Uniqueness of the Training Needs of Social Enterprise Professionals: Analysis in the European Context

Abstract

This paper analyses the perceived training needs of managers and technicians in social enterprises, as well as the factors that condition this perception. The analysis is based on qualitative and quantitative research carried out with managers and technicians of social enterprises in Finland, Italy, Greece, and Spain. The results show that the different attitudes towards the uniqueness of social enterprises are a fundamental determining factor in explaining the perception of training needs and the tensions generated by the dual mission of this type of organisation. Interviews and surveys have also shown that social competences are perceived as more important and more difficult to find in the labour market, compared to technical competences linked to business management.

1. Introduction

Social enterprise (SE) is a socio-economic actor of growing importance as shown by the constant increase in employment and turnover worldwide [1]. In line with this fact, the educational offer for social enterprise professionals is also developing rapidly, both in terms of the volume of the offer and the incorporation of didactic innovations [2]. Although it is difficult to determine the precise size of the social enterprise sector, there are estimates, which indicate that the employment created by social enterprises worldwide can be estimated at almost 200 million jobs and a GDP of approximately USD 96 trillion in 2021. Social enterprises account for about 2% of the global GDP [1]. In the case of Europe, in 2017, CIRIEC estimated that the social and solidarity economy employed 13.6 million people in 2017, accounting for 6.3% of the total workforce [3]. Data provided by various authors point to the importance of this type of enterprise globally [4], in Asia [5], in Central and Eastern Europe [6], in the former Soviet Bloc [7], or in Latin America [8].

Despite this, there is still a mismatch between training needs and the characteristics of the training offer aimed at social enterprise [9], while there is still a debate on the competency profile of its workers [10], appropriate teaching methodologies [11], or the uniqueness of training for social enterprise compared to other types of business training [12]. This debate is hindered by controversies over the concept of social enterprise [13,14,15,16], the diversity of their regulatory framework, and even the characteristics of the sector between countries [7].

Educational actions have a significant presence in the policies and programmes for the promotion of social enterprise, with great variations depending on the different countries. In the United Nations document entitled Recommendations for an Enabling Youth Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, from 2020, the need to Strengthen entrepreneurial education and training is proposed as one of the six basic recommendations, expressly stating that “Actions should be taken to ensure that young aspiring and nascent social entrepreneurs are provided with the education, skills and competences they need to thrive in this modern era and contribute to the development of their communities and society” [17].

The OECD also insists on this promotion of education for entrepreneurship in the good practices for promoting social enterprise [18]. In the case of the European Union, the role given to training is, at the same time, important in the situation diagnoses, but plays a lesser role in the recommendations and lines of action. In the European Union’s fundamental document of 2011, it is stated that “In European education systems, social entrepreneurship is still under-promoted, although its integration into initial and ongoing training is a prerequisite for reinforcing its credibility. An increasing number of young graduates opt to work in social enterprises, but traditional businesses do not value their experience because they are unfamiliar with the sector”.

In the 2020 Social Enterprises and Their Ecosystems in Europe Comparative Synthesis Report, the existence of a gap between training needs and skills is noted in all EU countries. However, the progress made in training in Europe is positively assessed, with formal and non-formal provision and an increase in the supply of university and non-university training.

Alongside the overall impact of training on social enterprise development, there are permanent references to the necessary methodology, considering both measures to make this training inclusive [19] and applied: “An experiential learning approach is essential for entrepreneurship education and training, as this best facilitates the acquisition of twenty-first century skills and competences—which are valuable even if youth do not become entrepreneurs” [11].

Despite its growing dynamics and the important support of the different multilateral entities, the conviction persists that the educational systems of the different countries of the world do not respond to the needs of the social enterprise and, consequently, there is still a mismatch between the demands for qualifications, the characteristics of human capital, and the contents of the training offers. However, the characteristics of this mismatch and its nature are not clear and are conditioned by preconceived ideas, unproven assertions, and the singularities of each country. This paper aims, first of all, to describe this mismatch in four European Union countries (Greece and Finland, Italy, and Spain), assessing the conditioning factors of the perception of training needs and proposing a competence profile for workers in the sector (both at managerial and technical level).

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

Consistent with the increasing importance of such entities and the support efforts of multilateral institutions, social enterprise research has generated a consolidated and dynamic body of knowledge, with a significant volume of publications [18]. In aggregate terms, social enterprise research has been typified as a field: with an incremental trend in its level of output [20] with an excessive conceptual and definitional preoccupation [21] and ultimately still in an early stage of development [22].

