Brussels, 18 April 2012
MINUTES
of the 21st meeting
of the Liaison Group
with European civil society organisations and networks
held at the Committee building in Brussels
on 21 November 2011
_____________
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
EN
-1The Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks held its 21st meeting in
Brussels on 21 November 2011, chaired by its two co-presidents, Staffan Nilsson, President of the
EESC, and Jean-Marc Roirant, President of the European Civic Forum (ECF). The meeting started at
2.30 p.m. and finished at 5.30 p.m.
ATTENDANCE LIST

Liaison Group members present
EESC representatives
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Staffan Nilsson
Sandy Boyle
Georgios Dassis
Edgardo Iozia
Luca Jahier
Leila Kurki
Krzysztof Pater
Jorge Pegado Liz
Michael Smyth
Joost van Iersel
Hans-Joachim Wilms
President of the EESC
President of the REX section
President of Group II
President of the Single Market Observatory (SMO)
President of the Various Interests Group
President of the SOC section
President of the Labour Market Observatory (LMO)
President of the CCMI
President of the ECO section
President of the Europe 2020 steering committee
President of the Sustainable Development Observatory
(SDO)
Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks

Members
Ms Arielle Garcia
Mr Diego Pinto
Mr Conny Reuter
Mr Jean-Marc Roirant
Mr Luk Zelderloo

Deputy director of the Federation of French Mutual Health
Insurance Schemes (FNMF)
Secretary-General of the International European Movement (IEM)
President of the Platform of European Social NGOs
President of the European Civic Forum (FCE)
Secretary-General of the European Association of Service
Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)
Alternates
Ms Valentina Abita
Ms Luiza Bara
Ms Emmanuelle Faure
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
Project manager, European Council for Non-Profit Organisations
(CEDAG)
Director of the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)
European Affairs Senior Officer, European Foundation Centre
(EFC)
.../...
-2Ms Audrey Frith
Ms Alexandrina Najmowicz
Mr Yves Roland-Gosselin

Director of the European civil society platform on lifelong
learning (EUCIS-LLL)
Coordinator, European Civic Forum (ECF)
President of the Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU
(COFACE)
Liaison Group members absent
EESC representatives
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Stéphane Buffetaut
Mario Campli (apologies received)
Brian Cassidy (apologies received)
Henri Malosse (apologies received)
President of the TEN section
President of the NAT section
President of the INT section
President of Group I
Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks

Members
Mr Pierre Barge (apologies received)
Mr Olivier Consolo
Ms Monique Goyens
Mr Christopher Harrison
Ms Ilona Kish
Ms Monika Kosinska
Mr Maciej Kucharczyk
Mr William Lay
Mr Gérard Peltre
Mr Étienne Pflimlin
Mr Giuseppe
Porcaro
received)
Mr Gerry Salole
Mr Jan-Robert Suesser
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
President of the European Association for Human Rights
(AEDH)
Director of the European NGO Confederation for Relief
and Development (CONCORD)
Director-General of the European Consumers’
Organisation (BEUC)
Former president of the European School Heads
Association (ESHA)
Secretary-General of Culture Action Europe
Secretary-General of the European Public Health Alliance
(EPHA)
Director-General of the European Older People's Platform
(AGE)
Director of the Confederation of Family Organisations in
the EU (COFACE)
President of the Rurality-Environment-Development
International Association (RED)
Co-president of Cooperatives Europe
(apologies Secretary-General of the European Youth Forum (EYF)
Director-General of the European Foundation Centre
(EFC)
Vice-president of the European Civic Forum (ECF)
.../...
