사회적기업가 양성을 위한

정부의 역할 및 과제

이은애

(사)Seed:S 혁신단장

前 함께일하는재단 사무국장

2010.6

사회적 기업가정신국제컨퍼런스 2010

1. 2009년말, 사회적기업 인증 289개소

한국 경제 비중 (현대경제연구소)

전체 경제활동인구 중 0.03% , GDP 대비 매출액 비중 0.01%

2. 사회적기업, 사회혁신의 새로운 트랜드로 부상하다!- 시민섹터의 다양한 참여 : 실업빈곤,여성,환경,문화,국제개발 등

- 대안학교 및 대학생 동아리들의 쇼셜벤쳐 참여, 쇼셜미디어 활용

- 6월 2일 지방동시선거 후보자 중점 공약사항

- 참여 부처 급증 : 노동부, 복지부, 문광부, 환경부, 문화재청, 산림청,

교과부, 농림부, 국무총리실, 청와대 사회정책실, 미래위 등

- 언론, 진보와 보수의 경계 넘다

한국에 사회적기업 개념이 소개된 지 불과 10년,

성장배경과 동력, 지속가능성을 위한 정부의 역할과 과제는?

1. 한국, 사회적기업 붐이 일고 있다

02한국의 인증 사회적기업

현황 및 경영 성과

1. 한국 사회적기업의 개념

“취약계층에게 사회서비스 또는 일자리를 제공하거나 지역사회공헌 등

의 사회적 목적을 추구하면서 동시에 영업활동을 수행하는 조직으로서

다양한 이해관계자가 참여하는 의사결정 구조를 갖추고, 수익 발생 시

사회적 목적 실현을 위해 재투자 하는 기업”

협동조합운동, 소셜벤쳐, 커뮤니티 비즈니스, 사회적 경제 등

보다 포괄적인 개념으로 활동

§ 한국 사회적기업의 법적 정의

§ 한국 시민사회계의 개념 이해

정부 주도성 논란 지속- 법과 인증제도를 통한 명칭사용 통제- 사회적기업 육성위원 선임권 정부 독점- 정부 정책과제 (단기 일자리 창출) 맞춘 지원 정책 시비

• 공신력1) 조직형태 : 민법, 상법, 협동조합법 의한 단체 또는 법인2) 인증 기준과 관련 내용을 정관, 규약 등 명문화

• 사회적 성격3) 사회적 목적 실현 : 취약계층 고용 또는 사회서비스 제공율 30% 이상,

혼합형은 각 20% 이상cf) 노동통합형 SE 취약계층 기준 :영국 25%, 이태리․핀란드 30% 이상

4) 민주적 지배구조 : 다양한 이해관계자가 참여하는 지배구조5) 수익 재투자 : 영리 조직도 수익의 2/3 이상을 사회적 목적에 재투자

한국 사회적기업 인증 기준 (6개월 경영성과를 평가,육성위원회 인증)

• 기업적 성격6) 유급근로자 : 1인 이상 고용, 근로기준법 준수 의무7) 수익성 / 지속가능성 : 최소 노무비의 30% 이상을 영업수입으로 확보

1. 한국의 사회적기업 개념

2. 사회적기업 인증제 도입 배경

• 법 제정시 부터 정부 인증제가 제3섹터의 자율성과 창의성을 침해하

고 진입장벽을 제공할 것이라는 우려 제기

• 그러나

- 제3섹터가 주도했던 고용창출의 성공모델이 부재

- 사회적기업이라는 새로운 하이브리드형 조직을 수용할 만한 한국

사회 인식 부족

- 자유경쟁 시장논리를 깨고 사회적기업에 특화된 재정지원을 실시

하기에 사회적 공감대 부족

3. 한국의 인증 사회적기업 현황

§ 2010년 5월말 현재 인증 사회적기업은 319개 (신청기업 714개소 대비 인증율 44.7% 수준)

§ 지역별로는 수도권 58.2%(1차) 46.7%, 경제낙후된 지방에서 사회적기업 육성 확대중

§ 유형별로는 취약계층 일자리제공형 비중 높음(46%) 청년, 경력단절 여성 위한 사회서비스제공형 확대

§ 업종별로는 초기 돌봄서비스(간병,보육등) 단기 파견형 다수 최근 환경, 문화관광,교육, 지역개발 확대

§ 고용규모는 약 1만 1천여명, 기업당 평균 28명을 고용 /운영기간 6개월~ 28년 까지 다양

• 2008년말 피고용인 만족도 조사결과, 기업의 사회적 성격에서 높고 복리후생,지배구조, 고용 안정성 부분 낮음

1.목표와 비전 공유 2.수행 업무에 대한 만족도 3.감독자/상급자에 대한 만족도

4.동료작업자와 공동체의식 공유 5.주당 근로시간의 적정성 6.근로계약기간에 대한 만족도

7.다양한 의사결정과정에의 참여 8.다양한 복리후생제도의 혜택 9.업무수행에 필요한 전문자질 보유

10.직무수행/직무향상 교육훈련11.사회적목적 실현에의 기여12.일자리 지속희망

자료출처 : 2008년말 기준, 인증 사회적기업 성과분석, 노동부

3. 한국의 인증 사회적기업 현황

구 분 남 여 성별격차

평균 임금수준 1,163.0 973.0 83.7

연 령

~29세 942.4 946.1 100.4

30~39세 1,185.0 991.8 83.7

40~54세 1,201.0 969.7 80.7

55세~ 971.6 920.7 94.8

고용형태

정 규 직 1,227.2 1,170.7 95.4

비정규직 949.8 876.9 92.3

취약계층

저소득층 965.8 917.0 94.9

중고령자 945.6 899.3 95.1

장 애 인 914.6 884.7 96.7

기 타 1,035.4 928.5 89.7

직 급

관 리 직 1,455.9 1,293.3 88.8

비관리직 1,001.7 923.5 92.2

• 사회적기업의 평균 임금은 월 100만원, CEO 평균임금 200만원 수준으로 내부 격차 적음• 성별 임금 격차 , 비정규직율 차이 존재• 중소기업 평균임금의 55% 수준. 반면 취약층 취업 동종업종 대비 기본급 10%이상+사회보험+퇴직금

