and research by other researchers.

In addition, it was agreed that the SEI would provide short descriptive analysesof the relevant documents to aid further research.

8


6 Methodology

There are major problems with securing the relevant literature with anecdotalevidence suggesting that much of it is outwith the public domain and held bystakeholders who are primarily not researchers and who therefore do notprioritise dissemination and peer review. There is therefore the problem of howto build a publicly accessible library of literature for researchers andpractitioners - no one is capturing all the literature

The literature review began with a series of 'trawls' of various literature sourcesand databases - primarily to identify and detect emerging academic literaturefrom different disciplines. This initial series of trawls set out to capturedocuments from Scotland, the UK, European and International sources.Searches took place on government literature and policy documentation thatspecifically affect Scotland but documents from a wider UK perspective wereincluded if they were deemed relevant. Relevant academic journals andconferences were identified and data captured. Although the review is forScotland only, and it is this literature that is analysed, the wider trawluncovered other important materials, or sources, from the rest of the UK andaround the world. These have been captured and are included as an appendix.

There are still relatively few British academics working in this field. Apart from arelatively small volume of independent research from British and Scottishresearchers, the bulk of the literature is either commissioned/produced by theState to provide evidence and support for policy review, planning andconcomitant funding and resource allocation, or the work of advocacyorganisations seeking to present themselves and their different messages todifferent groups of stakeholders.

The proposal documentation outlined key areas to consider in the themes to beidentified: including conceptual, analytical and empirical aspects of theliterature as well as an indication of strengths and weaknesses. Determiningthe themes involved making use of government policy documentation as wellas key words identified from practitioner and academic sources. Previousdocuments such as 'A Review of the Scottish Executive's Policies to PromoteThe Social Economy' were used as a starting point and discussions were heldinvolving key contacts in Scotland. Themes emerged from reviewing theliterature and these covered the following aspects:

• Definition• Regulation• Policy• Support• Investment.

In order to explore these further, a preliminary database was formed usingExcel. This allowed the team to input comments and frequencies regardingliterature but, equally importantly, also allows for ordering and ranking of thedata for comparisons.

9


10


The headings that were selected are the following:

Author (names of authors or organisations)Year (of publication)Title (of paper or report)Publication (the form it takes)Type (the source of the report e.g. consultancy, academic etc.)Classification (where does it focus e.g. housing, cooperatives etc.)Geographical Area (Scotland, UK, USA etc.)Topic (Definition, Regulation, Policy, Support and Investment)Comments (on the document)ConceptualAnalyticalEmpirical StrengthsEmpirical WeaknessesKey Points.

Through the use of this tool research findings on the nature of the sector doemerge and gaps in the knowledge base have been identified.

11


7 Thematic analysis - literature

The themes identified can be viewed in the following manner. However theyalso interrelate and the literature identified reflects this as certain documentsaddress multiple points - to a lesser or greater degree. This part of the reportseeks to highlight key literature in these themes, from the overlap period of2002 through to 2006.

Definition

The literature comments that consensus over definitional issues remainsproblematic. The complexity and terminological ambiguity prevalent within thesocial economy concerning the definition of the terms social economy andsocial enterprise result in confusion for stakeholders within the sector andexternal observers. This confusion has policy implications and resourceallocation implications. For some stakeholders in the social economy definitionmay be seen as irrelevant, however given the complexity of the socialeconomy there are significant organisational, regulatory, commercial andthematic differences that to policy makers must be addressed in adifferentiated, equitable and transparent manner.

The debate concerning definition is contradictory in that on the one handdefinition is often dismissed as irrelevant (for a variety of reasons) yet thevolume of literature on defining the social enterprise has expanded, therebysuggesting that there is an increasing importance concerning definition forstakeholders in this field. For example, stakeholders ought to be able toaccurately describe what these organisations actually are and crucially, howthey differ in two senses: firstly from each other and secondly how they differfrom private and public organisations. Definitions currently adopted byindividual organisations can be confusing and contradictory e.g. along the linesof “we are a social enterprise - but you're not! It is not just about the differencesin organisational feature but the complexity of motivation and social mission

Themes in theSocial Economy

Definition Regulation

Policy

Support

Investment

12


and, on a fundamental level, attitudes towards profit, profit maximisation, profitdistribution and sustainability. At the policy level, this lack of definition cancreate difficulties. For example, the Futurebuilders Scotland Fund had torewrite some earlier guidance to applicants in a more explicit manner, therebydemonstrating that the fund was designed for a defined and targeted set oforganisations intending to become more business-like and was not appropriateto every organisation seeking a (revenue) grant.

A sample of the relevant literature identified follows:

SCOTTISH Literature

Highlands & Islands Enterprise (2004), Valuing the asset base of the socialeconomy in the highlands and islands, Highlands & Islands Enterprise.

McGregor, A., Glass, A. and Clark, S. (2003), Valuing the Social Economy,Training and Employment Research Unit, University of Glasgow

McGregor, A., Sutherland, V. and Clark, S. (2006) Valuation of Network Activitywith Social Enterprises Training and Employment Research Unit, University ofGlasgow, and Simon Clark Associates.

