Support Structures in Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Comparing the Swedish and the French Environments

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 233

Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Support Structures in Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystems:

Comparing the Swedish and the French Environments

Alexis Bouges

DEPARTMENT OF

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 233

Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Support Structures in Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystems:

Comparing the Swedish and the French Environments

Alexis Bouges

Supervisor: Mozhgan Zachrison

Evaluator: Peter Söderbaum

Copyright © Alexis Bouges and the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University

Content

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.1.1. Social entrepreneurship in the sustainable development context ... 1

1.1.2. Definitions of the concepts used ... 1

1.1.3. Business environment and entrepreneurial activity in France and in Sweden ... 2

1.1.4. Social entrepreneurship ecosystems ... 3

1.2. Aims and research questions ... 5

1.3. Delimitations ... 6

2. Literary review ... 6

2.1. Social entrepreneurship ... 6

2.2. Social entrepreneurs ... 7

2.3. Entrepreneurship ecosystem and contexts ... 8

3. Theoretical framework ... 9

3.1. Social capital theory ... 9

3.2. Social network theory ... 10

4. Methods ... 11

4.1. Design of interviews ... 11

4.1.1. Semi-structured interview as the chosen research approach ... 11

4.1.2. Potential biases and limitations to the approach ... 12

4.2. Conduction of interviews ... 13

4.3. Methodology of analysis ... 14

5. The French and the Swedish social entrepreneurship contexts ... 15

5.1. France ... 15

5.1.1. Definitions and concepts of social enterprises ... 15

5.1.2. Policy and legal framework ... 16

5.1.3. Support structures in the Paris area ... 16

5.2. Sweden ... 19

5.2.1. Definition and concepts of social enterprises ... 19

5.2.2. Policy and legal framework ... 20

5.2.3. Support structures in Stockholm ... 21

5.3. Social entrepreneurship activity in France and in Sweden ... 23

6. Empirical findings from interviews ... 24

6.1. Findings from the Paris group ... 24

6.1.1. Evaluation of the support provided and suggested improvements ... 24

6.1.2. Social entrepreneurs’ needs for support and availability of support structures in Paris ... 25

6.2. Findings from the Stockholm group ... 26

6.2.1. Evaluation of the support provided and suggested improvements ... 26

6.2.2. Social entrepreneurs’ needs for support and availability of support structures in Stockholm ... 28

7. Discussion ... 28

7.1. Definitions of social enterprises and its legal framework, in France and in Sweden ... 28

7.2. Comparison of social entrepreneurship activity ... 29

7.3. Comparison of the support structures in Paris and in Stockholm ... 30

7.4. Comparative analysis between the Paris and the Stockholm groups ... 31

7.5. Limitations ... 32

7.6. Further research ... 32

8. Summary ... 33

9. Acknowledgment ... 34

10. References ... 35

Support structures in social entrepreneurship

ecosystems: comparing the Swedish and the French environments.

ALEXIS BOUGES

Bouges, A., 2015: Support structures in social entrepreneurship ecosystems:

comparing the Swedish and the French environments. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 233, 42pp, 30 ECTS/hp.

Abstract:

This thesis compares the Swedish and the French social entrepreneurship ecosystems.

After an examination of the definitions and current legal frameworks around social enterprises in each country, their levels of social entrepreneurship activity are compared. The existing support structures providing non-financial help to social entrepreneurs (i.e. incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces and networks) are identified in Paris and in Stockholm, while perceptions from social entrepreneurs benefiting from such support were gathered through interviews. Findings show that the concept of social enterprise is more recognized and legally defined in France than in Sweden. Social entrepreneurship activity seems to be hard to quantify and compare, due to a lack of data available. Support structures appear to be well developed both in Paris and in Stockholm, while the support provided is overall quite appreciated by social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, many of them perceive their support needs as rather different from those of traditional entrepreneurs. Results tend to show that although developing in practice, social entrepreneurship remains a young academic field. Stakeholders from the field have much to gain from extended research on the topic.

Keywords: sustainable development, social entrepreneurship ecosystem, support structures, France, Sweden

Alexis Bouges, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16,

SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Support structures in social entrepreneurship

ecosystems: comparing the Swedish and the French environments.

ALEXIS BOUGES

Bouges, A., 2015: Support structures in social entrepreneurship ecosystems:

comparing the Swedish and the French environments. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 233, 42pp, 30 ECTS/hp.

Summary:

Currently gaining momentum, social entrepreneurship refers to alternative ways of starting and conducting businesses, by pursuing social objectives before economical ones. This thesis compares the context in which social entrepreneurs operate, in Sweden and in France. The definitions of the concept of social enterprise and legal frameworks are examined in both countries, as well as the recent evolution and current state of social entrepreneurship activity. Support structures, such as incubators, accelerators, co-working space and networks offering some types of non- financial support to social entrepreneurs are studied in Paris and Stockholm.

Interviews were conducted with social entrepreneurs from each city to assess their perceptions of the support they receive. Findings show that the concept of social enterprise is more recognized and legally defined in France than in Sweden. However, the lack of data regarding social entrepreneurship level of activity does not allow for much comparison. Support structures for social entrepreneurs appear to be well developed in Paris and in Stockholm, and their support is overall quite appreciated by social entrepreneurs, who often consider they have different needs than traditional entrepreneurs. Although social entrepreneurship develops in the practice, there is a need for more attention on the topic from academia, as many actors would benefit from further research, including policy-makers, investors or social entrepreneurs themselves.

Keywords: sustainable development, social entrepreneurship ecosystem, support structures, France, Sweden

Alexis Bouges, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16,

SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

1. Introduction 1.1. Background

1.1.1. Social entrepreneurship in the sustainable development context

Defined by the much-cited United Nations report Our Common Future as a

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (United Nations 1987), the concept of sustainable development has since then drawn growing attention within civil society, academia, politics and business around the world. From the business perspective, the idea of triple bottom line, coined in 1994 by John Elkington (Kessler 2013),

“encompasses the financial, social, and environmental outcomes of business activity, conceived as equally legitimate dimensions of business performance.” (Heery & Noon 2008). The related term of “people, planet, profit” also designates the idea of reconciling business practices with sustainable development goals, while corporate social responsibility stresses the responsibility of companies in achieving positive outcomes, not only for their shareholders, but also for society and the environment, among other stakeholders (Pop et al. 2011). In the context of a decreasing businesses’

legitimacy (Porter & Kramer 2011), society has increasing ethical expectations from firms (Pater & Van Gils 2003). In an attempt to address the various critics it faces, the business world shows a growing interest for corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line concepts, and changes within business practices and business models are emerging.

