Social enterprises as social advocates : towards intersectional inclusion and empowerment through work : exploring discourses and practices of social enterprises who focus on labor participation

Social enterprises as social advocates:

towards intersectional inclusion and

empowerment through work

Exploring discourses and practices of social enterprises who focus on labor participation

Figure 1. Thami Schweichler, Makers Unite director and Makers Unite participant, at Makers Unite atelier. May 3, 2019

By: Mandy Fit

Supervisor: Conny Roggeband Second reader: Imrat Verhoeven Date: August 2019

Master thesis Political Science

Research project: Transnational advocacy and policy making Specialization track: Political Economy

1

Abstract

The question of how social enterprises behave and combine roles that can be traditionally attributed to other institutions such as social interest groups and commercial business is becoming increasingly relevant in academic research. In this thesis, I explore how social enterprises who focus on labor participation act as social advocates for intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination. By analyzing data from 8

interviews with social enterprise leaders, employees and participants of social programs and 15 newspaper articles, following Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach to policy analysis, I show how the problematizations of ‘having distance to the labor market’ and social exclusion by social enterprises, produce discursive solutions, subjectification for target groups and lived effects in the daily practices and struggles of social enterprise leaders, participants and employees. Innovatively, I aim to contribute to debates on social advocacy and SE by combining theories from both bodies of literature, while carefully considering the interests and needs of intersectionally marginalized groups in the labor market.

Keywords: Social Entrepreneurship, social advocacy, social exclusion, WPR approach,

2

List of contents

Speaking up: defining and framing social entrepreneurship ... 8

Defining Social Entrepreneurship ... 9

Innovative hiring models and labor participation ... 10

Framing and legitimization... 11

Taking action: the social enterprise practice and dual roles for social enterprises ... 12

Advocacy of intersectional issues ... 13

Intersectional interest representation ... 14

Deliberation and empowerment ... 15

Research design... 17

Case selection ... 17

Population and sample ... 17

Case selection strategies ... 18

The cases... 18

Vanhulley ... 18

Makers Unite ... 19

Mama Loes ... 19

Data collection methods ... 19

Sub-question 1 ... 20

Sub-question 2 ... 20

Sub-question 3 ... 21

Data analysis methods ... 22

Sub-question 1 ... 22

3

Sub-question 3 ... 22

Advocacy through speaking up: to act as advocate ... 24

Diagnosis (problem statement), assumptions and silences ... 24

Prognosis (solutions offered), personal motivation and self-legitimization... 28

Advocacy through taking action: balancing of hybrid interests ... 35

Beginning and development of the SE practice ... 35

Balancing of commercial and societal goals ... 38

Conflicting goals and trade-offs ... 38

‘Win-win’ situations ... 40

Intersectional advocacy: social entrepreneurship for intersectional entrepreneurship ... 44

Interest representation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Organizational structure and empowerment ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Conclusion ... 52

4

Introduction

In a video-interview Thami Schweichler expressed his views on social inclusion: “Someone having a place to stay or a job doesn’t necessarily mean someone is integrated in society. Being included is about how you feel. Do you feel that you are included in the community? Do you feel you can count on someone? Do you feel you can express yourself as you are? This is what we provide, we provide a personal, sustainable system for people to be heard and where people feel part of a community,” (MaatschapWij 2018). While this statement could be associated with a social interest group representative or activist, it came from the director of social enterprise Makers Unite. Makers Unite is a social enterprise that provides opportunities for people with a refugee-background to develop themselves in the labor market, creating fashion accessories from recycled life vests. The business model is designed with the aim to provide equal job opportunities, stimulating labor market participation.

Struggles for labor market participation occur amongst disadvantaged groups in society who are sensitive to marginalization, discrimination and stereotyping. The College for Human Rights (2013) points out specific groups that are disadvantaged in the European labor market: ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, youngsters and elderly people. Intersectional politics as originally proposed by Crenshaw (1989) provides the insight that these groups are not homogenous but overlapping, consisting of individuals with intersecting (marginalized) identities. This creates huge challenges when aiming to reach social justice.

Social movements and traditional forms of advocacy in general have the potential to create social change in favor of these disadvantaged groups, aiming to reach social justice. However, recent studies on the elaboration of intersectionality as a paradigm in public policy and social movements show a tendency of intersecting identities and corresponding interests being misrecognized (Strolovich 2006; Bassel & Emejulu 2010; Lepinard 2014; Einwohner et al. 2016).

To claim, frame and speak about rather than with marginalized groups is an important pitfall. Intersectionally marginalized groups, such as those who struggle with labor market discrimination, are structurally misrecognized by policy makers and interest groups. Mobilization is biased towards elites, at the expense of the intersectionally marginalized groups. Strolovich (2006) uses intersectional analysis to look at marginalization within interest groups, finding that the interests of intersectionally marginalized subgroups are

5

considered less important, or are at least framed to be less important, compared to majority or privileged subgroups of the same size. Because of what Strolovich (2006: 895) calls ‘the new mobilization of bias’, interest groups are generally less active on issues at stake for

disadvantaged subgroups. Ironically, it is especially intersectionally marginalized groups, people who face the highest risks for labor market discrimination and unemployment, that face the biggest danger of not being represented properly by interest groups.

