Indicator Development for Measuring Social Solidarity Economy

Abstract

This study seeks to develop a comprehensive instrument to evaluate and measure social and solidarity economy (SSE)-related activities. The instrument was designed to identify key dimensions of the SSE. The methodological process, in its initial stage, consisted of the development of an established operational definition and a conceptual framework for SSE, identifying the main characteristics from the existing literature. Subsequently, five dimensions were identified; these dimensions were further researched to identify sub-dimensions, which enabled the identification of key measurable indicators. Based on these findings, an instrument was created, incorporating quantitative and qualitative questions, which was tested and applied to a case study of SSE activity. Subsequently, the scores for each dimension were normalized and presented on a radar graph, allowing for a clear visual comparison across the SSE dimensions and highlighting the organization’s alignment with SSE principles. The results reveal the strengths and areas for improvement in the organization’s practices. This study contributes to the field of SSE by empirically testing an instrument tailored to SSE activities across diverse contexts. The research demonstrates the practical application of the instrument in a real-world setting, serving as a valuable tool for SSE-based organizations to assess their alignment with core SSE principles and values.

1. Introduction

The SSE has gained relevance as an alternative model to the traditional economic system, proposing a form of organization based on principles and values (Laville 2015), prioritizing the needs of people and social equity (Villalba-Eguiluz et al. 2020), social justice (Etxezarreta et al. 2014) and sustainability. However, the lack of a clear and agreed-upon conceptual framework has made it difficult to measure its presence. In this context, the need arises to develop a tool that allows for quantifying this dynamic, understanding not only its economic benefits but also its social and environmental effects. The research problem consists of the need to clarify a current definition of the SSE concept (Bonfil 2020), which will allow for the development of a conceptual framework that adequately measures the SSE phenomenon.

Based on an exhaustive review of the literature, its dimensions and indicators are identified to quantify activities in an SSE. Initially, the aim was to identify the outstanding characteristics of the SSE and analyze various approaches used by different actors (e.g., academics and civil society), as well as perspectives from different geographical regions on how they understand SSE. This research uses a case study approach to apply the SSE measurement instrument to an SSE-based organization, conducting a detailed analysis of its practices, contributions and deficiencies within the SSE framework.

Thus, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

What are the key dimensions of the social and solidarity economy (SSE)?

What indicators are most relevant and useful for measuring activities in an SSE?

How consistent and reliable are the generated indicators when applied to evaluate an SSE-based organization’s practices?

The quantitative methods that exist in the current economic paradigm are not adequate to understand the SSE from a quantitative perspective, so certain limitations arise in terms of reporting and understanding it. However, in the operational dynamics of the SSE, there are continuous quantifiable actions at all levels; hence, the need to search for quantitative methodologies arises as an important aspect of this economic dynamic. According to Sotiropoulou (2020), individuals involved in the SSE “choose to explore quantities that go unnoticed in conventional quantitative methods, and their discourse and practices are full of quantitative understandings, which are a basic requirement for the entire activity to develop and succeed; however, this completely eludes the quantitative knowledge and methods that currently exist in economics and other fields in the social sciences. This study seeks to fill this gap by developing a quantitative measurement instrument suitable for SSE activities. Although there is no single approach to measuring SSE dynamics, this research proposes to adapt existing methods and strategies to develop a measurement framework according to the particular characteristics of SSE-based organizations, such as community collectives, social enterprises, cooperatives and foundations. By applying this framework, we aim to fairly assess SSE activities, including those that are at the intersection of the public and private sectors, considering their social and environmental contributions. However, the lack of clarity concerning the notion of SSEs in the social and political spheres (Bonfil 2020), makes the development of a framework challenging; thus, organizations that perform these activities are not visible within the current market economy paradigm, to which we usually turn for answers. This paradigm, which is based on perpetual growth, is unsustainable, with economic progress primarily measured through gross domestic product (GDP). This focus on GDP suggests that economic growth is not necessarily comparable to social development (Coraggio 2007), consequently widening the gap in inequality. Therefore, SSE contributes to a reduction in inequality and the incorporation of marginalized population segments. GDP is often misused, as its role as a measurement mechanism overlooks important factors related to well-being. Also, this measure largely ignores the value of natural and social capital, as well as the distribution of wealth and income, only measuring growth in monetary terms (Stiglitz et al. 2009). Hence, having considerable data on SSE activities would make visible the human impact not contemplated by GDP metrics.

The lack of measurable elements in the SSE has left this economic sector in the dark regarding public policy. Without a system of measurement indicators to justify the allocation of state resources for social activities, these actions cannot be supported, leading to their neglect. For this reason, organizations are under pressure to demonstrate their social impact (OECD 2021). Consequently, organizations resort to disguising results. Likewise, by not having a framework, we cannot identify areas for improvement related to SSE activities. Today, conclusive quantitative and qualitative studies and methodologies to “quantify” the effective contributions of SSE are needed (Morais and Bacic 2020). According to Waring (1999), qualitative methods reveal a quantitative world that is not represented in economic textbooks, and when glimpsed in anthropology or other fields in the social sciences, it is marginalized as non-economic or, if economic, as not quantifiable in economic terms, which underlines the need to understand methods and approaches to SSE’s measurement that capture its essence. There is no standard method for calculating SSE measures or a universally accepted framework that encompasses the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in which SSE activities interact (Saïd et al. 2018).

2. Literature Review

This section seeks to identify existing frameworks and methods of measuring an SSE, as well as analyze how different theoretical and empirical research has been conducted and implemented, in addition to identifying gaps in current practices to establish a foundation for the design of a comprehensive and practical instrument to measure SSE. It also aims to describe how the indicators of activities considered part of the SSE are constructed.

The most useful indicators are those that help in recognizing the role of the SSE in the economy and society, mainly in quality job creation and contributions toward wealth generation and membership (Bouchard and Salathé-Beaulieu 2021); thus, it is important to consider the types of employment relationships that exist within the scope of an organization that engages in SSE. Current research that undertakes the measurement, evaluation and assessment of SSEs employ different approaches consisting of social value, social impact, performance and conceptual frameworks, as well as the impact of sustainable development and based on values and principles, at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels. There is no standard method for calculating SSE measures that encompasses economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in which SSE activities interact (Saïd et al. 2018).

2.1. Analysis of the Definitions of a Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE)

The lack of an agreed upon general definition of an SSE does not allow for a clear conceptual framework to be developed that would enable the development of a meaningful measurement instrument; thus, it is essential to define an SSE and formulate an operational definition.

Prior to establishing an operational definition of an SSE, we first must set out how it is described and defined in the current literature.

SSE is a combination of “Solidarity Economy (SolEco)” and “Social Economy (SocEco)” (Maji 2017), which emerged as a response to contemporary economic, social and environmental crises and reconsidered economic relations, offering solutions based on cooperation and sustainability (Esteves et al. 2021). It is proposed as a strategy that combines regenerative ecology with the promotion of post-growth livelihoods.

An SSE is described as a radical approach to economics that aims to put people and their work at the center of the economic system, with markets serving as an instrumental tool for the well-being of all people, the reproduction of life and the sustainability of the planet. It seeks to subvert the priorities and role of the economy, focusing on human and social relations, as well as the relationship with nature, placing people and the planet at the center of policies and social and economic development (Askunze Elizaga and Díez López 2021). It aims to establish a double bottom-line model that prioritizes “people” and “planet” by removing the centrality of “profits” in the economic structure (Maji 2017).

SSEs represent a global economic justice movement that promotes sustainability, shared ownership and equitable distribution of resources while focusing on the promotion of democratic processes, social justice and economic and social development (Van Den Berk-Clark and Pyles 2011). SSE is presented as an alternative to the traditional market model.

The SSE, also known as the fourth sector, is situated amongst the voluntary, public and private sectors (Lewis and Swinney 2007), as shown in Figure 1.

Within the overlapping circles are the hybrid activities of the various sectors, such as NGOs, non-profit organizations and capitalist companies that have been acquired and transformed into cooperatives.

The SSE sector carries out economic activities with environmental, social and economic objectives through cooperation and solidarity (Klimczuk and Klimczuk-Kochańska 2015), redefining the commodification of labor, land and capital in order to propose transformative economic actions in the search for a different economic system, as well as seeking alternatives that promote redistributive justice, sustainability and participatory democracy (Raffaelli 2016).

The concept of a solidarity economy was introduced into the international discourse in 1997 in Lima, Peru, as a way of describing the economic relations that arise in non-capitalist modes of production, characterized by self-help and cooperation (Kirdina 2016). In this context, the principles of a popular and solidarity economy (similar to an SSE) are integrated into current constitutional and legal norms, which are grounded in the principles of “Buen Vivir”, prioritizing people over capital, the equitable distribution of profits, the direct administration of organizations, fair trade and self-management (Hernández Ramos et al. 2021).

Self-management (also known as autogestion or Workers’ self-management), as organized and practiced by workers, is a way to combat unemployment and promote support, protection, assistance, solidarity, cooperation and self-help for workers in vulnerable situations or without formal employment (Chalub 2018) in the SSE.

An SSE consists of the interrelation (also known as co-cooperation) of social enterprise and participatory associative organizations, including cooperatives, mutuals, savings banks, employee funds, community-based companies (Machín et al. 2017), microfinance activities, local trade systems, proximity services, organic agriculture and fair trade (Frère 2018) and associations dedicated to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, among others mentioned by Bonfil (2020). These activities, especially in Latin America, promote the democratization of the economy through citizen engagement (Gómez Calvo 2013).