Beyond simply adapting existing models, entrepreneurs’ goal is often to create new business models. Social entrepreneurs form an original and interesting part of the entrepreneurs’ community, as they can show a “a remarkable ability to use new forms of organizing and innovative business models that make their ventures an effective means of creating wealth and improving social value.” (Zahra & Wright 2011, p.80).

Although a young field of research, social entrepreneurship can thus be seen as a promising way to redirect business practices towards sustainable development goals.

Expressing the growing interest around these news ways of doing business, the European Union launched in 2011 the Social Business Initiative, which contains a series of measures directed to support entrepreneurship and responsible business (European Commission 2011) .

1.1.2. Definitions of the concepts used

While the past decades have seen an increasing interest in social entrepreneurship within business, society and academia, it remains a young academic field. Since there is no clear consensus about how to define it (Noya et al. 2013; Dacin et al. 2011;

Gawell 2013; Lumpkin et al. 2013; Pless 2012; Bielefeld 2009; Thompson et al. 2011;

Austin et al. 2006), the different perspectives on it will be subject to investigation later in this study. However, due to the variety of definitions both within the academic literature and among actors of the related fields, it seems necessary to define how certain key concepts are understood for the purpose of this study.

Social entrepreneurship is considered here as encompassing all types of

entrepreneurial activities, through which the social entrepreneur primarily pursue a

societal goal, either through a direct social aspect such as health care or education,

among others, or indirectly through addressing environmental issues for instance. Our

understanding of social entrepreneurship does not include innovativeness as a necessary criterion, yet a focus on societal goals must prime over the pursuit of profit.

The ventures set up by these social entrepreneurs we will refer to as social enterprises, while the social economy will designate the sector of the economy to which social entrepreneurship belongs. The concept of social innovation is also often found in the discourse of various stakeholders within these fields, and must therefore be mentioned here. The European Commission defines social innovation as

“developing new ideas, services and models to better address social issues. It invites input from public and private actors, including civil society, to improve social services.” (European Commission 2015).

1.1.3. Business environment and entrepreneurial activity in France and in Sweden

In order to introduce the reader to the general business climate and entrepreneurial activity in the two countries that make the object of this study, the table below compiles different indicators from various sources. The data provided gives an overview of how France is commonly considered as being less “business-friendly”

than some of its European counterparts, including Sweden. Statistics from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, which defines itself as the “the largest ongoing study of entrepreneurial dynamics in the world” (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015), shows that early-stage entrepreneurial activity is significantly less dynamic in France than in Sweden, with a prevalence rate among the Swedish working population being almost the double of its French equivalent in 2013. Yet the need for caution when analysing the data from Table 1 below must be highlighted.

Metric France Sweden

Early-stage entrepreneurial activity¹,

as a prevalence rate among the country’s working age population.

Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 Global Report (Amorós & Bosma 2013)

4,6% 8,2%

Ranking in National Systems of Entrepreneurship from the GEDI Index 2012².

Source: (Ács et al. 2014)

12^th 3^rd

Business Environment Ratings (BER), 2014-18³

Source: (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2014) 24^th 6^th

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

1

!

”An economy’s Total Early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate is defined as the prevalence rate of individuals in the working age population who are actively involved in business start-ups, either in the phase in advance of the birth of the firm (nascent entrepreneurs), or the phase spanning 42 months after the birth of the firm (owner- managers of new firms” (Amorós & Bosma 2013, p.32)

!

2 Acs et al. (2014) define a national system of entrepreneurship as ”the dynamic, institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of resources through the creation and operation of new ventures.” (p.479). Panel of 88 countries. Yet this ranking is to take with caution, due to the various limitations of the index, as pointed out by the authors themselves.

3 Panel of 82 countries.

‘Barriers to Entrepreneurship’ indicator⁴, 2013.

Scale from 0 to 6 from least to most restrictive Source: (OECD 2014)

1,66/6 1,71/6

Barriers in the services sector⁵, 2013.

Scale from 0 to 6 from least to most restrictive Source: (OECD 2014)

3,89/6 1,94/6

Table 1. Comparison of the general business environment and entrepreneurial activity in France and in Sweden.

While statistics regarding countries’ general business climate and entrepreneurial activity is more or less easily available, it does not necessarily reflect the case of social entrepreneurship, for which such data is often lacking. This thesis attempts to fill some of this gap, by looking at social entrepreneurship ecosystems in France and in Sweden.

1.1.4. Social entrepreneurship ecosystems

This section aims at giving the reader a preliminary idea of how the concept of ‘social entrepreneurship ecosystem’ is understood for the purpose of this study. Yet another section is devoted to a more thorough analysis of the concept of ‘entrepreneurial ecosystems’ or ‘contexts’, within the literary review.

The ‘entrepreneurship ecosystem’ concept commonly refers to various contextual elements considered to foster entrepreneurship, from an individual’s decision to start his own project to the support he/she can receive once it is launched. The World Economic Forum, in a report published in 2013 on entrepreneurial ecosystems around the world, describes the entrepreneurial ecosystem as containing the following elements: Accessible Markets; Human Capital Workforce; Funding and Finance;

Mentors, Advisors and Support Systems; Regulatory Framework and Infrastructure;

Education and Training; Major Universities as Catalysts; and Cultural Support (Foster et al. 2013). As of social enterprises ecosystems in particular, a report published by the European Commission in 2014 noted that in the European context, those are emerging but are mostly still under-developed, as well as the national legal frameworks around it (Wilkinson et al. 2014). The representation of social enterprises eco-systems given by this report is reproduced below.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

4 Defined as ”a composite indicator that measures different administrative regulations in the domain of entrepreneurship and is composed of three sub-indicators weighted equally: Administrative burdens on start-ups; Regulatory and administrative opacity; and Barriers to competition.” (OECD 2014, p.86)

5 Retail distribution, professional services

!