자료출처 : 2008년말 기준, 인증 사회적기업 성과분석, 노동부

3. 한국의 인증 사회적기업 경영 성과

251개 인증 사회적기업 재무적 /사회적 성과 평균치 (‘09.10말)

• 전체 근로자수는 약 1만 1천명, 업체 평균 28명, 취약계층 고용비율은 64% 장애인(35.1%), 저소득층(31.1%), 고령자(27.0%) 등

• 전체 서비스 수혜자 수는 2만 2천여명, 업체 평균 2,192명, 취약계층 수혜비율은 67%

• 전년도 영업매출액 1,364억원 규모, 지원금 전액 수준을 영업수입 확보 가능 업체 65%

•서울강원지역 67개 사회적기업은 정부 지원금 대비 영업매출액 4배 수준

일자리 제공(n=205)

전체 근로자수 취약계층 고용자수 취약계층 고용비율

28명(최소: 3명)(최대: 229명)

17명(최소: 0명)(최대: 122명)

64%

사회서비스 제공(n=120)

서비스 총수혜자수서비스 취약계층

수혜자수서비스 취약계층

수혜비율

2,192명(최소: 3명)(최대: 60,593명)

1,689명(최소: 0명)(최대: 60,593명)

67%

영업실적(n=252)

총사업비 (n=221) 총노무비 총수입비(영업실적)노무비 대비수입비 비율

383백만원(최소: 2백만원)(최대: 6,391백만원)

160백만 원(최소: 3백만원)(최대: 1,872백만원)

265백만 원(최소: 1백만원)(최대: 8,378백만원)

200%

4. 한국의 인증 사회적기업 특징

§ 고용규모 30명 규모 소기업

§ 취약계층 노동통합적 + 근로기준법 준수 ( 최저임금, 사회보험 등)

§ 취약층에게 적합한 업종, 직업훈련과정, 강점 개발 통해 경쟁력

확보, 수익분배 통해 생활조건 개선

: 내부경쟁과 성과급 보상 보다는 기본생활 보장 중시

• 노동시장 영향력 속에 차별구조 지속 예)성별, 정규직 여부 등

• 인증기준의 2배이상의 공익성 실현, 자립성 위협

• 정부 지원중 인건비 지원제도가 가장 강력한 유인 효과로 성장

5. 한국의 예비 사회적기업 성장 전망

예비

사회적

기업

비영리조직 기반

청년사회적기업가

부처간 협력/기타

공공재정투입형

NPO 고용규모

자활사업, 사회적일자리창출사업, 장애인직업재활시설 등

전통적 협동조합을 제외한 시민사회단체 및 생활협동조합 등

대안학교, 하자센터/희망청 서포터즈, 넥스터스 청년동아리 등

83만명 이상*+@

20만명 이상

은퇴 경영인, 전문직 퇴직자 네트워크 등 참여 증가

청년 사회적기업가 경연대회 확산 (SK 세상, 삼선재단,정부 등)

* 2008년 제3섹터 고용규모에 대한 연구 (한국노동연구원, 김혜원 외) 결과,협동조합을 제외한 제3섹터에서 경제활동인구의 3.8%(83만명)~6.2%를 고용하며지난 10년간 소규모 advocacy 조직성장 감소, 사회서비스 조직 성장 결과로 분석

행안부 CB사업, 농림부 농산촌 공동체회사, 서울형 사회적기업 등

지자체 육성

예비 사회적기업 지정 및 지원 예) 서울형 사회적기업 등

6. 최근 제도 개선 현황

1) 조직형태 완화 : 농업법인 배제 해소, 소규모 자활공동체등 재정일자리사업단 진입장벽해소 (부처 및 지자체 추천제, 사회보험 미가입 기간 대책등 협의), 공공기관 출연 대응

2) 사회적 목적 범주 확대 : 법개정 통해 개념 확대(낙후지역 및 국제개발 등 지역공헌형),시행령 개정 통해 취약계층 기준 이원화 및 완화, 서비스 단가수준 및 증빙서류 포괄 적용

12사회적기업 인증 기준 완화(‘10.4.1) 및 법개정 추진

3) 수익성 기준 강화는 향후 연구과제화 : 비용대비 영업이익률, 성장도 등 고려

4) 유급근로자 고용규모 현실화 : 과잉고용 유발해 온 대규모 선호에서 탈피, 사업단계 및 분야 적합규모 인정, 재정지원 일자리에 대한 인증후 2주내 고용승계등 예외규정 적용

5) 민주적 지배구조 최저기준 제시 : 사회서비스형은 수혜자 대표, 노동통합형은 노동자대표 1인 참가, 대주주와 특수관계자의 지분 50% 미만 제한 기준 삭제 (인증후 유인)