2.2. Justification for Developing an Operational Definition

Operationally defined constructs provide clarity on how they will be empirically measured (in this case, the SSE construct), which is crucial for achieving rigorous and replicable research results, that is, those that others can use to understand exactly what it means and what it does not mean (Bhattacherjee 2012).

Based on these descriptions and definitions, we can summarize that the objective of the SSE is “to promote human well-being (especially for the population in vulnerable situations) and the environment, the reproduction of life and the planet and sustainability, social and economic construction with social and environmental objectives for inclusive sustainable development, through economic, cultural and political practice addressing ethical and sustainable means that contribute to the democratization of the economy by addressing contemporary economic, social and environmental crises that satisfy needs and generate income based on relationships of solidarity, cooperation and reciprocity, privileging work and the human being.”.

Considering a more streamlined approach, our operational definition consists of a macro-objective, with each dimension consisting of sub-objectives linked to it. Each sub-objective contributes in a specific way to the general goal. Together, they outline a comprehensive framework to promote the adoption of key dimensions within the context of an SSE.

2.3. Integration of SSE Principles in Organizational Processes

Therefore, this approach promotes the practice of ethical principles and moral modalities, such as sustainability, mutuality, cooperation, justice, reciprocity and mutual aid, and democracy. These principles and values (P&V) must be integrated into all sectors, including production processes, fair distribution, exchanges (Cacciari 2018; Machín et al. 2017), as well as ethical commercialization, savings and the sustainable consumption of goods and services (Tovar 2016; Guérin and Nobre 2014; Kirdina 2016; Van Den Berk-Clark and Pyles 2011; Santana 2014; Goncharenko et al. 2021), in a solidarity-oriented and non-profit manner (Machín et al. 2017; Klimczuk and Klimczuk-Kochańska 2015). This includes generating and sharing knowledge that contributes to the democratization of the economy based on solidarity and citizen commitments. The focus is on the collective interest and well-being rather than on the logic of capital that seeks profit maximization, accumulation of gains and individual benefits (Guérin and Nobre 2014; Rieiro 2021; Tovar 2016), thereby differentiating it from the hegemonic economy based on rational individualism (Rieiro 2021).

2.4. Review of Existing Measurement Tools and Identified Gaps

The social balance sheet (SBS), also known as a social audit, was initially created by the International Labour Organization (ILO et al. 2001) and is a widely recognized instruments for measuring and reporting on social performance. The SBS helps to describe and evaluate the social situation of companies, as well as advises on the proper indicators to use in the assessment of an SSE, enhancing accountability, transparency and communication on social activities (Carreras Roig and Bastida Vialcanet 2015). In the case of the social economy (SocEco), the SBS enables significant comparisons of methods and indicators suited for different types of stakeholders with the principles of cooperatives, mutuals and voluntary organizations (Spear 2001).

The SBS makes a contribution to the SocEco by increasing accountability and improving governance and adherence to good practices that are closely linked to key SSE concepts. Organizational leaders are paying increasing attention not only to shareholders’ expectations but to stakeholders’ as well, the latter including employees, customers, suppliers, public authorities, investors, the local population and NGOs (Carreras Roig and Bastida Vialcanet 2015).

The SBS gathers quantitative data regarding an entity’s social endeavors, which are indicative of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social environmental impact, thus constituting a metric for social engagement (Rissotto 2015; Fisa 1995).

The SBS methodology provides a certain degree of flexibility and adjustment, keeping in mind certain key considerations regarding an organization’s priorities (ILO et al. 2001). These elements include the following:

• Defining social policies aligned with the organizational vision;
• Conduction and facilitation of a social diagnosis;
• Setting social goals for programs and projects within an organization;
• Assigning sets of responsibilities to an interdisciplinary group;
• Defining measurable information and planning activities;
• Team training, enabling them to learn about social policies and correct use of the SBS;
• Development of models that incorporate social aims and evaluation indicators;
• Designing and developing flows of information for collecting and assessing data;
• Continuous evaluation of social goals using key data and metrics.

Both qualitative and quantitative indicators are included; for example, demographic factors are analyzed using the gender distribution, education level and employment tenure, thus facilitating trend analyses and the identification of disparities (ILO et al. 2001).

Spear (2001) asserts that social auditing goes beyond merely collecting data; it is also an interventionist process that requires the application of critical methodology in organizational learning. Ressel and Coppini (2012) emphasize the importance of the Grupo de Balance Social Cooperativo in capturing the sustainability, social and responsibility of Argentine SSE-based organizations.

The SBS primarily assesses an institution’s internal operations, but as Bouchard and Rousselière (2022) state, it must also consider community impacts and social cohesion. This aligns with criticisms directed at the CSR and the triple bottom line (TBL), the latter of which, first introduced by Elkington (1994), was criticized for tending to enable profit-driven practices masked as sustainable activities, termed “social washing” (Carbo et al. 2014).

The SBS is particularly relevant for cooperatives such as the Mondragón Corporation in Spain, as well as those in France, where social factors contribute to economic growth (Alix 2015).

In transitioning from the SBS, it becomes necessary to consider other ways of measuring an SSE in order to develop a more coherent foundation for this research. Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of SSEs, as well as the challenges and new opportunities that arise within the sector, offering perspectives on various frameworks for assessing SSE-based organizations.

Lara Gómez and Pérez Hernández (2015)’s work, entitled “Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development: Its Measurement and Scope in the Social and Solidarity Economy”, is aimed at mapping the social and technological situations in Mexico, performing a multivariate analysis of the challenges and opportunities in the SocEco.

The methodology consisted in performing a hierarchical cluster analysis of 2012 data and utilizing indicators proposed by the OECD (2014) and ECLAC (2007).

This involved data normalization, factor analysis for the clustering of components related to social outcomes and social capacity and then the clustering of institutions with similar outcomes and capacities.

The five clusters concerning Mexican states formed from a socio–technological perspective re-emphasize the capacity for inter-cooperation among SSE-based organizations within the country. This model supports the reasoning provided by Salvatori (2018), who reports that inter-cooperation can alleviate common problems related to capitalization that are experienced by cooperatives, and can aid in instituting growth and reducing dependence on profit-oriented institutions.

Their research identified five state-based cluster categories from a socio–technological perspective, illustrating how organizations that position themselves in the SSE can cooperate among each other. This model aligns with Salvatori’s (2018) perspective on the issue, implying that inter-cooperation can ease inter-organizational funding constraints, decreasing dependence on profit-making entities and supporting sustainable development.

Their research further explains the functions of the Instituto Nacional de Economia Social (INAES) in Mexico, which bridges industrial development and technological advancement (Instituto Nacional de la Economía Social Solidaria 2023). INAES’S established policies are meant to assist in economic development and enhance social organizations within the market. The results show that social innovativeness is essential, especially for cooperatives, as they align with the private sector and the state’s policies. However, the study raises the problem of how best to integrate a plurality of actors into the SSE sector.

In addition, Alarcón Conde (2011) argues that the lack of homogeneity in implementation and measurements across countries (e.g., Europe) has limited the impact on employment and production. In addition, the challenges associated with assessing various social and volunteer activities are said to have shaped the mapping of the SSE (Alarcón Conde 2011). The complexity of measuring in-kind social transfers, as well as the various motivations of non-profit organizations, add to the complexity of the SSE’s evaluation. The study confirms that dramatic gaps in the data and distortions of reality exist in ‘measuring’ the SSE, which require attention.

Alarcón Conde (2011) explored issues related to the mapping of the SSE in Europe, highlighting the absence of uniformity in the implementation and measurement across nations, limiting its contributions to job creation and production, and creating difficulty in evaluating diverse forms of social and voluntary actions. This further complicates the SSE’s assessment, since it is difficult to measure in-kind social transfers and for-profit and non-profit organizations have varying motives. The study emphasizes the need for comprehensive data and recognizes the importance of adequately assessing the significance of the SSE’s economic and social impacts.

These studies show the need for the development of effective measurement models and strategies for inter-cooperation to achieve sustainability and effectiveness by SSE-based organizations. They lay the foundation for the development of tools for SSE assessment practices, aligning with the objectives of this research.

In keeping with the integration of a multidimensional measurement approach to evaluate the SSE, the “Buen Vivir” (BV) model (which translates to “good living”) offers a comprehensive framework. The BV is a Latin American construct that broadens the scope of factoring growth beyond wealth using a broader set of variables that include social factors and environmental well-being. This approach, which was adopted by ALBA member countries, such as Ecuador, Venezuela and several Caribbean countries, goes beyond traditional indicators such as GDP. A wide range of indicators are included, such as Gross National Happiness (GNH), Social Indicator Psychometric Index, OECD’s Better Life Index (Francés et al. 2016).

The Program for Population and Sustainable Local Development (Pydlos) conceptualizes the model for integrated and sustainable local development at the community level using the BV’s six core dimensions, called pillars, of which SSE is a key pillar. The SSE dimension elaborated by Déleg (2016) is made up of eight fundamental domains, which have 32 sub-dimensions, as well as 341 specific indicators, providing a thorough and comprehensive scope for evaluating organizations. These dimensions mainly comprise concepts related to principles, as follows:

• Characterization: employment, organizational structures and policy frameworks;
• Values, Transparency and Corporate Governance: code of ethics, collaboration with relevant parties, decentralized approach and participation in childcare projects;
• Working Standards: employee relations, medical health and safety, general career advancement, pre-retirement and trade unions;
• Commitment to Environmental Sustainability: business activities and the use of best practices in safeguarding the environment;
• Sustainable Business: nature of the services provided, social welfare activities and socially responsible management and production;
• Food Sovereignty: availability of resources, production and cultivation systems, agricultural and land policies and ethical consumption;
• Solidarity and Reciprocity: establishment and nurturing of supportive social networks;
• Fair Trade: supplier’s assessment, competitive relations, ethical consumptions and social currency.