-3
Alternates
Mr Patrice Collignon
Mr Julien Dijol
Ms
Ms
Mr
Ms
Mr
Sabine Frank
Cécile Greboval
Javier Güemes
Jana Hainsworth
Dirk Jarré
Ms Rita Kessler
Mr Gérard Leseul
Mr Peter Matjašič
Ms Ursula Pachl
Mr Christian Wenning

Director of the Rurality-Environment-Development
International Association (RED)
Policy coordinator, European Liaison Committee for
Social Housing (CECODHAS)
Secretary-General of the Platform for Intercultural Europe
Policy director, European Women's Lobby (EWL)
Acting director of the European Disability Forum (EDF)
Secretary-General, EUROCHILD
International Cooperation Officer, European Federation of
Older Persons (EURAG)
Project manager, International Association of Mutual
Benefit Societies (AIM)
Deputy general delegate, Coordinating Committee of
European Cooperative Associations (CCACE)
Secretary-General of the European Youth Forum (EYF)
Deputy Director-General of the European Consumers’
Organisation (BEUC)
Secretary-General of the Union of European Federalists
(UEF)
Other participants
Mr Andris Gobiņš
Ms Ariane Rodert

EESC Secretariat
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
Martin Westlake
Nicolas Alexopoulos
Maria Echevarria
Patrick Fève
Mr Christian Weger
Ms Coralia Catana
Ms Susanna Florio
Ms Fausta Palombelli
EESC member, rapporteur for the EESC opinion on the
proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the European Year of Citizens
EESC member, rapporteur for the opinion on Social
entrepreneurship and social enterprise
Secretary-General
Deputy Secretary-General
Director for General Affairs
Head of Unit for Relations with civil society
organisations, constitutional affairs
Administrator, Unit for Relations with civil society
organisations, constitutional affairs
Member of the EESC president’s private office
Assistant, Workers' Group
Administrator, secretariat of the Various Interests Group
*****
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-4-
Mr Roirant opened the meeting and presented the items on the agenda. He then asked Mr Wilms
and Mr van Iersel, who would have to leave during the meeting, to brief those present on the
Committee's work on preparations for the Rio+20 Conference, to take place at the EESC on 7 and
8 February 2012, and the Europe 2020 strategy respectively.
1.
Adoption of the draft agenda (R/CESE 1670/2011)
The draft agenda was adopted.
2.
Approval of the minutes of the 20th meeting held on 27 June 2011
(R/CESE 1569/2011)
The minutes were approved.
3.
Exchange of views with Andris Gobiņš, EESC rapporteur on the Proposal for a decision
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013)
(COM(2011) 489 final)
Mr Roirant introduced Mr Gobiņš and asked him to kick off the discussion.
Mr Gobiņš was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Commission proposal with the
members of the Liaison Group; the discussions would feed usefully into the working document that
he would submit to the study group responsible for preparing the Committee's opinion. He proposed
to organise his presentation and the discussion around the following points: the timeframe and
working methods for preparing the opinion, aspects of the Commission proposal which should be
supported, those which were open to criticism and finally additional issues which could be raised.
As regards the timeframe, the opinion had to be adopted by the Committee at its plenary session on
28 and 29 March 2012. The study group would meet twice before then, on 20 December 2011 and 26
January 2012, and the section would adopt its opinion on 29 February. A public hearing would also
be held on 26 January, and he called on the European organisations and networks which were Liaison
Group members to take part in this. Webstreaming would be arranged for the hearing.
As regards the working methods, Mr Gobiņš wanted transparency to be a priority throughout the
drafting process. He also wanted this process to be as inclusive as possible as regards the involvement
of civil society organisations.
He said that the following aspects of the Commission proposal deserved support:

The theme of the 2013 European Year, which expressed the desire to boost the feeling of
belonging to the EU;
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-5



The link between the notion of citizenship and the goal of enabling Europeans to play a part in
the EU's democratic life, despite the fact that the Commission proposal rather glossed over this
point;
The Commission's intention to open up the process of planning and implementing the 2013
European Year by involving the EESC, the Committee of the Regions and civil society
organisations;
The Commission's firm intention to remove remaining barriers to the exercise of the rights
conferred by European citizenship;
The fact that the goal of free movement was considered a priority; however, mobility needed to
be interpreted broadly, covering goods, services and capital, consumer rights and the voting
rights which were part of European citizenship.
Mr Gobiņš said that the following issues were open to criticism:



The fact that the Commission's proposal showed a rather narrow view of European citizenship
and largely ignored the issues of public participation in democratic life and the implementation of
the new rights conferred on Europeans by the Treaty of Lisbon in the area of participatory
democracy. He asked whether it would be possible to change the title of the 2013 European Year
to better reflect these fundamental priorities; it could be changed to the European Year of active
and participatory citizenship, which would broaden the scope of the event;
The provisions for follow-up and legislative activity to eliminate barriers to the exercise of
citizenship which were inadequate and overly vague; the key point however was still to highlight
issues related to public participation and dialogue with civil society;
The emphasis placed on raising awareness and providing information in a basically top-down
approach, when Europeans should be actively involved in the process of learning about their
rights and how to exercise them. The list of objectives for the European Year should be extended
to include the implementation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union dealing
with representative and participatory democracy respectively, and more generally with active
citizenship.