6) 정관 및 규약 구비

7) 사회적 재투자 규정은 사회적기업의 기본적 서격이자 정부 지원금 수령을 목적으로 한영리기업 진출을 방지하는 최소 기준이라 판단하여 지속

03한국 사회적기업의

발전 배경 및 단계

1. 발전 배경 및 섹터별 태도

11 고용대책 측면

55 섹터간 가치혼합 및 사회적 협력

33 사회통합 측면

44 제도적 측면

• 공식실업률 3.6%, but 체감실업률 8.1%(사실상 실업자 305만 명), 저임금노동자 비중 32.3%

• 고용 없는 성장 심화 속에 대안적인 고용창구 필요 + 고용보험 사각지대층 실업부조 대체한 소득보전책 필요

• 시민섹터 대응 : 외환위기시 시민사회의 공익일자리 창출 성과 계승, 자활사업-사회적일자리사업 확산

• 국민경제 발전 주도하던 제조업의 고용흡수력 둔화로 친고용 산업 활성화 필요

• 국민소득 2만불, 저출산 고령화 시대를 맞아 사회서비스 수요로 분출, 공익적 공급주체 부족 대응 필요

• 시민섹터 대응: 돌봄노동의 사회화, 풀뿌리 시민운동 전환을 계기로 주민서비스 공급자로 참여 확대

• 1996 자활공동체 지원, 2003 사회적일자리 창출, 2007 사회적기업 육성법 시행 계기로 사회적 인지도 제고

• 불평등 확대 : 지니계수 ’91년 0.276 -> ’06년 0.332로 20%이상 증가

• 빈곤층 실직자, 장애인, 한부모가장, 탈북자, 성매매 피해여성, 이주여성 등의 노동 통한 사회통합 필요

• 지역간 불균등 발전, 지방대학 출신 청년실업자 도시유입, 농촌 공동화 및 고령화 대응 필요

• 시민섹터 대응 : 소외층 노동통합 + 지역재생 위한 지역사회내 선순환적 경제주체+풀뿌리 민주주의 가능성 발견

22 사회서비스산업 육성 측면

• 외환위기 이후 기업사회책임 관련 활동 급증, 자선적 기부에서 사회투자적 기부 파트너쉽 모델 증가

• 윤리적 소비자, 시민적 자본투자 증대를 목표로 다양한 섹터내 지지세력 기반 필요

2. 한국적 특수성

− 복지국가 발전 초기, 사회서비스산업 발전 초기로 국가 책임 확대 기대

− 역사적 경험 : 경제 발전 및 경제위기 대응 (외환위기시 벤쳐 육성정책),

남북간 체제경쟁중 복지제도 조기도입등 정부주도성 당연시하는 풍토

− 국가와 자본에 대한 견제와 비판의식은 팽배한 반면,

시민들의 사회적·윤리적 책임 실현에 대한 합의와 실천모델 개발 부족

− 시민기반의 윤리적 생산과 소비·투자 운동 등 물적 기반 조성 미흡

− 도시화 과정에서 과거 농촌 공동체내에 존재했던 자발적이고 연대적인

주민 경제공동체의 모델과 전통의 맥 단절

− 제3섹터 조직들이 철학적으로는 호혜성에 입각한 연대적 삶을 지향,

실제로는 부족한 자원과 분야별 주도권 경쟁 등 구심체를 형성치 못함

04한국 정부의

사회적기업 지원 제도

1. 한국 정부의 지원제도

경영지원

재정지원

기타지원

경영지원비-경영, 회계, 노무 등 자문비-사회적기업:연1천만원이내

(3년간 총2천만원 이내, 3백만원초과시 10%자부담)-예비기업: 연3백만원 이내

(3년간 총5백만원 한도)-권역별 지원기관 신청자문

사회적기업 지원기관 운영-창업 및 인증 컨설팅-재정지원 등 연계 지원

-전국 13개소 지정 운영중

사회적기업가 양성지원-사회적기업가 아카데미기초 9개소, 특화 10개소

사회적기업 인건비 지원-사회적일자리 지원 연계

사회적기업 전문인력 지원-3명이내 3년간 150만원/인-연차 차등제(90-70-50%)

인증 기업 자본 대부-시설설비비, 원자재비 등-최대 4억원 , 2~5% 이율-1년거치 4년 분할 상환-’10 미소금융재원 한함

세제감면 혜택-인증 후 4년간 법인세 50% -연계기업 소득의 5% 감면-추가적 조세감면 협의중

고용주 부담 사회보험료인증후 4년간 지원

(근로기준법 준수기업 대상, 피고용인 전원 월74천원/인사회적일자리+@로 지원)