This new mobilization of bias indicates that the economically most vulnerable groups in society are slipping through the cracks, while activists, interest groups, policy makers and companies debate on how to tackle issues such as labor market discrimination. Companies are important actors in these debates, being the heavier weights in power-imbalances, deciding who is hired, who is fired, driven by economic incentives and market logic. Therefore, business is commonly framed as the opponent by social justice advocates. However, the political role and legitimacy of business, with its enormous discursive, structural and instrumental power (Fuchs & Lederer 2007) is highly contested in the academic debate. As stressed by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) proponents, business interests are not by definition in conflict with societal interests or with the interests of intersectionally

marginalized groups in particular (for ex. Haigh & Jones 2006). Opportunities for

co-operation, and leadership of business in solving economic justice issues are demonstrated by Social Entrepreneurship (SE). Social enterprises lead business with hybrid incentives, combining material and philanthropic motivations to form business models and strategies.

The behaviors of social enterprises show patterns that can be related to social advocacy. Leaders of social enterprises take dual roles: while meeting demands of stockholders and consumers, social obligations towards the communities in which they operate are also met (London 2008). Corporate leaders perform in media appearances as advocates for social causes, such as environmental sustainability and health, and generate economic opportunities for employment, fair wages and poverty reduction (ibid.). CSR critics question the compatibility of these hybrid motivations, worrying that business incentives and market logic remain dominant, resulting again in misrecognition of (marginalized) societal interests (Guthman 2007; Johnston 2008; Cabrera & Williams 2014).

This research aims to go beyond this theoretical debate on the political role of

business, empirically exploring these tensions in the behavior of social enterprises who focus on labor participation. Innovative hiring systems provide a possible solution to labor market

6

discrimination, aligning job profiles to disadvantaged groups and aligning business models to these specific job profiles, creating social value through creating jobs and work. By creating jobs and work, but also through telling stories in journalistic appearances and through providing training and coaching, social enterprises who focus on labor participation act on behalf of (intersectionally) marginalized groups.

This raises empirical and normative questions. How do they do so and is this indeed in interest of intersectionally marginalized groups in the labor market? The aim of this research is three-fold. Firstly, it aims to explore discourses of social enterprises who focus on labor participation: how do they frame problems in the labor market and the societal role of their business? Secondly, it aims to explore the empirical reality of social enterprises who focus on labor participation: what do their daily practice and struggles look like? Thirdly, the aim is to touch upon normative consequences for intersectional advocacy by aligning the frames and practices of social enterprises with the needs of the intersectionally marginalized groups they work with. These aims are translated into the following research question and sub-questions:

How do social enterprises who focus on labor participation act as social advocates for intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

Sub-question 1: How do social enterprises who focus on labor participation frame issues on the labor market and the societal role of their business?

Sub-question 2: What struggles do social enterprises who focus on labor

participation face while offering solutions to intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

Sub-question 3: To what extent do the frames and practices of social enterprises who focus on labor participation meet the needs of intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

The originality of this study lies in going beyond traditional notions of social advocacy, describing the contemporary empirical reality of SE and possibilities for new forms of advocacy. Furthermore, while the study is descriptive, legitimacy and democracy in the empirical sense are aimed to be assessed, paying careful attention to intersecting marginalized interests and needs.

7

The structure of this study is as follows: in the theoretical framework I will discuss three bodies of literature that provide clues for answering the sub-questions. I will do so by

innovatively combining three bodies of literature that are particularly relevant to the behavior of social enterprises who focus on labor participation: Social Entrepreneurship (1), social advocacy (2) and intersectional advocacy (3). The first body of literature concerns the SE frames and discourses, and helps us to define SE, specifically social enterprises who focus on labor participation. The second body of literature is centered around social advocacy and the practice and struggles of social enterprises. The third body of literature discusses the

challenges for intersectional advocacy, which helps us to explore the needs of intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination.

In the research design chapter, I will argue that a qualitative, in depth, case-study with three Dutch cases: Makers Unite, Mama Loes and Vanhulley, is a suitable design for this research, because the cases are illustrative for social enterprises with innovative hiring models, dealing with intersectional inclusion dilemma’s.

Thereafter, by presenting the empirical findings of three case studies, I will argue that that social enterprises with innovative hiring models are primarily service-providing

advocates, creating opportunities for work and personal development for intersectionally marginalized groups. SE is complementary to traditional forms of advocacy. They are complementary because of their unique and distinctive way of empowering intersectionally marginalized groups and generating resources for sustainable, independent and ongoing social advocacy. I will show how the problematizations of ‘having distance to the labor market’ and social exclusion by social enterprises, produce discursive solutions, subjectification for target groups and lived effects in the daily practices and struggles of social enterprise leaders, participants and employees.