The scientific production devoted to the training and educational aspects of social enterprise is also a growing sector [2]. In order to clarify its concept, following Baltador & Grecu [23], it can be understood that social entrepreneurship education (SEE) is a form of entrepreneurship education that aims to foster sustainable businesses that address social and environmental problems, which is at the intersection of two types of studies: studies on social enterprise and studies on entrepreneurship education.

In the field of general social enterprise studies, bibliometric analyses have made proposals for the classification of research topics, using both traditional documentary analysis systems [9] as well as statistical tools, cluster analysis, and methodologies based on co-authorship and metadata classification [22,24,25,26]. Several of these bibliometric studies have carried out classification and categorisation work on the subject matter of publications, identifying various thematic clusters [27] that group research and publications according to various criteria. These statistical classifications complement qualitative literature reviews with traditional methodologies [28,29].

Thanks to this type of bibliometric research, it is possible to detail the level of development of research on social enterprise education, indicating a significant presence, albeit secondary to other major themes. Trabskaia et al. point to the presence of educational topics as one of the six major themes that are at the forefront of scientific production on social enterprise in the period from 2009 to 2022 in SCOPUS [27]. For his part, Klarin detects, using systematic analysis, five major clusters into which the 5874 articles in WOS can be classified, including education among one of these groupings [30]. Other authors, such as Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon, point to the prominence of educational aspects, but always link to the broader theme of human resource management in social enterprise [28].

Research does not always establish education as one of the relevant topics in social enterprise research. For example, Gupta et al. (2020) [31] do not define any thematic cluster for social entrepreneurship education and include this theme as a subcategory within the study of social enterprise human resources. Coronel et al. note no reference to education in the 26 thematic clusters detected in the 3023 WOS articles since 2003 [22]. These data contrast with other results that give a greater role to education research. For example, Tan Luc et al. point out that the area of Education and Educational Research is the fourth with the greatest presence, immediately after business, management, and economics, occupying a very relevant position in the list of 20 scientific areas that, according to Tan Luc, had a presence in studies on social enterprise [25].

This same ambivalence occurs when future research challenges are posed. Klarin does not select the topic of education within his emerging themes in social enterprise research [30], and neither does De Bruin and Teasdale [32], while other authors consider it to be a highly relevant topic for the future ([27], p. 17).

By way of synthesis, it is pertinent to point out the text proposed by Weerakoon which states “focus of the articles has largely been on social entrepreneurial process; social entrepreneurial intentions and motivations; social finance and investment; social impact and identity and legitimacy of social enterprises. Yet, there is a limited discussion on mechanisms of promoting next generation of social entrepreneurs–social entrepreneurship education” [33].

Bibliometrics also provides classifications of the very important volume of scientific production on entrepreneurship education [32,34,35]. Many of these studies show that in the literature on entrepreneurship education, studies on social entrepreneurship do not feature in the broad thematic or sectoral classifications. Fellnhofer, for example, does not consider social enterprise as one of the seven clusters into which he classifies papers on entrepreneurship education [32]. They are more often listed as emerging areas or future trends [36]. Occasionally, entrepreneurship in social enterprise is made even less unique because the generic nature of entrepreneurial competences is defended, applicable to any type of context or organisation, be it intrapreneurship, commercial entrepreneurship, or any other type, this being the model that inspires the European entrepreneurship competence framework (EntreComp) [20].

Ultimately, it seems that bibliometric research does not provide a straightforward answer to the question of the importance of social entrepreneurship within entrepreneurship education studies. As Addae and Ellenwood point out, “The existing structure for social entrepreneurship education mirrors the lack of cohesion across the literature”. ([11], p. 4).

It seems clear that the sector needs a systematic analysis of the scientific literature devoted to investigating educational and training aspects as conditioning factors of social enterprise activity. In this sense, there are works that make a thematic classification of the research on education for social entrepreneurship, highlighting [2] and their classification following an input–output scheme.

For the purpose of this publication, the state of the art related to the training needs for social enterprises will be classified according to the following areas, proposed on the basis of a qualitative review of the scientific literature:

1. Publications aimed at determining the role of education as an enabler of social enterprise development as opposed to other factors: These are macro studies that attempt to determine the specific contribution of education to the growth of social enterprise. The role given to education is variable in the results of each research [37]. This is timely given that there is a paucity of empirical evidence on the effect of social entrepreneurship education other than the anecdotal accounts of former students having started social enterprises [1]. Inga Shina determines through statistical modelling the high correlation between specific training and social enterprise development [38].

