Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".