Payne, J. and Berry, K. (2003), “The Voluntary Sector in Scotland”, SPICeBriefing compiled for the Scottish Parliament

Payne, J. and Burnside, R. (2003), “The Social Economy in Scotland”, SPICeBriefing compiled for the Scottish Parliament

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), (Institute VolunteeringResearch: Frontiers and Horizons) “Mapping the Voluntary Sector in RuralScotland: A Rural Urban Comparison”, , SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2003), A review of the Scottish Executive's Policies toPromote the Social Economy, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2004), Futurebuilders Scotland: Investing in the SocialEconomy, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

SQW Ltd. (2002) Support Infrastructure for the Social Economy, CommunitiesScotland, Edinburgh.

SQW Ltd. and SCVO (2002) An Evaluation of the Social EconomyInfrastructure and Support: A Report to Communities Scotland, SQW,Edinburgh.

SQW Ltd. and Simon Clarke Associates (2002), Assessment of the SocialEconomy in the Highlands and Islands: a Final Report to Highlands and IslandsEnterprise, SQW, Edinburgh.

UK Literature

Haugh, H. (2006), “A research agenda for Social Entrepreneurship?” SocialEnterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1-12.

IFF Research Ltd. (2005), A survey of Social Enterprises Across the UK, TheSmall Business Service, DTI, London.

13


Jones, D., Keogh, W. and McKinney, R. (2004) 'Sustainable Social Enterprise:A Case of Complexity' presented at ISBA conference, Teeside, Nov. 2004.

McManus, P. (2004), “Definition of the Social Economy in Northern Ireland:Finding a way through”, Social Economy Agency

Pharaoh, C., Scott, D. and Fisher, A. (2004) Social Enterprise in the Balance:Challenges for the Voluntary Sector, CAF. Kent.

Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanam, I. and Butters, S. (2001) ResearchingSocial Enterprise: A Final Report to the Small Business Service, SBS, London.

WORLD Literature

Bornstein, D. (2004), How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and thepower of new ideas, Oxford University Press Inc.

Regulation

The literature captures some main problems associated with regulation andrelated aspects that affect the sector and Scotland in particular. This isrecognised by several authors who write of these developments in terms of therisks and constraints affecting the sector. There is little evidence to date aboutthe positive aspects of regulation in terms of the value of quality assurance and'kitemarking' sector activities to increase confidence in investors, purchasersand beneficiaries.

What is recognised is that regulation is growing, increasingly complex and thatdifferent organisations operate under significantly different regulatory regimes.For example, charitable organisations will be affected by the newly createdOffice of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) and new charitable legislationfrom the Scottish Parliament.

However, Credit Unions do not have charitable status and are subject toFinancial Services Authority (FSA) regulation and Housing Associations,particularly those with large-scale “wider role” activities can be subject toregulation from multiple authorities. Other organisations with complex groupstructures for different charitable and trading purposes will have a greaterregulatory burden and the complaint about red tape is as much a feature of thesocial economy as it is in the private sector.

The introduction of the Community Interest Company (CIC) option for socialenterprises, and the establishment of the CIC Regulator demonstrates that thegrowth of the sector in all its guises comes with a commensurate increase ininterest in from the State and there is no sign that that will decrease. Inaddition, the growth of different types of business activity for someorganisations suggests that their structure and focus increasingly resemblesSMEs and larger business organisations. It may not necessarily be the type ofregulation that they face but the extent of the regulation that impacts on theiroperation. For example, Credit Unions may increasingly require a ComplianceOfficer to meet the requirements of the FSA. One aspect of this that has yet tobe adequately researched is the impact that these changes will have on Boardmembers and senior officers - particularly in relation to increasing statutoryobligations in company and charity law.

Finally, other legislation such as the Health and Safety Act, DisabilityDiscrimination Act (DDA), and the requirements of organisations such as the

14


Care Commission may all increasingly impact on organisations. One exampleof this becoming an unintended and potentially ruinous expensive burden, isthe issue of capital expenditure on buildings which social economyorganisations lease from local authorities. In the case of childcareorganisations for example, the inability of local authorities to fund capitalprogrammes to meet the requirements of the DDA (in buildings that childcareproviders lease), could leave childcare providers caught between differentdemands from different wings of government but without the financialresources or the legal authority to address the problems of access for disabledpeople. Evidence from other research carried out by the SEI demonstrates thatmany providers are unsure how to address this and they concede that servicesmay close if the cost of compliance is too great.


SCOTTISH Literature

Bridge to the Social Economy Project (2003), Social Enterprise developmentand the Social Economy in Scotland Community Business Scotland

Scottish Executive (2005), Tendering for Public sector Contracts: A PracticalGuide for Social Economy Organisations in Scotland Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

UK Literature

Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. (2002), Placing the Social Economy,Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., London.

Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit (2002) Private Action, Public Benefit: a Review ofCharities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector HMG, London.

Department of Trade and Industry (2002), Social Enterprise: A Strategy forSuccess, HMSO, London.


Haugh, H. (2006), “A research agenda for Social Entrepreneurship?” SocialEnterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1-12.Paton, R. (2003), Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises, SagePublications Ltd., London.

Policy

The literature on policy is complex and deals with a wide range of importantinterrelated issues. At the UK level, the Cabinet Office, The Treasury and theDTI have examined policy, support and investment issues. This has beencomplemented by some international and UK academic analysis with widerelevance for all parts of the sector. In Scotland, The Executive, TheParliament, advocacy bodies and local development agencies havecommissioned or carried out their own research. In general terms, much of theliterature is based on the position that the State is expressing its support for thesocial economy. However, there are several major issues contained within thepolicy related literature.