2. Publications aimed at analysing the suitability of the educational offer for the development of social entrepreneurs: Within this field, the proposals for evaluating the impact of education on social entrepreneurship are particularly important [23], and curriculum analysis work is usually carried out from a critical perspective [39,40]. There are also works that are mainly descriptive but also provide evaluative assessments, such as those proposed by Alourhzal, for the case of social entrepreneurship training in Africa, or comparative studies [41].

3. Analysis of pedagogical approaches to training social entrepreneurs and their effectiveness: There is a great diversity of studies on the most appropriate methodologies for training social enterprise professionals, be it project-based learning or project-based learning [42,43], the application of learning-by-doing [43], service-learning [44,45], experiential learning [11,46,47], or Practice-Based Wisdom Theory [48]. It has also been proposed that social enterprise training should be oriented towards practical competences and real challenges; the integration of innovative teaching methods, such as interdisciplinarity [49,50]; and the direct involvement of HE in educational practice [51]. In this area there is a duality between studies that analyse the most frequent practices and those that propose models or evaluate successful experiences [52]. Essentially, research within this cluster outlines pedagogical tools and methodologies to effectively encourage students to engage in social enterprise ([30]; p. 595). Although the diagnoses are still partial, there are authors who point out the prominence of some of the proposals with respect to the rest: “Experiential learning, learning-by-doing and active learning are some of the most effective approaches to SE” ([30], p. 595).

4. Studies making proposals for the incorporation of social enterprise content in training proposals: In this field, there is a greater concern for incorporating the subject and approach of social entrepreneurship in different pre-existing training courses than in assessing the relevance of specific training for social enterprise. Thus, there are publications on training in social entrepreneurship for social work students [53], sociology [54], the humanities [55], public administration [56], students of social policy [57], engineering students [58], or MBA students [59].

5. Publications aimed at analysing the skills required for the development of social entrepreneurs: There is a dominance of the study of the training needs of social entrepreneurs, with a strongly personalist approach and based on the paradigm of the individual entrepreneur. In contrast, there is a lack of studies on the training needs of the technical and management staff of social enterprises. In this field, Miller et al. made one of the early efforts to compare perceptions of training needs, comparing the perceptions of teaching staff and social entrepreneurs [60]. A distinct body of the literature is that which proposes a single social entrepreneurship competence, which synthetically groups together the aspects that make social entrepreneurs unique [61,62,63].

A section that is very close to the training needs is the study of the profiles and typologies of social entrepreneurs, generally based on statistical studies [64,65,66,67]. This research identifies the existence of very well-defined profiles with highly differentiated training paths and training needs [10].

6. Empirical studies of training needs assessment: It has already been pointed out that using self-assessment and/or perception techniques, there are various proposals that have analysed the training needs of specific groups and territories. These include, for example, the studies carried out periodically by EUCLID in the European Social Enterprise Monitor [68] or the studies carried out with Mexican students [69].

To summarise, it can be said that research on education and social enterprise has little in common with general studies on social enterprise and entrepreneurship education. In many cases, the focus is on the how rather than the what, and there is a very large body of publications on pedagogical and didactic methodologies for training social entrepreneurs, with a slight lack of studies on the content of this training.

In the synthesis of the literature, one can point to the persistence of strongly contradictory judgements on the status of training in social enterprise, with differences in opinion on the level of development, the appropriate methodology, and the content of training. The ambivalence about the role of education in the development of social enterprise is not accidental. Whether it is considered to be a priority or a secondary issue, whether it is considered to be sufficiently covered by supply or the opposite, it is clear that there is no unanimity about the needs of social enterprise workers; it is not easy to know what is needed or what entity is lacking in social enterprise training when the competence characteristics of social entrepreneurs or the uniqueness of these entrepreneurs compared to conventional commercial entrepreneurs are not clear.

Stakeholders are, however, divided in their perceptions of the lack of skills of social entrepreneurs. Some believe that social enterprises should be formed and based on the principles of social economy, with a clear distinction from the business sector. Others believe that the origin of many social enterprises, coming from the associative sector, poses a challenge to their sustainability and successful development due to their lack of entrepreneurial orientation ([70], p. 147).