He referred to the following financial and organisational aspects:


The budget proposed by the Commission: EUR 1 million, which he felt was inadequate,
particularly compared to the EUR 11 million set aside for the European Year of volunteering
(2011), or the EUR 17 million spent on the European Year of combating poverty (2010).
Furthermore, the budget would be drawn from DG Communication's existing budget lines and
would largely be used to fund communication campaigns by PR companies with which this DG
had signed framework agreements. No additional funding nor co-funding of civil society
initiatives was planned;
The activities proposed throughout the Year: these activities could not be limited to information
campaigns. Practical activities needed to be rolled out involving civil society; these activities had
to have a lasting impact and involve both the national and European levels;
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-6
Information sources: the Commission planned to mobilise information sources such as Europe
Direct, the "Your Europe" portal or SOLVIT; Mr Gobiņš felt that this choice was debatable given
their low profile and the fact that Europeans knew very little about them.
Additional aspects which could be considered in the opinion included the following:







Encouraging the establishment of a European public forum for dialogue and debate, to which the
media should also contribute;
Linking up the various European Years and ensuring that the activities undertaken during the
Year had a lasting impact;
Launching initiatives to remove barriers to mobility created by education systems, difficulty in
gaining access to lifelong learning, gaps in language skills, and health, social security and
housing issues, etc.;
Promoting the development by the EU institutions and the Member States of participatory tools
at every level and every stage in the decision-making process;
Setting up an Alliance of civil society organisations responsible for coordinating and
implementing civil society initiatives throughout the 2013 European Year, as was done for
previous European Years; establishing interaction with the Liaison Group and the EESC;
The financial means and instruments to guarantee the 2013 European Year's legacy;
Ways of guaranteeing real participation by civil society, at both European and national level, in
shaping and implementing activities to be rolled out during the 2013 Year.
Mr Gobiņš concluded that there were three key issues which he asked the Liaison Group to discuss,
namely:



How could organised civil society be effectively involved in implementing the 2013 European
Year; what roles should be played by the EESC, the Liaison Group and the nascent Alliance, and
what synergies should be established between them?
Objectives and priorities for the 2013 European Year: should we aim only to change the content
or, for the sake of visibility, should we propose that the European Year's title be changed as well?
What joint strategy should be used to put forward the positions and proposals made with regard
to the Commission's proposal and ensure that they are taken on board by the other institutions?
Mr Roirant thanked Mr Gobiņš and opened the general discussion.
Mr Iozia said that the Commission proposal was very disappointing as the topics chosen for the 2013
European Year were not key concerns for the general public. In view of the crisis currently hitting
Europe, he had hoped that the Commission would place the European values underpinning European
citizenship at the core of its proposal. Citizenship was more than free movement, and so the proposal
could not be accepted as it stood either by the Committee or by civil society organisations. He called
on the rapporteur to be unbending on this point.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-7Mr Roirant said that many civil society organisations had already expressed concerns to the
Commission about this minimalist view of citizenship and that, according to some information, this
had been a deliberate choice on the Commission's part, as some Member States felt that only freedom
of movement was an EU competence; the other aspects of citizenship fell under national competence
and thus subsidiarity.
Ms Garcia endorsed the idea of proposing a change in the title of the Year; it might be changed to
European Year of active participation. However, this should only be done if the Commission also
changed its approach (in terms of content) to the concept of citizenship. This was the key issue in the
debate, as the real question was to know whether the EU really wanted to place citizens at the centre
of its concerns.
Mr Reuter agreed with Ms Garcia. He underscored Europe's democratic deficit and the legitimacy
crisis of which its institutions were victims; he was concerned about the anti-European and antidemocratic movements which were gaining strength at national level. In this context, he considered
that it should be possible to convince the Commission that addressing this situation was a political
challenge for the EU as a whole, particularly with a view to the next European elections in 2014 in
which only a minority of Europeans took part.