8

Theoretical framework

The empirical study of social advocacy for intersectionally marginalized groups by social enterprises with innovative hiring models requires defining three core concepts: social

advocacy, social enterprises with innovative hiring systems, and intersectional advocacy. The definition of the first concept, social advocacy, sets out the structure of this chapter and the rest of the research.

London (2008: 313) defines social advocacy as ‘the act of supporting an idea, need, person or group’. Representation is an important aspect of advocacy, since advocacy arises in cases where groups struggle to find leverage to speak for themselves. Advocacy relies on two types of behavior: ‘speaking up’ and ‘taking action in order to effect social change’ (idem: 314). When speaking up, the goal is to create awareness on a particular problem and generate positive attitudes towards solutions to that issue. Taking action involves recruitment of the likeminded, forming organizational structures, delivering services, influencing policy makers and raising money. I will adapt this definition for my study.

Three different bodies of literature provide clues about how social enterprises act as social advocates for the intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination. The first body of literature looks at how social enterprises ‘speak up’ (1) and touches upon how social entrepreneurs frame their own practices and the societal problems they engage with. The second body of literature is about ‘taking action’ (2), the solutions social entrepreneurs offer to intersectionally marginalized groups and the dual roles of social entrepreneurs, balancing societal goals and commercial goals. The third body of literature is about a specific form of advocacy: intersectional advocacy (3). What are challenges for social advocates dealing with intersectional problems? What are opportunities for intersectional solidarity? I will connect these three bodies of literature, innovatively assessing social entrepreneurship from an intersectional advocacy perspective.

Speaking up: defining and framing social entrepreneurship

The idea of SE is contested and raises numerous theoretical questions. While this research aims to go beyond this theoretical debate, focusing on empirical realities, this paragraph aims

9

to touch upon some theoretical notions and define two core concepts: Social Entrepreneurship (SE) and labor participation. While I was studying academic definitions of SE, I realized that since social advocacy can partially be defined as representing groups or causes through speaking up, it is important for my research how social entrepreneurs define their own practice and their role in society. In other words: how they frame their practice. Therefore, throughout this paragraph I will discuss some key notions regarding frames and discourses of social entrepreneurs. It is necessary to define my own understanding of the SE practice, in order to be able to later on compare the academic definitions with frames used by social enterprises, answering the first sub-question of this research: “1. How do social enterprises

who focus on labor participation frame issues on the labor market and the societal role of their business?”.

Defining Social Entrepreneurship

There is an academic consensus on social value creation being the most important pre-condition for SE. Social value creation can be described as having a social mission as a core business (Choi & Majumdar 2014: 367). Despite the academic consensus, notions such as ‘creating social wealth’ and ‘addressing social issues and problems’ are subject to valuation and therefore sensitive to framing and debate. It involves virtuous behavior, altruistic

objectives and values such as freedom, equality and tolerance (ibid.). I will elaborate on how social value creation in the form of ‘labor participation’ is subject to framing and debat, later in this paragraph (p. 10).

Next to social value creation, Choi and Majumdar (2014: 367-368) distinguish four other core aspects of SE: the social entrepreneur(s) (1), the social entrepreneurship organization (2), market orientation (3) and social innovation (4). The social entrepreneur (1) refers to an individual, or set of individuals, personal leadership and initiative, imagining and pushing through innovations. The social entrepreneurship organization (2) entails the various

organizational forms of SE, such as for-profit, non-profit and hybrid forms. To make a clear distinction with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and civil society organizations (CSO’s), who show related but distinct forms of advocacy (as will be elaborated upon in the next paragraph), I choose to define SE as having a for-profit or hybrid organizational form.

10

This links to the third core aspect of SE: market orientation (3). SE is generally focused on high efficiency and effectivity through commercial activities, aiming to be financially sustainable and economically self-sufficient. Lastly, SE tends to be socially innovative (4), their practices being disruptive and non-traditional, creating new models for social change and transformation. I adopt this definition for this study.

Framing of labor participation

In this research I focus on a particular innovation or social value creation: solutions for labor

participation. Contemporary solutions offered by social enterprises for labor participation

include social inclusion programs and Open Hiring. The two solutions differ in selection method and contractual relationship. Social inclusion programs offer training and coaching for specific groups with distance to the labor market in combination with internship- or voluntary-like work, with the goal to prepare for an employer-employee relationship (Makers Unite, n.d.; Vanhulley n.d.). Open Hiring offers work in the form of a paid job, on first come, first serve basis, regardless of experience, education or other backgrounds (Start Foundation 2019). People who are hired through Open Hiring also receive coaching and guidance throughout the process of learning the job.