공공기관의 우선구매우선 서비스 위탁 권장cf)’09 지자체 541억원

브랜드 제고 지원-사회적기업 주간 선포, 온라인 사이트 구축,우수사회적기업 시상

언론 홍보

전문 프로보노단 연계

연구조사

지방정부 지원 유인-법개정(안) 국회 상정

지자체 35곳 조례 제정

회계프로그램 구입비– 이카운트 등 4개사 지정

기업사회공헌 연계 지원-세제지원, 프로보노 등쇼셜벤쳐대회

사업개발비 지원 (’10신설)-지자체 매칭펀드

사회적기업 경영지원 가능한 ‘공익성+수익성’ 융합적 전문성 지닌

경영지원가 발굴, 육성 / 기업섹터와 교류 촉진 필요

2. 한국 정부의 지원제도 평가

1

초기 자본조달 활용할 재정지원 지속하되 포괄 그랜트로 제공2

우호적인 환경조성 위한 법, 조례, 규정의 정비 및 지원 체계 구축3

사회적기업에 적합한 patient capital 운용 확산 유인 필요4

사회적기업의 핵심가치를 이해하는 전문경영인 육성, 혁신적인

사회적기업가의 발굴 등을 위한 인력양성 지속 추진함. 단, 사회적

기업가가 어떻게 성장하는지를 알고 지원해야

5

사회적기업에 대한 세제감면 등 간접지원 확대6

§ 그간 지원제도 추진내용

− 제3섹터, 사회적기업의 가장 취약한 부분을 경영역량과 기술부족으로

보고 경영컨설팅 지원을 최우선적으로 도입

− 피고용인 인건비 지원을 가장 주요한 인큐베이팅 수단으로 이용

− 지자체와 대기업의 참여를 통한 우호적 거래시장 조성 노력

− 사회적기업가의 발굴 및 교육, 네트워크 지원을 강화

§ 사회적기업 육성 기본계획(2008년~2012년)

− 직접적 재정지원 최소화, 간접지원 확대

− 섹터간 협력을 통한 사회적기업 친화적 환경조성

− 창의적 사회적기업가 양성

− 사회적기업 세제 감면

3. 한국 정부의 지원제도 발전전망

05사회적기업 활성화를 위한

정부 정책의 개선 과제

사회적기업 육성의 정부 비전과 추진원칙 재검토 필요

: 시민사회 empowerment에 기초한 분권적 시민자치적 경제민주주의 발

전에 대한 비젼 재수립

: 시민사회-기업섹터간, 시민섹터 내부간, 민관간, 정부섹터내 거버넌스

의 효용성과 가능조건(상호신뢰, 역량 균형, 수평적 관계성) 마련

1. 사회적기업 활성화를 위한 정부 정책 개선 과제

사회적기업가의 사회적 역할 확대 및 맞춤 지원체계, 평가체계 구축

한국적 사회적기업의 성장 동력 중 하나인 정부의 적극성과 정책역량을

활용하는 한편, 취약점인 시민들의 지지 기반 형성에 제3섹터가 주도적

역량발휘 가능하도록 배려

1

2

3

1. 사회적기업 활성화를 위한 정부 정책 개선 과제

사회적기업 육성법을 뛰어 넘는 친사회적기업적 정책환경 조성

-중소기업 기본법의 제조업, 상법조직 중심 한계 해소

-각종 세법 정비 통해 하이브리드 조직에 대한 다양한 사회적 자본 획득

가능성 제고

-다양한 정부 부처내 소비자 지원제도에 사회적기업 접근성 제고 지원

-정책 목표간 연계로 사회변화의 실질적 효과 제고

4

정부 주도에서 시민사회 주도로 전환 가능할까?

-사회적기업가네트워크 통한 자정작용과 연대적 혁신모델 보급 활성화

-사회적기업 사회경제 성과보고서 통해 사회적 투자 가치 인식 공유

-시민들, 특히 청년세대가 사회적기업에 대하여

‘매우 매력적이고 혁신적이며 신뢰가 가는 차세대 리더’로 인식하고

새로운 삶의 비젼 가지고 참여하여 자발적 재생산 구조 정착될 때

-결과적으로 인증제가 등록제로 전환, 시민섹터의 자기주도 정착

5

감사합니다.

사회적 기업가정신국제컨퍼런스 2010

1

The Roles and Tasks of Government for Nurturing Social Entrepreneurs

( Eun Ae, LEE , Board member of Seed:S corporation, former Secretary general at Work Together Foundation)

1. Introduction At the end of 2009, 289 certified social enterprises took a very small part of the entire Korean economic activities: 0.03percent of the entire employment and 0.01% of the entire revenues of GDP. Nevertheless, it is surprising that both ruling and opposition party candidates in Government's meeting to establish unemployment countermeasures or in coming local government election are having heated discussions about the future of social enterprise. They both suggest social enterprise as a solution for expansion of local employment. Korea's major newspapers are also introducing domestic and international cases of successful social enterprises in order to emphasize the necessity of social entrepreneur spirit to further develop Korean society. In addition, the competent Ministry of Labor adopted new law in 2007 to encourage social enterprises to develop, which was the first attempt in Asia. Since then, it has been putting their heads together with diverse departments within the government and other Corporate Social Responsibility groups to create more social-enterprise-friendly environment. Since the concept of social enterprise was introduced to Korea for the first time, what has happened here during the last decade? What kind of political, economic, and social background was there to spread the notion of social enterprise within such a short span of time and how major stakeholders in each sector have reacted towards it? What kind of roles and legal support measures did the government fulfill to nurture social enterprises? How are the efforts as of today? What are the government' future tasks to pave the way for the next generation of social enterprise? What should social community and government sector do to further advance the standing of social enterprise? 2. Current Status of Korean Social Enterprises and Their Management Accomplishment

330 social enterprises were certified by social enterprise Promotion Act, and 319 of them are still running. Since then about 714 new social enterprise companies applied