Civil society therefore needed to insist that the 2013 European Year be not for communication but for
participation, enabling Europeans to voice their concerns and expectations.
Ms Frith was pleased that this exchange of views with the Committee rapporteur was taking place
even before the study group responsible for preparing the opinion had held its first meeting. It
enabled the Liaison Group members to make a real contribution to shaping the Committee opinion.
She supported Mr Iozia's comments as regards the gaps in the Commission proposal and considered
that this proposal was a real disappointment owing to the restrictive approach to citizenship adopted
by the Commission. Simply changing the title would not be enough: the very concept of the Year also
needed to be altered.
Echoing Mr Reuter's comments, Ms Frith also expressed concern regarding the rise in extremism and
nationalism in Europe, and more generally the ebbing of democracy which she considered
particularly worrying with a view to the coming European elections. This made it all the more
necessary to change the direction of the Commission proposal for the 2013 Year.
Mr Pinto thanked Mr Gobiņš for his introduction and was pleased that he had stressed the lack of
substance in the Commission proposal which was its chief problem. However, he considered that the
approach chosen by the Commission should not surprise anyone, as for the last two years citizenship
issues had been dealt with by DG Communication since the unit responsible for citizenship policy
was transferred to that DG from DG Education and Culture. From this he deduced that the
Commission considered citizenship to be largely a communication issue.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-8He then said that the concerns voiced during the debate had also been expressed at the European
Parliament and stressed that the 2013 European Year needed to help re-dynamise the European
venture and not fuel disappointment in it.
Ms Najmowicz was pleased that the rapporteur wished to involve the Liaison Group in preparations
for his opinion at an early stage, and applauded his open-minded attitude.
She then pointed out that the European organisations and networks which were members of the
Liaison Group had been working on issues relating to citizenship for a number of years. In this
context, she mentioned the manifesto For a Genuine European Civil Dialogue drafted in 2009 shortly
before the European elections, which called on the political parties to make a strong commitment to a
more participatory form of European democracy and the development of civil dialogue. She therefore
considered that the 2013 European Year was an opportunity to pass on that message. The European
organisations and networks which were members of the Liaison Group had therefore sent an open
letter to all the MEPs to make them aware of the need to expand the scope of the European Year so
that the full meaning of citizenship was conveyed by taking into account the prospects opened up by
Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union in terms of public participation in the EU's democratic
life.
Ms Najmowicz also pointed out that contact had been made with the rapporteurs of the various
Parliament committees to which the Commission proposal had been referred, including the
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs which had competence, in order to push
forward the positions taken in the letter. She also said that there would be a fairly broad consensus in
the Parliament in favour of expanding the Commission's approach. She hoped that the MEPs would
agree to increase the budget.
Lastly, Ms Najmowicz confirmed that at the initiative of the European organisations and networks
which were members of the Liaison Group, a Civil Society Alliance for the 2013 European Year had
been set up, and currently included around 20 European networks. The initial aim of the Alliance was
to lobby MEPs, encouraging them to support the positions taken in the open letter sent to them.
However, the ultimate aim was for the Alliance to be officially recognised by the Commission as the
partner of the European institutions for the European Year and, in pursuit of this goal, European civil
society needed to be brought behind the Alliance, along the lines of Alliances formed for previous
European Years. A proposal to this effect had been made to the Commission and its response was
awaited.
In connection to this, Ms Najmowicz thanked Mr Nilsson for having, himself and on behalf of the
Committee, formally supported the Alliance.
Ms Bara agreed with the comments made by all the speakers, but added that increasing the budget
for the European Year would serve no purpose unless the Commission's approach and the activities
proposed were substantially changed.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
-9-
Mr Dassis agreed with Mr Iozia and drew attention to the contrast between the general objective
assigned to the European Year by the Commission (based on free movement) and the specific
objectives mentioned in Article 2 of the proposal, one of which involved encouraging Europeans to
feel that they belonged to the EU – an objective which in all likelihood could not be achieved
following the approach chosen by the Commission and implementing the initiatives that it proposed.
He considered that the group needed to point out the contradictions in the Commission proposal.
As regards the budget, he considered that recital 25 of the proposal should be used to secure a larger
budget for the European Year. This recital referred to the possibility of additional funding under
existing EU programmes, such as the Europe for citizens and Fundamental rights and citizenship
programmes. That being so, and in view of current budgetary restrictions, he was not optimistic about
the possibility of a substantial increase in the budget.