According to Francés et al. (2016), this structure was corroborated through expert evaluations and content analysis to ensure that the chosen indicators measure the complexity of the BV concept.

The BV framework provides several insights for enhancing the SSE measuring tool, as follows:

• Holistic Integration: dimensional inclusion, such as environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and democratic participation align with the multidimensional nature of the SSE measurement framework;
• Comprehensive Indicators: detailed sub-dimensions and indicators provide a solid foundation that can serve as a basis for the development of new SSE indicators, ensuring they encompass the multidimensional aspects of an organization’s impact;
• Subjective and Objective Data Balance: the BV model seeks to integrate subjective, primary data with objective, secondary data at micro-, meso- and macro-levels, thus offering a paradigm that broadens the sources of data for the SSE evaluation;
• Contextual Adaptability: a flexible framework allowing for the adaptation of indicators to geographical and cultural conditions that correspond to a user’s method of applying the SSE instrument across various organizations and sectors.

The SSE measurement framework can benefit from the incorporation of specific aspects of the BV measurement model to evaluate an organization’s contribution to social equity, environmental sustainability and democratic governance. In an analysis proposed by Pydlos (Francés et al. 2016), the existing formulation of the measuring tool for SSE encompasses the solidarity/reciprocity dimension, which only has one sub-dimension—solidarity association—consisting of twenty-two indicators.

Compared to other dimensions, it is relatively limited, likely due to the abstract nature of solidarity and the absence of a unified framework for its operationalization in the SSE. To address this limitation, it is beneficial to consider expanding this dimension by incorporating more comprehensive and measurable indicators. To overcome such a limitation, it would be worthwhile to expand this dimension by incorporating more comprehensive measurable indicators.

The Economic Solidarity Index (ESI), developed by Hrynevych and Goncharenko (2018), is a valuable method for assessing the level of solidarity within economies at the macro-level. This indicator was developed in order to measure key elements of the solidarity economy, with special focus on the existing potential and developmental reserves. The inclusion of a dimensional approach, such as with this index, into the current measurement instrument will improve the solidarity/reciprocity dimension by adding structured and measurable indicators.

The ESI framework, is composed of the following four components: investment, innovation, natural resources, and labor. Each component is associated with specific solidarity-based indicators and can be customized to the organizational level of an SSE-based entity. The steps for integrating these components are as follows:

• Objectives and Scope Determination: define the objectives for assessing solidarity in the context of SSE-based organizations and outline the relevant aspects to be assessed;
• Selection of Indicators: reframe the ESI indicators to an organizational level targeting the practices and outcomes related to solidarity;
• Assessment Basis: set benchmarks for the assessment, which may involve the use of prior performance data or comparisons with comparable similar organizations;
• Graphical Analytical Representation: use graphics (e.g., radar charts) to portray level performance levels across the integration of the newly created solidarity components;
• Interpretation and Actionable Insights: analyze and identify weaknesses, strengths and areas for improvement to enhance solidarity practices and guiding strategic decision making.

Taking this information into account, the proposed sub-dimensions and indicators are presented as follows:

• Solidarity in Investment
  • Level of participation in microfinance initiatives;
  • Number of platforms engaged in solidarity investing;
  • Level of impact of investment made toward community development.
• Solidarity in Innovation
  • Encourage active participation in knowledge-sharing networks platforms;
  • Conduct collaborative research aimed at community-driven innovation;
  • Develop strategies and innovative solutions to tackle social issues.
• Ecological Solidarity (Natural Resources)
  • Integration of environmentally sustainable practices;
  • Measurement of ecological footprint, resource consumption, and pollution indicators;
  • Commitment to an innovative green strategy with the goal of reducing pollution.
• Workplace Solidarity
  • Number and scope of solidarity enterprises;
  • Employee participation in decision-making processes;
  • Policy efforts toward ensuring fair conditions and democratic workplaces.

Incorporating parts of the ESI framework is essential for broadening the measurement instrument’s ability to gain an in-depth understanding of the holistic nature of solidarity, thereby facilitating the embrace of new economic approaches that are more inclusive, sustainable and community-focused. This aligns with global attempts to measure social and environmental impacts where practices and policies can be improved using such information, enhancing the robustness and applicability of the SSE measurement instrument across diverse organizational contexts.

Varying the “Conceptual Approach to Measuring the Solidarity Economy (SolEco)”, the work of Goncharenko et al. (2021) narrows down its scope to agricultural cooperatives and the contribution of the social economy (SocEco) toward improving the sustainability of the agricultural sector. This perspective provides crucial insights for creating a solidarity-based approach applicable to Mexico’s ejidos social land system which constitutes 50.8% of the national land mass (Morett-Sánchez and Cosío-Ruiz 2017; Registro Agrario Nacional n.d., p. 3).

It addresses the problem of the underdevelopment of methodological approaches and statistical systems for the evaluation of solidarity within the agrarian sphere, proposing the creation of an indicator system that encapsulates solidarity within the sector and integrates it into an overall index. Building upon previous work by Hrynevych and Goncharenko (2018), this study adapted the minimax method and a system of quantitative indicators for measuring the SolEco as a socioeconomic phenomenon to identify solidarity-driven transformations of the economy at a national level. To ensure suitability for the solidarity agro-industry, this method was refined by broadening the indicator system.

The conceptual methodology integrates a logical generalization, systematic analysis and thematic literature analysis. Secondary data from scientific literature were searched for via the SolEco web portal, and Eurostat methodologies enabled the selection of relevant indicators.

The findings illustrate the contributions of the SolEco to the agricultural sector, leading to social and political recognition. The analysis looks into both quantitative and qualitative metrics, revealing the sector’s solidarity potential. This scientific and methodological framework can be applied to Mexico, where ejidos constitute an integral part of the social economy, as per their legal standing, and it can be improved upon by developing a satellite account, an example of which can be found in the study by INEGI (2022), although this study only measured the SSE’s contribution to GDP.

The Satellite Account of the Social Economy of Mexico study was conducted in 2018. It incorporated social economy data into the Mexican National Account System. This project, which included INEGI and INAES, mapped SSE entities and calculated their economic outputs. According to INEGI (2022), the SSE accounted for MXN 354,706 million in GDP and a total of 1,751,695 jobs (4.5% of national employment), with the majority of the SSE’s GDP (70.7%) coming from ejidos. However, some entities were excluded, such as irregular companies and commercial companies dominated by social capital, thus limiting a comprehensive analysis. Despite the robustness and rigor of this approach, it poses risks of reinforcing the neoliberal paradigm, as mentioned by Keurhorst (2020).

Mexico’s SSE measurement closely mirrors the satellite account methodology used in Spain, though it uniquely includes ejidos. This strategy serves as an exploratory guide for further research on the SSE dynamics present throughout diverse contexts. Highlighting observations from the representative of CIRIEC’s Mexican chapter, Rojas Herrera (2023) stresses the need for further measurement efforts to strengthen the SSE’s role in the national economy, citing the slow growth in the SSE’s contributions to the GDP of 1.2% from 2013 to 1.6% in 2018; these data may omit some factors.

According to the OECD (2023), Mexico had 15,705 SSE economic units, with a work force of 4.4 million, accounting for about 10% of total employment. Key indicators include the number of SSE-based activities and jobs created, as well as the contribution to GDP and the gender distribution.

Mexico’s general law (LESS 2023) on the SSE does not provide a clear definition. Bonfil (2020) addressed this issue and proposed a categorical breakdown of SocEco entities according to their aims, fields of activity, types of governance, and types of assistance provided. In this context, legislations should offer a foundational legal framework for SSE operations that will then enable SSE measures.

Developing a comprehensive conceptualization of SSE-based activities is required, and measures must be identified and clarified. Keurhorst (2020) proposed instruments that acknowledge social value as a function of relationships and a context that illustrates diverse economic frameworks.

While the guidelines provided by UNRISD (Saïd et al. 2018) in the context of SSE measurements are helpful, the implementation of SSE in Mexico, as evidenced by the report, provides room for areas of growth. It is stressed that greater legislative clarity, better methodologies and continued measurement is essential to ensure that the SSE realizes its potential for transformative change.

SSE Impact Measurement and Evaluation: Challenges, Tools and Performance Methodology.

The longitudinal study (Sustainable Development Impact Indicators for the Social Solidarity Economy: State of the Art) that was initiated during the year 2019 under a project, “Évaluation et mesure d’impact en économie sociale” sponsored by UNRSD, is further elaborated by Salathé-Beaulieu et al. (2019).

The project studied the influence and effectiveness of SocEco organizations in Quebec, Canada. The aim of the research was to refine, test and expand currently applied approaches and systems of measurable indicators of the performance of economic actors, with focus on the 2030 agenda and the SDGs.

The analysis delineates a number of strategies for assessing the performance, effectiveness and impact of SSE-based organizations, examining assessment approaches and indicators at the micro-level. It presents tools for the evaluation of mixed-value companies and examines how the indicators assess SMMEs’ contributions to the integration of sustainability objectives. Around one-hundred international frameworks, tools and methodologies were identified showcasing the complexity and gaps in the current approaches (Salathé-Beaulieu et al. 2019).

The key methodologies analyzed include the theory of change, social accounting, tools from the cooperative sector, France’s notion of “utilité sociale”, sustainable livelihoods approach, social return on investment (SROI) method, IRIS indicator bank and the impact assessment system that the B-Lab provides (Salathé-Beaulieu et al. 2019, p. 26).

Bouchard and Rousselière (2022), in their analysis, entitled “Recent Advances in Measuring the Impact of the Social and Solidarity Economy: Empirical and Methodological Challenges”, explore social impact assessment trends (which are typically outsourced to private firms).