This fact is not isolated; many aspects of the social enterprise itself are permanently paradoxical and subject to contradictory interpretations [71]. It seems extremely difficult to determine the training deficiencies of social enterprise professionals (current and future), as well as the adequacy of the training offer, if there is no definition of the competences required to work in social enterprise and their singularity with respect to the competences of a conventional enterprise professional. This hybrid nature creates a dual problem: training for social enterprises is based on providing business management training for people with social profiles and social training for people with business profiles. In the end, it is all a variant of the problem of the hybrid nature of social enterprise [28], or what other authors call the tension between commercial and social welfare logics [28]. This essential hybridisation and tension can become more complex because authors like Pache and Chowdhury go so far as to identify up to three approaches to social enterprise (market, social, and public administration approaches) [12].

The working hypothesis that can be maintained in this paper is that the greater the conviction of the radically unique character of social enterprise, the higher the perceived lack of competence, while those who consider social enterprise to be “an enterprise like any other, with some nuances in its purpose, will perceive little demand for training”.

From all the sources consulted, it is clear that social enterprise is a field in expansion, both in terms of the economic figures that this type of organisation represents, the institutional support it enjoys, and the volume of scientific publications dedicated to its analysis. Consistent with this growth, training practices for social enterprise have increased, as has research into training for social enterprise, but it is a field with little identity and in which certain unproven axioms are assumed that need to be more rigorously tested. One of these axioms is related to the lack of training, which is closely related to the idea of the uniqueness of the training needs of social enterprise professionals compared to other sectors. This is particularly relevant because many of the policy documents promoting social enterprise start from the importance of education, but the actions proposed are not always based on clear evidence.

In order to try to provide information that will allow progress to be made in this debate, the aim of this paper is to assess the training needs in the field of social entrepreneurship in four European countries (Italy, Greece, Finland, and Spain) and, based on the results, to make a proposal for competences and learning outcomes that will allow effective and relevant training offers to be configured.

3. Methodology

The methodology attempts to answer the following research questions:

-

What are the skills considered most necessary for working in social enterprise?

-

Is there a perceived mismatch between training needs and training provision in the four countries considered?

-

What factors condition this perception of a mismatch between the needs and the supply of training for working in social enterprise?

The response to the research questions has been carried out on the basis of a series of research actions carried out under a project funded by the European Commission. The research work is inspired by the methodology of competence mapping, specifically that based on quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

All the work has been carried out trying to make a comparative approach between the four participating countries (Finland, Greece, Italy, and Spain) and the three institutions (higher education institutions, vocational training institutions, and social enterprise).

The comparative analysis undertaken in the quantitative study encompassed four distinct partner countries—Finland, Greece, Italy, and Spain—which exhibit varying degrees of maturity and development within the domain of social enterprises. These variances can be succinctly summarised as follows:

• Greece’s social enterprise sector is still at an early stage of progression, and is beset by a paucity of financial instruments and tools that have hindered its growth. This situation is partly attributable to the absence of formal institutionalisation until as recently as 2011. Nonetheless, despite these impediments, the number of Greek social enterprises has grown significantly in recent years, as documented by Varvarousis and Tsitsirigkos [72].
• Italy’s social enterprise landscape is characterised by a well-established cooperative sector, indicative of a long-standing tradition of collective action and community involvement. The cooperative sector accounts for the majority of social enterprises in Italy, and possesses significant tangible assets, such as financial capital, that contribute to its resilience and sustainability. However, to remain competitive in the face of evolving market trends and technological advances, it is imperative for Italian social enterprises to continue developing and enhancing the competences of their human capital [73].
• Spain, where the social enterprise sector is relevant in terms of employment data, is among the European countries with the highest number of social economy entities [28]; however, the sector is facing sustainability difficulties, as well as the need to strengthen the sector in terms of capacities.
• Finally, in Finland, the emergence of social enterprises can be attributed to the reduced role of the public sector in the provision of social services, which has prompted a response from the private sector. This trend has resulted in a substantial increase in the output and employment of social enterprises [72].

The selection of Finland, Greece, Italy, and Spain for the development of new training programmes for social enterprises in the frame of OBCD was driven by their distinctive developmental stages. Greece’s urgent need for foundational support contrasted with the more established but skill-deficient ecosystems of Italy and Spain, while Finland’s advanced status highlighted the need for specialised training to further unleash the potential of its social enterprises. By tailoring training interventions to these unique contexts, we tried to foster resilient, effective social economies across Europe, capitalising on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses inherent in each country’s social enterprise landscape.

The research process is detailed below.

1. Work began with the formulation of the research plan based on mixed methodologies. The general approach has been inductive, with a proposed classification of skills and occupations developed from the bottom up, based on input from interviewees.