Figure 1. The social enterprise ecosystem Source: Wilkinson et al. (2014, p.9)

Concerning the support aspect of these ecosystems in Europe, the report highlights a

« lack of specialist business development services and support such as incubators, mentoring and training schemes, investment readiness support etc.” (Wilkinson et al.

2014, p.14), and adds that:

most social enterprise support needs are similar to those of mainstream businesses, but at the same time social enterprises have specific features (their dual missions, business models, target groups, sectors of activity etc.) that create complex needs which require diversified and, at times, tailored solutions. In most countries, specialist support for social enterprises is largely absent and, where it exists, it is limited and fragmented. (ibid)

Similarly, as quoted by Wihlborg et al. (2014), a report published by Tillväxtverket in 2012 identified the need for improvement of the support structures to social enterprises as a recommendation to enhance the support they receive in Sweden.

The support structures that will be studied in this thesis are incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces and networks in general, for which chosen definitions are found below. Yet it must be noted that various definitions of these terms can be found. The support structures studied in this thesis may therefore call themselves “incubators” or

“accelerators” while they do not offer all types of support that are listed in the definitions given below. The following definitions aim at giving the reader a general idea of what these support structures have to offer to entrepreneurs. According to Aernoudt (2004), business incubators:

(…) nurture young firms, helping them to survive and grow during

the start-up period when they are most vulnerable (…) an incubator

should offer services such as hands-on management, access to

finance (mainly through links with seed capital funds or business angels), legal advice, operational know-how and access to new markets. (Aernoudt 2004, p.127)

Regarding business accelerators, Ryzhonkov (2014) defines it as:

(…) an intensive (usually 3 months), business program which includes mentorship, educational components, networking and aims at growing business rapidly, ending in demo-day. Usually an entrepreneur moves into a shared office space with other new founders for a period of time to work under the tutelage of advisors and experts to grow their business rapidly.

(Ryzhonkov 2014)

Coworking, according to Surman (2013):

(…) refers to working in shared office spaces using economies of scale to give tenants access to amenities and facilities they otherwise would not be able to afford. Coworking spaces connect diverse organizations and individuals, giving them the chance to collaborate, share knowledge, and develop systemic solutions to the issues they are trying to address. (Surman 2013, p.189)

1.2. Aims and research questions

This study aims at comparing the social entrepreneurship ecosystems of Sweden and France, by looking at the following contextual elements, at a national scale:

definitions of social enterprises by public authorities, policies and legal frameworks, as well as the level of activity of social entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, a focus will be put on Stockholm and Paris, as this research attempts to map the existing support structures for social entrepreneurs in both cities, including incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces and networks; which all form part of a social entrepreneurship ecosystem. Besides, the research includes personal interviews with social entrepreneurs from both cities; in order to assess their perception of this support and to identify potential improvements they may suggest to enhance it. The aim is then to compare answers from Paris and Stockholm, and try to identify points of comparison between the two ecosystems.

The research questions that guide this study are the following:

• How are social enterprises defined by public authorities in France and in Sweden, what are the policies and legal frameworks in place around it, and what is the current state of social entrepreneurship activity in both countries?

• What are the existing support structures targeted to social entrepreneurs in Stockholm, and in Paris?

• How do Swedish and French social entrepreneurs perceive their support

needs compared to those of traditional entrepreneurs? How do they

evaluate the support received within certain structures and what potential

improvements can they suggest to enhance the support to social entrepreneurs?

The theoretical framework used for the purpose of this study comprises the social capital theory and the social network theory. Regarding the methodology, a qualitative approach was chosen, in the form of personal semi-structured interviews.

1.3. Delimitations

Establishing a complete comparison of the state of social entrepreneurship between Sweden and France would require examining many elements, including those that form an entrepreneurship ecosystem. Such research would call for significant resources and is out of the scope of a Master Thesis. This thesis chooses to focus on the support structures, as described earlier, within the social entrepreneurship ecosystems of Paris and Stockholm.

From a geographical perspective, some regions are more dynamic than others when it comes to entrepreneurial activity. Yet these disparities that exist within each country will not be taken into account. The study of the state of social entrepreneurship in both countries is indeed carried out at a national level, while the study of the support structures focuses on Paris and Stockholm, the respective capital cities of France and Sweden. It must be highlighted that the potential of generalisation from this study’s results is therefore limited.

Regarding the methods used, the limits to the relevance of interviews when interpreting the data collected are developed further under the methodology section.

Besides, the number of personal interviews carried out (five for each city) presents an additional limitation to the potential scope of generalisation that this thesis’ results allow for.

2. Literary review

The purpose of this literary review is to present some of the main works that have been published within academia, regarding the concepts of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship ecosystems or contexts, which are key topics in regard to this thesis.

2.1. Social entrepreneurship

The past decades have seen an increasing interest in social entrepreneurship, both within business, society and academia. While Shaw & Carter (2007) consider that it can be dated back to the 18

^th

and 19

^th

centuries, when some business owners started implementing welfare policies for their employees, Korosec & Berman (2006) argue that the term “(…) was coined in the late 1990s to describe individuals who exhibit vision, energy, and ability to develop new ways of alleviating social problems in their communities.” (p.449). Social entrepreneurship remains nevertheless a young academic field, while there is no clear consensus about how to define it (Noya et al.

2013; Dacin et al. 2011; Gawell 2013; Lumpkin et al. 2013; Pless 2012; Bielefeld

2009; Thompson et al. 2011; Austin et al. 2006). Yet some common characteristics of

these concepts are often found across various authors. Some authors for instance note the fundamentally entrepreneurial and innovative characteristics of social entrepreneurship (Leadbeater 1997; Austin et al. 2006). Many describe it as an activity through which these entrepreneurs place their focus on pursuing a social mission rather than creating profit and shareholder wealth (Leadbeater 1997; Shaw &

Carter 2007; Gras & Lumpkin 2012; Lumpkin et al. 2013; Santos 2012; Austin et al.

2006; Thompson et al. 2011). This broad definition implies that a social enterprise can take various organizational forms. Gras & Lumpkin (2012) note that three types of entities can be identified: non-profit organizations that act entrepreneurially; for-profit organizations with social missions, and hybrid organizations combining aspects of for-profits and non-profits.