Their analysis focuses on how impact measurement affects organizational modes of action and representation of the SSE sector. Highlighting the necessity of a rigorous assessment that goes beyond mere product completion metrics to determine social impact, they also advise against the use of non-social enterprise-based tools, such as those that deploy monetary measures to SSE-based organizations, which can lead to unrealistic but traditional for-profit business expectations. Utting (2014) observes that policymakers require an adequate body of evidence to take into account social measures. Further, UNRISD warns against overly idealizing the SSE among civil society and within academic circles, which can lead to overlooking its limitations and contradictions.

Social return on investment (SROI) is a methodology designed to measure the social, environmental and socioeconomic impacts of investments. This tool, based on principles, allows for the assessment of non-financial value, that is, the environmental, social and economic impacts that are not reflected in traditional financial accounting. SROI provides organizations with a way to quantify and analyze the impact they generate for their main stakeholders, thus facilitating the identification of opportunities to improve the management of their activities and optimize the use of invested resources (ECODES 2023; Rotheroe and Miller 2008). The SROI, as an investment analysis strategy that extends beyond traditional accounting of finances, seeks to measure the social, environmental and economic effects of an investment. The method uses the formula SROI = net present value of benefits/net present value of investment (Arena et al. 2016) and emphasizes directing financial values toward the social activities of the organizations, although this has caused some controversy due to its subjectiveness (Achkar et al. 2005).

The literature reveals that SSE measurement techniques are continuously evolving, and many of the methods and tools lack standardization. There is a pressing need for wide-ranging and flexible tools that capture both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of an SSE. The review contains perspectives from the Global North and South and also acknowledges the criticism that CSR indicators are likely to evolve into overly market-driven slogans (Hrynevych and Goncharenko 2018). This draws attention to the importance of developing measurement instruments that are intricate enough to push for policy integration and improved visibility of SSE.

• Rationale for the Dimensional Selection

2.5. Socioeconomic

This dimension focuses on improving the economic and social conditions of communities, promoting equality and equity. SSE-based activities are presented as socioeconomic entities where real social interests must converge with fundamental human values (Ressel and Coppini 2012). Thus, in this section, we focus on the principles and values (P&V) that are included in the SSE framework.

Certain measurement tools can reinforce a neoliberal mindset and limit the socioeconomic transformation envisaged by the SSE movement (Keurhorst 2020); however, it involves highly rigorous work by experts in their field, carried out under an established paradigm that seeks to integrate qualitative data.

In the context of the SSE, scale economies are generated by combining demands (i.e., needs) and satisfiers as a supply, following a particular logic for the development of socioeconomic enterprises. These organizations, starting from a private base, carry out actions to generate social products that impact its members, their families and the community in general. By appealing to participatory self-management and socioeconomic responsibility, networks of reciprocity, solidarity and emotional ties are promoted, and direct democracy is exercised. Acting both inside and outside of the market, using their own allocation criteria, the satisfaction of each member in terms of benefits is maximized in a common area, thus generating scale economies (Álvarez Rodríguez 2017).

Monzón and Chaves (2012) provide information on the socioeconomic dimensions of the SSE, including debates on employment and its creation. They also integrate the SSE as follows:

“The set of private enterprises, formally organized, with decision-making autonomy and freedom of affiliation, created to meet the needs of its members; needs through the market by producing goods and providing services, insurance and finance, where decision making and any distribution of profits or surpluses among members are not directly related to the capital or fees contributed by each member, each of whom has a vote.” Also, the “production of non-market services for households and whose surpluses, if any, cannot be appropriated by the economic agents that create them, control them or finance them”.

(Chaves and Monzón Campos 2019)

2.5.1. SSE Principles

According to REAS (2022) the principles which integrate this dimension are cooperation, equity, ecological sustainability, commitment to the environment, fair distribution of wealth, decent work. In the context of the SSE, it rejects subjugation based on gender belief, or socioeconomic status.

The following principle is the fair distribution of wealth, which refers to the shared responsibility of material and non-material resources to meet community needs. It considers the co-responsibility of distribution. Wealth is understood as the set of materials and social, cultural and natural elements that determine the capacity of a community to meet the needs of its members in the short-, medium- and long-terms.

This principle establishes that the activities of the SSE must be integrated into the socioeconomic dimension (proposed in this study) according to the way in which its surpluses are distributed and should promote reinvestment of this wealth. This includes consolidating financial structures and encouraging the creation of financial circuits within the SSE. The development of this principle considers the following:

• Surpluses reinvestment for the development of organizations with social and environmental criteria;
• Development of an ethical and supportive financial system based on the principles of collective ownership, participation and transparency;
• Promotion of collective initiatives and solidarity mechanisms;
• The use of tools for measurement, analysis and evaluation to guarantee democratic management and transparency in the redistribution and reinvestment of surpluses;
• Integration of production, distribution, financing and consumption processes into the social market as a shared strategy to increase the positive impacts and transformative potential of SSE and its activities.

Regarding the fair distribution of wealth in the field of SSE, we can use as an example the Preston model, which seeks to promote economic democracy through municipal socialism. This approach was implemented as a response to fiscal crises and national financial redistribution in England, aiming to promote local development for the benefit of the community. The Preston model, led by the local government, with the support of universities, emphasizes, facilitates and supports cooperatives. Universities contribute (through research and training) to hospitals and cooperatives, which in turn pay taxes or contribute to public pension funds. In addition, the local government proposed the creation of a public bank and public energy service that benefits the community; later those banks will support the development of local initiatives, which in turn strengthen the local economy (Bilsborough et al. 2018).

Considering the concept of economic democracy mentioned in the Preston model, in the SSE, according Catani et al. (2009), it is defined as “… the economic activities of a society of people who seek economic democracy associated with social utility” and influenced mainly by cooperation or mutualism; these function in the market where production is obtained collectively and resources redistributed in solidarity.

2.5.2. Commitment to the Environment

Aligned with these principles, the SSE’s commitment to the environment focuses on promoting production, distribution and consumption models (in a responsible manner) centered on territory and encouraging community proposals for improvements through transformative synergistic inter-cooperation. Diversity and local cultural perspectives are also valued, recognizing the importance of including people in vulnerable situations in SSE initiatives. For its development, this principle considers the following:

• Establishment of equitable and respectful relationships (i.e., inter-cooperation);
• Use of resources and capabilities considering the capacities of the territory for development, identifying the needs arising from injustices and inequality in the territorial environment;
• Promoting active local community participation in safe spaces based on mutual care;
• Connecting and revaluing rural and urban areas for the resilience of the territorial organization;
• Disseminate proposals for SSE-based actions, objectives and results through appropriate and accessible instruments and communication channels;
• Actively participate in local networks and social movements that promote transformative actions;
• Develop and promote diverse practices, such as eco-feminist and non-discriminatory actions;
• Influence public policies for the construction of strategies that develop the environment from the perspective of good living.

2.5.3. Principles and Values (P&V) Within an SSE

Fundamental principles, such as autonomy, democracy, self-management and values such as equity are included. In this section, we found it important to analyze how they are intertwined within the SSE framework according to literary findings.

In the case of the REAS charter (mentioned above), we found it necessary to investigate the fair distribution of wealth, noting how economic justice is perceived. The new participatory economy (PE) model, by Hahnel (2013), sets itself apart from theories ranging from central planning to corporate disorganization, which are not democratic. This model is useful to us, since it has lexical similarities to those of the SSE. The values incorporated into this model are as follows:

• Self-management
  In a democratic economy (DE), individuals have control over decisions that affect their lives. With self-management, voting is contemplated for inclusion in decision making in proportion to the degree to which each individual is directly affected and the degree to which the majority is affected. This model by Hahnel (2013) considers a council of workers who have greater influence in the performance of the activity. In a democratic economy, however, because of the complexity, every decision that affects an approximation of this number of people is made using a design that allows those affected to have a say.
• Justice and rewards for personal sacrifice
  In a DE, rewards are given according to the contribution of work and degree of sacrifice and effort by the individual, whether related to work or training. That is, an individual can decide on the degree of sacrifice without it being a detriment to their well-being, having control over their time and that within their reach. An example of something not in their control would be athletic talent or knowledge that requires a high degree of specialization. For this, a measure is proposed that recognizes commensurate differences in skills and benefits.
• Solidarity
  Solidarity, according to an empirical analysis by Razeto (2017), is denoted as the “C” factor. It is observed, via SocE initiatives, that although they use low-productive road technology, low-quality materials and an unqualified labor force, as well as have poor access to capital, they are able to stay productive. The “C” factor refers to the driving force behind productive outcomes that drive unions due to shared objectives and the collective conscious of individuals. Concern for the well-being of others is fundamental in this model; it introduces solidarity into the economy in a different way, integrating it into all of its processes, including production, distribution, consumption and accumulation (Páez Pareja 2017).
• Diversity (the flourishing of lifestyles and outcomes)
  “Since humans display a wide variety of preferences, tastes, potentials, and lifestyles, the best life for one is not necessarily the best life for another. Diversity is about rejecting conformity, homogenization, and regimentation in favor of a flourishing variety of choices and outcomes in our lives. The other benefit of diversity is not putting all our eggs in one basket. It is important to experiment with different ideas, explore different options, and encourage minority viewpoints, in case one path turns out to be wrong” (Participatory Economy Project 2023).
• Efficiency (meeting goals without wasting time and resources on tasks)
  In this economic model, efficiency refers to achieving economic goals by minimizing the waste of resources, time, labor, and energy (Participatory Economy Project 2023). An example of this is agency theory in management, where shareholders (principals) establish relationships with managers (agents), which can generate distrust. This often results in costs related to monitoring agent behavior through policies and other control mechanisms, exemplifying an aspect of corporate governance. An example at the operational level includes requiring workers to follow a fixed schedule when the task could be completed in a shorter amount of time.
• Environmental Sustainability (ES) (Protection and care of the natural environment)
  ES is presented here as a principle. Although we have presented it as a macro-dimension, as stated above, however, converging factors prevent dimensions from fully being decoupled or isolated from one another, based on the notion that principles and values are embedded within these dimensions.