2

for certification, and the rate of certification has been 44.7% on average. In its early days government experienced low (33%) certification rate due to strict rules for the qualification and the lack of field experiences. That led government to manage support organization by region on consignment to private for social enterprises. Looking at regional distribution, we know that the capital concentration problem has been alleviated from 58.2% (2007) to 46.7% (May 2010). By industry, care services such as health& welfare/childcare comprise 41.4%, forests & environments 17.6%, cultural education culture & education 10.4%, and others 30.6%. In early days of certification, dispatched care services of disadvantaged class old women took a big part; yet, due to various problems such as low added value, repetition of salary inequality between two genders, the government readjusted the policy to extend social enterprise business into different sectors such as environment, forest, revitalization of country sides, and culture. By social finality/purpose type, many of common workplace of disabled people was replacing their business into social enterprise form. The biggest sector was to provide jobs to unprivileged class, which was 46% of the total, and centers that provide jobs and social services jointly comprised 27%. Not-for-profit form accounts for 57.4%, taking major part among legal organization forms. This is doesn’t mean their little interests in profit business; rather non-profit organization form is preferred in the context of social services market, which is major businesses of social enterprises, especially with the relationship with local government. Recently the forms such as limited-company which can be established with least capital but with strength of co-responsibilities of internal members or cooperatives, traditional forms of social enterprises, are growing continuously. The government receives financial report every February to analyze the growth of social enterprises in Korea. According to the report for 2008, social enterprises' the number of paid laborers combined with the 6000 of low income unemployed and disabled was 11,177. Most of social enterprises in Korea tend to be small-sized firms with about 30 employees and often relate with the feature of combining disadvantaged class workforce. The average salary of social enterprise workers was about 1,068,000 KRW, and those who work in the environment or cultural tourism sector had a relatively higher average, which was about 1,600,000 KRW per month. Currently an average monthly salary for small to mid size firms in Korea is about 1,900,000 KRW, which is bigger than those at the social enterprise. Yet, interestingly, if we compare the salaries between those at the social enterprise with those who work at profit corporations in

3

similar businesses such as cleaning agency, recycling, nursing, the former's monthly salary is about 10% larger than the latter. We can interpret this as a result of features of social enterprises which redistribute wealth and reinvest their profits aiming for combining workforce of disadvantaged class and improvement of their lives. In addition, Korean enterprises are taking social roles for disadvantaged class by providing higher standard of work environment as well as developing proper business/business models and requiring competitiveness to their employees. Furthermore, we need to look into gender disperse in social enterprise; despite the fact that the female workers at social enterprise take up about 69%, gender ratio between male and female CEO is 65:35. There is salary for men which are also about twice larger than that for women. From this date, we can conclude that social enterprise in Korea is still affected by the gender inequality culture in normal labor market and that their knowledge and action on gender-recognition is still immature. From a survey conducted amongst workers at social enterprises, we get high level of satisfaction from community-based organizational culture and their contribution to the public good; yet, the survey shows that they are less satisfied with the instability of employment and the poor social welfare benefits. This may be due to the fact that 45% of employees at social enterprises receive their income from the government's support on social employment, but their contracts last only for a year. On the other hand, the total revenue of social enterprises in total is 2.8 times bigger than the government's total financial support. Customers of social enterprise social services were measured as approximately 197,000, and the percentage of disadvantaged class who cannot afford among them was as high as 67%. The issue may be partly solved by support system such as “social services voucher” which third party pays cost. However, it is not easy to realize the system. These support measures do create neglected area, or “blind spot” classes, and not easily connect with newly created services. Due to lack of cooperation among different departments, issues such as excluding social enterprises within the whole social services communications sometimes come into place. Social enterprises are facing these issues thus providing services for disadvantaged classes by their own costs such as reinvestments of the profits. In the end, social enterprises’ own profitability and independency are at stake achieving twice as high as public interests standard for certification. Therefore, only 69.5% of social enterprises are able to secure total amount needed to pay their paid labor from its revenue income. This situation is calling faster than ever thus to provide favorable market circumstances and expand government agency businesses, and improve support system and measures for disadvantaged class consumers.

4

Certified social enterprises are trivial so far but we can see diversity of main group in pre-social enterprises as well as their sizes; 200,000 annually are applying for government funding support for social employment, 830,000(2006, Hye-Won KIM et al.,) are employed in the third sector except for numbers in cooperatives, fast growth of youth social ventures by group of college students, and growing participation of early retired and baby boom-generation-retired. 3. The Context and Phases of Social Enterprises’ development in Korea In Korea, the legal definition of social enterprise is as the following: “organization which is engaged in business activities of producing/ selling goods and services while pursuing a social purpose of enhancing the quality of local residents' life by means of providing social services and creating jobs for the disadvantaged; various parties of stakeholders should participate in the decision making process; and any profits should be reinvestigated for the firm." However, following the definition is not enough to be certified as social enterprise. The firm also should meet the list of qualification, set by the government. On the other hand, there have been debates over the government law and certification process for social enterprises since civic community asserts to incorporate a wider range of groups into social enterprise: cooperatives, social venture, community business, and social economy. This context allows social enterprises in Korea to be labeled as ‘Government-driven model’, which explains legal definition on social enterprise, control of the name, sole authority on nominating social enterprise support committee member, concentrated support for certified social enterprises and short-term growth by quantity of social enterprises’ establishment. This resulted in burden for government and repulse and dependency for the third sector. On the other hand, it is needed to understand distinct characteristics of Korean context where roles of government have been growing inevitably. In other words, Korea was in its early steps of welfare nation as well as early phase of social services development. Society required more responsibility on government rather than citing its or market’s failure. In complicated modern history citizen sector had full focus on resistance and critical check towards nation and/or capital but lacked integrated views or proper model on ethical/social responsibility of consumers. Hence there were no backgrounds such as citizen-based ethical production and consumption which led growth of social enterprises in western society. Historically village economy exited in