The Netherlands has a long tradition of labor participation in special ‘social

workplaces’, initiated through top-down legislation programs focused primarily on people

with disabilities, since the 1950’s (Cedris 2017). Contemporary practices of starting a

business with the aim to create opportunities for work (paid or preparatory) for disadvantaged groups, such as social inclusion programs and Open Hiring, are specific trends within this historical context. These solutions for labor participation are supported by the 2015

Participation Law, aiming to employ as many people as possible at regular companies (Cedris 2017). However, social entrepreneurs often claim that they have a visionary and intrinsic wish to create social change, instead of being merely enforced by top-down legislation and grants for labor market participation. For example, Peter Hobben, leader of the social enterprise ‘De Meewerkers’ states: “We started in 2010, working from the idea that the labor market is not social enough, change is not only needed, change is possible.” (Social Enterprise NL n.d.).

Therefore, it is particularly relevant to take legislation, institutional context and grants into account when interpreting the frames of social entrepreneurs about their social value

11

creation, business models and motives. Can one still speak of intrinsically motivated visionary initiatives when the organizations are heavily subsidized and stimulated by government policy?

Generally, social enterprises in the Netherlands that deal with labor market

participation focus on youngsters, people with physical or mental disabilities, people with a refugee-background, women and ethnic minorities (Hogenstein 2016: 18; Social enterprise NL, n.d.). Hiring models focus on these economically vulnerable groups for their job profiles, consciously providing job opportunities and personal development opportunities.

Framing and legitimization

As highlighted above, social value creation by social enterprises is subject to framing and discourses. SE is a specific form of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In the CSR debate, there is a division between opponents and proponents of the actual possibility of CSR. Opponents of CSR claiming that corporate and commercial interests will remain dominant, creating insurmountable barriers to ‘sincere’ or ‘legitimate’ societal change (Guthman 2007; Johnston 2008; Cabrera & Williams 2014). Proponents of CSR promote the idea that

commercial interests and societal interests can be balanced or work symbiotic. Commercial goals can enhance societal goals, like a win-win situation. For example, societal goals can be supported with commercial goals, by generating resources which provide financial

sustainability and independency for the organization.

These discourses are important because they are powerful. Fuchs and Lederer (2007) define discursive power as a function of norms, ideas, and societal institutions, reflected in discourse, communicative practices, and cultural values. When social enterprises frame labor market discrimination and the societal role of their business, they implicitly or explicitly legitimize themselves. Why does their practice exist? What are the societal problems they deal with and what solutions do they provide? The sensitivity of these legitimizations is demonstrated by the example of greenwashing: companies claim to be environmentally responsible to create competitive advantage, while inexplicitly minimizing actual

environmental contributions, because these would be more costly, harming netto-profits. In simple words: companies tend to frame their businesses to be more societally responsible than they actually are because of material incentives.

12

It can be expected that social enterprises will aim to frame their practices as positively as possible, with less attention for trade-offs between societal and commercial goals and more attention for social responsibility and win-win situations. On the other hand, success-stories of SE have the potential to positively change public opinions on solutions to societal problems, inspiring social change. ‘Creating awareness’ is an important aspect of advocacy, that requires discursive power. Do social entrepreneurs acknowledge that power? If so, how do they

legitimize themselves?

As I will explain more in depth (in paragraph 2.3), an intersectional approach is needed when working with disadvantaged groups, and comes with many challenges. Because of the intersectional disadvantages in the labor market, I am particularly interested in if social entrepreneurs who focus on labor market participation frame the issues they deal with as intersectional issues, related to marginalization. How do they frame the problems their practice means to solve?

Taking action: the social enterprise practice and dual roles for social enterprises

On which practices are these discourses and contestations built? Social enterprise leaders search for equilibria which are unique and can be complementary to traditional actors with societal goals, such as civil society organizations and government. As mentioned above, social enterprises show behavioral patterns that can be related to social advocacy. Within the traditional conceptualization of advocacy, companies or entrepreneurs are rarely mentioned as practicing actors. Moreover, companies are often framed by activists as the opponent in the struggle for social change. However, as described above, social entrepreneurs claim to create social value for the communities they operate in, and the disadvantaged groups they work with. This asks for a reconsideration of the concept of advocacy, as empirical reality may shed new light on theoretical definitions. While the field of CSR literature is blooming, there is a lack of literature assessing CSR practices through an advocacy lens. This lens can provide new insights on the claims and practices of SE.

When looking at the core aspects of SE as proposed by Choi and Majumdar (2014), the most obvious difference between SE and traditional advocacy actors is market orientation. Material incentives such as efficiency and focus on profits are potentially conflicting with social value creation, since the latter requires an investment in time, money and effort that has

13

to balance out with material incentives in order to make to organization financially sustainable.

Here lies the core dilemma of social entrepreneurs, indicating that this practice will require huge trade-off management and personal choices and struggles for individual leaders. It is common that former activists start social enterprises (London 2008; Akemu, Whiteman & Kennedy 2016). Famous Dutch examples are Tony Chocolonely, Fairphone and the Dutch Weed Burger, all initiated and some led by former activists. In an interview the Dutch inspiration-platform MaatschapWij, Mark Kulsdom, CEO of the Dutch Weed Burger,

describes his past as an activist and spending time in prison for illegal activist activities as the starting point for contemplation on his role as an activist, and eventually a change in mind-set which led to starting a business in order to generate positive social change (Marsman 2017). Akemu, Whiteman and Kennedy (2016) describe how in the context of social movement activism, SE can emerge and flourish because it embodies the moral values of network members.