15


Firstly, there is the position that organisations should reduce grant dependencyand increase trading income. In Scotland, this position is expounded by thedocument 'A Review of the Scottish Executive's Policies to Promote The SocialEconomy' (2003) which established the Executive's commitment to address thefact that the social economy's full potential is not being realised. Secondly, thesubstantive issue is how to address the problem of sustainability for the sector.Thirdly, the ability of the sector to deliver more public services is seen in thecontext of adding value and delivering better public services.

A range of documents provide evidence based information and guidance forpoliticians and policy planners on the extent and potential of the sector toaddress service problems at local and national levels. Other publications aregenerally based on consultative exercises with sector stakeholders respondingto policy ideas and proposals. SCVO and other sector trade associations andadvocates have invested considerable effort in representing members in orderto affect policy and influence decisions.


SCOTTISH Literature






Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2006), “SCVO response to theDecember 2005 follow up study by Audit Scotland: Following the Public Pound”

Scottish Executive (2002), Review of Funding for the Voluntary Sector- TheScottish Executive Response, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.







UK Literature

Anheier, H. K. (2004), “Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy”,Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Anheier, H. K. (2005), Nonprofit Organizations. Theory, Management, PolicyRoutledge, London.

Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit (2002) Private Action, Public Benefit: a Review ofCharities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector HMG, London.

Department of Trade and Industry (2002), Social Enterprise: A Strategy forSuccess HMSO, London.


Passay, A. and Lyons, M. (2004) “Government Initiatives to develop the UKSocial Economy”, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Pearce, J. (2003), Social Enterprise in Anytown, Calouste GulbenkianFoundation, London.


Scott, D. and Pharaoh, C. (2003), “Social Enterprise in the Voluntary andCommunity Sectors: Challenge for Policy and Practice”


The Bank of England (2003) The Financing of Social Enterprises: A SpecialReport by the Bank of England, Bank of England, London.

Support

The literature is relatively extensive and captures the activities of the broadrange of support agencies, links this to the formation and review of policy goalsand attempts to evaluate the success or otherwise of the different types ofspecialist and mainstream support that social economy organisations can callon. The dominant UK wide themes are established in the DTI report 'SocialEnterprise: A Strategy for Success' (2002), which describes the three key goalsfor government as creating an enabling environment, making social enterprisesbetter businesses and establishing the value of social enterprise.

Notwithstanding the issue of whether the term 'social enterprise' equates to allsocial economy organisations (and the DTI makes it clear that social

16


17


enterprises are businesses) the broader literature addresses similar themes forthe whole sector. The main issues are attempting to identify and removebarriers to growth. These include how to improve access to (public sector)markets, increasing the supply of (new forms) of finance, and improving thecommercial acumen of social economy organisations.

Within the literature, there is also an analysis of the extent of social economyactivity to provide evidence of social and economic significance for policyplanners. This is based on several mapping exercises (the DTI now providesauthoritative guidance on this) and the extent of the business supportinfrastructure is also captured.

The literature is often 'practical' in nature and contains guidance, best practiceadvice and case study examples that may be adapted as learning tools. A sub-theme within the literature is the question of whether social economyorganisations need dedicated specialist support agencies or whether theyshould make better use of the mainstream development agencies despite thelack of expertise or interest deemed to exist amongst these organisation's staff.

The emerging literature deals with some difficult issues, such as, expenditureof public money; removing barriers to potential opportunities; and reducinggrant dependency whilst increasing income from trading. One issue related toachieving full potential to deliver public services involves developing a morebusiness-like orientation and planning as one would for a profit-based businessentity. This is strongly linked to a series of publications (and events) addressingthe issue of public sector procurement.

The issue of support is strongly linked to the issue of investment and theliterature concerning how this ought to be delivered is growing. Literally, at thetime of editing this report, Social Investment Scotland produced its report'Investment Capital for Social Ventures' and this will be looked at in the nextsection.


SCOTTISH Literature

Audit Scotland (2005), Following the Public Pound: A follow-up report, preparedfor the Accounts Commission, Audit Scotland.


Forth Sector (2005) A Business Planning Guide to developing a SocialEnterprise Forth Sector, Edinburgh.




18




Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), (Institute VolunteeringResearch: Frontiers and Horizons) “Mapping the Voluntary Sector in RuralScotland: A Rural Urban Comparison”, , SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), “Funding of the ScottishVoluntary Sector”, SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), “Snapshot of the ScottishVoluntary Sector”, SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2006), “SCVO response to theDecember 2005 follow up study by Audit Scotland: Following the Public Pound”

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) (2003), Taking a Loan ofFinance: A guide to borrowing for social economy organisations in ScotlandSocial Investment Scotland, Edinburgh.





Scottish Parliament (2006), “Enterprise and Culture Committee Report:Business Growth, the next 10 years”, SP Paper 520




UK Literature

Allan, B. (2004), “Social Enterprise: through the eyes of the consumer.Prepared for the National Consumer Council”, Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 1,No. 1, pp 57-77.

Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. (2002), Placing the Social Economy,Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., London.

Community Action Network (2005), “Match Winners - A guide to commercialcollaborations between social and private sector business”, sponsored by theDepartment of Trade & Industry


Harding, R. and Cowling, M. (2004) GEM Social Entrepreneurship MonitorUnited Kingdom 2004, London Business School, London.