2. A study has been carried out of the competences, skills, and knowledge that in the ESCO model (European Skills, Competences, Qualifications, and Occupations) are attributed to occupational profiles directly or indirectly linked to the social enterprise.

3. In parallel, 45 personal interviews were conducted with social entrepreneurs, researchers in higher education, and trainers in vocational training (5 for each category in the four participating countries). The interviews were conducted in the native language of the different countries following a common protocol (Appendix C) and were transcribed and translated into English.

4. With the first results of the interviews and the consultation of the ESCO system of classification of competences, a questionnaire was elaborated including questions on opinions about the social economy, the importance of broad typologies of competences, and an assessment of training needs in 41 specific competences.

5. The survey process was conducted online in all four member countries in autumn 2022 and resulted in 122 responses. The questionnaire (Appendix B) was carried out in a participatory manner, developing a pilot test to demonstrate the reliability, comprehension, and accuracy of the translations and the consistency of the questionnaire. Some of the questions were inspired by the definition of competences developed by the European Framework of Competences. The responses were processed and analysed using the SPSS Statistics 29.0 software. Mainly chi-square tests and cluster analysis were carried out to integrate the competences.

6. The results of the qualitative interviews were integrated into a joint document consisting of 68,885 words. Analysis tests were carried out with the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software ATLAS TI (version 24.2.0), a tool that supports locating, coding and annotating features within bodies of unstructured data [74]. The qualitative results were analysed using mixed methodologies (citation accounting and discourse analysis).

7. With the data from the qualitative and quantitative reports, the first list of competences was compiled. In the quantitative study, 41 competences were proposed for evaluation. All of them were analysed with crosstabulations and chi-square and factorial tests in order to be able to classify the competences more effectively. The qualitative interviews had 1877 references to types of competences that were classified and categorised.

8. This first list was tested and assessed by experts, recoding and integrating some of them and generating a mapping of five broad categories of competences (functional, digital, transversal, green, and soft). On this basis, 192 subdimensions, 80 competences, and 20 categories of competences were defined (Appendix A).

To conclude the presentation of the methodology, both the research team and all the project partners would like to thank all the participants in the survey and interviews, as well as the experts who have advised and evaluated the proposal, pointing out that the ethical rules of research and data protection regulations have been complied with throughout the process.

Figure 1 details the research process.

4. Results

4.1. Core Competences

With regard to the core competences for working in social enterprise, the first result is qualitative in nature and reflects the number of spontaneous responses, made by the 45 interviewees, grouped according to thematic affinity criteria. Figure 2 shows the number of references:

The qualitative data show an important presence of spontaneous references to soft skills, green competences, and communication competences and a lower presence of technical and economic references. Based on the qualitative study, a survey was carried out among 122 social enterprise professionals from the four participating countries, in which one of the questions refers to the perceived importance of the competences (Figure 3).

The results show a relatively low valuation of the economic and management aspects, together with environmental aspects, compared to a high valuation of the social innovation, social impact, and soft skill aspects. These results are complex to understand due to the undervaluation of the management aspects, which constitute one of the basic cores of business work. In order to understand the reasons for these ratings, a statistical analysis was carried out to determine the causes of these ratings.

Firstly, contingency tables were drawn for the nine variables related to the assessment of certain competences and the respondents’ country of origin and sex (

Table 1. Relationship between the variables: Country and sex of respondents and Rating of the importance of the selected competences.

	Country			Sex
Variables	Value	df 1	Asymptotic Significance (Bilateral)	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (Bilateral)
Social issue contents and competences	10.395	12	0.581	4.425	4	0.352
Economic issue contents and competences	15.541	12	0.213	2.391	4	0.664
Management and marketing issues	21.286	12	0.046	10.471	4	0.033
Environmental issues	24.464	12	0.018	8.401	4	0.078
Soft skill contents and competences	30.373	12	0.002	2.424	4	0.658
Digital competence contents and competences	9.596	12	0.651	8.240	4	0.083
Interdisciplinarity contents and competences	24.145	9	0.004	9.358	3	0.025
Social innovation contents and competences	9.328	12	0.675	11.227	4	0.024
Social impact management and measurement contents and competences	12.203	12	0.430	12.928	4	0.012

¹ degree of freedom. Source: own elaboration.

). Adjustment measures were carried out using the χ² test. The results show that the differences between countries are not significant, except in the case of environmental issues, which are more highly rated in Finland, and in the case of interdisciplinary competences, which are difficult to interpret. The gender of the respondent seems to have a greater weight as a conditioning factor, but this is an erroneous interpretation, as it derives from the bias that women value all competences more highly. Women rate all the dimensions as more important, although in some the bias is so marked as to be significant.

