Overall Approach to the Research (some thoughts for comment/reflection) In an international perspective, UK SEs have arisen from an anglo/saxon context, where the discourse appears to be more business oriented than the EMES... [ view full abstract ]
Overall Approach to the Research (some thoughts for comment/reflection)
In an international perspective, UK SEs have arisen from an anglo/saxon context, where the discourse appears to be more business oriented than the EMES model; the basic UK definition differs from social economy derived conceptualisations particularly with regard to governance or engagement of stakeholders; this still applies to the emblematic form, the CIC which has a rather weak requirement for a Stakeholder Report. Teasdale’s contribution accounts for this broad difference to a certain extent, but not completely.
And in practice since many SEs use Nfp or Coop forms, engagement of stakeholders is operationalized in most cases.
Thus as indicated above, the UK discourse doesn’t match TS reality closely, although it may fit with broader conceptualisation of the field which includes John Lewis models, employee ownership, and for-profit models.
Specifying Types
Our approach to identifying types is as follows: firstly we consider some kind of sectoral configuration which seems to be coalescing into different identities; secondly we differentiate according to organisational form (which is a traditional basis: Coops, NfPs, forProfits, etc); and thirdly we consider types based on inductive views of field (and patterns of institutionalisation). Thus for example WISE fit the sectoral approach, NfPs and Coops fit the organisational form approach, and Community Business the third approach where patterns from field become institutionalised. Other types Eg Fairtrade. And Social Firms will also be discussed under Nfp/charities.
Finally Community Interest Companies will be discussed. The UK general definition of SEs differs in significant respects from the CIC criteria, and the paper also discusses the function the emblematic legislation plays in discourse and practice.
Linking discourse, and field types
It is important to discuss for each type (however identified), and the extent to which it a) matches UK discourse, b) EMES model.
Teasdale’s 4 part typology describes the discourse around:
- NonProfits (from earned income to public service contracting)
- Social business (more commercial orientation)
- Community Enterprise
- Co-ops
Data is collected on currently specified types (WISE, for-profits, etc), and on types emerging from discourse analysis, and cluster analysis.
And conclusions are drawn about types in relation to discourse, and emerging practices.
References
Teasdale, Simon. "What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses." Public policy and administration (2011): 0952076711401466.
Teasdale, Simon, Fergus Lyon, and Robert Baldock. "Playing with numbers: a methodological critique of the social enterprise growth myth." Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4.2 (2013): 113-131.
