Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The social and economic value of SEs is being increasingly recognized on an international scale. These organizations have a key role in local, national and international regeneration and development. On a national level, it is estimated that 'there are more than 55,000 SEs ... with a combined turnover of £27 billion. Social Enterprises account for 5 per cent of all businesses with employees, and contribute £8.4 billion per year to the UK economy' (SEC, 2008). Communities concerned with defined social, environmental and/or economic issues can use SEs to mobilize support for their chosen causes. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the 'value' they contribute is more than merely the economic impact they have. Moreover, the focus is on laudable outcomes, such as employability for excluded or minority groups, gender empowerment and social regeneration. It is on these economic and non-economic terms that the value of SEs is best understood. On an international scale, the EU stresses its support for SEs as a valuable part of the social economy sector across its economic region. Furthermore, there is a longestablished and thriving non-profit sector in the USA and Canada that encompasses SEs, while international support organizations, such as the Non-profit Enterprise and Self-sustainability Team (NESsT), work to promote international SEs and related projects. The latter organizations play an increasingly influential role in the development of SEs in emerging and developing economies, such as South America, India and South East Asia (UNIDO, 2002). This snapshot of the global presence of the social economy highlights its relevance to contemporary society as we work to alleviate social, environmental and economic suffering. In tandem with this growth are a number of emergent issues and challenges that policymakers, trade and umbrella organizations, as well as social entrepreneurs and academics will have to face. One of the principal challenges requires an understanding of the bases for their governance, which is the focus of this chapter. As will become apparent, there are many differing perspectives on what constitutes 'effective' governance, which is perhaps infused with the high degree of enthusiasm and realism found among social entrepreneurs, boards and managers. This drive typically enhances the critical debate between these groups and leads political and academic institutions to provide an overview of the prescient governance challenges facing SEs. These include: (1) mitigating 'failure' of SEs; (2) enabling self-sufficiency through regular, sustainable trade; (3) reconciling different types of accountability, including democratic and financial efficacy; (4) developing a culture of transparent practice at board level, including board member effectiveness; and (5) managing the delivery and measurement of social benefits. Each of the above points is covered in this chapter and an attempt made to signify the severity of their influence on governance, given the environmental pressures boards and staff are required to accommodate. The chapter also presents a conceptual 'committee' model for governance of SEs. This model is proposed in an attempt to pave the way for solutions to some of the critical issues raised in the course of the chapter, leading to a reflective comment on the future challenges for governance of SEs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».