Nevertheless, the overlapping patterns in the behaviors of social advocates and social entrepreneurs do not necessarily mean social entrepreneurs view themselves as social advocates or that other actors or society view them as such. However, stressing social value creation of your business, without claiming representation, advocacy and required

accountability and legitimacy, seems like an easy way out. Therefore, the second sub-question is explorative and descriptive: “2. What practices did social enterprises with innovative hiring

models develop to offer solutions to intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?”. This question allows me to explore to what extent SE can be

considered as a form of advocacy. Do social entrepreneurs feel responsible in executing societal aims as social advocates and if so, how do they combine this role with their role as business leaders?

Advocacy of intersectional issues

Social advocacy traditionally is about interest representation. Central to the debate on social advocacy is the question who can or should be representing social interests and how this should be done. In the case of SE for labor participation, intersectional analysis as a normative

14

and explanatory framework of the issue is insightful. Therefore, in this paragraph, I will set out three important criteria for legitimate intersectional advocacy, based on state of the art literature: interest representation, empowerment and deliberation. These criteria are helpful to later on assess the empirical legitimacy of social enterprises with innovative hiring models and to evaluate the degree to whether social enterprises focusing on labor participation successfully generate the social value that is claimed, answering the third sub-question of this research: “3. To what extent do frames and practices of social enterprises with innovative

hiring models align with contemporary criteria for legitimate intersectional advocacy?”.

Intersectional interest representation

Distance to the labor market is part of the marginalization and discrimination of

disadvantaged groups in society, such as people with disabilities, people with a refugee-background, youngsters, women and ethnic (Andriessen 2010, College voor rechten van de mens 2013, Ghilarducci & Moore 2017, Neumark 2018, Pedulla 2018). Intersectional analysis gives us the insight that these groups are not homogenous, but overlapping, individuals

embodying intersecting identities and interests.

The term intersectionality was first introduced by Kimberly Crenshaw (1989) and refers to the reinforcing ways multiple, intersecting identities (like gender, race, class, sexual orientation, national origin and religion) impact the daily lives of people. This impact is enforced by the historical and present power imbalances that are connected to these identities and result in privileges, or discrimination and marginalization. Therefore, identity politics are should take into account intersecting interests. Advocacy has the potential to create social change and influence policy in favor of intersectionally disadvantaged and oppressed groups. However, recent studies on the elaboration of intersectionality as a paradigm in public policy and social movements show a tendency of marginalized and oppressed interests being

misrecognized (Strolovich 2006; Bassel & Emejulu 2010).

Strolovich (2006) uses intersectional analysis to look at marginalization within interest groups, finding that the interests of intersectionally marginalized subgroups are considered less important, or are at least framed to be less important, compared to majority or privileged subgroups of the same size. Organizations are generally less active on issues at stake for disadvantaged subgroups. Strolovich refers to this inequality as ‘the new mobilization of bias’

15

(2006: 895), pointing out why the bloom of advocacy organizations since the 1960s and 1970s not necessarily means that all interests of marginalized groups are properly advocated. In fact, in what Strolovich calls ‘the new mobilization bias’, as we were warned for by Olson (1965) and Schattschneider (1960), this mobilization is biased towards elites, at the expense of minorities, minorities being subgroups within interest groups. Ironically, it is especially the most marginalized groups (minorities) that face the biggest danger of not being represented properly by interest groups.

In the case of SE this translates to the following criteria: do social entrepreneurs consider intersecting identities and interests, or is job creation biased in spite of disadvantaged subgroups? Whether this criterium is met, can be derived from organization diversity: are intersectionally marginalized sub-groups represented in the overall staff and board? On basis of what and how exactly are employees and other participants in the organization selected to join the organization? Within social enterprises, mobilization bias and issue prioritization bias could also occur, similar to mobilization bias for interest groups. For who exactly are job opportunities created, are job opportunities biased towards more privileged subgroups? For example, when working with ethnic minorities: are women well represented within the job positions offered?

Deliberation and empowerment

To claim, frame and speak about rather than with marginalized groups is an important pitfall for intersectional advocacy. Opportunities for deliberation with marginalized groups can be found in the conceptualization of solidarity. Einwohner et al. (2016: 2) stress ‘active

solidarity’ as an important normative concept for social movements when practically elaborating on intersectionality, that is achieved through deliberation and intentionality. Active solidarity is explained as coordinated action, groups or individuals coordinating their actions with others, in order to determine what they will collectively do and how they see their future together. This coordination can take the form of sharing resources, symbolic

action or designing programs to mutual benefit (idem: 3). This requires negotiations about a

meaningful collective identity that captures the “we” of the movement. Coordination rests on norms of inclusion and diversity. Negotiations take place during the process of deliberation,

16

fostering engagement between different social groups, sharing authority and responsibility of agenda-setting and decision-making.