Mr Nilsson confirmed that he had exchanged letters with Mr Roirant concerning the establishment of
the Alliance and reiterated the Committee's official support for this initiative and its intention to
cooperate with the Alliance once it was officially in place.
Following the general debate, Mr Roirant called on Mr Gobiņš to reply to the speakers.
Mr Gobiņš noted that there was a very broad consensus on the need to change the European Year's
approach as chosen by the Commission, as regards both the content and the title. He had also seen
that the MEPs were disappointed with the Commission proposal, which gave reason to hope that the
Parliament would propose major changes to the proposal, in terms of content and form.
He added that the key message expressed during the debate was that emphasis should be placed on
public participation and involvement in the EU's democratic life, particularly in light of Article 11 of
the Treaty on European Union.
After briefly addressing each of the speakers, Mr Gobiņš thanked them for their input and announced
that the hearing held in conjunction with the study group, to which Liaison Group members were
invited, would take place on 26 January.
Ms Faure said that without a real change in the approach and content, she did not think that the
European Foundation Centre could participate in the Alliance for the 2013 European Year.
Mr Roirant brought the debate to a close, thanking Mr Gobiņš and praising the exchange of views
between the Committee and the European organisations and networks which were members of the
Liaison Group.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 10 4.
Exchange of views with Ariane Rodert, rapporteur for the opinion on Social
Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise
Mr Roirant introduced Ms Rodert who, before being appointed a Committee member, had been a
member of the Liaison Group, representing social service providers with Mr Zelderloo.
He then described the background to the opinion adopted by the Committee on 26 October. It
followed on from the Commission communication on the Single Market Act submitted by
Commissioner Barnier in April 2011, which set out twelve key proposals to relaunch growth and
employment in Europe. These included an initiative for social entrepreneurship, intended to stimulate
the creation of an environment favourable to social enterprise in Europe. He also referred to the
conference promoting social entrepreneurship organised by the Commission on 18 November 2011 in
which several Liaison Group members had taken part.
Mr Nilsson added that this was an exploratory opinion requested urgently by the Commission in
June; it had thus been impossible to consult the Liaison Group during the drafting process. The
Committee would prepare a follow-up opinion on the initiative for social entrepreneurship (the focus
of a communication presented by the Commission in October) on which an exchange of views with
members of the Liaison Group could be arranged.
Mr Roirant then asked Ms Rodert to present the Committee opinion.
Ms Rodert thanked the Liaison Group members for this opportunity to present and discuss her
opinion and emphasised the time constraints she had faced while drafting it. Nonetheless, a hearing
had been arranged on 28 July (in which some Liaison Group members had taken part), two study
group meetings had been held and informal contacts had taken place over the summer.
She also confirmed that a follow-up opinion would be drafted and she hoped that it would then be
possible to continue the dialogue with the Liaison Group, whichever Committee member was acting
as rapporteur. She also referred to the broader context of the initiative for social entrepreneurship,
and proposed that joint discussion be held with the Liaison Group on this issue.
Ms Rodert then stressed that in order to ensure that the debates were clear, it was essential to come to
an agreement on the precise meaning of "social entrepreneurship" and "social enterprise". It would
not be an easy task as these terms did not have the same meaning in every Member State, particularly
as regards concepts and actors. This was why throughout the opinion, the Committee had preferred to
use the broader terms of "social enterprise", which included social entrepreneurship, as it was
necessary to act at every stage in the lifecycle of this type of enterprise.
She also briefly described the various stages of the concept of social market economy, referring in
particular to the Treaty of Lisbon and the May 2010 Monti report on A new strategy for the Single
Market. She stressed that social enterprise was closely linked to achieving the goals of the Europe
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 11 2020 strategy, particularly as regards social cohesion and the fight against social exclusion and
poverty. Social entrepreneurship contributed to the three key priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy:
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Furthermore, the importance of the social entrepreneurship
sector needed to be seen in light of the 11 million people employed in it, not to mention the
employment opportunities which had yet to be taken up.
The Committee's contribution to the Commission communication on the initiative for social
entrepreneurship was twofold: firstly, defining social enterprise and secondly, shaping
recommendations which would bring about an environment more favourable to the growth and
development of social enterprise in Europe.