As the influences of country and gender were inconclusive, a χ²-analysis of the impact of the belief in the distinct uniqueness of social enterprise on the perceived importance of different competences was carried out.

Belief in the uniqueness of social enterprise was measured on the basis of an attitudinal question, the results of which are shown in the table below (

Table 2. Degree of agreement with the following statement: today, workers in social enterprises need very different skills and qualifications from those in conventional enterprises.

Response Options	Frequency	Percentage
Strongly disagree	8	6.6
Somewhat disagree	21	17.2
Neither agree nor disagree	14	11.5
Somewhat agree	48	39.3
Strongly agree	31	25.4
Total	122	100.0

Source: own elaboration.

):

Table 3. Chi-square test results. Relationship between the variables belief in the uniqueness of social enterprise and assessment of the importance of selected competences.

Variables	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (Bilateral)
Social issue contents and competences	27.455	16	0.037
Economic issue contents and competences	16.399	16	0.425
Management and marketing issues	14.685	16	0.548
Environmental issues	28.447	16	0.028
Soft skill contents and competences	33.094	16	0.007
Digital competence contents and competences	15.377	16	0.497
Interdisciplinarity contents and competences	22.509	12	0.032
Social innovation contents and competences	19.712	16	0.233
Social impact management and measurement contents and competences	20.190	16	0.212

Source: own elaboration.

shows the indicators of the fit between beliefs in the uniqueness of the social enterprise and the ratings given to the importance of the different competence areas.

The results show that the respondents who are most convinced of the uniqueness of social enterprise compared to other forms of organisation are those who attach the most importance to social, environmental, soft skill, and interdisciplinarity contents. The interpretation is straightforward and is related to the controversies about the dual mission of social enterprise. Those who believe in the uniqueness of social enterprise value the commercial and economic aspects in a similar way to those who do not believe in this uniqueness, but value the social, environmental, and soft skill aspects, which are the distinguishing features of social enterprise, differently.

In the same way, the conviction that social enterprise is unique is also strongly related to the assessment given to the difficulty of finding qualified people. The survey gives the following results in terms of difficulty in finding qualified people to work in social enterprises (

Table 4. Results of the degree of agreement with statements related to social enterprise training.

	In the Formal Education System There Is Little Training Available Related to the Social Economy	The Social Enterprise Sector Currently Faces Significant Difficulties in Finding Workers with the Right Skills to Work in This Sector
Response Options	Percentage	Percentage
Strongly disagree	0.8	4.9
Somewhat disagree	8.2	13.1
Neither agree nor disagree	16.4	18.0
Somewhat agree	33.6	40.2
Strongly agree	41.0	23.8
Total	100.0	100.0

Source: own elaboration.

).

Table 5. Chi-square test results. Relationship between the variables social enterprise uniqueness beliefs and variables related to the adequacy of the educational system.

Response Options	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (Bilateral)
In the formal education system (vocational training and university) there is little training available related to the Social Economy.	27.571	16	0.036
The social enterprise sector currently faces significant difficulties in finding workers with the right skills to work in this sector.	48.959	16	0.000

Source: own elaboration.

shows, once again, that beliefs about the adequacy of the education system and the difficulties in finding skilled workers are related to ideas about the uniqueness of social enterprise.

It should be noted that the responses on the adequacy of the education system are also affected by country since the chi-square tests express significant differences between countries in terms of their belief in the uniqueness of social enterprise (e.g., Italy expresses a stronger belief in this uniqueness). In the same way, countries also express differences in the assessment of the adequacy of their education system for the needs of social enterprise, so the two variables that most strongly condition the perception of training needs are the belief in the uniqueness of social enterprises and the country of the respondent.

4.2. Difficulty in Finding Competent Workers for Social Enterprise Work

The survey and the qualitative research addressed the assessment of the degree of difficulty in finding people with certain skills for the job in social enterprise. Figure 4 shows the main results, referring to the job of social enterprise managers.

It is difficult to establish a clear synthesis of the results since the “easiest skills to find in the labour market” include those related to digitalisation, environmental management, human resources, being an “advocate for others”, or developing networks and social alliances. At the other end of the spectrum are skills related to critical thinking, open innovation processes, social impact assessment, internationalisation, and innovation and fundraising, which are mostly considered difficult or very difficult to find. In order to be able to interpret this variable, it has been crossed with the country and with beliefs in the uniqueness of social enterprises (using the chi-square test). Although there are some examples of significant relationships, this analysis is dominated by a lack of significant associations, so the variables conditioning these evaluations are more complex than expected.