Lumpkin et al. (2013) brought an interesting contribution by identifying unique characteristics related to antecedents and outcomes of social entrepreneurship. Social motivation/mission; opportunity identification; access to capital/ funding and multiple stakeholders were identified as broad classifications of antecedents specific to social entrepreneurship (Lumpkin et al. 2013). Unlike the traditional entrepreneurship context, the opportunities that social entrepreneurs recognize lie in addressing social problems, which becomes their main driver. Lumpkin et al. (2013) also mention the low attractiveness of social enterprises for traditional investors, although they have access to different sources of financing, such as government grants and donations.

Finally, the multiple stakeholders these entrepreneurs face makes it a challenge quite specific to their entrepreneurial context. As of social entrepreneurship’s outcomes, Lumpkin et al. (2013) name social value creation, satisfying multiple stakeholders and sustainability of solutions. Conventional businesses do create social value, directly or not, through job creation for instance, but their primary goal remains to generate economic value, which largely goes back to owners and investors. Regarding social enterprises, on the opposite, “(…) for the most part, the social and environmental benefits accrue not the company itself, the owners, or consumers, but to society or the environment at large.” (Lumpkin et al. 2013, p.767).

However, Thompson et al. (2011) urge researchers to define the meanings of the adjective “social”, as it can lead to confusion with “sustainable-“ and “environmental- entrepreneurship”, which are other nascent concepts; while Santos (2012) argue that the term “social” should be avoided when defining social entrepreneurship. He indeed claims that “what counts as “social” and who is in need of “social help” is inherently a normative judgment.” (p.337). In an attempt to define the “social” aspect of social entrepreneurship, Leadbeater (1997) refers to the promotion of health, welfare and well-being, while Thompson et al. (2011) put the emphasis on “helping people”.

According to Thompson et al. (2011) the potential confusion comes from the fact that some authors might use the concept of “social entrepreneurship” to refer to entrepreneurs addressing issues which in fact belong rather to environmental or economic areas. The related terms of social enterprise and social economy are also subject to debates, as the discussions presented later regarding the French and Swedish contexts show it.

2.2. Social entrepreneurs

Leadbeater (1997) identified several characteristics related to social entrepreneurs,

which include similarities with traditional entrepreneurs, such as identifying and

addressing unmet needs through under-utilized resources, or being “driven and

determined, ambitious and charismatic” (p.11). According to Leadbeater (1997), social entrepreneurs are entrepreneurial, innovative and transformative (as they can transform organizations, institutions and communities). Besides, their motivations are built upon the will to pursue a mission rather than being driven by profit (Leadbeater 1997). As noted by Dacin et al. (2011), stories of successful social entrepreneurs often portray them as heroes, influential change-makers and altruistic individuals, yet these biased approaches hide the support and help that these entrepreneurs received, and which make their enterprise the fruit of a collective rather than individual action (Shaw & Carter 2007; Montgomery et al. 2012). In an attempt to assess the profile of a social entrepreneur, compared to a conventional one, Shaw & Carter (2007) conducted interviews with social entrepreneurs within the United Kingdom, which give interesting insights on who these individuals are and what motives lie behind social ventures. While the criteria of becoming one’s own boss and independent was considered an influencing factor for only 11% of the respondents, their study exposed the “(…) respondents’ desires to affect change and make a difference, to meet local social needs and to tackle a particular social issue. Such reasons were repeatedly identified as key motivating factors.” (Shaw & Carter 2007, p.427). The authors note that although all entrepreneurs are often engaged in local networks, the particularity of social entrepreneurs lies in their use of these networks, as it helps them to enhance local support and credibility for their venture. Similarly, Leadbeater (1997) argues that “social entrepreneurs are often community entrepreneurs” (p.11), as they act at a local scale.

2.3. Entrepreneurship ecosystem and contexts

A close relationship is often identified between entrepreneurship and economic growth. As such, policy-makers around the world have been trying to encourage and support entrepreneurial ventures (Foster et al. 2013; Autio et al. 2014; Pitelis 2012;

Zahra & Wright 2011). Yet some authors argue that governments, helped by policy- oriented research, must have a better understanding of the environment which surrounds and influences entrepreneurs, in order to support them more effectively (Zahra & Wright 2011; Pitelis 2012; Autio et al. 2014). From a Schumpeterian perspective, the entrepreneur is defined as the individual who implements ‘new combinations’ within the economic system, consisting in introducing a new good, new method of production, opening a new market, acquiring a new source of supply or an organizational change within an industry (Schumpeter 1934). Combining resources throughout the entrepreneurial process occurs through interactions between the entrepreneur and various actors, which altogether constitute a particular environment around entrepreneurs. This environment is described in the academic literature through different concepts, sometimes referred to as entrepreneurial ecosystems (Auerswald 2014; Cohen 2006; Ariza-Montes & Muniz 2013), or as entrepreneurial contexts (Zahra & Wright 2011; Autio et al. 2014).

In the ecology field, an ‘ecosystem’ is defined as “(…) a set of organisms within a defined area or volume that interact with one another and with their environment of nonliving matter and energy.” (Miller & Spoolman 2012, p.7). As noted by Auerswald (2014), using analogies with biological systems can enhance researchers’

understanding of economic systems and their internal interactions. Cohen (2006) for

instance gives the following definition:

Entrepreneurial ecosystems represent a diverse set of inter-dependent actors within a geographic region that influence the formation and eventual trajectory of the entire group of actors and potentially the economy as a whole. Entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve through a set of interdependent components which interact to generate new venture creation over time. (Cohen 2006, pp.2–3)

As the social entrepreneur shares with the commercial entrepreneur some particular characteristics and skills needed to start a venture, Ariza-Montes & Muniz (2013) note that a supportive and functioning ecosystem is equally fundamental for the social entrepreneurship sector.

The context perspective brings complementary insights to the understanding of an entrepreneurial venture’s environment. Zahra et al. (2011) for example distinguishes between four dimensions to describe the entrepreneurial context, namely the spatial, temporal, social and institutional dimensions, which are all inter-related and explain the entrepreneurship phenomena. The authors call for future research to take these entrepreneurial contexts into account, for it “facilitates recognition of the subtle cultural and institutional forces that influence entrepreneurial activities.” (Zahra &

Wright 2011, p.73). Similarly, Autio et al. (2014) identified different types of contexts to describe the entrepreneurial activity, yet they divide it slightly differently, by classifying them between the industry and technology; organizational; institutional and policy; and social contexts, as well as a temporal and a spatial contexts.

