Unravelling the participation of stakeholders in the governance models of social enterprises in Greece

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the concept of participatory governance through membership in the context of the tailor-made legal form for social enterprises in Greece, i.e. the social cooperative enterprise (Koinsep). As such, the paper aims to contribute to the theoretical discussion regarding the participation of stakeholders in the governance of social enterprises not only as a theoretical construct prescribed by law but also by examining its implementation in practice. Design/methodology/approach The development of two in-depth case studies demonstrate whether and how the application and implementation of legal requirements regarding governance and membership permit and encourage stakeholders to participate in the decision-making processes of social enterprises. The study accordingly showcases the influence exerted by the legal regime over the social enterprise. Findings The case studies demonstrate how participatory governance is not realised in a formal manner in the organisational set-up of two social enterprises. It thereby shows how stakeholders and employees participate informally in the decision-making processes of Greek social enterprises, although legislation is conducive to formal means of participation. Research limitations/implications This study is part of a larger project involving a comparative research of tailor-made legal forms of social enterprises and corresponding organisations in three jurisdictions, i.e. Greece, Belgium, and the UK. In this study, the research was limited to the legal form of Koinsep. Practical implications This paper also contributes to the development of a better understanding of the Koinsep as a new tailor-made legal form for social enterprises in Greece. It therefore, sheds light in its function and its participatory governance structure. Originality/value The study is an original attempt to theoretically and practically examine the subject of participatory governance in the Greek social enterprises context.

Inclusive Governance in Social Enterprises in the Netherlands – A Case Study

“…In yet other countries, social enterprises use legal structures that originate from the social economy domain, such as the social cooperative, which in several jurisdictions is not considered a company per se (Argyrou et al. , , Argyrou and Lambooy ). Therefore, social enterprises’ governance in the legal domain cannot be fully explained by the premises of the two aforementioned corporate governance legal theories, namely shareholder value and stakeholder value theory, in the way that they have been developed in classic company law.…”

“…We also see the actual representation of stakeholders at the board level and/or we often see (in smaller organizations) their participation and inclusion in the actual decision‐making processes (Argyrou et al. , , ). This extent of stakeholder engagement appears to feature the stakeholder model prescribed by Conforth's (, ) stakeholder theory, as depicted in Table .…”

“…: 160, 172), whereas in Greece, each member of a social enterprise may only exercise one vote, regardless of the number of shares he or she owns (Argyrou et al. , ). Disconnecting voting power from capital ownership is deemed an important indicator of democratic governance of a social enterprise (Argyrou et al.…”

“…Disconnecting voting power from capital ownership is deemed an important indicator of democratic governance of a social enterprise (Argyrou et al. , , ).…”

“…The case study research presented in this paper is an organizational inquiry aimed at exploring the effects of a fragmentation in the varying existing social enterprise regulations, thereby concentrating particularly on the inclusive and participatory corporate governance of social enterprises (included under (v) of the abovementioned definition). In order to formulate sound theories about social enterprises and their functioning, it is necessary to study social enterprises operating in various jurisdictions (Haugh : 6, Alter : 53) with and without tailor‐made legislation (Argyrou et al , , ); thus we examine particularly in this article a social enterprise incorporated in a jurisdiction that has not established tailor‐made legislation . The aim of these combined studies is to discover how and to what extent tailor‐made legislation facilitates and shapes the implementation and functioning of inclusive governance of a social enterprise.…”