Hines, F. (2006), “Viable Social Enterprise - an evaluation of business supportto social enterprise”, Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 13-28.

Huddersfield Pride Ltd. (2005) Assessing the True Value of Social enterprise: AReview of Current Practice West Yorkshire Enterprise Partnership.

Hudson, M. (2004), “Managing without profit. The art of managing Third-sectororganisations”, Directory of Social Change

Lyon, F., Evans, M., Ramsden, M. and Burch, J. (2005), “Evaluation of thesupport for Enterprising Communities Pilot Project”, Research Brief RB653,Department for Education and Skills



Pharaoh, C., Scott, D. and Fisher, A. (2004) Social Enterprise in the Balance:Challenges for the Voluntary Sector, CAF. Kent.Scott, D. and Pharaoh, C. (2003), “Social Enterprise in the Voluntary andCommunity Sectors: Challenge for Policy and Practice”

Social Enterprise Coalition (2003), “There's more to business than you think: Aguide to Social Enterprise”, London.

Social Enterprise London (2002), Time to Deliver: A Social Enterprise BusinessSupport Strategy for London, London Social Economy Taskforce


WORLD Literature

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2002), Strategic Tools for SocialEntrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of your enterprising Nonprofit, JohnWiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Investment

The literature distinguishes between funding from traditional sources such asgrants and other forms of investment such as loans, 'near-equity' and 'patient

19


capital'. The latter forms of investment are deemed to be attractive to only aminority of organisations but represent an important part of the literaturebecause of their innovative nature. New organisations known as CommunityDevelopment Finance Initiatives (CDFIs) have been developed to stimulate andmeet the demand for this type of investment.

The policy context for these developments is a state led drive for organisationsto reduce grant dependency and increase earned (trading) income. The Bankof England has produced a comprehensive report: The Financing of SocialEnterprises: A Special Report by the Bank of England, (2003) that addressesthe fundamental issue of how social enterprises and social economyorganisations are actually funded. The research analysed demand and supplyand commented on risk aversion, the different types of existing financialsupport and how grant availability impacts on this small but developing market.A market approach considering the issues of supply and demand was a majortheme of the report and issues concerning the suitability and availability ofpatient capital were highlighted. Crucially the report recommends (amongstother things) that:

“..the key to tapping into a social investment market is the ability of a socialenterprise to distinguish and account for social costs and returns. Efforts todevelop a method of social auditing should be directed at meeting the needs ofactual and potential investors, whilst not placing too onerous a reportingburden on social enterprises.

Other key documents include 'Equity-Like Capital for Social Ventures' BridgesCommunity Ventures (2004) and 'Sharing in Success - Patient Capital for theSocial Economy in Scotland' Community Enterprise in Strathclyde (2002).Literally, just as this report was being edited, a new Scottish report but with UK-wide relevance was also published. 'Investment Capital for Social Ventures'Social Investment Scotland (2006) builds on the work of these earlierdocuments.

Aside from general comment about the need to address the terminologicalambiguity inherent in some of these terms - understanding is deemed to bepatchy across the sector, it examines in detail the market for different types offinancial instrument. The report describes their features and suitability in detailand offers the views of a wide range of contributors about how this type ofinvestment should be managed. The report also comments on what sectors areattractive to investors and are deemed likely to have investment readyenterprises. Other recommendations include favouring a balanced scorecardapproach to measuring social return as a guide for investment decisions. Inaddition the continuing role of the state in providing money was emphasised bycontributors.

At a sophisticated level, there is detailed discussion about subordinated debt,mezzanine finance and other combinations of equity and debt finance but thevarious authors of these reports all recognise that considerable risk aversionand the continuing availability of cheaper forms of finance (grants) act as majorconstraints to increasing the deal flow significantly - either by volume or value.

Other features of the literature are more practical with various guides and casestudy evidence demonstrating best practice or examples of how otherorganisations have raised finance in its various forms.

20


Given that the supply of new finance has increased we ought to analyse theperformance of funders as the literature does not adequately capture this yet.This would mean examining the purposes of different types of CDFIs, their loanportfolios and the organisations that have borrowed short and long-term capital.Data needs to be gathered around the purpose of the investment, repaymentterms and the 'change' in organisational culture this has effected. In addition,we also need to examine failed attempts to raise capital and borrow money sothat we can analyse lending and investment decision-making processes. Earlyindications that decisions on some types of lottery monies are being based onan 'investment strategy' as opposed to just giving grants suggest that thisneeds to be included as well.


SCOTTISH Literature



Community Enterprise in Strathclyde (2002), Sharing in Success - PatientCapital for The Social Economy in Scotland, Community Enterprise inStrathclyde, Glasgow







Scottish Executive (2005), Tendering for Public sector Contracts: A PracticalGuide for Social Economy Organisations in Scotland, Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Social Investment Scotland (2006), Investment Capital for Social Ventures,Social Investment Scotland, Edinburgh


21


22


UK Literature

Bridges Community Ventures (2004), Equity-like Capital for Social Ventures,Bridges Community Ventures, London

Flockhart, A. (2006), “Raising the Profile of Social Enterprise: The use of SocialReturn on Investment (SROI) & Investment Ready Tools (IRT) to bridge thefinancial credibility gap”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 29-42.