As regards the definition of social enterprise, Mr Rodert said that each language and culture had
developed a different understanding of these terms, and establishing a strict definition would go
against the different traditions of the Member States which were themselves a valuable asset. Rather
than a definition, the Committee therefore felt that it was preferable to propose a description of social
enterprise based on common features, in order to target policies more accurately. One of the key
characteristics of social enterprises was thus that they pursued chiefly social objectives which were
more important than making a profit and, as they were largely non-profit making, the revenue
generated by a social enterprise was mostly ploughed back in. It was therefore not redistributed to
shareholders or private owners. Social enterprises had a range of legal forms and operating methods
(cooperatives, mutual associations, foundations, profit-making or non-profit-making enterprises,
voluntary associations) and often combined several formulas. Lastly, social enterprises operated as
independent entities, with a very high level of participation and democratic management which also
met a social objective.
As regards the recommendations, one of the most important was to integrate social enterprise into all
public policies concerning businesses, competition and the internal market, on a level footing with
other types of businesses. The other recommendations dealt with stimulating social investment,
modernising public financing mechanisms (including equal access to public procurement),
simplifying and clarifying the rules on State aid and competition, launching development
programmes supporting social enterprises, the resources to be fielded to raise awareness and boost
the credibility of social enterprises (particularly by setting up a European social enterprise
observatory), and improving investor confidence in social enterprise. Lastly, it was essential to
highlight the advantages of social enterprise, on the basis of values other than the purely economic,
especially its social results, thanks to the use of existing measurement systems.
The additional aspects considered in the opinion included the role of volunteering, guaranteeing
social rights and rights in the area of worker consultation in social enterprises, the development of
social enterprises in the new Member States and the promotion of social enterprise outside the EU.
Ms Rodert then cited a few examples of promoting an environment favourable to the development of
social enterprise, taking account of its specific characteristics and wide range of legal forms. She
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 12 referred in particular to the issue of access to capital, which would justify the implementation of new
financial instruments, different from those used for other types of enterprise and more geared to the
needs of social enterprises. The Commission should ensure that the regulatory framework, for
instance in the area of State aid or the Structural Funds, supported these new financial instruments.
As regards public procurement, the Committee highlighted the importance of the social aspects,
which the Commission should bring more to the fore. As regards State aid, the opinion called for
regulatory exemptions to be extended to all social services of general interest.
In conclusion, Ms Rodert welcomed the fact that the Committee opinion and the Commission
communication agreed on many points, both as regards the definitions selected by the Commission
and the key measures proposed. She particularly welcomed the Commission's proposal to develop
special European legal forms which could be used by the social entrepreneurship sector.
Mr Roirant then opened the general discussion, first calling on Mr Reuter, who had addressed the
Commission conference on 18 November, to express his views on this conference and on the opinion
presented.
Mr Reuter congratulated Ms Rodert on her opinion and the strong views that she had expressed. As
regards the Commission communication, he had no doubts about its good intentions but he had no
faith either in the proposals made on access to funding, particularly via the European Investment
Fund, given the current climate of austerity. In all likelihood and if these funds really existed, who
would really benefit from them and how would they really be spent, he asked: investing in social
infrastructure, improving social cohesion, promoting active inclusion, eradicating poverty or simply
making a profit?
Making a profit was not in itself cause for criticism, he said, provided that the rules governing the
social economy sector and the activity of social enterprises were complied with. The social
responsibility underpinning this activity was fundamental and this was the point that needed to be
monitored. In support of his comments, Mr Reuter cited the example of social housing in Germany, a
sector where private investment funds had invested heavily without living up to the social
responsibilities linked to this type of investment. In no circumstances could such private funds be
considered social enterprises. With the road to hell paved with good intentions, there was a strong
risk that the action plan proposed by the Commission would open the door to private investors who
had no goals which were in the general interest.
This situation was shown particularly clearly in the area of social service providers, where there was
unfair competition between private enterprises and social economy actors, as the latter did not have
the same financial standing and complied with social standards which the private enterprises let fall
by the wayside. It was thus essential to remain vigilant to ensure that the situation evolved in the right
direction and that social rights, employment conditions and decent wages were guaranteed.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 13 Ms Garcia agreed with Mr Reuter's viewpoint and concerns, and said that France was experiencing
the same situation facing the social housing sector in Germany, but in the areas of educational
support and personal care.
