Brussels, 28/07/2011 (Agence Europe) - Given the fact that there is no precise definition of “social enterprise”, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has proposed a number of “common features” in its draft opinions. This is aimed at helping the European Commission draw up a communication for the end of the year on the “social business initiative”. The outline of the exploratory opinion was examined during a public hearing on Thursday 28 July. The absence of a clear definition of social enterprise is justified by the EESC rapporteur, Ms Rodert, as being due to the existence of too many interpretations of this term, particularly at the level of legislation in EU member states. Therefore five principles have been selected, which will help identify a social enterprise: - (1) social objective prevailing over making a profit; - (2) whether the goal is making a profit or not, the main surplus must be reinvested into the enterprise's activity; - (3) it can take on different legal personalities and economic models (cooperative, mutual fund, charity, etc); - (4) it is an economic actor and must therefore produce goods and services; - (5) the way in which it operates is characterised by autonomy and independence, with a high level of participation through the principle of co-decision. The response from the Commission representative, Mr Vallens (political coordinator at DG Internal Market and Services), leaves no doubt about the fact that this is a view broadly shared at the European Commission. The choice of “common features” and not a definition should, according to Vallens, allow for a more inclusive approach towards social entrepreneurship. The Commission objective is to propose ways of improving funding or raising the profile of this kind of enterprise but it is also one of revising the regulatory environment to enable equal development within the EU internal market, he explained. This approach, however, was opposed by Mr Chavez from the International CIRIEC Research Conference on the Social Economy, who would have liked the EESC to have provided a clear definition in order to distinguish the social economy, which is a broad and fashionable concept, from social entrepreneurship. Similarly, Mr Tavernier, the Secretary-General for the European Federation of Ethical and Alternative Banks (FEBEA), underlined that the current EESC proposal was in danger of reducing social enterprise to a social integration mechanism. He also said that he did not wish to question the usefulness of social enterprise as defined by the EESC but simply wanted to “develop innovative solutions to respond to collective needs, as well as build social cohesion and inclusion, together with job creation and promotion of active citizenship”. According to Tavernier, the EESC has forgotten to include environmental and ecological aspects in the “common features”. He thought it was even more serious, however, that these features do not prevent confusion with regard to social entrepreneurship and the different definitions of the term employed by member states, such as cooperatives. He insisted that “we need the strictest possible criteria”. He provided the example of Belgium, which had put a cap on dividend payments at 6% for socially orientated companies. (J.K./transl.fl)