Acknowledging the significant role that such ‘environment’ or ‘ecosystem’ plays in supporting the growth of entrepreneurial ventures, Ács et al. (2014) developed the concept of “National Systems of Entrepreneurship”. While it can be considered close to entrepreneurial ecosystems or contexts, the authors emphasize the fact that these systems are driven by individuals. Besides, their approach adopts a national perspective and focuses on resource allocation. They define a National System of Entrepreneurship as “the dynamic, institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of resources through the creation and operation of new ventures.” (Ács et al. 2014, p.479).

3. Theoretical framework

The challenges arising from starting up a venture require entrepreneurs to get access to various kinds of resources, both material and non-material, regardless of the type of enterprise that is being launched. In that regard, and for the purpose of this study, the social network and social capital theories provide valuable insights on how entrepreneurs can access these resources through the different kinds of support structures we are interested into.

3.1. Social capital theory

As noted by many authors, including Cope et al. (2007), Sengupta (2010) or Baker et

al. (2011), the notion of social capital is still subject to discussions amongst social

scientists. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and American political scientist Robert

D. Putnam both elaborated widely recognized theories of social capital. While Putnam

(1993) identifies trust, norms and networks as different forms of social capital which foster cooperation within a society, Bourdieu (1986) defines social capital as:

(…) the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group - which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a “credential” which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word. (Bourdieu 1986, pp.248–

249)

According to Bourdieu (1986), one’s social capital increases with the number of contacts and the amount of capital held by the last-mentioned that one is connected with. As mentioned by Sengupta (2010) in the context of entrepreneurship, Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of conversion asserts that the use of one form of capital can potentially give access to another one, therefore ‘converting’ capital. The processes through which entrepreneurs both build their social capital and convert it into economic or cultural capital for instance, often happen within social networks (Greve & Salaff 2003; Cope et al. 2007; Sengupta 2010; Baker et al. 2011; Leyden et al. 2014).

Considered by Putnam as an “essential component of social capital”, which “lubricates cooperation” (Putnam et al. 1993, p.171), trust is often described in the entrepreneurship literature as being fundamental within social networks and for the building of the entrepreneur’s social capital (Hoang & Antoncic 2003; Ulhøi 2005;

Tötterman & Sten 2005; Cope et al. 2007; Baker et al. 2011; Pitelis 2012). While Cope et al. (2007) write that social capital “could even be regarded as representing

‘networking capital’” (p. 214), Sengupta (2010) adds that it could be “conceptualized as social networks that have resource potential.” (p. 327). In addition, Leadbeater (1997) writes that social entrepreneurs’ “core assets are forms of social capital – relationships, networks, trust and co-operation – which give them access to physical and financial capital.” (p.11). Within the entrepreneurship field, social capital theory is therefore intrinsically tied to social network theory, which is developed in the following section.

3.2. Social network theory

Networks are often highlighted as means for entrepreneurs to establish connections with various people and thus facilitate their access to knowledge and other resources (Hoang & Antoncic 2003; Ulhøi 2005; Sengupta 2010; Haugh 2005; Ariza-Montes &

Muniz 2013; Leyden et al. 2014). Considering that social networks are fundamental in the entrepreneur’s quest for knowledge, Leyden et al. (2014) write that “key to entrepreneurial success is the ability of the entrepreneur to exploit social networks.”

(Leyden et al. 2014, p.1160). Similarly, Montgomery et al. (2012) consider ‘support

networks’ to be part of the non-material resources that social entrepreneurs need. An

entrepreneur’s network includes both close connections such as friends and families,

as well as business relationships (Hoang & Antoncic 2003). Stronger ties usually exist

between the entrepreneur and his friends and family, who are likely to provide

emotional support and encouragement, while business relationships provide the

entrepreneur with useful business-related information, regarding market information

or business strategy for instance (Hoang & Antoncic 2003; Sengupta 2010; Ulhøi

2005; Cohen 2006). In his analysis of business ecosystems aimed at “sustainable entrepreneurs”, Cohen (2006) distinguishes between the formal and informal networks, respectively constituted, among others, of universities, professional services, capital sources; and family, friends, colleagues.

Ariza-Montes & Muniz (2013) argue that through resource sharing with their peers, social entrepreneurs can then have reduced information and transaction costs, which represent a significant help in the establishment process of their venture. They claim that the empowerment of entrepreneurs, which is enabled by the various types of support they receive, occurs both through physical and virtual spaces. Stating that social entrepreneurship is now a “global interconnected movement” (Ariza-Montes &

Muniz 2013, p.30), they note the particular relevance of virtual spaces for social entrepreneurs. Powered by the recent information and communication technologies, these virtual spaces include for instance online social networks and crowdfunding platforms. Sharing experiences, advices and contacts, as well as accessing worldwide networks are some of the possibilities that the Internet opened up for social entrepreneurs (Ariza-Montes & Muniz 2013).

Furthermore, Leyden et al. (2014) argue that social networks both bolster innovation and reduce the uncertainty that entrepreneurs face. They indeed claim that the likelihood of an entrepreneurial venture’s success increases with the amount of knowledge acquired by the entrepreneur through his networks. Besides, Leyden et al.

(2014) even state that the quality of the business plan or the amount of resources available to entrepreneurs may not be enough to guarantee their success, if they do not fully exploit and cleverly manage their social networks.

4. Methods

4.1. Design of interviews

4.1.1. Semi-structured interview as the chosen research approach

According to Creswell (2009), a qualitative research approach can be particularly relevant when research concerning the topic in question is lacking, the latter being a new topic for instance. Given that social entrepreneurship is still a young academic field (Noya et al. 2013; Dacin et al. 2011; Gawell 2013; Gras & Lumpkin 2012;

Lumpkin et al. 2013), while research is scarce concerning support structures and the comparison between the French and Swedish contexts, a qualitative approach was considered relevant for the purpose of this study.