5

Korean traditional farms based on voluntarism and solidarity has been cut. And no pivot was made due to discrepancy between visions and realities of the third sector organizations; philosophically pursuing lives centered by solidarity yet realistically competing over short resources and leadership in the sectors. Under influences of these historical/social elements, social enterprises in Korea ended up with government-driven model where fostering social enterprises and taking responsibilities of that seem to be on governments’ hands. Despite the debate over leadership during the last decade, the Korean government

and civic society have well promoted people's understanding of the need for a socially integrated employment related welfare model and created high bond of sympathy on the necessity of enhancing policy related to social enterprises. Especially in the beginning of 2008, when in the middle of transition between the two governments, or almighty market believers’ derogation on social enterprise was fast spreading out, private and government sector jointly put great efforts in publicizing successful models of social enterprise and advancing the public understanding of social enterprises.

Then, what was the background of Korea that enabled the cooperation between the government and the citizen sector? In February this year, the unemployment rate was officially published as 5% (1.21million), much below the actual rate 15% (4.61million), which was indeed the worst in the world. Even foundations of self-employment, the usual option for those who lose their job, suffered from domestic recession continuing closures. Consequently, the bi-polarization of the Korean economy worsened as GDP increased while household income decreased. "The increase of GDP without any new employment" resulted in decreasing rate of income (-6.4%) of the bottom 20% and that (-3.2%) of the top 20%. Throughout critical moments such as Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, Korean Presidential Election in 2007, and the global financial crisis in 2008, all of the first, second, and third sector in Korea focused on integrating disadvantaged classes and producing job opportunities to boost the local economy. In this manner, social crisis and needs for innovation, which includes low-growth phase of economic development before and after financial crisis, dramatic decrease in number of new employment creation by existing industries such as manufacturing, internalized ‘growth without employment’, highlighted on economy of ordinary class, deepened bi-polarization, low fertility, aging society and increase of women

6

economic activities, etc., ultimately paved the way for development of social enterprises in Korea as well as for cooperation between private-public. Since there is a limit in what government can do with its budget to deal with employment, social welfare, social service, the government has been seeking the solution as European cases which succeeded in funding leveraging regional resources through partnership among various citizen groups. Out of the processes, they selected social enterprise as the most productive and market-friendly social welfare model. As a result, Social Enterprise Promotion Act could have been modified in 2007, and the government policy and status remained the same throughout the government transition. As for the citizen sector with changed characteristics of grassroots daily life democracy organization in 1990s from those of political movements, it chose alternative community movements such as social enterprises in order to sustainably create more employments and solve the daily life issues by citizens themselves. Having cooperatives for unprivileged workers, day care and study room in poor class areas, and living cooperatives associations as examples on one hand, they tried to make work community related to self-support policy of Ministry of Welfare for extreme poor class to eradicate poverty on the other hand. Yet, these activities couldn't happen under the name of social enterprises until the Global Symposium in 2001. The first time the term was officially mentioned for the government policy was when the 2003 Ministry of Labor citied policy to create social employment. The policy which funds labor costs when the employer organization in providing regional public/social services of the third sector who hires disadvantaged class was founded shows the greatest contribution promoting social enterprises. Since 2003 private-mediation agency “Saheo Yeondai Bank” (social solidarity bank) and “Silup keugbog Jaedan”(Work Together Foundation) started their activities. Finally the taskforce team on ‘enactment for social enterprises’ under Ministry of Labor established the ‘Social Enterprise Promotion Act’ in 2007. Since the enactment certification and supports by governments for social enterprises began and we’re now looking at higher level of citizens’ understanding on the issues and diversity of leaders, i.e., youth social venture, farming and fishing village community businesses. 4. Korean government’s support system for promoting social entrepreneurs

7

Social Enterprise Promotion Act introduced certification/certification system benchmarking Community Interest Companies (CIC) Act in England. Requirements are seven; six months of performance period since registration as profit or non-profit corporate body, more than one paid labor as well as taking out social insurance policies along with Labor Standard Act, realization of social purposes(which mean often hiring disadvantaged classes or providing social services more than 30% of total in actual costs), profit from business activities more than 30% than total labor costs, democratic management structure based on diverse stakeholders, reinvestments of more than two third of profit to regional society, and having articles of association. Actually it was already discussed that certification system could invade autonomy and creativity of the third sector. However, role models where the third sector successfully drove didn’t exist then, nor understanding of society accepting this hybrid-notion of social enterprise organization, and more importantly, no common ground to support financially only social enterprise breaking rules of capitalistic competition. Under this context ‘social enterprises which meet strict criteria get support’ was the notion why the certification system came into place.

Once certified as social enterprise, one receives supports and benefits as below. Recently government is considering support social enterprises also by system for Mid-to-small size firms. Supports and benefits that government has implemented as below.

