The article presents the results of the analysis, systematization and generalization of the best practices of countries with developed economies in the field of social entrepreneurship development. The features of the models of social entrepreneurship development in the countries of North America and the British Commonwealth, the European Union, as well as the experience of participation of international organizations, development institutions and private foundations in the development of social entrepreneurial initiatives in African, Asian and Latin American countries with developing economies are determined. The advantages of the Italian model of social entrepreneurship based on the cooperative movement are substantiated. It is determined that the positive experience of Italy is actively used by other European countries, in particular Spain and France.
social entrepreneurship, adaptation, best practices, development
We have analyzed, systematized and summarized the experience of countries with developed economies in the field of social entrepreneurship development. The analysis also took into account models and positive practices used in the activities of international organizations, development institutions and private foundations. The information base of this stage of the study was the works of Russian and foreign authors [1-14], as well as primary information from the methodological literature and open information materials of free access of national institutes for the development of social entrepreneurship and specialized international organizations [15; 16].
In various macro-regions of the world, as well as at the level of international organizations and development institutions, various models of social entrepreneurship have developed, characterized by certain features (Figure 1.). These features are primarily determined by fundamental differences in the organization of commercial entrepreneurial activity, as well as traditional forms of self-organization of the population, social processes and their dynamics.
|
Social entrepreneurship in North America and the British Commonwealth |
|
Social entrepreneurship in the European Union countries |
|
- well-established traditions of the activities of public organizations within the community since the colonization of new territories; - the social nature of organized professional communities that perform state functions in the field of control, certification and licensing; - the entrepreneurial activity of non-profit public organizations is the material basis of their existence, as well as the formation of the income of their participants. |
|
- socialization of entrepreneurial activity as a process of practical implementation of the social course in politics; - the priorities of entrepreneurial activity have a social orientation, which is largely determined by the accumulated material basis for the implementation of social projects; - wide distribution of cooperative business structures and enterprises with a collective form of ownership. |
|
- the humanitarian and philanthropic nature of the spread of social entrepreneurship, mainly on a grant basis; - wide dissemination of positive practices and tested models used in various countries; - the main goal is to reduce the level of social problems in countries with a low level of development in order to prevent their possible negative impact on countries with developed economies (migration problems, sanitary and epidemiological security, etc.) |
|
Social entrepreneurship in the activities of international organizations, development institutions and private foundations |
Figure 1. Models of social entrepreneurship in the countries of North America and the British Commonwealth, the European Union, international organizations, development institutions and private foundations
The USA and Canada are countries with liberal economies and strong traditions of self-organization of the population. In these countries, a number of public administration functions (in the field of education, healthcare, pensions, law enforcement, etc.) were initially performed by public organizations and other types of citizens' associations. Under these conditions, social entrepreneurship is more an evolved form of social activity than a stage in the development of commercial activity.
As an example, the situation with the investment fund of the American Marmon Church should be cited. In February 2020, this situation in the United States received a significant public response due to the fact that this investment fund accumulated $ 100 billion, which was used to implement a number of business projects, including in the real estate and real economy sectors. While these funds were withdrawn from the tax base as assets of the charitable foundation of the church NGO. In this case, we are not trying to analyze this case from the point of view of American tax legislation. In our opinion, this example is successful from the point of view of the potential of asset mobilization for the organization of entrepreneurial activities of a social orientation in the United States.
The strong traditions of private property and private business, as well as the corporate organizational and legal form of doing business with a strict separation of ownership and management (taking into account all the positive and negative aspects of the agency theory) do not allow us to fully talk about the possibilities of further evolution of American business beyond the implementation of the concept of social responsibility.
The European structures of social business are to a greater extent a reception of the cooperative movement, as well as a form of evolution of the established entrepreneurial community with a high level of income. This is a form of implementation of social initiatives, which has moved from the political plane to the practical one. In other words, this is an evolved left-wing socialist idea, which is implemented in practice not through elections and the victory of progressive left parties, but through the direct participation of social entrepreneurs in solving public problems by directing their business activity to the most acute social issues on the regional or national agenda.
The practice of national enterprises in European countries should be noted separately. Social entrepreneurship should also be defined as the evolution of this form of production activities organization. At the stage when the needs for jobs, working conditions and the level of remuneration were met, social entrepreneurship went further and moved on to solving social problems that cannot be the object of the activities of enterprises, trade unions, municipal or state bodies.
At the international level, social entrepreneurship is largely based on the patronage and philanthropy of the largest multinational corporations. The most famous representative of international institutions for the development of social entrepreneurship is the Ashoka Foundation, established in 1980 by Bill Drayton, a former business management consultant at McKinsey & Company. This foundation provides scholarship and grant support to social entrepreneurship initiatives around the world. In addition, training programs and methodological support for social entrepreneurs are being implemented. In 2018, the fund's assets amounted to $ 80 billion. Since 2020, Microsoft Corporation has become a strategic partner and financial donor of this fund. This corporation has chosen social entrepreneurship as one of the new directions of its philanthropic activity, indicating its high potential for simultaneously solving a number of global problems of humanity. It should be noted that the attention of global structures to initiatives in the field of social entrepreneurship largely concerns developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
In our opinion, the issue of comparative research of state policy in the field of support and development of social entrepreneurship is also relevant. For this purpose, we conducted a review and analysis of foreign literature [1-14]. The analysis, generalization and systematization of the main provisions of these studies allowed us to identify a number of well-established national models of state policy in the field of support and development of social entrepreneurship, which can be further taken into account and adapted for use in our country.