The interview is the type of data collection that has been chosen. Besides allowing the researcher to keep control over the questioning process (Creswell 2009), interviews are “a flexible tool for data collection, enabling multi-sensory channels to be used:

verbal, non-verbal, spoken and heard” (Cohen et al. 2007, p.349), which can add more depth to the research than other methods of data collection (Cohen et al. 2007), and

“can provide a rich set of data” (Qu & Dumay 2011, p.239), when it is well prepared and carried out. While the reliability of interviews can be questioned, the response rate can potentially be higher than for surveys (Cohen et al. 2007).

As one of the research questions of this study relates to social entrepreneurs’

evaluation of the support they received in certain structures, qualitative research

interviewing appears to be of relevance for this study, while acknowledging the

potential limitations and attempting to minimize the biases that may arise through this

research approach. A paragraph regarding these issues is developed further within this section.

Among the various types of interviews, the structured approach implies that the researcher tries to follow his/her pre-established script as much as possible during the interview. While this approach is sometimes considered as allowing for more generalization and minimizing bias, it also deprives the interviewer from flexibility in the line of questioning (Qu & Dumay 2011). On the opposite, the unstructured interview allows for great flexibility, as the conversation remains quite informal (Qu

& Dumay 2011), and can be advised for instance when the researcher wants the interviewee to raise potential aspects that he/she would not have expected or be aware of (Cohen et al. 2007; Qu & Dumay 2011). In between these two opposite interview approaches comes the semi-structured interview. While the general outline of the interview is pre-established by the researcher, this approach gives more flexibility than the structured approach, since the interviewer is free to modify the order of the questioning or even add some questions throughout the interviewing process. One of the aims of this form of interview is indeed to let the interviewee develop further his/her response on certain topics that the researcher may not have thought of. Yet the interviewer prepares in his outline some themes that he/she wants to bring in the conversation, which directly relates to the research. The researcher should therefore

“be open and receptive to new ideas but steady in steering the interview in the desired research direction.” (Qu & Dumay 2011, p.251).

The interview guide approach is chosen, in an attempt to direct all interviews towards a common agenda and thus enable future comparability, while allowing for some flexibility (Patton 2002; Cohen et al. 2007; Qu & Dumay 2011). According to Patton (2002), an interview guide can provide “a framework within which the interviewer would develop questions, sequence those questions, and make decisions about which information to pursue in greater depth.” (p. 344). As some interviews were conducted in English and others in French, two versions of the interview guide were therefore designed, and can be found in the Appendix.

Patton (2002) distinguishes six types of questions: experience/behaviour, opinion/values, feeling, knowledge, sensory and background/demographics questions;

which can all be asked during interviews, regardless of the topic researched. In the context of this research, all of the abovementioned types of questions appear relevant, with perhaps the exception of sensory questions. Yet, given the characteristics of the semi-structured interview, not all questions can be anticipated.

A particular attention will be given to the framing of the interview questions, as “in qualitative inquiry, “good” questions should, at a minimum, be open-ended, neutral, singular, and clear.” (Patton 2002, p.353). Cohen et al. (2007) note that open-ended questions enable flexibility, leaving room for unexpected answers, which can give the interviewer some new material to be looked into. Probes or follow-up questions constitute a type of questioning that allows the researcher to ask for more details regarding an answer provided by the interviewee (Kvale 1996; Patton 2002; Chenail 2009). As noted by Patton (2002), “probes are used to deepen the response to a question, increase the richness and depth of responses, and give cues to the interviewee about the level of response that is desired.” (p.372).

4.1.2. Potential biases and limitations to the approach

Regarding ethical considerations, it is important to note that interviewees’ consent will

be obtained, while informing them of their right to privacy and confidentiality, their right to retract their consent, as well as not answering to certain questions (Qu &

Dumay 2011). Qu & Dumay (2011) also highlight the fact that although interviewees must be informed before the interview of the purpose of the research and how their answers will be used, the interviewer must yet be aware that giving away too much information beforehand might have an effect on the interviewee’s responses.

Among the potential limitations of interviews compared to other research approaches, Creswell (2009) lists the facts that it “provides indirect information filtered through the views of interviewees” (p.179) and that the “researcher’s presence may bias responses” (ibid.). As I, the interviewer, am a social entrepreneur myself, it is important to realize the potential biases this might cause, as Chenail (2009) writes that in such cases, “these “insider” investigators may limit their curiosities so they only discover what they think they don’t know, rather than opening up their inquiries to encompass also what they don’t know they don’t know.” (p.16). The use of a semi- structured form of interviews is hoped to help reducing this bias, by opening interviewees’ answers to different directions through open-ended questions.

Besides, as noted by Qu & Dumay (2011), another aspect inherent in semi-structured interviews is that the researcher must pay attention to the fact that it can potentially become too conversational and thus move away from the original research purpose.

Due to limited time and financial resources, Stockholm and Paris are the focus of this research; yet it is acknowledged that these two cities do not give a representative picture of the national contexts. Another limitation lies in the number of interviews that were carried out. As detailed in the section below, a total of ten interviews were conducted. This relatively small panel of participants shall therefore remind the reader of the limited potential of generalisation of this study.

4.2. Conduction of interviews According to Creswell (2009):

The idea behind qualitative research is to purposefully select participants or sites (or documents or visual material) that will best help the researcher understand the problem and the research question.

(Creswell 2009, p.178)

As this research aims notably at exploring social entrepreneurs’ perceptions of certain support structures, it has been decided that only social entrepreneurs, i.e. individuals who have been or are currently in the process of launching or running a social enterprise, as it has been defined earlier, would be contacted for interviews. In an attempt to get a diversified panel of interviewees, social entrepreneurs from various support structures were approached, i.e. incubators, accelerators, networks and co- working spaces that these individuals are potentially involved into, both in Paris and in Stockholm.

In order to obtain a number of interviews that would be relevant for this study, forty

persons or support structures were contacted via e-mail, including mostly social

entrepreneurs as well as some support structures directly, through websites’ contact

forms for example. Social entrepreneurs’ contact information was either found online

through the support structures that are hosting them, or through personal

acquaintances who put me in contact with social entrepreneurs they knew. Among the

forty persons and structures contacted, twenty-one were located in the Paris area, while nineteen were in Stockholm. In order to address the widest range of structures possible in both cities, it was decided to contact various social entrepreneurs who are, or have been, hosted by different support structures dedicated to social entrepreneurship. A total of eight support structures are represented in the panel of interviewees, including four located in the Paris area and four in Stockholm.