McKinney, R. et al (2004)




Social Enterprise Coalition (2003), “There's more to business than you think: Aguide to Social Enterprise”, London.



WORLD Literature

Olsen, S. (2003), “Social Return on Investment: Standard Guidelines” Centerfor Responsible Business, Working Paper Series, University of California,Berkeley

23


8 Issues for policy consideration

From the literature, a number issues relate to policy in Scotland and have wideranging implications for the social economy. This section highlights some of themain issues and points for consideration.

The need to better understand the market for both the demand and supply ofinvestment remains a central concern. This is crucial because there is littledata demonstrating the exact nature of this market and its sensitivity to externalforces or the availability of other sources of income and finance. In addition, itwould be useful to understand the competitive nature of this market and therelationships between CDFIs and the banks.

For most sector organisations, significant R&D resources are largely theexception rather than the rule and yet within the sector there is a widely heldview that the sector is innovative. These two positions seem contradictory andit would be appropriate to try and measure the true extent of innovation anddetermine whether or not dedicated R&D funding would increase the incidenceof innovation that leads to new services, products or organisations/businesses

The removal of barriers to entry in the public sector procurement marketremains an important issue for the sector. It would be useful if we had moreinformation about large and small-scale public sector procurement issuesincluding the opportunities for sub contracting and consortia tendering by newsector partnerships. This is a matter for the whole range of private sectorbusinesses as well and there may be important literature researching this fromthe point of view of SMEs and larger businesses that could better inform socialeconomy organisations about the best practice methods required to succeed.

We would recommend that the similarities between family firms and socialenterprises merit some investigation particularly in relation to successionplanning and new forms of (external) investment. This point relates to Haugh'scomments about the formation, management and performance of sectororganisations. There is a significant mainstream enterprise literatureconcerning family firms and it would seem realistic that issues concerning thesustainability and the scale of the family firm are relevant at least in part tosocial economy organisations, particularly if as we surmise, there aresimilarities between how family firms and social economy organisationsbehave. If the policy context is to improve social economy contribution to publicservice delivery, it would seem logical to examine the operation of family firmswhere there are (perceived) similarities and lessons to be learned.

The relatively recent introduction of social accounting and social auditmethodologies within the sector has been widely welcomed and is gaining inimportance. However, (as with much of the literature concerning thecommercial success and evaluation of the sector) we could find no evidencefrom the academic accountancy literature that linked social audit andaccounting to the mainstream work on auditing corporate social responsibility(CSR), measuring intangible assets and valuing goodwill for example.

24


9 Conclusions and recommendations

The increase in the volume of the literature relating to the social economy in allits guises is to be welcomed. This increase demonstrates three things. Firstly,there is increased advocacy from within the sector to both its own internal andother external audiences about the purposes, features, behaviours, motivationsand achievements of these organisations. In addition, 'advocacy' literature isincreasingly professionally produced and has had a significant impact on theattitudes of policy makers and politicians towards the sector.

Secondly, the State in all its guises has been a significant contributor andcommissioner of reports, reviews, policy papers, evaluations and mappingexercises. The context for this development is a need to demonstrate evidencebased policy and decisions. In addition there are several overarching themesthat are evident such as the need to establish what is actually happening, howto improve sector organisations contributions to public service delivery (focusedon social inclusion in all its aspects) and how to decrease dependence ongrants and raise trading income. An ancillary and recent development has beenthe impetus towards investigating how sector organisations can become morelike private sector organisations in their ability to source new forms of lendingand 'patient capital' investment.

Thirdly, an emerging academic literature is now apparent. Commentators froma wide range of business, politics and other social science disciplines haverecognised the scale and complexity of the sector and how much it is growing.This type of literature may also be increasing as a response to the increase inadvocacy literature and developments in student curricula with the introductionof new topics such as Corporate Social Responsibility and the Social Economy.Finally another catalyst for this may be the consultancy opportunitiesrepresented by the State's commissioning efforts.

Despite this growth in literature, not all of the output is expressing somethingnew. There is a high degree of reiteration and several 'articles of faith' highlyprevalent within the literature are yet to be suitably researched and evidenced.For example, there is strong anecdotal evidence that the sector is innovativeand entrepreneurial. There is little evidence to suggest that within the advocacyliterature there are meaningful attempts to accurately define what is meant bythese terms and, despite the growth in the scale and activities of the sectorthere is little data to prove the extent of innovation and entrepreneurship.Indeed, there is a case for arguing that terminological ambiguity and confusionremains a significant problem for all stakeholders.

A further problem is that entrepreneurial and business behaviours of sectorstakeholders and organisations are not measured against the mainstreamconcepts and notions of these behaviours in the academic literature concerningprivate and public sector entrepreneurship

On one level there may be the problem that sector organisations are too busyor do not prioritise the capture of this evidence because it is readily apparent tothem and does not require to be captured, collated, analysed and distributed.