Italy is one of the world leaders in the development of social entrepreneurship. The accumulated experience and achievements in this area have allowed Italy to institutionalize its position in the international cooperative movement and in the development of social entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial initiatives of a social orientation in Italy are implemented in the organizational and legal form of cooperatives. This form of economic activity (social cooperative) was legally regulated in 1991. All social cooperatives were divided into two categories. Category A includes enterprises engaged in activities in the field of social services (care for children, the sick, people with disabilities and addictions, as well as elderly people). Social enterprises of category B were represented by production (agriculture, furniture and joinery production, craft workshops) and service (information technology, laundries, cleaning, etc.) cooperatives. The main goal of Group A cooperatives was to provide socially significant services. In turn, social cooperatives of category B performed the functions of reducing unemployment and overcoming its negative consequences. According to the regulatory requirements, volunteers could not exceed 50% of the staff of social cooperatives.
The rapid growth of the social cooperative movement was institutionalized in the creation of the European Research Institute of Cooperative and Social Enterprises (EURICSE) [15], which is located in Trento (Trentino region), which is the European center for the development of the social cooperative movement. This organization carries out research in the field of development of social entrepreneurship and cooperation, as well as carries out systematization, analytical processing and dissemination of the most promising positive experience in the field under study.
It should be noted that the Italian model of social entrepreneurship based on the activities of cooperatives has been significantly developed in Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Belgium and Poland. As an example, we should mention the Mandragona Corporation of Cooperatives [16] in Spain, which, being established in 1956, by 2017 united more than 90 thousand people who are owners of enterprises-subjects of the corporation. The turnover of the Mandragona Cooperative Corporation in 2015 was 12.1 billion rubles. the assets amounted to 34 billion euros. euro. The corporation was formed by 256 cooperatives that worked in the financial sector, trade, industry, services and other economic activities.
1. Brakman Reiser D. Benefit Corporations: A Sustainable Form of Organization // Wake Forest Law Review. 2011. Vol. 46. P. 591-624.
2. Cooney K., Koushyar J., Lee M., Murray H. Benefit Corporation and L3C Adoption: A Survey // Stanford Social Innovation Review 2014. [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/benefit_corporation_and_l3c_adoption_a_survey
3. Crofts P., Gray M. 2001, Social Entrepreneurship: Is It the Business of Social Work? Proceedings of the 16th Asia and Pacific Social Work Conference «Millennium Challenges and Action for Social Work Education and Practice» (31 July-3 August, Singapore 2001). P. 148-156
4. Dees J.G., Emerson, J. & Economy, P. Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
5. Esposito R.T. The Social Enterprise Revolution in Corporate Law: A Primer on Emerging Corporate Entities in Europe and the United States and the Case for the Benefit Corporation // William and Mary Business Law Review. 2012. Vol. 4. P. 639-714
6. Estrin S., Mickiewicz T., Stephan U. Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship // Journal of Business Venturing 31 (2016) 449-467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.05.003
7. Gottesman M.D. From Cobblestones to Pavement: The Legal Road Forward for the Creation of Hybrid Social Organizations // Yale Law & Policy Review. 2007. Vol. 26. Iss. 1. P. 345-358.
8. Lab B. Model Benefit Corporation Legislation. Accessed September. [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://benefitcorp.net/attorneys/model-legislation.
9. Lauzikas M., Cernikovaite M.E. The model of Social innovations in the Emerging market of Lithuania // Intelektine eckonomika. 2011. Vol. 5. Iss. 3. P. 36 - 44.
10. Mair J., Marty I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight // Journal of World Business. 2006. Vol. 41. P. 36-44.
11. Mickels A. Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Reconciling the Ideals of a For-Benefit Corporation with Director Fiduciary Duties in the U.S. And Europe // Hastings International and Comparative Law Review. 2009. Vol. 32. Iss. 1. P. 271-304.
12. Surova N.Y. Designing the management of integration processes in education for creating a class of social entrepreneurs as strategic guidelines for the development of the Russian economy // Bulletin of the Academy. 2017. No. 2 (52). P. 29-35.
13. Semenova D.A. Social entrepreneurship: formation of a new mechanism of social development // Bulletin of the Moscow University of Finance and Law. 2016. No. 4. P. 102-108.
14. Pakhomova O.A. Social entrepreneurship as an effective way to solve social problems // Bulletin of scientific conferences. 2015. No. 2-4 (2). P. 111-112.
15. European Research Institute for Cooperative and Social Enterprises [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: https://www.euricse.eu/
16. Mondragon corporation [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/