During group meetings, marginalized groups should get opportunities to speak for themselves (idem: 8). Reciprocity and equal exchange are considered important, enriching dialogue between marginalized and privileged groups. Active solidarity requires dismantling of privilege creatively, building safe spaces for marginalized groups to voice their interests: “to bring them from margin to center so they can command more attention and influence” (idem: 10).

As explained in the previous paragraph social enterprises constantly balance societal and commercial aims, which comes with many tensions. The way the organizational structure of a social enterprise is built, with employees, managers and administrative bodies, is subject to tensions between corporate structures, that foster efficiency and productivity on the one hand, and democratic or deliberative structures, that foster inclusivity and solidarity, on the other hand (Defourny et al. 2007). These tensions can be expected to influence advocacy, since the organizational structure channels interests of different people through the organization. It can be expected that democratic and deliberative structures improve

intersectional advocacy, since marginalized interest can be channeled and represented more accurately through the organization. Democratic and deliberative structures are empowering, in the sense that they are not patronizing. Opportunities to have a say and control in decision-making processes and opportunities to grow to higher positions foster a sense of

empowerment for intersectionally marginalized groups. Corporate structures, on the other hand, challenge intersectional advocacy, with power structures based on centered capital ownership and less space for democratic deliberation (ibid.).

In the case of SE, intersectional solidarity is an interesting perspective to assess the power-structures within social enterprises. Are deliberation structures where marginalized and privileged groups negotiate and exchange to be found in the governance structure of the organization? Are deliberation structures institutionalized? Is there enough space for empowerment, agency and opportunities for growth within the organizational structure?

17

Research design

In this chapter I will elaborate on the choices I made while designing this research. As explained in the previous chapter, there is a theoretical gap regarding the assessment of SE trough an intersectional advocacy lens. Because of the large theoretical gap, an explorative, qualitative case study is a suiting strategy for this research. The aim of this research is to contribute to theory development on SE and social advocacy, uniquely exploring the practice of social enterprises with innovative hiring models and their potential role as social advocates, while carefully taking into account the interests and needs of intersectionally marginalized groups in the labor market, answering the central question of this research: “How do social

enterprises with innovative hiring models act as social advocates for intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?”. I will start with narrating the

process and strategy of case selection. Thereafter, I will present the cases I selected and discuss the different methods I used for data gathering and analysis.

Case selection

Population and sample

As explained in the theoretical framework, two types of innovative hiring models are practiced by social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands: positive discrimination (1) and open hiring (2). Thus, the population where the sample were to be derived from, consists of all social enterprises that either use positive discrimination or open hiring for the recruitment and selection of workers. In the Netherlands, there is no official legal form for social enterprises, therefore the size of the entire population remains unknown. Regarding the population of social enterprises that use positive discrimination (1) as their method for recruitment and hiring, the cases I selected are illustrative for larger population of the sample, that consists of all enterprises that are affiliated to Social Enterprise NL, in the category ‘labor participation’ (Social Enterprise NL n.d.). Social Enterprise NL is one of the most established networks of social enterprises in the Netherlands.

18

Case selection strategies

The explorative nature of this research largely determined the strategies I chose for the selection of cases of social enterprises from the Social Enterprise NL sample.

Since the aim of this research is explorative, I decided to choose three illustrative cases. Illustrative, not necessarily representative to the entire population, because I

considered it more important that the cases were suitable for in-depth exploration. The depth allowed me to go into detail and collect new insights about the frames and daily practice of social enterprises with innovative hiring systems, that nourish further theory development. Therefore, the criteria I used for case selection were 1) it must be a case of a social enterprise that focusses on a particular intersectionally marginalized group with distance to the labor market and 2) the case must be typical within the sample, therefore the business must operate in a typical sector for SE for labor participation, such as retail or the catering industry. I decided that two cases would be the minimum and maximum amount to explore for this research project, within this category of ‘positive discrimination’, because one case would not allow me to make comparisons, and three cases would cost me time per case to go more in detail. Therefore, from the numerous enterprises I approached for this research, I picked two cases to study for this category, primarily based on access and practicalities: underwear-producer Vanhulley and fashion accessory designer Makers Unite.

Regarding social enterprises who use open hiring (2) as their method for recruitment and selection, the phenomenon is extremely new in the Netherlands. According to Start Foundation, a venture philanthropy fund who claims to be the first to introduce this concept to the Netherlands, Mama Loes, a baby-products retailer is the first business who started a pilot last March (Start Foundation 2019). While one other business started a pilot with open hiring at the time of writing this as well, at the time of case selection Mama Loes was the only and an interesting, promising option that received a lot of attention from journalists (Mama Loes n.d.).

The cases

Vanhulley

In their sewing atelier in Groningen, the Netherlands, Vanhulley produces boxer shorts and other clothing. The products are made off recycled men’s shirts and are produced by women

19

with a migration-background. While the women work on the production, they also follow an educational program focused on personal development. According to Vanhulley’s website, the main goal is to prepare the women for “the next step, to follow their dreams” (Vanhulley, n.d.). This next step can be a job, an internship or further education.