25


Recommendations

The sharing of research knowledge and the distribution of papers remainsproblematic despite the best efforts of SCVO, Communities Scotland, theScottish Executive and others to develop a proactive research community. Theconstruction of our classification framework is the first step in developing aresource that can be added to by a range of researchers and stakeholders.However, more needs to be done and it is recommended that a Scottishresearch conference, (with the papers published) is held on an annual basis todevelop the network of stakeholders involved in this work. This should alsoimprove the prospects for joint working between different organisations andindividuals.There is a paucity of accurate data on the sector. One major empiricalweakness prevalent throughout the literature is the small size of datapopulations and samples, the short time scales of research (there is noevidence of any longitudinal studies examining the sector) and the validity ofthe extrapolations that writers then propose. To address this, it isrecommended that continuous (sub) sectoral research is carried out to capturefinancial, employment and other statistics so that accurate figures for the scaleand contribution of sector organisations can be analysed and maintained.

It would be useful to measure and assess the qualifications of sector managersand other employees across the range of sub sectors as a precursor todeveloping CPD initiatives, succession planning initiatives and trainingprogrammes in conjunction with the FE and HE sectors as well as sectordevelopment and training agencies.

New issues such as social franchising are emerging and need to beresearched. However, we would recommend that to do this without reference tothe literature on private sector franchising would be a mistake. There is asystemic weakness in the research literature that very little of it makes use ofliterature on the private sector and the transferability of knowledge etc

Apart from evaluation of the market for loan finance, there is a need toexamine the potential for merger within the sector. This is contentious for awhole range of reasons but if the enterprise orientation of the sector increasesthen should we not also consider that growth can come by acquisition andmerger. This has occurred in the Credit Union sector, (largely due to thepressure of increased regulation and the unsustainability of small CreditUnions) but has yet to be captured and analysed in a meaningful way.

Literature Reference list and websites

Allan, B. (2004), “Social Enterprise: through the eyes of the consumer.Prepared for the National Consumer Council”, Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 1,No. 1, pp 57-77.

Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. (2002), Placing the SocialEconomy, Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., London.

Anheier, H. K. (2000), “Managing Non-Profit Organisations: Towards a NewApproach” Civil Society Paper No 1, LSE, London.

Anheier, H. K. (2004), “Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy”,Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Anheier, H. K. (2005), Nonprofit Organizations. Theory, Management, PolicyRoutledge, London.

Anheier, H. K. and Ben-Ner, A. (2003), The study of Nonprofit Enterprise:Theories and Approaches, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers

Anheier, H. K. and Leat, D. (2006), Creative Philanthropy, Routledge, animprint of Taylor and Francis Books Ltd., London.


Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and CommercialEntrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice January 2006, pp 1-22.

Baron, S., Field, J., and Schuller, T. (Editors) (2000), Social Capital: CriticalPerspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bornstein, D. (2004), How to change the world social entrepreneurs and thepower of new ideas, Oxford University Press Inc.

Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (2001), “The emergence of Social Enterprise”,Routledge, Routledge studies in the management of voluntary and non-profitorganizations, No 4

Boschee, J. (2001), “Eight Principles for Non Profit Entrepreneurs”, NonprofitWorld, Volume 19, Number 4, pp 15-18.

Boschee, J. (2002), The Social Enterprise Sourcebook, Northland Institute


Bridges Community Ventures (2004), Equity-like Capital for Social Ventures,Bridges Community Ventures, London

Brinckerhoff, P. (2000), Social Entrepreneurship: The art of mission-basedventure development”, Wiley Publishing, London.

26


27


Brock, K. (2001), Improving Connections between governments, nonprofit andvoluntary organizations: Public Policy and the Third Sector, Duke UniversityPress.Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit (2002) Private Action, Public Benefit: a Review ofCharities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector HMG, London.

Community Action Network (2005), “Match Winners – A guide to commercialcollaborations between social and private sector business”, sponsored by theDepartment of Trade & Industry.

Community Enterprise in Strathclyde (2002), Sharing in Success – PatientCapital for the Social Economy in Scotland, Community Enterprise inStrathclyde, Glasgow

Courtney, R. (2002), Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations(Routledge Studies in the Management of Voluntary and NonprofitOrganizations), Routledge, an imprint of Taylor and Francis Books Ltd.,London.

Davis, S. (2002) “Social Entrepreneurship: Towards an Entrepreneurial Culturefor Social and Economic Development” Youth Employment Summit, September7-11, 2002.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2002), Strategic Tools for SocialEntrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of your enterprising Nonprofit, JohnWiley & Sons Inc., New York.


Economy, P., Dees, J. G. and Emerson, J. (2001), Enterprising Nonprofits: AHandbook for Social Entrepreneurs, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Flockhart, A. (2006), “Raising the Profile of Social Enterprise: The use of SocialReturn on Investment (SROI) & Investment Ready Tools (IRT) to bridge thefinancial credibility gap”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 29-42.

Fontan, J-M. and Shragge, E. (Editors) (2000), Social Economy: InternationalDebates and Perspectives, Black Rose Books Ltd.


Fowler, A. (2000) “NGDOs as a Moment in History: Beyond Aid to SocialEntrepreneurship or Civic Innovation?” Third World quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4,pp 637-654.

Grenier, P. (2003), “UnLtd. Briefing: What is Social Entrepreneurship”, LondonSchool of Economics

Gunn, C. (2004), Third-Sector Development: Making Up for the Market, CornellUniversity Press

Harding, R. and Cowling, M. (2004) GEM Social Entrepreneurship MonitorUnited Kingdom 2004, London Business School, London.

28


Harris, M. and Rochester, C. (Editors) (2000),Voluntary Organisations andSocial Policy in Britain: Perspectives on Change and Choice, PalgraveMacmillan Publishing, London.