Seven social entrepreneurs from Paris were potentially interested in participating in an interview, and five were actually interviewed, including two men and three women.

Due to time constraints, only two were done as face-to-face interviews, in Paris, while the three others had to be carried out from Sweden, through Skype, although the video was deactivated due to the internet connection. These were all conducted in French.

As of Stockholm, while eight social entrepreneurs initially showed some interest in participating, five of them were interviewed, including three men and two women. All of these were face-to-face interviews, conducted in English, in Stockholm. With the agreement of the interviewee, each interview was recorded, while anonymity had been guaranteed beforehand.

The average duration of the five interviews made with social entrepreneurs in Stockholm was around twenty-nine minutes, while it was thirty-eight minutes for the ones conducted with social entrepreneurs from Paris. This rather significant difference might be explained by the fact that the language in which the interview was conducted, was on one side the interviewees’ mother tongue (French), while on the other side, English was not the native language of four out of the five entrepreneurs interviewed in Stockholm.

4.3. Methodology of analysis

After having been recorded, all interviews were then transcribed. As noted by Kvale (1996), while transcribing into the verbatim form can be relevant for a sociolinguistic or psychological analysis for example, it might not suit other research approaches. He indeed argues that the style of transcribing chosen should depend on how the researcher will use the transcripts: “If they are to give some general impression of the subject’s views, rephrasing and condensing of statements may be in order.” (Kvale 1996, p.170). Therefore, it had been decided here that some edits were necessary within the transcripts; in order to enhance the reader’s understanding, and in regard to their later use. The edited transcripts of these interviews are published in the appendix of this document, in accordance with the agreement given by each participant.

Following the methodology described by Rubin & Rubin (2005), all interviews were then summarized and coded. The purpose of these summaries is to obtain an overview of the main concepts and themes that were discussed with the interviewees, and which are relevant in relation to the research questions of this study. Each transcript was also coded, by annotating the text with symbols and acronyms referring to the central themes and concepts of this study.

A spreadsheet was then created, putting the main themes, corresponding to some of the questions asked during the interviews, in separate columns; and participants in rows. For anonymity reasons, “Social Entrepreneur”, followed by a number between 1 and 10, replaces each interviewee’s name. Social Entrepreneurs 1 to 5 represent participants from the Paris group, while Social Entrepreneurs 6 to 10 represent the Stockholm group. Similarly, the social enterprises’ names were replaced as follows:

Social Entrepreneur 1’s venture becomes “Start-up A”; “Start-up B” is associated with

Social Entrepreneur 2, etc. Although not all participants might define their project as a

“start-up”, this common denomination was chosen for practicality reasons. One exception is the enterprise of Social Entrepreneur 4, which is an association, and is therefore referred to as “Association A”.

Later, responses from all participants were analysed and compared, by grouping their answers under certain main themes, including the ones that were anticipated, as well as those that might have emerged from the interviewee’s answers. The main criterion that was considered during the analysis was the group to which they belong, namely Paris or Stockholm, since this thesis aims at comparing these two cities’ social entrepreneurship ecosystems.

5. The French and the Swedish social entrepreneurship contexts

In an attempt to map the various support structures that exist in Paris and Stockholm, the lists of structures in the sections below provide a short description of these. The structures that were listed here offer some kind of direct support to social enterprises, such as mentoring, training, advice or even through networking. Therefore, organizations which for instance work toward better conditions for social enterprises by influencing local or national policy-makers were not taken into account. Besides, organisations that provide solely financial support are not listed either, as the focus of this research is put on other types of supports. In addition, only support structures aimed specifically at social enterprises, or having at least one of their programmes dedicated to it, were considered.

Yet it must be noted that these lists may not be exhaustive, as the efforts required to elaborate a comprehensive mapping of these structures are beyond the scope of this thesis.

5.1. France

5.1.1. Definitions and concepts of social enterprises

As noted by a European Commission report on social enterprises and their ecosystems in France, there is still no clear consensus about the definitions of social enterprises and the social economy among the key stakeholders in France (Andruszkiewicz et al.

2014). While the term of “social economy” in the French context dates back to the 19

^th

century (L’Atelier 2010a), the concept of “social and solidarity economy” (SSE) is more recent (Andruszkiewicz et al. 2014). The Regional Chamber of Social and Solidarity Economy of Ile-de-France (CRESS IDF) provides different definitions of social enterprises, stating that it can be considered as representing all associations, co- operatives, mutual societies and foundations, but also all groups of persons gathered around the democracy, liberty and solidarity values for instance (Chambre Régionale de l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire Ile-de-France 2015). Regarding the concept of

“solidarity economy”, the CRESS IDF website claims that it appeared in the 1980’s,

following the social consequences of the economic crisis, and is comprised of various

sectors, including the environment, fair trade, sustainable development, social re-

insertion through work and social responsibility, among others. Besides, the MOUVES (Movement of Social Entrepreneurs) defines social enterprises by their economically viable project, their limited pursuit of profit, their social and/or environmental objectives and their participatory governance (Mouvement des Entrepreneurs Sociaux 2014).

Aiming at scaling up the social and solidarity economy sector, France adopted on July 31st, 2014 a law directed at the “Social and Solidarity Economy” (Legifrance 2015), which defines the concept as encompassing the actors commonly associated with the social economy, i.e. co-operatives, mutual societies, foundations and associations, as well as new actors of social entrepreneurship, namely commercial enterprises which pursue social utility and choose to commit to the social and solidarity economy principles (Ministère de l’Economie de l'Industrie et du Numérique 2015). Yet, as pointed out by Andruszkiewicz et al. (2014), while this law “brings more clarity and provides the first legal and positive definition of social and solidarity economy ”(p.4), debates are still ongoing among the various stakeholders of the sector regarding the definition of the concepts of social enterprises and social economy for instance.