4.3. Mapping and Classification of Competences for the Position of Social Enterprise Manager

The lists of competences used in the survey and the interviews seemed to express coherent behavioural trends, and for this reason, a factor analysis was carried out to try to group the variables into groups of homogeneous behaviour. For this purpose, and since the KMO test expressed the relevance of factor analysis, the following rotated component matrix (with Varimax rotation) was developed (

Table 6. Rotated component matrix ¹.

Variables	Factors
	1	2	3	4	5
Analyse and control the financial performance of the social enterprise	0.059	0.129	0.668	0.474	−0.067
Design and manage fundraising activities	0.075	0.212	0.732	−0.022	0.192
Develop networks and social alliances	0.300	0.399	0.160	0.087	0.619
Advocate for others	0.180	0.114	0.086	0.186	0.845
Develop the business model and business plan of a social enterprise	0.180	0.104	0.261	0.736	0.332
Develop the strategic plan for a social enterprise	0.261	0.087	0.111	0.813	0.205
Explore options for internationalisation and facilitate initiatives	0.385	0.193	0.581	0.126	0.248
Show an exemplary and responsible leading role in the social enterprise	0.679	0.247	0.151	0.115	0.303
Enact open governance processes in the social enterprise	0.704	0.300	−0.114	0.215	0.170
Formulate organisational policies and share the organisational culture in the social enterprise	0.750	0.372	0.116	0.006	0.123
Establish human resource management policies and practices	0.426	0.537	0.160	0.287	0.128
Facilitate decision-making in a participatory context	0.713	0.178	0.098	0.317	0.082
Develop social innovation processes	0.765	0.034	0.418	0.089	0.186
Use service design in the social innovation process	0.583	0.157	0.331	0.103	0.201
Assess and report the social impact of the social enterprise	0.344	0.273	0.594	0.224	−0.070
Develop an environmental management policy	0.210	0.432	0.102	0.626	0.010
Develop the marketing strategy and social branding of the social enterprise	0.049	0.426	0.349	0.368	0.425
Develop open innovation processes	0.569	0.353	0.305	0.206	−0.058
Use ICT in social enterprise management	0.345	0.748	0.116	0.226	0.213
Manage the digitalisation of marketing activities	0.196	0.823	0.245	0.073	0.168
Plan and manage the transition to the use of Cloud services, online presence, and digital services	0.253	0.763	0.219	0.100	0.189
Possess soft and transversal skills (decision-making, resilience, active listening, critical thinking, learning to learn, self-control and self-management, and time management)	0.483	0.270	0.041	0.264	0.539
Critically analyse complex social and business issues in terms of wholes and relationships	0.512	0.012	0.460	0.268	0.199

Source: own elaboration. ¹ Variables with the highest correlations to each factor are highlighted.

).

The results express the possibility of grouping the competences into five broad competence domains, as they are consistently rated by the respondents.

This factor analysis and the different classification systems used have allowed the following competence classification system to be developed:

Factor 1: Social enterprise governance and innovation, grouping variables related to leadership, policy formulation, decision-making, innovation processes, critical thinking, and innovation processes.

Factor 2: ICTs, marketing, and human resources, which groups together aspects of human resource management as well as digitalisation, digital marketing, and the use of online services.

Factor 3: Funding and social impact that groups together variables related to financial control, fundraising, and social impact assessment.

Factor 4: Strategic planning and environmental management which is a factor with similar themes to factor 1, but which groups governance variables that are more specialised in strategic planning with social and environmental content.

Factor 5: Soft skill, social, and relational competences include interdisciplinary skills applicable to any organisational context, with the basic aim of facilitating the relationship between the individual and the social and organisational system.

4.4. Competence Classification System

Based on the coherence expressed in the factor analysis, on the classification systems of the qualitative results, and on the available competence catalogues (EBSCO), the following list of competences is proposed as the characteristics of any professional (whether managerial or administrative) in a social enterprise.

In the course of the research, each broad category was divided into individual competences, which were further classified into sub-dimensions. This results in a very diverse and varied mapping of competences covering a wide range of topics. This classification system is detailed below.