Makers Unite

Makers Unite designs and produces laptop sleeves and bags out of recycled life-vests. Makers Unite atelier and office is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. According to the Makers Unite website, the design and production process are part of their “social inclusion program that is based on creating sustainable products together, with the goal to enable dialogue” (Makers Unite n.d.). The participants of the social inclusion programs are people with a refugee-background. During and outside the production process, “conversations are held in order to explore talents of newcomers, develop their professional presentation for employers and introduce them to new opportunities as educational training, internships and

employment.”

Mama Loes

Mama Loes is a baby-product retailer. Mama Loes has opened a special vacancy on their website (Mama Loes n.d.): “In our head-quarters in Goirle, you can find a list. If you want this job, without having a job interview first, you can write your name on the list. That is the only thing you have to do. We do not select based on qualities, experience, background or descent. The only thing we require is that you have a healthy desire to work, can lift 10kg and can stand on your legs for at least four hours.” The concept is inspired by and adopted from Greyston bakery in the United States. This bakery has been hiring their workers through this method since 1982 and has hired over 130 employees. Because of this “success”, last March Mama Loes decided to do a pilot with this concept for their business (Mama Loes n.d.).

Data collection methods

Before I explain data analysis methods in the next paragraph, in this paragraph I will point out the data that needed to be obtained for each sub-question and describe how I collected them. In this research I use multiple qualitative methods: content analysis of newspaper data and semi-structured interviews with SE.

20

Sub-question 1

How do social enterprises who focus on labor participation frame issues on the labor market and the societal role of their business?

Initially, I decided to answer this question through merely studying public communication in Dutch newspapers, because I expected that this data would be most relevant because of the potential discursive power the enterprises practice when communicating through media with many readers. However, when I started collecting data for the second sub-question through interviews (to be elaborated on in the next section), the framing of intersectional labor market discrimination and the societal role of their business became immediately apparent.

Consequently, I decided that the first sub-question can be answered by analyzing both public communication and interview data. Public communication data was obtained in media database Nexis Uni and by browsing through public communications that the enterprises linked to on their own websites. I searched through the database using the name of the enterprise followed by ‘AND’ the city they are based, to make sure acquired results that are actually about the enterprise. I selected articles for analysis based on following criteria: 1) a social enterprise leader or representative must be explicitly quoted in the article, making sure that the unit of analysis are quotes with frames of the enterprise itself and not quotes or frames by the journalist and 2) the article must be published on an online or offline platform that is journalistic and has a societal perspective, this excludes content blogs and specialized commercial magazines on entrepreneurship or a specific economic sector. For Vanhulley I found eight articles that match these criteria, for Makers Unite I found five articles and for Mama Loes I found only two articles through Nexis Uni. The journalistic articles can be found in the appendix (4).

Sub-question 2

What struggles do social enterprises who focus on labor participation face while offering solutions to intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

Because this sub-question is about the solutions offered by social enterprises and their daily practice, this question was primarily answered through semi-structured interviews. It involves the experiences of social enterprise leaders. For the collection of data I visited the Makers

21

Unite atelier and office for an interview with director Thami Schweichler and did an interview over skype with Vanhulley director Jolijn Creutzberg and Mama Loes director Loes de

Volder. All three interviews were recorded and I transcribed them manually (appendix 1). The questions I asked the social enterprise leaders of the interviews are included in the appendix (1) and are centered around the following questions: Do leaders of social enterprises with innovative hiring models view themselves as social justice advocates? What is their daily and overall experience? What are their societal aims? What are their commercial aims? What are their personal motivations and incentives? Do they feel pressured managing dual roles? When are dual roles conflicting, when are roles symbiotic and complementary? Is intersectional analysis part of the frames and discourses of social enterprises?

Additionally, I used annual reports of Vanhulley and Makers Unite and the Mama Loes “brand book” to answer this sub-question.

Sub-question 3

To what extent do the frames and practices of social enterprises who focus on labor

participation meet the needs of intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

Initially, the data I used to answer this question is a combination of the data of sub-question 1 and 2. However, because I wanted to collect more data, I decided to answer this question through data collected by interviewing social enterprise participants and employees. This was in line with the clues provided by the literature which encouraged exploration of the needs, wants and interests of intersectionally marginalized groups. In total I did 5 interviews, with one Makers Unite participant, two Vanhulley participants and two Mama Loes

employees. The first interview was located at the Makers Unite atelier, in a separate, private space. The other four interviews were conducted via telephone. The questions were based on the central question: How has organization X helped you and what can be improved? The questions can be found in the appendix (5). Because of the language barrier, the questions were formulated as simple as possible.

22

Data analysis methods

Sub-question 1

How do social enterprises who focus on labor participation frame issues on the labor market and the societal role of their business?

In the theoretical framework I elaborated on the contentedness of all the concepts of the main research question. Because of this, I focused this first sub-question on the frames and

discourses used by social enterprises. Therefore, for this question a discourse and frame analysis is required. I decided to do Bacchi’s Discursive Policy Analysis (2009). An overview of the questions proposed by these analysis methods can be found in the appendix (2).

