A Typology of Social Enterprises in Finland

Context, concepts and SE typology This paper follows the framework and the proposed work plan of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project. More precisely, we first review the ways the notion of... [ view full abstract ]

Context, concepts and SE typology

This paper follows the framework and the proposed work plan of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project. More precisely, we first review the ways the notion of social enterprise and related concepts are understood in Finland as well as the influence of various schools of thought (Dees, 1998; Defourny & Nyssens, 2012; Kerlin, 2006). Then we propose a typology which consists of a) social enterprises providing public welfare services, b) emerging alternative economic initiatives, c) impact businesses and smart-ups, and d) social impact redistributors.

Data collection

For data collection and analysis, we then select emblematic cases from each category of the typology (a, b, c and d) which are described in-depth. To build a reliable data set concerning these cases, we combine interviews based on the ICSEM questionnaire, publicly available registers, and some other databases. On such a basis, we also analyze the respective institutionalization processes of each SE category as well as their eco-systems.

Expected impacts

This research makes a threefold contribution. First, it develops an empirically grounded typology of social enterprises which adds to the knowledge of the field in Finland. It paves the way to international comparative analyses. Finally, this study serves Finnish practitioners to better understand the emerging eco-system and the diverse forms and needs of social enterprises.

References

Dees, G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb., 54–67.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). Conceptions of Social Enterprise in Europe: A Comparative Perspective with the United States. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 71–90). Palgrave Macmillian.

Houtbeckers, E. (2016). Mundane social entrepreneurship. A practice perspective on the work of microentrepreneurs. Aalto University publication series. Doctoral Dissertations 171/2016. Aalto University School of Business Departement of Management Studies Sustainability in Business Research. Unigrafia Oy, Helsinki.

Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262. doi:10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2

Kostilainen, H., & Grönberg, V. (2013). Understanding startup and success of work integration social enterprises in Finland. In H. Kostilainen & P. Pättiniemi (Eds.), Avauksia yhteiskunnallisen yritystoiminnan tutkimukseen: FinSERN 1.

Working Papers , No. 37, Liege: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project.

Kostilainen, H., & Tykkyläinen, S. (2015). The Characteristics of Finnish Social Enterprise. In H. Kostilainen & P. Pättiniemi (Eds.), FinSERN 2. Konferenssijulkaisu.

Pättiniemi, P. (2006). A plurality of logics behind Finnish social enterprises. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise (pp. 157–166). London: Routledge.