ES is vital for the survival of life, helping to meet our economic needs and pass on an abundant environment for future generations.

To conclude this section on the principles and values (P&V) of the SSE, we consider the process of measuring these as implying an evaluation of how they are integrated and applied by organizations based on examples in the literature and legislation, such as (LESS 2023) in Mexico, and international guidelines, such as the REAS Charter in Spain.

2.6. Environmental Sustainability (ES)

Environmental sustainability is seen as a value, such as by Felber and Hagelberg (2020) and REAS (2022). It seeks to minimize negative impacts on the environment by promoting sustainable practices and resource conservation.

The objective of this dimension, according to the operational definition, is to “Promote the adoption of sustainable practices in agriculture and other activities of the SSE, in order to empower smallholders, meet community needs and preserve the environment. The means of achieving this objective is by promoting a culture of sustainability, enabling the implementation of concrete actions for environmental regeneration and conservation, as well as promoting responsible use of resources”.

In the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development emerged as a movement by social organizations, which later gained momentum among the international community (Escobar Delgadillo 2008), resulting in international policy. It was defined as “… development that meets the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). In a very similar way, the SSE also meets needs that the market cannot, highlighting the intersection of the SSE and environmental sustainability through the creation of green jobs (Fonteneau et al. 2010).

According to Achkar et al. (2005), sustainability includes the following four dimensions:

• Ecological dimension: aspects related to preserving and enhancing the diversity and complexity of ecosystems and their productivity, natural cycles and biodiversity;
• Social dimension: equitable access to the goods of nature, both in intergenerational and intragenerational terms, between genders and between cultures, between groups and social classes, and also at the level of the individual;
• Economic dimension: requires redefinition of the concepts of the traditional economy, especially the needs, both material and immaterial, and satisfactions of human beings;
• The political dimension: direct participation by people in the decision-making process, in defining collective and possible futures, in management structures for public goods and the content of democracy.

These are presented as objectives to measure variables and indicators related to sustainability according to the 2030 Agenda for the Social Development Goals, seeking to “measure the distance and the direction of the variation of an environmental system between the initial state of the system (real-world data) and the state of transition of the system toward a sustainable scenario with the intention of maintaining a positive homeostasis for life on the planet (Achkar et al. 2005)”. Considering current sustainability models, we find “weak sustainability”, which assigns a monetary estimate to natural capital, and “strong sustainability” which recognizes that there is a finite capacity of the planet’s resources to sustain the entire human economy and maintain eco-systemic functions that support life in general. The strong criterion of sustainability considers several different types of capital (economic, ecological and social) that must be maintained independently, in real physical/biological terms. Its main motivation is derived from the “recognition that natural resources are essential inputs in economic production, consumption or well-being that cannot be substituted by physical or human capital” (Ayres et al. 1998). There is relevant information on the monetary allocation of natural resources or a pre-sector similar to the theory proposed by Jacques Fresco, called the resource-based economy; however, this does not take into account the monetary system, considering that monetization significantly limits sustainability Fresco (2007). to maintain the focus of the research we seek to consider sustainable indicators that lean toward the SSE but we must take into account the critical points in consideration, we need to understand how these measures are being carried out, how they are or are not reflected in the impact and understand their effectiveness or ineffectiveness throughout the sustainability framework. The criticism of Achkar et al. (2005) consists of the following:

• Some damage to the environmental system is irreversible;
• Some alterations to the system are uncertain;
• Damage to the environmental system is cumulative;
• Knowledge of resource reserves is uncertain;
• Nothing (or very little) is known about future technologies;
• It is not possible to reduce the diversity of units of the environmental system even to a common unit;
• Current or future monetary valuations are arbitrary;
• “Exported” impacts associated with imported products are not taken into account (Wolf et al. 2022).

Some other biophysical indicators of sustainability are as follows:

• Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel 2001) “It is the area of productive territory or aquatic ecosystem necessary to produce the resources used and to assimilate the waste produced by a population”;
• Environmental Space (Spangenberg et al. 1999) “It is the amount of renewable and non-renewable natural resources that we can use (and the levels of waste and pollution that we can afford) without depriving future generations of their right to the same use of natural resources” (Achkar et al. 2005);
• Carbon Footprint as an indicator to measure Carbon dioxide Gases (CO₂), the carbon offsets case considered policy approaches to pricing carbon dioxide in a market environment (McCowen 2017) however it has its controversies.

These are built on the basis of sustainable development requiring a social and environmental balance.

The per capita environmental space should be equal on a per individual basis, providing an equitable distribution of resources that determines the upper limit of the environmental space, where the measure of the maximum per capita consumption of resources is determined. The lower limit of the environmental space is defined as the minimum amount of per capita resources necessary for a decent life (Achkar et al. 2005). The principle of intragenerational equity, therefore, defines the human right of access to the natural resources necessary to maintain one’s standard of living (REAS 2022) between the maximum and minimum limits of the environmental space. To guide the calculations of the environmental space, a proposal analyzing the following aspects with their territorial dimension are the following:

• Energy and non-renewable raw materials, global resource;
• Wood and agricultural products, continental resources;
• Water, local or regional resources, catchment area.

Criticisms of biophysical sustainability indicators

• They do not allow for an easy comparison of situations;
• They are not universally applicable;
• The main objective is educational and not research;
• The information for their calculations is not available.

Source: Achkar et al. (2005)

The 2022 Environment Performance Index (EPI) integrates 40 performance indicators in 11 thematic categories. The EPI ranks 180 countries according to their performance on climate change, these being environmental health and ecosystem vitality (Wolf et al. 2022). The indicators of good governance for several countries (including commitment to the rule of law, a vibrant press and impartial enforcement of regulations) are strongly related with the highest scores in the EPI (Wolf et al. 2022). Good governance is a very considerable dimensional component within the framework for the construction of SSE indicators, where it is considerable to have a sustainability indicator within the proposed dimension for this work.

Ecological economics has taken a more radical stance in the critique of the pursuit of capitalist profits at the expense of nature and has come to understand the value of calculating the capability of nature in monetary terms. This has also pushed natural resources to be considered as a means of value compared to other socially constructed assets (Sotiropoulou 2020). The ecological services approach and the notion of natural capital took the argument even further, allowing for the metrication of nature according to the quantifications recognized by mainstream economics and capitalist markets (Daly and Farley 2011; Ulanowicz et al. 2009). The following terms highlighted by Guillén and Phélan (2016) were included as natural capital indicators: “valuation of nature” and “bio-knowledge and the valuation of ecosystem services that articulate natural heritage with human talent, research, technology and innovation”. We can observe the logic of using knowledge as a means for the accumulation of capital and, of course, nature, as a means to generate that knowledge (Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo [Senplades] 2013).

2.7. Social Innovation (SI)

In the context of measuring SI in the SSE context, a study conducted by Hrynevych and Goncharenko (2018) stands out, integrating SI as a dimension to evaluate the level of solidarity in the economy. Its indicators are “Employment in knowledge-intensive services, University/industry research collaboration” and its enabling component being solidarity participation for the creation and acquisition of knowledge. However, it is solidarity based, as such its investment dimension is primarily based on solidarity crowdfunding.

Based on our operational definition of SSE, which states that it “seeks to promote human well-being … social and economic construction … through economic, cultural and political practice addressing ethical and sustainable means that contribute to democratization and generate income based on relations of solidarity, cooperation and reciprocity”, we can emphasize that SI plays a crucial role in advancing collective well-being and addressing social inequalities through innovative practices.

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has defined SI as a new management, administration, execution and tool development methods, as well as combinations of factors aimed at improving living conditions of the population in their corresponding region (Restrepo 2023). Therefore, SI is largely a process rather than an innovative product (Moulaert and Ailenei 2005) with an emphasis on change. Methodologically, SI is a system of action that requires the contribution of the economic, political, social and cultural subsystems, ensuring significant impact on the community and improving collective well-being (Vuotto 2011).

The SSE’s focus on co-construction and plural economies aligns with the theoretical frameworks provided by Etxezarreta et al. (2014), where social movements play a crucial role in driving SI. These movements challenge current structures, driving participatory democracy and promoting governance models which integrate a broader range of stakeholders, ensuring that innovation is not only for social change but for society itself. This inclusion reflects the argument of Jessop et al. (2013) that SI serves as a tool for social and political intervention, often catalyzed by collective movements and actors which seek to reshape the socioeconomic landscape.

The governance factor is a dimension of SI because of its relationship to inclusive participation and collective empowerment. It is a mechanism within SSE-based organizations for improving the decision-making process, enabling social cohesion and trust among members (Monzón and Chaves 2012). Participatory structures are key to creating environmental conditions for the proliferation of innovation, enabling broad contributions and perspectives leading to holistic solutions to societal challenges (Zurbano Irizar 2008). In Quebec, Canada, the integration of SI into governance has enabled co-construction policies directly affecting the response to community needs, which reflect the broader SSE goal of solving problems collectively (Savall Vercher 2021). This approach strengthens internal governance, as well as promotes SI as a way of building local economic resilience.