5. Conclusions

The theoretical implications of the research results have two relevant dimensions:

Firstly, an assessment of the role of training deficiencies as a constraint to the development of social enterprises. Previous surveys have shown that training deficiencies are a conditioning factor in the development of social enterprise in Europe, but that they are not perceived as having a major impact [68]. In the present study, a medium-high skills shortage perception has been described, although, in studies of training needs, a negative bias is common in the evaluation of the workers’ skills level. The results are not radically different from those obtained by other studies such as those developed by the European Union has published in the context of social enterprise [17,68].

The results vary according to the types of competence and the country considered, but in no case can we speak of a critical situation in terms of average human resources training in the four European countries for work in social enterprise. Despite this, there is still plenty of room for improvement, specifically in the competences of critical thinking, social impact assessment, fundraising, internationalisation, and innovation.

Secondly, the results raise a reflection on the uniqueness of training for social enterprises compared to training for work in conventional commercial enterprises. In this sense, the debate is not about more or less training, but about the impact that the different conceptions of social enterprise have on the perception of basic competences for a worker. In this sense, the data clearly show that the conviction of the uniqueness of social enterprise is associated with a greater importance for social competences, innovation, and soft skills. It also influences to some extent the assessment of the difficulty of finding professionals in the labour market, but this influence is minor.

6. Discussion

Two distinct discussions are outlined here:

The first concerns general management competences and those specialised in a management field. This is a subject that has been studied for arts management [75], sports management [76], hospital management [77], and other types of management, and in which the role of managerial competences (abstract and applicable to any context) and specific competences (referring specifically to the sector of activity) are debated. This debate is constantly open and, in the case of social enterprise, involves determining which should carry more weight: general business management skills or skills derived from the social function of the enterprise.

The second question relates to the factors that condition the perception of training needs and their own coherence. This is a relevant issue because a significant number of training studies are based on surveys and the detection of needs based on the perception of the actors involved. Understanding the biases and conditioning factors that affect this perception is important because it can help to understand the validity of their opinions. This study has found some consistency in perceptions while establishing that the key variable conditioning perceptions is the understanding of the mission of the social enterprise. This fact helps to understand the diversity of diagnoses that exist on the training needs of social enterprise, derived from the existence of different conceptions of its mission and uniqueness.

In a sense, the fundamental issue is not to assess whether or not the existing training is sufficient to work in social enterprises, but to determine the impact that the existing types of training have on the identity and uniqueness of social enterprises. Training can ensure that a social enterprise’s mission and foundations follow social itineraries in the face of a possible scenario of rapprochement and integration with the logic of commercial enterprise.

Undoubtedly, the detection of training needs based exclusively on perception surveys is incomplete and subject to bias. Although interviews and surveys have been conducted with professionals from social enterprises and educational institutions, in order to rigorously define training needs, it is advisable to triangulate the data with educational and employment statistics, establishing a dialogue between perceptions and data. In this

From a theoretical point of view, the results of the present study may contribute to the debates on the concept and functions of social enterprise. In a complementary way, these results may also be valuable for the established debate between universalist and contingent conceptions in human resource management. The universalist approach assumes that good human resource management practices are universally effective in all organisations. The validity of human resource management principles is independent of the institutional context and nature [78]. On the contrary, the contingency theory holds that the success of human resource practices depends on different internal and external factors specific to each organisation. This theory points out the importance of adapting human resource strategies to the situation and condition of the company [79].

The research presented in this article contributes data to this theoretical debate in the case of social enterprises. The statistical results show that singularist conceptions of the social enterprise (those that emphasise its difference from other enterprise models) perceive different competency profiles, different processes, and different human resource management needs. It can be affirmed that the majority of the respondents are closer to the proposals of the Contingent Theory of Human Resource Management. These points of view reject de facto any universalist approach and consider that management competences are not common to any type of organisation. Most of the respondents consider that the management models of the social enterprise should give special importance to the care of the social relationship and to soft skills. In a sense, this perspective argues that social enterprises should develop a more ‘humanistic’ and people-centred management model. It is important to point out that this is the majority opinion, but not unanimous. Up to a quarter of the population surveyed defends positions closer to the universalist theory. This information can be valuable for promoting the theoretical debate on human resource management in social enterprises, as several authors have suggested [80,81].

Part of the research addresses the uniqueness of social enterprise training in relation to other forms of business training. There is no scientific answer to this question, but rather a political one. In other words, if we want social enterprise to be markedly different from commercial enterprise, the basic training should be very different, both in terms of content and skills, and even in terms of values. In the opposite case, if the aim is to make the difference between the two types of entity less marked, the current training in business management and administration could be sufficient, provided that specific training in taxation, accounting, and the legislative framework for social enterprises is adapted.