Firstly, as management support for social enterprises government support professional consulting costs such as accounting, labor, marketing and PR in order to improve capability of market competitiveness and independence. For certified social enterprises, the amount of supported management consulting is 10 million KRW maximum per year and 20 million KRW maximum per three years total. For pre-Social enterprises it is 3 million KRW and 5 million KRW per three years total. Also admission fee for accounting program as well as one year fee is supported, and it connects to corporate social responsibility for Pro bono works as well. These allow connections between mainstream economy professionals and social entrepreneurs but lack of understanding of the former debates over effectiveness of such consulting have been around. Secondly, until social enterprise settles smooth in the market there is temporary financial support to promote more employment in social enterprises. Financial

8

support happens as separate contests each year within the budget. It is evaluated as inevitable to promote employment that government supports labor costs with the context where there was only less than 50% of employment insurance rate for disadvantaged class, major target for social enterprises, and there were no dole/allowances for unemployed. Nevertheless, as issues such as dependency over government due to labor costs support system pointed out, government is considering different strategy, i.e., big decrease in labor costs except for those needed at initial establishment phase but expending marketing supports or tax benefits.

Labor costs support for (Pre)Social enterprises’ newly hired

- In case of providing social services such as Welfare/ Environment/ Culture/ Etc., to disadvantaged class for free or for actual costs, and/or hiring new people in order to provide workplace to disadvantaged class - Minimum salary as well as social insurance costs for unprivileged class participation - Growing size from Two thousand ppl. (7.3 bllion KRW) in 2003 to 140 thousand ppl. (1.5 trillion KRW) in 2010 - For pre-social enterprises maximum length of support is two years; first year of 100% of labor costs, 2nd year of 90%. For social enterprises, maximum 3 years; first year of 90%, 2nd year of 80%, then 3rd year of 70% - Seoul city government started selection of Seoul-type social enterprises so that it supports labor costs and social insurance costs separately (but not overlapping with support from pre-social enterprise by Ministry of Labor)

Professional Labor costs support for social enterprises

- In case where certified social enterprise hire marketing, accounting experts, within maximum three monthly 1.5 million KRW for maximum length of three years. However, portion paid by social enterprise own grows as 10% in the first year, 30% in the second year, and 50% in the third year.

Social insurance fee support for social enterprise

- Newly founded in 2010; assists social insurance costs which are supposed to be paid by employer. Only for social enterprise not participating to job/employment creation related businesses - Assists when the social enterprise follows the Labor Standard Act, possible assistance to the whole employees

Supports on Business development costs

- Newly founded in 2010; form of matching-fund between Ministry of Labor and local government for R&D costs, PR-marketing costs, market survey costs, products-services development costs, BS/AS, etc., related to customer management costs - In case of pre-social enterprises the amount is within maximum 30 million KRW, certified social enterprise within 70 million KRW

Thirdly, government organized law, ordinance, regulating system as well

as built their support system to foster favorable circumstances towards social enterprises. Modification on Social Enterprise Promotion Act as well as offering standard ordinance to thirty five mega polis and base local

9

governments for them to organize their ordinances to support social enterprises. Recommending rent of national/public land or idle buildings for social enterprises, as well as promoting public organizations to buy products and services of social enterprises resulted in revenue income of 54.1 billion KRW in 2009. In addition, government induced to select 13 regional assisting organizations to support certification consulting, connecting resources. This year based on MOU expansion including Ministry of Environment, and that of Agriculture, etc., support systems by industry are reinforced.

In addition, government supports creation of financial markets as accounting for social enterprises’ low capability of funding due to low credit scores in ordinary financial organizations. Land costs needed to establish and operation of social enterprises, facility costs, operation costs within 400 million KRW, were supported as credit loan with yearly interest costs ranging 2 to 5%. In early days the form was through delegated private agency organizing capital, then ‘Miso’ microcredit organization driven by government took the role from this year. However in this process the characteristics of Patient Capital that private-driven mediation agencies with social enterprises showed significantly have been weakened and this microcredit organization monopolized donation resources that private mediation agencies have leveraged. These features led critics that this change weakened support infra for social enterprises. In addition Ministry of Labor is preparing Parents Fund towards expected increase of capital needs from social enterprises. It is still questionable if this fund uses for pain sharing such as risk management of social enterprises. Furthermore it requires prudent review if developing and leveraging ethical funds from corporate/ citizens for such government-driven fund are feasible and/or appropriate. Then, government supports social venture idea competitions for fostering professional manager who understand core values of social enterprises and discovery of innovative social entrepreneurs. Such developments and fostering began with projects by private-driven mediation agencies since 2003 then transformed and enlarged to nationwide business since revision of the Act. Basic curriculum is to understand values of social enterprises, case presentation and exchange, lecturing management theories. There have been critics that majority of Korean social entrepreneurs are weak at management

10

theories and cases as coming from not-for-profit organizations, however, satisfaction level is not yet high since it is still in initial phase where lack of management theories focused on social enterprises as well as development of good teachers.

Social Entrepreneur Academy

- Assists program management on promoting social entrepreneurs hosted by (under)graduate schools, not-for-profit organizations backing social enterprises, and certified social enterprises -Benchmarked private-owned program which started in 2003; now is implemented by government-driven management - In 2009 8 courses for general social enterprises and management, and 12 specialized industries and subjects were newly founded; 630 persons completed the courses

Open classes with credit acceptance with (under)graduate courses

- Support research fund assuming to establish Liaison-major, Bachelor, Degree courses - 6 Universities Selected in 2009.