SI in the SSE context often addresses structural inequalities, using cooperative models to reduce social and economic gaps. Cooperativism plays a significant role in fomenting SI by enabling communities to organize to meet collective needs and challenges (Novillo 2015), thus resonating with the assertion that SI is a multidimensional phenomenon that impacts various social subsystems, seeking greater equality (Vuotto 2011).

The relationship between social movements and SI is crucial for the transformative potential of the SSE. SI in the SSE framework is not just about solely creating an alternative to the market economy, but it also rethinks how society is organized to address social problems (Klein 2017). This transformative potential is particularly evident in Latin America, where movements such as “Empresas Recuperadas” or recovered worker enterprise in Argentina exemplify how workers regain agency and innovate to preserve jobs and create new economic models (Vieta 2020).

Measuring SI is a neglected area for which lacks valid indicators (Kleverbeck et al. 2019), particularly when it involves measuring long-term cultural and structural changes. The lack of a standardized set of indicators alone poses difficulties for both researchers and practitioners, as SSE-based organizations vary widely in terms of size, scale and scope (Saïd et al. 2018). Understanding the various forms of innovation that are present in the SSE, from governance structure to environmental sustainability factors underlines the importance of adapting measurement tools that consider not just economic outcomes but also social and cultural transformations. Vice versa, SSE-based organizations embody the principles of SI by promoting inclusive, participatory and sustainable solutions to societal challenges. Contributions from authors such as Moulaert and Ailenei (2005), Jessop et al. (2013) and Klein (2017) help frame this dynamic as one that is deeply rooted in both the process of social change and the outcomes of improved collective well-being.

Complementing the SI dimension, we also borrow from the studies of Ridley-Duff (2015). The fair shares model is focused on “the development of social enterprises and the strengthening of the SSE”, which includes aspects from the fields of governance and wealth/capital, among other qualities that must be considered in the assessment of social enterprises and the values and principles of cooperative movements, such as those of the Rochadle pioneers. In this way, founders, producers, users and investors have a clear right to participate in decisions about how capital is managed.

Within the framework of the SI, a component for its proliferation is based on the generation of Ridley-Duff’s (2015) perception of wealth/capital taking from the fair shares model (FSM) that allows for the “redesign of companies, cooperatives, associations and associations to recognize and reward the founders of companies, members of the workforce and users/clients who invest six forms of wealth (Ridley-Duff 2015)” and considers the auditing of this wealth.

Thus, adjusting the FSM to the SI dimension in regard to its six forms of capital provides a valuable perspective for assessing this asset in social organizations, which highlights the importance of accessibility and inclusion in the distribution of capital. Although FSM converges with the other macro-dimensions proposed in this study, its innovative approach couples closely with the social innovation and cooperative sustainability dimension, complementing the tool’s effectiveness to address persistent social problems and foster cooperation among actors.

2.8. Democratic Governance

Governance is a process, previously discussed, embedded in the SI dimension and is not completely a standalone concept, also it is a recurring nuance in the SSE literature and related fields. Despite the variety of nuance in SSE definitions, the main characteristics that unite the different types of organizations have in common specific rules of internal and external governance partners (Eizaguirre Anglada 2016). Some of these common characteristics are participatory democratic governance and a regulated profit-sharing limitation (Salathé-Beaulieu et al. 2019). In our operational definition it relates to democratization, thus the sub-objective of this dimension is as follows:

“Promote the creation of dignified, equitable labor conditions as well as inclusive participation in a democratic decision-making process in SSE activities, guaranteeing fair salary, respect for workers’ rights, social protection, equal rights regarding gender, ethnicity and age. Also taking into account constant upkeep on democratic management, financial autonomy and member solidarity, entailing the promotion of equitable resource distribution as well as benefits to people and nature in a sustainable manner, in order to achieve an overall well-being”

2.8.1. Methods Addressing Governance in the SSE

In the case of the social balance sheet method, in the SocEco, it allows for useful comparisons of methods and indicators appropriate to the different stakeholders and the values of cooperatives, mutuality and voluntary organizations (Spear 2001). Other contributions to the SocEco are accountability, organizational governance (corporate governance) and good practice, the latter being evident main concepts of the SSE.

Social auditing (SA) is a technique to understand, measure, verify, report and improve the social and ethical performance of an organization helping to reduce the gaps between vision/goal and reality, between efficiency and effectiveness (Jain and Polman 2003). SA creates an impact on governance as well as values the voice of stakeholders including marginalized/poor groups whose voices are rarely heard. SA is adopted in order to improve local governance, in particular to strengthen accountability and transparency in local bodies, which are focal points of SSE.

2.8.2. Governance as a Dimension in the Literature

Gonin et al. (2013) in their work where they contemplate and empirically apply five dimensions, which are (1) democratic and participatory governance, (2) autonomy, (3) non-profit management, (4) entrepreneurial mentality and (5) plural economy. In our work we borrow from the first and complement it with the literature of the SI in the SSE framework. The literature considers that in SSE activities there exists such as the obligatory function of management, in organizations oriented toward the collective and general interest and in which members and stakeholders take part in governance (Bouchard and Rousselière 2022).

The conceptualization process is crucial because of the imprecision, vagueness, and ambiguity of many SSE constructs. For example, is “democratic governance” the same as “participatory decision-making” or “collective management”? If we propose that “democratic governance is positively related to organizational sustainability,” we cannot test this proposition unless we can conceptually separate democratic governance from other similar constructs and then empirically measure these constructs correctly. Like we mentioned there are commonalities to be found.

The SSE has the know-how to create an eco-entrepreneurial culture through self-managed and participatory local governance, generating cohesion and trust. As a reference point, regarding the 17 SDGs of the agenda 2030, the SSE contributes directly to SDG 11 “sustainable cities and communities” (United Nations 2015). SSE covers a wide range of areas, these areas range from territorial or urban planning to the construction of safe, inclusive and resilient infrastructure, the provision of essential services, governance structures, women’s empowerment and gender equality, food and agriculture. These are some of the various ways in which SSE contributes to the achievement of the different SDGs according to the conference report by Yi et al. (2019) and was conducted under the definition of “SSE” by TFSSE (2014).

Wolf et al. (2022) adds that several countries’ good governance indicators (including commitment to the rule of law, a vibrant press, and impartial enforcement of regulations) have strong connections to higher Environment Protection Index scores. Good governance is a very considerable dimensional component within the framework for constructing SSE indicators, where it is considerable to have a sustainability indicator within the proposed dimension for this work.

The cooperation value previously mentioned in the discussion of SI, mentions that it seeks the development of models and application of democratic governance tools that respect autonomy as a principle of freedom, safeguarding the exercise of co-responsibility and self-management that make empowerment, equal opportunities and respect possible. The SSE can promote SI and the transformation of the territory through collective action, inclusive governance and the development of new productive and social relationships.

Highlighting the dimension of governance and its social indicators, according to Defourny and Nyssens (2014), the following, as shown in

Table 1. Social dimensions and indicators.

Dimension	Indicator Questions	Criteria/Description
Participatory Governance of Companies	Is there financial independence (not relying on a single source of funding)?	(A) A high level of autonomy; social enterprises created by a group of people may also depend on public subsidies, but are not managed, either directly or indirectly, by public authorities or other organizations (federations, private companies, etc.).
	Is the organization managed democratically (one person, one vote)?	(B) Decision-making power not based on capital ownership; this criterion generally refers to the “one member, one vote” principle, or at least to a decision-making process in which voting power is not distributed according to capital shares in the governing body.
	Are there democratic structures and processes that allow people to participate in decision-making at all levels (founders, producers, users and investors)?	(C) A participatory character; involving several parties affected by the activity; representation and participation of users or clients, the influence of several actors in decision-making and participatory management are often important characteristics of social enterprises. In many cases, one of the objectives of social enterprises is to promote democracy at local level through economic activity.

Source: Defourny and Nyssens (2014).

, is considered in their development.

2.8.3. Governance in Social Innovation

Etxezarreta et al. (2014) break down and identify the following three focal elements to categorize a socially innovative change process: a starting point (an initiative born from social actors), a method for implementation (modifying social relations) and a main goal (improving the living conditions of the community). Throughout this processes, governance, co-construction, the plural economy is carried out along with principles such as equity, equality and social justice. Such objectives of the processes might be the defense and generation of employment; the democratization of access to services, and community participation for the development of communities.

The forms of innovative governance are defined and based on these aspects or elements, the aim is to analyze to what extent changes in the modes of relationships among agents are facilitating processes of SI. One of the key elements refers to the type of alliance generated among agents, for which reason three types are defined as follows: exchange of information, cooperation and collaboration.

Considering the democratic governance concept,

Table 2. Indicator for the characterization of social innovation (SI).

Indicator	Indicator Function	Sustainability from Each Indicator	According to (Savall Vercher 2021) Based on Quebec’s Experience
Governance	This indicator refers to progress in terms of consultation, agreement, partnership, recognition of the parties involved, deliberative and direct democracy.	Sustainability relates to the capacity of SI processes to maintain and improve long-term governance relationships. This includes continuity in the mechanisms of consultation, partnership and deliberative democracy that were initially established as part of SI.	SI implies changes in governance as it opens up processes to the participation of multiple agents and a greater degree of deliberative and direct democracy. The process of SI promotes changes in governance, encourages the satisfaction of needs and improves participation, especially of excluded social groups.

Source: Etxezarreta et al. (2014); Savall Vercher (2021).

provides a more detailed view regarding the governance indicator from (Etxezarreta et al. 2014) SI perspective, describing its function, its sustainability role and field experience.