Haugh, H. (2006), “A research agenda for Social Entrepreneurship?” SocialEnterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1-12.


Hines, F. (2006), “Viable Social Enterprise – an evaluation of business supportto social enterprise”, Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 13-28.

Huddersfield Pride Ltd. (2005) Assessing the True Value of Social enterprise: AReview of Current Practice West Yorkshire Enterprise Partnership.

Hudson, M. (2004), “Managing without profit. The art of managing Third-sectororganisations”, Directory of Social Change

Hudson, R. (2005), “The Social Economy beyond the locals? Developmentalpossibilities, problems and policy considerations”, Department of Geography,University of Durham


Johnson, S. (2000) “Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship” CanadianCentre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Jones, D., Keogh, W. and McKinney, R. (2004) ‘Sustainable Social Enterprise:A Case of Complexity’ presented at ISBA conference, Teeside, Nov. 2004.

Kendall, J. (2003), The voluntary sector: Comparative perspectives in the UK,Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., London.

Larson, R. (2002), Venture Forth!: The Essential guide to starting amoneymaking business in your nonprofit organization, A H Wilder Foundation

Laville, J-L. (2004), The third sector in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing,London.

Leadbeater, C. (1997), The rise of the social entrepreneur, DEMOS, printed byBDW Associates

Letts, C. W. (1997), “Virtuous Capital: What Foundations can learn fromVenture Capitalists”, Harvard Business Review 03/01/1997

Lovatt, R. (2004), “Measuring Social Enterprise”, ENHR Conference, University

of Cambridge, July 2nd-6th.

Lyon, F., Evans, M., Ramsden, M. and Burch, J. (2005), “Evaluation of thesupport for Enterprising Communities Pilot Project”, Research Brief RB653,Department for Education and Skills

29


Marshall, D. and Lovatt, R. (2004), “Valuing Social Enterprise in the SocialHousing Sector”, Housing Studies Spring Conference, Sheffield HallamUniversity

McManus, P. (2004), “Definition of the Social Economy in Northern Ireland:Finding a way through”, Social Economy Agency

McGregor, A. (1999) Diamonds, Clusters and Competitiveness in the SocialEconomy, Training and Employment Research Unit, University of Glasgow.

McGregor, A., Glass, A. and Clark, S. (2003), Valuing the Social Economy,Training and Employment Research Unit, University of Glasgow McGregor, A., Sutherland, V. and Clark, S. (2006) Valuation of Network Activitywith Social Enterprises Training and Employment Research Unit, University ofGlasgow, and Simon Clark Associates.

McKinney, R., Kahn, H. and Jones, D. (2004) Lottery Funding and the UKVoluntary Sector: capacity, change and sustainability Social Enterprise Institute,Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

McKinsey & Company (2001), “Effective Capacity Building in NonprofitOrganizations”, Venture Philanthropy Partners, Reston, Virginia, USA

Morrin, M., Simmons, D. and Somerville, W. (2004) “Social Enterprise:Mainstreamed from the Margins?” Local Economy Vol. 19, No. 1, pp 69-84.

Nyssens, M. (2006), “Social Enterprise in Europe”, Routledge, to be publishedin June – only extract available at present

OECD (1999), Social Enterprises, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2003), Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development, OECD,Paris.

OECD (2003), The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, OECD, Paris.

Office for National Statistics (2001) Social capital: A Review of the LiteratureOffice for National Statistics, London.

Olsen, S. (2003), “Social Return on Investment: Standard Guidelines” Centerfor Responsible Business, Working Paper Series, University of California,Berkeley


Paton, R. (2003), Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises, SagePublications Ltd., London.



30




Robinson, A. (2002), Selling Social Change (Without Selling Out): EarnedIncome Strategies for Nonprofits, Jossey-Bass Publishing

Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005), “Leadership, learning and human resourcemanagement. The meaning of social entrepreneurship today” University ofWaikato, New Zealand

Salamon, L. and Anheier, H. K. (1997), Defining the Nonprofit Sector,Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Scott, D. and Pharaoh, C. (2003), “Social Enterprise in the Voluntary andCommunity Sectors: Challenge for Policy and Practice”

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2004), Glossary of voluntarysector terms” , SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), (Institute VolunteeringResearch: Frontiers and Horizons) “Mapping the Voluntary Sector in RuralScotland: A Rural Urban Comparison”, SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), “Funding of theScottish Voluntary Sector”, SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2005), “Snapshot of theScottish Voluntary Sector”, SCVO, Edinburgh.

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (2006), “SCVO response tothe December 2005 follow up study by Audit Scotland: Following the PublicPound”


Scottish Executive (2000), Unlocking the Potential: An Action Plan for theCredit Union Movement in Scotland, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2002), Review of Funding for the Voluntary Sector-The Scottish Executive Response, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2003), A review of the Scottish Executive’s Policies toPromote the Social Economy, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.


Scottish Executive (2005), Tendering for Public sector Contracts: APractical Guide for Social Economy Organisations in Scotland ScottishExecutive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Parliament (2006), “Enterprise and Culture Committee Report:Business Growth, the next 10 years”, SP Paper 520

SCVO/Pygmalion Consultants (2003), “An evaluation of the Leadership forChange Programme”

Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2004), “Social Entrepreneurship: The Contributionof Individual Entrepreneurs to sustainable economic development”, IESEBusiness School Barcelona, Spain, Working Paper

Shaw, E., Shaw, E. and Wilson, M. (2002) Unsung Entrepreneurs:Entrepreneurship for Social Gain Barclays Centre for EntrepreneurshipResearch Report.