She felt that since the start of the crisis, there had been a rise in awareness of the virtues of the
different specific forms of doing business in the social economy sector, in terms of management,
good jobs, contribution to sustainable development, etc. However, she feared that the Commission's
proposals would be seen as an encouragement to private companies to invest in the social economy
sector, without their respecting the sector's specific characteristics and without their being required to
comply with the same constraints. The two sectors she had mentioned illustrated what could happen
in the future. For a long time the domain of associations and mutual associations, these two sectors
had been opened up to private companies, resulting in low-cost services being provided without any
guarantee of the quality of those services nor of properly trained staff. Associations and mutual
associations were unable to cope with this competition, owing to the high standards that they set for
themselves in terms of the quality of the services provided and of staff training. This was a key point
when considering equal access to public procurement.
Ms Abita upheld the need for social enterprises to have a clear legal, administrative and financial
framework to enable them to develop at national and especially local level where these enterprises
were very well established. As regards the sector of non-profit-making social service providers, she
stressed the high degree of innovation which was a characteristic of it, and considered that it was
necessary to establish conditions which would enable the enterprises concerned to continue to
innovate in order to secure constant improvement in the services provided. In this context, she was in
favour of making funds available for social experimentation as a basis of innovation.
Ms Abita also said that the social economy sector generated an increasing number of jobs, a fact
which should be recognised and taken into account in social dialogue; her association was working to
this end.
Ms Najmowicz was pleased that the associations were recognised by the Commission in its
communication as full actors in the social economy sector, which had not been the case in the
communication on the Single Market Act. Naturally, she added, we had to be realistic and not expect
that the Commission would shortly submit a proposal for a European association statute. The
outcome of the proposal for the European foundation statute, to be presented by the Commission in
the next few months, would be an important test.
One inherent difficulty regarding the associations was the lack of a clear definition of what an
association was. Moreover, it was difficult to identify their areas of action with precision.
Associations of course had an economic and social dimension, but they also had a civic dimension,
which was a problem for the Commission during discussions on the European association statute. The
Commission therefore needed to be decisive in pushing this issue forward, and efforts needed to be
made collectively by civil society organisations, the Committee and the European Parliament (which
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 14 had both reiterated their support for a European association statute) in order to bring this request to a
satisfactory conclusion. In this context, she announced that in early 2012, a hearing might be held on
this point with a French researcher who was currently finalising a thesis on this subject. This hearing
could be organised jointly with the Committee and the European Parliament, and the Commission
would be invited to take up a position.
Like other speakers, Mr Roirant congratulated Ms Rodert on her excellent opinion. He particularly
admired her focus on giving a clear definition of social enterprise. However, he was not in favour of
creating a social enterprise label as this might lead to confusion, particularly with the concept of
corporate social responsibility. France had tried a social enterprise label and this initiative had
quickly been dropped.
Mr Roirant then asked Ms Rodert to answer the speakers.
Like several speakers, Ms Rodert considered that prudence was needed, but the Commission
communication provided a window of opportunity which had to be seized provided that the definition
of social enterprise was very clear. She felt that the key difference between a social enterprise and a
private company was what happened to the profits generated by the business's activities. It was
therefore necessary to be watchful for companies which initially presented themselves as social
enterprises in order to benefit from the measures to support the development of the social economy
sector and only later revealed themselves in their true colours, as private companies.
She completely agreed with Ms Garcia as regards access to public procurement, as her own country,
Sweden, was experiencing exactly the same situation described by Ms Garcia: there was no level
playing field between social enterprises and private companies, as the latter had much greater
financial resources. She considered that the quality of the services provided should be given much
greater weight than the price factor when awarding public contracts. Procedures geared more towards
the characteristics of social enterprises should thus be developed. The social innovation mentioned by
Ms Abita was also important here, especially as regards funding via the Structural Funds.
As regards the label, she specified that the idea had initially been put forward by the Commission and
that the Committee was exercising prudence, recommending that the first step should be to carry out
a study on labels already in place in the Member States and other similar systems. Should it be
established, this label would need to be awarded restrictively and on the basis of clear criteria and a
precise definition of social enterprise. Prudence was also needed on this point.
Mr Roirant again thanked Ms Rodert and closed the discussion.