Governance in the context of SI involves the creation of partnerships (associations or strategic alliances) at different territorial and sectorial levels, both vertically and horizontally. Civil society organizations play crucial roles as transversal mediators in these partnerships. This approach seeks to transform the dynamics of relationships and power, promoting alliances ranging from the exchange of information to active collaboration, the promotion of autonomy and community participation, and the creation of inclusive governance networks and structures, all with a multi-sectorial approach that seeks to balance economic, social, ecological and cultural aspects, according to the work of Territorial Social Innovation (TerriSI) by Savall Vercher (2021). SI in TerriSI is characterized by the creation of new networks, attitudes and governance agreements that allow for addressing specific social challenges in rural territories. These elements are fundamental to the SocEco, as they promote social inclusion, sustainable development and collective well-being, central elements of the SocEco.

Savall Vercher’s (2021) study mentions that effective governance involves reflexive self-organization and coordination among actors (which is crucial for the SocEco). Governance agreements allow for inclusive and participatory decision making, ensuring that initiatives are sustainable and benefit all actors involved. Also, the creation of new networks, attitudes and governance agreements, together with the implementation of innovative practices and learning processes, are essential to strengthen the SocEco in these rural territories. Derived from the analysis of TerriSI, a model of six indicators is defined to evaluate the impact of the territory on the SSE within the dimension of “social innovation”, which allows for measuring how SI initiatives relate to the territory and how they contribute to sustainable development and social cohesion. For this analysis, we focus on the attitudes and governance Indicators, which are as follows:

Change in Attitudes toward SI:

• Measure the change in attitudes of local actors toward cooperation and innovation, reflecting their willingness to adopt new practices.

New Governance Arrangements Formed:

• Account for new governance arrangements created, such as second-degree associations and cooperatives.

Levels of Coordination:

• Assess the level of coordination among actors, distinguishing between communication, cooperation and collaboration.

Also, Ridley-Duff’s (2015) study on the fair share model (previously mentioned) has some considerable aspects in the field of governance, which are wealth/capital among other qualities that must be considered for the assessment of social enterprises and the values and principles. Measuring the potential existence of the aforementioned capital has a comprehensive approach that encompasses management, governance and value creation. This approach highlights the importance of efficiently managing natural, human, social, intellectual and financial resources to generate wealth over the long term. It also underlines the relevance of fair and transparent governance that ensures equitable decisions on the use and reinvestment of these capitals.

As we mentioned Governance is not completely a standalone concept; it is a recurring nuance in the SSE literature and related fields. Also, it is a topic that requires further study, testing, application and reflection to deepen our understanding and effectiveness in the practice.

2.9. Responsible Production and Consumption

We are left with the notion of operationalizing responsible production and consumption that encourage means that respect both labor rights and the environment. Fair or responsible consumption practices refer to the choice of products or practices based not only on their price quality but also on their environmental and social short and long-term impact, as well as on the ethical practices that companies should carry out. This dimension is explored in the following four main areas: (a) prioritizing the human being in the production process; (b) their relationship with the environment; (c) equity as a principle of consumption; and (d) the promotion of an ecological culture.

3. Method

The initial part of the study begins with the process of conceptualization of the SSE, which is the mental process by which fuzzy and imprecise constructs are defined, and their constituent components are defined in concrete and precise terms (Bhattacherjee 2012). Because of the broadness of the notion of SSE, it is important to integrate multidimensional constructs and underlying dimensions. Likewise, the conceptual boundaries of the SSE must be flexible and broad to adequately inform the strategy and action (Lewis and Swinney 2007) process. Therefore, it is imperative to carry out the work of conceptualization, and detachment, on how SSE is defined in the literature environment.

Thus, an operational definition and a conceptual framework of the SSE was developed and established, highlighting the primary characteristics considering the existing literature.

Based on this analysis, dimensions were subsequently identified. These dimensions were researched upon, and based on their existing literature, sub-dimensional aspects were identified, for which we were able to establish relevant indicators. Within the dimensional aspects, the ethical principles of the SSE were operationalized. Finally, an instrument was created that incorporated quantitative and qualitative questions (consisting of dichotomous, Likert-like scales, and percentages), which was applied and tested as a case study in a livestock Union in Guanajuato, Mexico. Subsequently, the score of each dimension was normalized and made visible using a radar graph that marks the different dimensions and allows the adherence to the principles of the SSE in the activity to be made visible.

Dimensional Findings and Instrumental Lay-Out

Based on the operational definition of the SSE, we identified 5 main dimensions (which we refer to as macro-dimensions) and their corresponding sub-dimensions. Further research allowed us to aggregate additional measures for these sub-dimensions. Once establishing these sub-dimensions, we were able to assign specific indicators to each sub-dimension. We took into account that there are converging factors preventing the dimensions from fully decoupling or isolating from one another based on the notion that principles and values are embedded within these dimensions.

In total, there are 68 indicators, which are distributed as follows: 8 indicators in the socioeconomic macro-dimensions, 10 in the Environmental Sustainability macro-dimensions, 23 in the Democratic Governance macro-dimensions, 20 in the Social Innovation (SI) and Cooperative Sustainability macro-dimensions, and 7 in the Responsible Production and Consumption macro-dimensions. This break down enables the instrumental process to measure the SSE, as shown in

Table 3. Instrument results scores.

Dimension	Sub-Dimensions	Indicator	Normalized Scoring
1. Socioeconomic Dimension	1.1 Equitable distribution, responsible reinvestment and accountability for surpluses	1.1.1 Level of participation in decisions on the distribution of surpluses and satisfaction with transparency in accountability	0.82
	1.2 Promoting the reinvestment of surpluses in sustainable projects and activities	1.2.1 Reinvestment in Sustainable Projects and Impact Assessment	0.55
	1.3 Development of monitoring and evaluation tools to ensure accountability	1.3.1 Monitoring and Satisfaction	0.45
	1.4 Development of solid financial structures	1.4.1 Training and Alliances	0.4
	1.5 Creation of SSE financial circuits	1.5.1 Promotion of Circuits	0.274
	1.6 Development of organizations with social and environmental criteria	1.6.1 Social and Environmental Criteria	0.7
	1.7 Integration of economic processes in the Social Market	1.7.1 Integration and Cooperation	0.867
	1.8 Promotion of a culture of transparency and responsibility	1.8.1 Organizational Culture	0.4
Average =			0.5576
2. Environmental Sustainability	2.1 Socio–environmental sustainability (for agricultural, forestry or livestock practices)	2.1.1 Degree of use of organic and ecological practices	0.25
	2.2 Impact on the local environment	2.2.1 Implementation of Sustainable Practices	0.34
	2.3 Impact on the local environment; Level of Knowledge and Training in Sustainable Practices	2.3.1 Level of Knowledge and Training in Sustainable Practices	0.902
		2.3.2 Impact on the local environment: Implementation of Sustainable Practices	0.24
		2.3.3 Participation in the Formulation of Environmental and Social Policies	0.74
		2.3.4 Implementation of Actions for Environmental Regeneration and Conservation	0.25
		2.3.5 Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Biodiversity	0.43
	2.4 Ecological sustainability	2.4.1 Collaboration and Equitable Exchange of Shared Resources	0.67
Average =			0.4777
3. Social Innovation and Cooperative Sustainability	3.1 Social and community participation	3.1.1 Participation in the development of regulations and policies	0.83
		3.1.2 Dissemination of proposals and results of the SSE	0.0
		3.1.3 Promotion of internal and external solidarity	0.47
		3.1.4 Generation of stable and quality employment	0.0
		3.1.5 Promotion of the conciliation between personal, family and work life	0.0
	3.2 Inter-cooperation with other actors (internal/external)	3.2.1 Cooperation with the Public Sector	0.67
		3.2.2 Connection with academia	0.6
		3.2.3 Participation with NODES	0.0
		3.2.4 Creation of New Economic Models	0.41
		3.2.5 Collective interests	0.66
		3.2.6 Social entrepreneurship, sustainability, financing	0.54
	3.3 Sustainability and Social Responsibility	3.3.1 Commitment to environmental sustainability and organizational ethics	0.61
		3.3.2 Intersectoral cooperation to address environmental and social challenges	0.33
		3.3.3 Participation and trust	0.67
		3.3.4 Integration in local networks and social movements	0.48
		3.3.5 Assignment of responsibilities for the collaboration	0.47
	3.4 Pluralism	3.4.1 Inclusion of governance	0.57
		3.4.2 Diversity of actors	0.23
		3.4.3 Intersectoral collaboration	0.24
	3.5 Access to Wealth/Capital (Based on Ridley-Duff’s (2015) Fairshare Model)	3.5.1 Natural Capital (A)	0.54
		3.5.2 Human Capital (B)	0.64
		3.5.3 Social Capital (C)	0.41
		3.5.4 Intellectual Capital (D)	0.55
		3.5.5 Manufactured Capital (E)	0.65
		3.5.6 Economic Capital (F)	0.367
Average =			4.374
4. Democratic Governance	4.1 Decent work	4.1.1 Fair remuneration	0.5
		4.1.2 Respect for workers’ rights	0.0
		4.1.3 Social protection	0.0
		4.1.4 Justice	0.16
	4.2 Governance, participation and equity	4.2.1 Inclusion in decision-making	0.817
		4.2.2 Retirement plans	0.0
		4.2.3 Promotion of rights and opportunities	0.67
	4.3 Democratic participation and collective empowerment	4.3.1 Structure of collective decision-making processes	0.93
		4.3.2 Frequency and effectiveness of collective decisions	0.73
		4.3.3 Satisfaction with freedom of expression	1.0
	4.4 Democratic management; degree of responsible collective management	4.4.1 Democratic management	0.89
		4.4.2 Transparency and equity in decision-making	0.87
		4.4.3 Commitment and awareness among beneficiaries and service providers	0.77
		4.4.4 Management by civil community	0.75
		4.4.5 Participation of partners in decision-making processes	0.77
		4.4.6 Existence of clear and transparent rules	0.89
	4.5 Self-management, independence and autonomy	4.5.1 Financial autonomy	0.38
		4.5.2 Democratic Participation	0.82
		4.5.3 Solidarity and self-management	0.92
		4.5.4 Cooperating with the Environment	0.407
		4.5.5 Collaboration Networks	0.433
		4.5.6 Evaluation of Cooperation and Social Commitment	0.34
	4.6 Comprehensive and Sustainable Self-management	4.6.1 Social management and accounting of activity (constitutive acts)	0.93
		4.6.2 Reciprocity (Education/training)	0.74
		4.6.3 Transparency and distribution of surpluses and goods	0.77
Average =			0.6194
5. Responsible Production and ethical commercialization	5.1 Ethical review of production and processes	5.1.1 Impact on Well-being	0.69
		5.1.2 Commitment to Stakeholders	0.5
		5.1.3 Environmental Sustainability	0.57
		5.1.4 Social Equity	0.34
		5.1.5 Business Ethics	0.67
		5.1.6 Commitment to the Environment	0.825
		5.1.7 Trust in the Environment	0.67
Average =			0.6092

Source: own elaboration.

.

The instrument was used for the entirety of the tests. For this analysis, each dimension was evaluated using specific indicators, which were evaluated using quantitative and qualitative questions. For the purpose of this study, as a preliminary assessment we only take into account quantitative information.

For a comprehensive assessment, questions were formulated and designed to adequately capture the essence of each indicator. Consisting of several types of questions, including Likert-like scales of 1–10 and 1–5 (to measure frequency, intensity, and satisfaction), percentages (for questions asking for numerical aspects), dichotomous questions (yes/no-binary questions to ask for the presence or absence of certain practices or characteristics).

To ensure comparability across questions, dimension scores were normalized, the process included conversion to communal scale scores, adjusting the score to account for variations in the difficulty and importance of the questions. For scale questions the score was divided by the maximum possible score adjusted to a range of 0–1. For percentage questions, the score was divided by 100, and for dichotomous questions it was coded as yes = 1 and no = 0. The normalized score for each indicator was added to provide a total score for each dimension. Each dimension score was averaged by normalizing the indicators to ensure equal weighting.

4. Results

This section interprets and analyzes the results of the measuring instrument targeted at assessing the SSE-based organization. The findings are organized according to the dimensional framework which includes socioeconomic, environmental sustainability, democratic governance, social innovation and cooperative sustainability, and responsible production and consumption.

The data were collected using a Likert scale with dichotomous questions. They were later averaged and normalized, and the average scores for each indicator, sub-dimension, and dimension were calculated. Table 3 shows estimates of the averages for all dimensions and allows for the identification of points of strength and weakness. Additionally, a radar chart (Figure 2) presents a general evaluation and a visual representation of the overall performance of the organization across the five dimensions.

The aggregate score was used to create a radar chart to visually represent the organization’s compliance or performance across the dimensions, with each axis of the chart representing one of five dimensions with its corresponding score, as shown in Figure 2.

Instrumental Result Analysis

The two macro-dimensions with a score of less than 0.5 are 4. Social innovation and cooperative sustainability with a score of 0.44, which shows the weakest dimensional value in the organization. Within this macro-dimension, dimension 4.1 Social and community participation shows the weakest values of all the sub-dimensions, its indicators being; 4.1.2 Dissemination of proposals and results of the SSE with a value of 0.0, indicator 4.1.4 Generation of stable and quality employment, and indicator 4.1.5 Promotion of the conciliation between personal, family and work life (both) with a value of 0.0.

The environmental sustainability macro-dimension with a score of 0.48 shows the second weak value with a score of less than 0.5. Finally, the macro dimensions with values greater than 0.5 are the socioeconomic macro-dimension with a value of 0.56, Responsible production and consumption 0.61 and with the highest rating, democratic governance, with a value of 0.62.

5. Discussion

Because of the sectorial role of the Livestock Union organization, which focuses on services and resource management, it is consistent with the deficiency of impact factors, on the dimension “responsible production and consumption”, a large number of the positive responses are due to the fact that the management of resources is carried out through government support, generally the calls for proposals demand requirements and compliance in that area.

Regarding V&Ps, in the literary analysis, the following main concepts regarding SSE principles were sustainability, mutuality, cooperation, justice, reciprocity and mutual aid and democracy. As previously stated, the principles are to be included throughout the management of the activities that are classified as SSE. They must be integrated into the processes such as exchange, production, distribution, savings, cooperation, consumption of goods, services and knowledge. However, these principles require further modeling within the processes of SSE activities. For this reason, we must consider this operationalization by incorporating these principles through the dimensionalization of the SSE. There is little information on the operationalization of these ethical principles in the processes mentioned, so it is necessary to analyze how they are in a nested and interdependent perspective within a framework that focuses on SSE-based activity. This example regarding V&Ps includes many fields and disciplines that the SSE expands into, such as social innovation, economics, sociology, political science, environmental studies, business and management, development studies—poverty reduction, local economic development, and social innovation, law, anthropology, public administration and education.

One of the primary challenges in designing an all-inclusive SSE measurement instrument is the broadness of SSE activities across sectors and organizational structures. This diversity imposes important boundary conditions and assumptions that ought to be taken into account. While this particular tool might entail every specific aspect of every SSE activity, an established general framework is needed because definitive tools for measuring SSE are currently non-existent. This proposed general instrument is provided as a baseline that can be modified and improved upon in further studies. By addressing the initial need for a broad measure, we lay the groundwork for future research and practice to develop more nuanced and context-specific tools.

The instrument developed to measure SSE activities was designed to be comprehensive and robust, covering multiple dimensions and sub-dimensions that reflect the complexity of SSE-based organizations. However, this robustness also introduces certain limitations. The applicability of the instrument may be affected because of its length and complexity, which could make it difficult to implement in organizations with limited resources or in specific sectors where some indicators might not be relevant. To mitigate this limitation, a thorough review of secondary sources was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to ensure that the instrument is as inclusive and applicable as possible. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that, although the instrument is robust, it may omit certain specific aspects that were not considered during its development.

As for the subject study, the study focused on the implementation of the measurement instrument in a livestock union considered an SSE-based organization, providing valuable insight in the functionality of the instrument as well as how the organization aligned to SSE principles. Nonetheless, this method has some limitations, which should be taken into account. First of all, the conclusions obtained from the livestock union cannot be extended to all the SSE-based organizations, as it has a specific economic, social, and legal context which can differ from other sectors or types of SSE-based organizations, which is why the conclusions reached may not reflect the diverse nature and complexity for the broader SSE sector activities. Also, the livestock union’s sectorial structure, governance structure and socioeconomic conditions are unique to its sector,, which may influence on how certain indicators were met and made it impossible to generalize the results for other SSE entities or organizations.

The union’s size and operational capacity can also impact the ability to practice SSE, as smaller or larger organizations may be faced with different problems. Focusing on one specific area, for example, the livestock sector, it does not take into consideration the difference coming from other spheres of the SSE, such as service cooperatives or environmental non-profits. Equally, a dependency on interviews can lead to bias, as self-reported information is prone to inaccuracy. It is human nature to want to portray oneself in a positive manner, and, thus, it is quite easy to see how SSE indicator compliance could be over reported.

In order to address these limitations, it is imperative that future research incorporates multi-sector case studies and comparative analyses to identify the sector’s strengths and weaknesses, quantitative alongside qualitative data to present a more thorough assessment, progressively enhancing the SSE metric tool in accordance with the feedback and findings. Such measures will enhance the instrument’s generalizability and relevance, helping to increase its validation and further refinement in the SSE.

6. Conclusions

This conclusion addresses the research questions initially proposed in this study, as well as the implications for the robustness and application of the instrument and broader contributions. The initial RQ1 states the following: what are the key dimensions of the social and solidarity economy?

This study enabled the identification of the following five macro dimensions: socioeconomic, environmental sustainability, democratic governance, social innovation and cooperative sustainability, and responsible production and consumption.

RQ2: What indicators are most relevant and useful for measuring activities in the SSE? Specific indicators such as equitable income distribution, environmental practices, ethical production, and democratic participation were developed, which enabled metrics to be introduced that allowed for the measurement of each sub-dimension within the larger macro dimensions.

RQ3: How consistent and reliable are the generated indicators when applied to evaluate an SSE-based organization’s practices? The application of the measuring instrument to the SSE-based organization shows that it effectively captured the organization’s strengths and weaknesses.

Some of the implications of this research are that while the developed instrument is robust in its evaluation of SSE practices, its implementation, in some cases, can be quite challenging in certain contexts. It is noteworthy to mention that the instrument might require adaptation for a variety of organizations, considering their sizes and sectors. These adaptations may include simplifying certain sections of the instrument or developing specific versions of the instrument for SSE within the different sectors of the economy. We can distinguish that the dimensions, sub-dimensions and indicators mentioned are broadly consistent with the literature in terms of the characteristics and operations that are the most highlighted in SSEs. In this context, relevant activities by other organizations can also be used as indicators to explain the values presented in the SSE discourse.

In conclusion, the results of this research contribute to a broader discussion on sustainable development, economic inclusion and social innovation in the context of the Social and Solidarity Economy. These findings allow policymakers to formulate policy and allocate resources to organizations that practice principles for the general well-being of marginalized populations as a means of achieving financial independence for the cooperatives and facilitation of self-governance structures. These results also pose new questions regarding SSEs as an alternative means to sustainability and equity. Therefore, the development of new policy models is required.