Shaw, E and Carter, S (2004)‘Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Antecedentsand Empirical Analysis of Entrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes’. In S.Zahra et al (eds) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (2004 Edition),Wellesley: Babson College.

Simon Clark Associates (2002), The Social Economy: A literature review,Communities Scotland, Edinburgh.


Smith, S. (2003), “Social Economy, Social Enterprise and the theory ofassociative democracy”, University of Southampton.

Snell, W. (2003), Trading by Charities. A Statistical Analysis, A Charity AdvisoryTrust publication

Social Enterprise Coalition (2003), “There’s more to business than you think: Aguide to Social Enterprise”, London.


Social Investment Scotland (2006), Investment Capital for Social Ventures,Social Investment Scotland, Edinburgh

Somers, A. B. (2006), Shaping the Balanced Scorecard for use in the UK socialenterprise, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 43-56.

Spears, R., Defourny, J., Favreau, L. and Laville, J-L. (Editors) (2001), TacklingSocial Exclusion in Europe: The contribution of the Social Economy, AshgatePublishing



31


32


SQW Ltd. and Simon Clarke Associates (2002), Assessment of the SocialEconomy in the Highlands and Islands: a Final Report to Highlands andIslands Enterprise, SQW, Edinburgh.

Strandberg Consulting (2005), “The future of sustainable finance”, Canada

Stutt, C., Murtagh, B. and Campbell, M. (2001), The Social Economy inNorthern Ireland. A Policy Review, Colin Stutt Consulting

SURF (Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum) (2006), “Community PlanningPartnerships and Regeneration – The Pursuit and Importance of Skills andLearning”, Meeting Minutes


The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs (2002), “A glossary of useful terms”, at

http://www.snpo.org (accessed on 5th April 2006)

The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs (2005), “Introduction to Social

Entrepreneurship” at http://www.snpo.org (accessed on 5th April 2006)

Thompson, J. (2002), “The world of the Social Entrepreneur”, InternationalJournal of Public Sector Management Vol. 15, No. 5, pp 412-431.

Villeneuve-Smith, F. (2004), “The seven pillars of Social-Enterprise success”,Nonprofit World Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 27-29.

Wallace, B. (2006),” Exploring the meaning(s) of sustainability for communitybased social entrepreneurs” Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 78-89.

Summary of Official and Advocacy Websites for further information

Bristol Social Economy Development www.socialeconomybristol.org.uk

Business Link www.businesslink.gov.uk

Castlemilk Economic Development Agency www.ceda.org.uk

Charities Advisory Trust www.charitiesadvisorytrust.org.uk

Charities Aid Foundation www.cafonline.org

Charity Bank www.charitybank.org

Coalfields Regeneration Trust www.coalfields-regen.org.uk

Community Action Network www.can-online.org.uk

Community Enterprise Ltd. www.celltd.demon.co.uk

Communities Enterprise Strathclyde www.ceis.org.uk

33


Communities Scotland www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk

Co-operative Futures www.co-operativefutires.coop

Co-operatives UK www.cooperatives-uk.coop

Council for Voluntary Services Scotland www.cvsscotland.org.uk

Department of Trade & Industry www.dti.gov.uk

Development Trusts Association www.dta.org.uk

Employee Ownership Scotland Ltd. www.eos-online.co.uk

Forth Sector www.forthsector.org.uk

GEM UK www.gemconsortium.org

Highlands & Islands Enterprise www.hie.co.uk

Institute for Social Entrepreneurs www.snop.org

International Association of Investors in theSocial Economy www.inaise.org

LETSLink Scotland www.letslinkscotland.org.uk

Mull and Iona Community Trust www.mict.co.uk

New Economics Foundation www.neweconomics.org

Philanthropy UK www.philanthropyuk.org

Roberts Foundation www.redf.org

Scotland UnLtd www.unltd.org.uk

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations www.scvo.org.uk

Scottish Enterprise www.scottish-enterprise.com

Scottish Federation of Housing Associations www.sfha.co.uk

Scottish League of Credit Unions www.scottishcu.org

School for Social Entrepreneurs www.sse.org.uk

SENSCOT www.senscott.net

Small Business Service www.sbs.gov.uk

Small Business Gateway www.sbgateway.com

Social Audit Network www.cbs-network.org.uk

34


Social Enterprise Coalition www.socialenterprise.org.uk

Social Enterprise Development Initiative www.sedi.info

Social Enterprise London www.sel.org.uk

Social Enterprise Online www.seo-online.org.uk

Social Enterprise Unit www.dti.gov.uk/socialenterprise

Social Firms UK www.socialfirms.co.uk

Social Firms on Merseyside www.the-cats-pyjamas.com

Social Investment Scotland www.socialinvestmentscotland.com

The Scottish Executive www.scottish.parliament.uk

Voluntary Action Lochaber www.lochabercommunity.org.uk

Communities ScotlandThistle House91 Haymarket TerraceEdinburghEH12 5HETelephone 0131 313 0044Fax 0131 313 2680

www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk

Documents

Developing the Social Economy: critical review of the literature