Short-term education course support

- Government started supporting on operation costs pre-social entrepreneurs courses which were implemented by private since 2004

Grant supports for (pre) social entrepreneurs

- Supports admission fees for current employees in social enterprises as well who are in the process of (under)graduate courses on social entrepreneur \ - 54 persons benefited total in 2009

Managing Social venture competition

-Competition for Creative university students or managers in initial phase of social enterprises, in order to hunt talents and innovative social enterprises model -Enlarged size of competition from 2009, the origin was private-driven competition since 2006 -218 teams were competed in 2009 from all over the country

Lastly, tax benefits; tax reductions for social enterprises by corporate tax law, special tax limitation law and regional tax law. Recently costs that connected corporate pay social enterprises are included in designated contribution, which allows total inclusion within 5% of the income of a corporation. And for social enterprises, there are 50% tax benefits on corporate tax and income taxes for the first four years after certification. All these measures by government are pushed ahead according to Social Enterprise Promotion Act. If we analyze order of introduction of the measures, budget sizes, plans for re-sizing, etc., we could get ideas on how

11

government understand managerial tasks of social enterprises as well as its own role for them. Government sees lack of management capability and technology as the most vulnerable in the third sector or in social enterprises and that was why managerial consulting came into place at the very first. Also it leveraged support on labor costs as primary measure to foster social enterprise in policy context of social enterprises as solution for the disadvantaged in terms of living stabilization and employment. On the other hand, facing growing burden of financial support of government and continuing debates over effectiveness, government is trying to create favorable transactions through participation of local government and major companies in order to foster circumstances where social enterprises make themselves independent as well as to reduce direct financing support from government. Recently it is proven by actual cases under same circumstances if social enterprise succeeds or fails is up to social entrepreneurs themselves. This led strengthen supports related to discovering, educating social entrepreneurs and their networks. These changes also are reflected in Basic Plan for Social Enterprise support (2008 to 2012) that government publishes every five year as a duty. Government focus more and more on focused initiatives so that it can reduce direct financial support but extend indirect support by creating favorable market circumstances for social enterprises by inter-sector cooperation, raising creative social entrepreneurs, and implementing tax benefits. This is in account that through actual support experiences government acknowledged that synthesized support throughout all phases from idea hunting to closure is needed but it is not realizable by government’s support. Therefore along with support from central government, it is trying to discover superior social entrepreneurs and providing incentives, and cooperation with local government and private sector in order to improve capability of social enterprises and their sustainable base.

5. Governments’ tasks on policy for vitalization of social enterprises Let’s look at the news articles on social enterprises in various media this year. 90% of them are related to announcement of new support policy of central and local government. It seems certain that government is the most visible sector as well as the most active sector with guaranteed (which means

12

financial) measures to promote social entrepreneurs. Even some government officials worry about decreased autonomy in private sector. However, would social enterprise be the only field in Korea which was driven by government? Since 1960s Korea developed industrialization and urbanization with leadership of government and achieved early introduction of social insurances by competing over ideology with North Korea. With ideal image of Confucian welfare-centered country by country’s responsibility as other Asian countries, after Asian financial crisis Korean government boosted up IT-venture movements in order to solve economic crisis and youth unemployment and experienced the failure. Like such, role of government in Korea is ambivalent; one hand it drives social development and the other hand it neglects other sectors if too much.

In order for social enterprises to experience such historical side effects or to end as just a trend,

Firstly, we need to re-ask what the vision of government to promote social enterprises is and which principles support the vision. In other words, it is important that, within policy basis, more than anything government needs to make philosophy on recentralization based on empowerment of citizen sector and growth of economic democracy based on autonomy, then to experience the effectiveness of governance between central and local government, between private and public, and between private and private sectors.

Secondly, it is needed to organize support system which recognizes and

assists extended social roles of social entrepreneurs. Since current roles that government expects to social entrepreneurs mainly concern with short-term job creation, from now on it should focus and support more on the quality of jobs created as well as social roles they are taking in terms of innovation. Through these, governments’ support which has been concentrated on establishment and initial phase before and after the certification could be evolved as tailored support for each phase and evaluate social and economic values widely.

Thirdly, government and citizen sector should discuss together how to

leverage activeness and capabilities on policy, two which are considered as core driver of social enterprises’ development. Same for how to construct

13

citizen base which is weak point as of now. Especially letting the third sector to build more roles such as capital investments including ethical behaviors and mutual benefits, sponsor, volunteer, purchase, public relations, etc., so that autonomy and reciprocal citizenship can grow together and governments limit themselves as catalyst.

In addition, recently treatments of medical cooperatives for non-members in

disadvantaged class were legalized thanks to modification of Consumers’ Cooperatives Law. Also from MOU between Ministry of Labor-Ministry of Environment they discovered common ground not only promoting green development type of social enterprises but also fair employment opportunities transforming kicked-out from existing industry into workers in green development social enterprises. As we can see promoting social entrepreneurs doesn’t complete the task under single law system but is under influence of various related laws and policies upon with industry/organizational structure/development phase of each social enterprise. Therefore when inter-department cooperation happens, it is required to create actual as well as foreseeable policy environments by analyzing policy environments and co-efforts for improvement.

Lastly, when would be the timing when current social enterprise certification system turns into registration system by citizens’ autonomy? It may be when brand management becomes feasible thanks to self-purification by large social entrepreneur networks. It may be when citizens’ awareness gets so mature that “social entrepreneurs are very attractive, innovative and creditworthy leaders of next generation” becomes common belief through publishing social responsibility reports of social enterprises, spreading best practices through media or conducting public campaigns. As a result young generations challenge themselves with new life values and way of living then become social entrepreneurs; experiencing success and failure in society which allows them continuously re-challenge themselves. The best role of government would be making such environments of social enterprises which can develop themselves.