5.1.2. Policy and legal framework

While the history of co-operatives and worker associations in France dates back to the 19th century, the Scop (co-operative production society) and Scic (collective interest co-operative society) statuses are more recent, acquiring legal recognition respectively in 1978 and 2001 (Les Scop 2011a). A Scop is a co-operative production society in which employees are the majority shareholders, who have at least 65% of votes and elect the society’s leader. The main difference between a Scop and a Scic is that in addition to employees, other actors can join the capital of a Scic, i.e. volunteers, customers, local authorities or private partners for example (Les Scop 2011c).

The first Ministry of Social and Solidarity Economy was created in 2012 under the French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault. Due to a cabinet reshuffle, this Ministry was replaced by a Secretariat of the State for Trade, Craft, Consumer affairs and the Social and Solidarity Economy in April 2014 (L’Atelier 2014). One of the effects of the Law on the Social and Solidarity Economy adopted in July 2014 was the attribution of a legal status to representative institutions of the Social and Solidarity Economy, namely the Higher Council of the Social and Solidarity Economy, the Higher Council of co-operation and the Higher Council of associations, as well as the recognition of a French Chamber of the Social and Solidarity Economy (Ministère de l’Economie de l'Industrie et du Numérique 2014).

5.1.3. Support structures in the Paris area Antropia

Antropia is a social incubator created in 2005 by the ESSEC business school and the French bank Caisse d’Epargne. Its mission is to provide help to social entrepreneurs through business, technical and financial supports, within the Ile-de-France region.

Antropia is currently working with more than fifty projects. (Antropia 2015) Ashoka

Founded in 1980, Ashoka is a not-for-profit organisation that defines itself as the

largest worldwide network of social entrepreneurs. One of its branches is focusing on

France, Belgium and Switzerland. Ashoka selects social entrepreneurs through a long

process, and then supports the chosen ones in the development of their activity. The Ashoka Support Network was launched in France in 2005. It gathers business leaders all around the world, who support Ashoka financially, while helping Ashoka’s social entrepreneurs, through personal advice, or through their personal networks for instance. (Ashoka 2015)

AVISE

Created in 2002 by La Caisse des Dépôts (public investing body) and representatives of the social economy, AVISE supports social enterprises through various means, including training, events, as well as being a network platform for actors of the social economy (from entrepreneurs to public authorities). (Avise 2015)

BGE PaRIF (previously “Boutiques de Gestion”)

BGE PaRIF helps entrepreneurs in the Greater Paris area to test their idea under an established legal entity, while not having to register the project as a company. It implies that BGE PaRIF manages all internal procedures such as invoicing and accounting. Some of its internal branches are dedicated to social entrepreneurs. BGE PaRIF is supported by different actors, including public bodies, foundations, companies, and Ashoka. (BGE PaRIF 2015)

Blue Factory

Having offices in Madrid, Berlin and Paris, Blue Factory is linked to the business school ESCP Europe, and helps start-ups projects with positive economic, social and environmental impacts. (Blue Factory 2015)

La fédération des entreprises d’insertion (previously CNEI)

This national federation was created in 1988 and gathers today around 600 integration enterprises, which all aim at giving access to the labour market to disadvantaged persons. The federation helps these enterprises to develop, while fostering experience sharing among them. (La fédération des entreprises d’insertion 2015)

L’Archipel

L’Archipel hosts a co-working space in Paris, which is dedicated to projects having a social impact. (L’Archipel 2015)

La Ruche

Created in 2008 by several organisations, including Ashoka France, La Ruche is a co- working space in Paris dedicated to social entrepreneurs. Besides giving entrepreneurs access to a community of peers, La Ruche also promotes their projects to the media, public authorities and large companies, among other actors. (La Ruche 2015)

La Social Factory

Located in La Ruche, La Social Factory educates, supports, and incubates projects within social innovation. (La Social Factory 2015)

L’Atelier

L’Atelier is an association that was created in 2007 by the Regional Council of Ile-de- France (Greater Paris area), the Regional Chamber of the social and solidarity economy, as well as several local public authorities and other actors from the sector.

Defining itself as a resource centre for the social and solidary economy, it provides

advice to social entrepreneurs, while directing them towards financial and technical partners. L’Atelier also aims at promoting the social economy in the Greater Paris area, by raising awareness among the general public and providing policy advice to local public authorities. (L’Atelier 2010b)

Les SCOP

Les Scop includes enterprises with the legal status of Scop or Scic. The network of Scop offers various support to entrepreneurs creating or taking over such enterprises, through training, financing or by promoting experience sharing between them. The CG SCOP (General Confederation of Scop) represents the network in front of public authorities and other economical, social or political stakeholders. Regional Unions exist all over the French territory, including one dedicated to the Greater Paris area.

(Les Scop 2011b) MakeSense

Created in 2010 in France, Make Sense is a worldwide community open to individuals interested in social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs having a “challenge” to solve, in the making of their project, can call for creativity workshops (so-called

“Hold-Ups”) through Make Sense, in which any member can participate and come to brainstorm with other members in order to help the entrepreneur with his/her

“challenge”. (MakeSense 2015) MOUVES

The MOUVES was created in 2010 and stands for Movement of Social Entrepreneurs. This network brings together social enterprises, represents them, and works toward creating a better environment for social entrepreneurs. (MOUVES 2015)

Paris Région Entreprises

Created by public authorities, Paris Région Entreprises is an association whose mission is to support businesses with economical, social and environmental added value, in the Paris region, through encouraging the development of the Paris ecosystem, as well as playing an advisory role towards businesses. (Paris Région Entreprises 2015)

Paris Région Entreprises launched in 2014 the Social Innovation Booster, a support program for small and medium-sized enterprises having a strong social impact through an innovative product or service. Selected enterprises follow a six-month program, containing workshops and monthly meetings with a coach, a mentor and a tutor, from various organisations. This initiative was created in the context of the TRANSITION project, Transnational Network for Social Innovation Incubation, which aims at developing a network of European incubators linked to social innovation and innovation-based incubation.

Réseau Entreprendre (Program “Entreprendre Autrement”)

Réseau Entreprendre is a French association that supports new entrepreneurs by

putting them in relation with business managers and offering loans. In 2004 they

created the program “Entreprendre Autrement”, which specifically targets social

entrepreneurs. The selected entrepreneurs receive free personal support from

experienced business managers for 2 to 3 years, along with an interest-free loan which

can go from 15 000 to 50 000€. (Réseau Entreprendre 2015)