BETA

Activities of Angel DZHAMBAZKI related to 2016/2237(INL)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (25)

Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the concept of ‘social enterprise’ is used in some legal systems interchangeably with that of ‘solidarity- based enterprise’; whereas for the purposes of this resolution the concepts of ‘social enterprise’ and ‘solidarity-based enterprise’ are intended to be synonymous; whereas a definition of the concept of ‘social enterprise’ is not clear-cut, and overlaps with that of more traditional social economy organisationsembedded in all Member States' legislative framework, and whereas alternative legal structures are made available and widely used, such as cooperatives, mutual organisations, associations and foundations; whereas discussions about the boundaries of the concept of ‘social enterprise’ are taking place among social scientists and lawyers; whereas it seems imperative to agree at present on a legal definition that makessupport Member States' efforts in making a solid contribution to the development of the social enterprises by the European Union and sectors and cooperation with public administrations at all levels possible;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas there are substantial differences among Member States in the way they regulate social enterprises and the organisational forms available to social entrepreneurs under their legal systems; whereas the distinctive organisational forms that social enterprises adopt depend on the existing legal frameworks, on the political economy of welfare provision and, on the cultural and historical traditions of non-profit development in each country, as well as on regional needs;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas in some Member States specific legal forms have been created either by adapting the cooperative model or though the introduction of legal forms that recognise the social commitment taken on by a plurality of entities and that include some features specific for social enterprises; whereas in other Member States social enterprises successfully operate using pre- existing legal forms, including legal forms used by mainstream SMEs, such as the limited liability company;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the adoption of diverse legal frameworks on social enterprises in many Member States confirm the development of a new kind of entrepreneurship more focused on social value creation; whereas this diversity also confirms that social entrepreneurship is an innovative field;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the fact that there is a choice in the available legal forms has the advantage of permitting social enterprises to shape their structure in the manner which suits them best in the regional circumstances in question, the tradition where they have their roots and the type of business they wish to conduct;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas notwithstanding the above it is possible to derive from national experiences at Member State level some distinctive features and criteria that a social enterprise should fulfil, regardless of the legal form it adopts, if it is to be considered as such type of enterprise; whereas it seems desirable to establish at Union level those features and criteria in the form of minimum standards with a view to creating a consistent legal framework for such enterprises and to ensure that all social enterprises have a common identity regardless of the Member State of incorporat common set of criteria providing an ideological framework in support of the work of social enterprises throughout the Union; whereas such institutional features should help to maintain social enterprise advantage over alternative ways of organising the production of social services;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #
K. whereas the above definitions are compatible and seem to bring together the features shared by allmost not-for-profit social enterprises regardless of the Member State of incorporation; whereas such features shcould constitute the baseline for a cross- cutting and more definitive legal definitionommon understanding of ‘social enterprise’ at Union level;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas social enterprises operate in the market in an entrepreneurial fashion; whereas this implies that social enterprises carry on activities of a commercial nature and assume economic risks; whereas the financial viability of a social enterprise ultimately depends on the efforts made by their members and workers to secure adequate resources;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas the contribution to social value creation must be the main purpose of a social enterprise; whereas social enterprises should expressly pursue the aim of benefitting the community at large or a specific group of people, transcending membership; whereas the social purpose pursued by social enterprises should be clearly indicated in their documents of establishment; whereas the notion of social enterprise should not be confused with that of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even though commercial enterprises with significant CSR activities can have a strong interconnection with social business; whereas social enterprises are not to have as their aim traditional commercial profit creation but, instead, use any added value created for the further development of projects aimed at improving the environment for their target groups;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Q. whereas social enterprises are not necessarily non-profit organisations but, on the contrary, they can also be for-profit; whereas this notwithstanding the main focus of social enterprises should be on social values and on having a positive and durable impact on society’s wellbeing and economic development and ought to therefore re-invest their commercial gains into furthering their cause, rather than making a profit for their owners, members or shareholders; whereas in this connection a constraint on distribution of profits and assets among members or shareholders, also known as ‘asset lock’, is essential to social enterprises; whereas a limited distribution of profits could be allowed, having regard to the legal form adopted by the social enterprise, but the procedures and rules covering that distribution should ensure that it does not undermine the primary objective of the enterprise; whereas the most significant proportion of profits made by a social enterprise should be reinvested or otherwise used to achieve its social purpose;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