5.
Presentation of the major events scheduled during the second half of the term of office
of the EESC president, Staffan Nilsson (2011-2013)
Mr Nilsson gave a brief description of the main events which would be held during the second half
of his term of office.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 15 -
Mr Iozia added that 2012 would also be the 20th anniversary of the Single European Act, whose
primary aim had been to relaunch the process of European construction in order to complete the
internal market. The single market observatory planned to celebrate this anniversary by focusing
debate on the social dimension of the single market, and hoped to cooperate with civil society
organisations on this occasion.
6.
Initial exchange of views on preparations for Civil Society Day 2012
Mr Nilsson traced the background of Civil Society Day and presented Mr Roirant's proposal to
dedicate this day to the Arab Spring.
Mr Roirant described how he had come to make this proposal, which followed on from the debate
held during the Liaison Group meeting on 27 June 2011 on the participation of organised civil society
in the transition towards democracy in the Southern Mediterranean countries.
During this Civil Society Day, debates would be held with representatives from all the countries
concerned on how to support the ongoing democratisation process, as civil society on both sides of
the Mediterranean moved closer together. On this point, he added that several European organisations
and networks which were members of the Liaison Group had already established links and were
carrying out joint activities with partner organisations in the Southern Mediterranean countries.
Mr Roirant then asked the members of the Liaison Group for their views on this proposal.
Mr Boyle stressed the complexity of the situation currently prevailing in the Southern Mediterranean
countries of the Arab Spring, and explained why he called for prudence here and, in the current
situation, was against this proposal. Generally, he felt that the situation was highly volatile and the
future was still unpredictable, even though the situation differed between countries. In this situation,
he considered that the approach adopted by the Committee for 2012 was pragmatic, with the aim
being (the arrangements had yet to be decided on) to help boost the capacities of civil society at
grassroots level. There was still the problem of identifying civil society actors in the various countries
concerned, social partners or other, who had legitimacy and had not had ties to fallen regimes and
political systems. The absence of structures for dialogue with civil society was also a problem.
Mr Boyle asked about the goals of a Civil Society Day. Rejecting self-celebration, he considered that
the goal should be to lay the groundwork for the launch of genuine cooperation programmes, with
specific commitments. The REX section wanted to develop tangible activities on the ground. The
Committee also needed commitment by the emerging political structures in order to help ensure that
present or future civil society representation bodies had a real role to play in the democratic processes
now being established.
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
.../...
- 16 In conclusion, Mr Boyle emphasised the huge challenges facing the Southern Mediterranean
countries of the Arab Spring: freedom of expression, freedom of the media, an independent judiciary,
etc. Everything undertaken therefore needed to have a meaning for grassroots actors and yield
practical results.
Mr Pinto agreed with Mr Boyle's analysis and also stressed that recent developments in the Arab
Spring countries were reason to act cautiously. It would be premature to celebrate the Arab Spring as
there was no way to predict what the future would hold for the countries concerned. He asked what
the goals of a Civil Society Day on this topic would be, how the right partners could be chosen and
what steps should be taken to ensure that a representative sample of civil society in the countries
concerned took part.
Mr Iozia also asked whether it was the right time to celebrate the Arab Spring, and agreed with
previous speakers in calling for caution, adding that the choice of partners was also problematic. He
warned against repeating past mistakes by establishing dialogue with organisations whose legitimacy
was open to challenge.
Mr Roirant noted that further discussion was needed on whether the Civil Society Day should be
dedicated to the Arab Spring, and said that he shared the concerns expressed by the speakers.
However, he pointed out that many civil society organisations, both European and national, were
already actively engaged on the ground; they were establishing partnerships with emerging
organisations in the Southern Mediterranean countries which needed support and aid. In this context,
dedicating the Civil Society Day to the Arab Spring could make it possible to pool experience,
exchange good practice and consider potential synergies in order to help these emerging civil
societies to develop. He concluded by reiterating that further discussion would be held before any
final decision was taken.
Mr Nilsson concluded the discussion by noting that it was difficult to predict the future; he agreed
with Mr Roirant that further discussion was needed, and that the option of dedicating the 2012 Civil
Society Day to another issue should not be excluded.
7.
Date of the next meeting
Liaison Group members would be informed of the date of the next meeting in due course.
_____________
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn