European Network of Cities and Regions for the Social Economy AISBL
REVES AISBL
REVES is the unique european organisation based on partnership between local and regional authorities and territorial social economy organisations.
ID: 67482205645-83
Lobbying Activity
Response to Mid-Term Review: Social Economy Action Plan
14 Jul 2025
3. What measures could be prioritised in the period 2026-2030 to help the social economy realise its full potential in the EU? - The European Cohesion Policy Funds play a crucial role when it comes to supporting social economy development at local and regional level. The promotion of social economy enterprises should be brought back explicitly for example in the investment priorities not only of ESF, but also ERDF (and possibly other funds such as JTF etc.). Establishing real and sustainable local and regional social economy ecosystems necessitates a recognition and consideration of the potential and needs of the social economy throughout all policy areas (see also our comments related to areas such as energy and circular economy). Local& regional governments should therefore also be encouraged to make the social economy a cornerstone also of local development strategies and plans more in general. - Experimentation of new models of local development, creation of employment and promotion of entrepreneurship driven by the social economy, such as Territories Zero Chomeurs de Longue Durée should be further encouraged. This should be done in a perspective of local community-driven development involving long-term unemployed and all other interested parts of the local community in the identification of needs, opportunities and existing potential/capacities and the creation of new (entrepreneurial) projects. - Work on the review of the public procurement directive: The objective of helping contracting authorities to obtain best value for money is undermined by the fact that the directive itself still considers the lowest price as selection criterion alongside best value for money or the most economically advantageous offer. It would be advisable to keep only one possible procedure (best value for money) while better explaining which elements are to be considered (overall quality, life-cycle costs, environmental costs, social benefits, etc.). Capacity-building for local/regional/national administrations and social economy actors should be continued. - A stronger focus also on rural areas (including in ERDF) which could include new initiatives supporting research and actions around possibilities to better reach out to the population (including disadvantaged groups). How to better encourage the local population to use the opportunities provided by social economy initiatives (e.g. third places, incubators, food belts, hubs...) and become a co-owner of the initiative? How to set up networks between different (social economy) actors in rural areas able to support each other mutually and create new opportunities? Structured dialogue between local governments, (social economy) enterprises and civil society should be encouraged and tools for participatory/cooperative governance put at disposal of local multi-stakeholder initiatives. - Helpful would also be the development of new or more efficient methods and systems of data collection (many regions would appreciate to have better segregated data on the social economy which in an ideal case could then be linked also to data regarding the development of specific local areas). - Ensure better and more tailor-made access to support for micro and small social economy enterprises also with regard to green&digital transition (including maintaining InvestEU and adapting its Social Window better to the needs of these enterprises/organisations). - Social economy education and capacity-building for youngsters (not only in higher education) should be intensified and practices such as ephemeral cooperatives be boosted. - Actions to protect and grow civic spaces. - Policies around digital transformation should make a stronger use of social economy models (platform cooperatives, data spaces for democracy, etc.). - Deepening initiatives around clusters of social and ecological innovation. - Encourage stronger coop. between different legal forms of the SE For more details, please see attached file.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the Public Procurement Directives
4 Mar 2025
From the point of view of the European Network of Social Economy Cities and Regions, the refitted directives The new directives should address some critical points of the current directives, which we summarize below. Although the directives represent strong progress and have introduced significant elements of simplification and stronger social and environmental aspects, together with possible new procedures, they have not yet fully achieved some of their objectives. In particular, the objective of helping contracting authorities to obtain best value for money is jeopardised by the fact that the directives themselves still considers the lowest price as selection criterion alongside best value for money. Indeed, the two procedures are rather contradictory and create confusion among contracting authorities as to what can be considered best value (e.g. the lowest price or the inclusion of indirect environmental and social costs in the tender). Moreover, as the lowest price is a simpler procedure, cases where it is chosen to speed up the procurement process are not uncommon. Therefore, it would be advisable to keep only one possible procedure (best value for money), specifying better which elements are to be considered (overall quality, life-cycle costs, environmental costs, social benefits, etc.). Furthermore, social considerations (and clauses) are still not well understood in their content, which creates confusion among contracting authorities. Renewed directives could provide a more detailed description of what is meant by social clauses and social considerations, so that it could be easily transposed by both contracting authorities (and courts), both in terms of content and procedure. From this point of view, the very useful guidelines produced by the Commission seem to contribute only partially, as their legal weight is considered marginal, from the point of view of contracting and legal authorities. The focus on competition in procurement procedures seems excessive. In reality, it often has the opposite effect, with the exclusion of potential bidders who could provide added value on aspects such as social and environmental aspects, but are weaker in terms of price-based competition (also because they pursue different objectives, such as social economy actors). Direct awards in specific sectors, such as social and welfare services, which would be consistent with the objectives of the directives (see for instance recital 114), remain too low, and the light regime is also little used in many countries. Procedures based on price alone are bad practices, as they do not allow the use of all the positive aspects of public purchasing and do not allow the pursuit of all the objectives set by the directives themselves. That possibility should be eliminated in renewed directives. In the final analysis, in order to pursue a harmonious and balanced development of the single market, and to use this as a lever for the social, environmental, cultural and economic improvement of the continent, the new directives should do some chisel work and make improvements to the already existing system from social, environmental and cultural point of view.
Read full responseResponse to Developing social economy framework conditions
29 Sept 2022
Social economy is a phenomenon present in all EU countries, albeit with different characteristics and definitions. Diversity is a value to be preserved. Nevertheless, States should develop a defining conceptualisation to be included in acts of legal relevance, so that the development of SE be appreciated, preserved and promoted. The EU has proposed definitions that are broad enough to encompass different experiences. Thus Member States have wide margins. In turn, MS themselves should proceed to definitions that allow a margin of adaptation to the different regional realities, basing them on principles and values of the SE, as well as on certain key features, identified by the SEAP, and the statutes that best correspond to them. It is also important that MSs ensure mutual recognition of definitions of SE, where the essential criteria defined in European acts are met. The definition of a legal profile for SE should be accompanied by criteria to identify experiences as being part or not of the SE. This is to preserve its specificity and to avoid abuses. MSs and regions should therefore equip themselves with systems for the assessment of the actual existence of the defined characteristics, first and foremost of values, identified by national standards. The evaluation process has the double purpose of enabling public administrations to apply sector-specific rules and to communicate to the public the specificity of the SE. Procedures based on accreditation models, or experiences based on national registers are possible approaches leading to the identification of the universe composing the social economy. The social economy constitutes a sector, strategic for the pursuit of EU objectives, and often a main actor in the pursuit of general interest objectives. This should be clearly stipulated in legislation. However, this strategic position should find an echo in the definition of a coherent and systematised body of law. The latter should include rules that regulate the life of social economy organisations (directly related to governance, business management, taxation, etc.), but also those related to the economic relations generated by these actors. Specific legislation should be built f.i. on partnerships with public administrations, where the rules on public procurement – to take just one example - do not apply. This occurs in cases where social economy actors are themselves actors in the pursuit of the general interest, through the performance of their own activities, and ensure the absence of the pursuit of other specific interests through their own systemic characteristics. Examples can be found different regional experiences. The EC itself produced guidelines that should help to discern cases in which procurement rules should be applied in full, partially or totally excluded. It is of primary importance that the MSs translate the guidelines into legal or administrative acts that can be used by public officials, so that the latter are not forced into sometimes conservative choices or in assumption of risks that are not their own. Likewise, to facilitate the application of a legal framework, the EC should try to clarify the rules on state aid. In fact, where the social economy is defined as 'strategic' and where it performs 'functions of general interest', it should be clear that the state aid rules do not apply. Here again, an act of an administrative nature and enforceable in administrative or judicial procedures is of enormous importance.MS and regions developed strategies for the promotion of the SE. These concern the whole sector, or are area-specific, or they are included in general economic plans. They should be accompanied by structural support measures or specific programmes and be adequately supported by actions with financial backing. In this sense, the EC should monitor that the instruments made available by the EU cohesion policy. Similarly, the EC should ensure that the SE be included in R&D in a non-marginal way.
Read full response