T. whereas social enterprises can adopt the legal form of commercial undertakings in some Member States; whereas the possibility of commercial companies having the status of social enterprises should be made dependent on fulfilling requirements and conditions that help resolve the potential contradictions between the company form and the social enterprise model, depending on the national legislation;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
V. whereas the positive impact of social enterprises on the community may possibly justify the adoption of concrete actions in their support, such as the payment of subsidies and the adoption of favourable tax and public procurement measures; whereas those measures should in principle be considered as being compatible with the Treaties, since they aim at facilitating the development of economic activities or areas mainly intended to have a positive impact on society;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to assess the utility of introduceing at Union level a ‘European social label’ to be awarded to social enterprises;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that tha possible ‘European social label’ shcould be made available for organisations that clearly satisfy a set of legal requirements, regardless ofif compatible with and complementary to the legal framewormk of their incorporation in a Member State Member State of incorporation; and that the label should be optional for the undertaking;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the legal requirements for acquiring and maintaining the European Social label should be identified by reference to certain features and common criteria, in particular those laid down in the annex to this resolution;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Is of the opinion that a mechanism involving Member States should be established by which entities that, if there is a consensus on providing for the possibility of obtaining a “European Social label”, it should be for the Member States to assess how entities incorporated within their legal territories and fulfilling the relevant legal requirements canould obtain the European social label on the basis of their national laws. Any legal entity fulfilling the legal criteria should be entitled to the EU label, regardless of whether the Member State of incorporation has a special legal form for ‘social enterprises’;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that a mechanisms should be established in close cooperation with Member States for the protection of the possible European social label and the prevention of the establishment and operation of ‘false’ social enterprises; thisese mechanisms should ensure that enterprises bearing the European social label are monitored regularly regarding their compliance with the provisions set out in the label;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that social enterprises bearing the European social label should be recognised as such in all Member States in which they carry out their social activities and should enjoy the same benefits, rights and obligations that the social enterprises incorporated under the law of not suffer a disproportionate disadvantage compared to national social enterprises of other Member State in which they operates;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to establish, in cooperation with Member States, a list of existing legal forms in Member States having the characteristics of social undertakings and to maintain that list updated;deleted
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to review existing legislation and to submit, where appropriate, legislative proposals establishing a more coherent and complete legal framework in support of social enterprises, specifically, but not only, in the fields of public procurement and competition law, so that such undertakings are treated in a manner that is consistent with their particular nature and contribution to social cohesion and to economic growth;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Considers it appropriate that the Commission examines the possibility of establishing a line of financing to support innovation in social enterprises, in particular when the innovative character of the activity carried out by the undertaking makes it difficult for it to ensure sufficient financing under normal market conditions;deleted
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) it should be subject to a total or at least partialmajor constraint on profit distribution and to specific rules on the allocation of profits and assets during its entire life, including at dissolution; in any case, the majority of the profits made by the undertaking should be reinvested or otherwise used to achieve its social purpose;
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 6
The possible legislative act should establish a mechanism of certification and of supervision and monitoring of the legal label with the close involvement of Member States, which is essential to protect the legal label of ‘social enterprise’ and preserve its intrinsic value. The European Parliament considers that this public control couldit important to involve secondary organisations' representatives for the social enterprise sector. Penalties and sanctions for the infringement of legislation could range from a mere admonition to the withdrawal of the label.
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 7
Penalties and sanctions for the infringement of the legislation could range from a mere admonition to the withdrawal of the label.
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 9
The European social label should be valid in all Member States. An enterprise bearing the label should be recognised as a social enterprise in all Member States, as far as this is compatible with national law. The label should allow any undertaking bearing it to carry out its main activity in other Member States under the same requirements as national undertakings bearing the label. They should enjoy the same benefits, rights and obligations as the social enterprises incorporated under the law of the Member State in which they operate.
2018/01/17
Committee: JURI