Bacchi’s focus is on the implicit, presuppositions, assumptions and silences.

Sub-question 2

What struggles do social enterprises who focus on labor participation face while offering solutions to intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

For this sub-question, I analyzed the interviews by labeling the answers given by the social entrepreneurs with help of a coding-scheme (appendix 3). The codes were primarily based on the individual questions that I asked and topics that were discussed during the interviews. While coding, it gradually became clear that three important themes came up, that also form the structure of the three sub-questions and chapters of this research: framing, practice and intersectional advocacy. As mentioned before, the first theme was later on separated from the second theme, to include with the first sub-question with suiting methods. I coded the

interviews with the coding software ATLAS.ti. Thereafter, I descriptively analyzed all the answers in order to make generalized statements about the practices of the cases.

Sub-question 3

To what extent do the frames and practices of social enterprises who focus on labor

participation meet the needs of intersectionally marginalized groups who risk labor market discrimination?

Initially, this question was answered through aligning criteria for legitimate intersectional advocacy with the frames and practices as came forward from the data collected for

sub-23

question 1 and 2. The criteria were based on the literature as discussed in the previous chapter: intersectional interest representation, deliberation, empowerment and networks and coalitions. I was able to touch upon normative consequences by aligning the frames and practices of social enterprises with criteria for legitimate intersectional advocacy.

However, with the new data of the interviews with employees and participants, the lived experiences of the target groups became apparent, which made it possible to compare these with the promises and practices of social enterprise leaders. I had to take into account the dependency-relationship of the employees of Mama Loes and Makers Unite. This was not relevant for Vanhulley since it were ex-participants I interviewed. I selected the answers on validity.

24

Advocacy through speaking up: the promise of SE

The business models of the three cases: Makers Unite, Vanhulley and Mama Loes are (partly) inspired by societal problems. Solutions to these problems are provided through the SE practice and are personally legitimized and motivated by the leaders. This collection of perceptions of societal problems, offered solutions and motivations for these solutions constitute the promise of SE and come forward in the interviews I conducted and the

newspaper articles I analyzed. This chapter provides an exploration of this promise, based on Bacchi’s (2009) What’s the Problem Represented to be? (WPR) approach to policy analysis.

I will argue that the promise of social enterprises who focus on labor participation starts with the problematization of ‘having distance to the labor market’, and more generally the problematization of ‘social exclusion’ or a ‘lack of social inclusion’. These

problematizations are based on a spatial understanding of the labor market or even society, that results in a proposed solution aimed at reducing distance and moving the (potential) employee from margin towards the center, that is the (potential) employer.

The structure of this chapter is as follows: I will start with discussing the problem statement as represented by each social enterprise as the starting point of their business, the underlying assumptions and presuppositions to this representation of the problem and what is left unproblematic. Thereafter I will explain which consequences are produced by these representations of the problem, in the form of offered solutions by social enterprises.

Problem representation, assumptions and silences

The most apparent problematizations in the interview statements and newspaper articles of the three cases: Makers Unite, Mama Loes and Vanhulley, are the problematizations of ‘having distance to the labor market’, ‘having less chance to get a job’ and social exclusion. The problematizations of ‘exclusion’ from jobs and ‘distance to the labor market’ are illustrated by the following statements by Loes de Volder, director of Mama Loes, the company that started a pilot with open hiring last March, hiring anyone who signs up for their logistic vacancy on first come, first serve basis:

25

I am not academically educated, that is why I think in opportunities rather than problems. We

do not want to exclude anyone, we think loyalty is important. If I have to formulate problems, it would be something like "I'm not good at job interviews". I think it’s a problem that people who know how to sell themselves, are the people who get a job, while this has nothing to do with someone’s competencies. (De Volder 2019, personal communication, 3 May).

We have been working with people with distance to the labor market, as long as we exist. (De

Volder 2019, personal communication, 3 May).

What appears from the statement above is that the problematization of exclusion implicitly differentiates between individuals who might be unemployed in a moment in time, but have high chance to be employed again soon, and individuals that are unemployed and have lower chances to be successful on the labor market in the near future. Mama Loes not wanting to exclude people is directly related to differences in chances on the labor market, based on how skilled someone is in presenting oneself in a job interview and thus how high one’s chances are on the labor market. Most notably, the problematization above is supported by the assumption that these differences in chances for success on the labor market, mostly determined by how “skilled” someone is for job interviews, are not in any way related to someone’s actual working competencies: “while this has nothing to do with someone’s competencies.”. The underlying assumption here: that some groups in society are more privileged than others in using and developing their potential, is described by Loes de Volder through the metaphor of ‘toolkits’:

Everyone who is born gets a tool box, I got that too. My toolbox is nice and rich, I have a lot of tools, there is no oxidation of the materials of the tools. In the course of my life I learned how to use these tools. So I have been able to build this company. I have a rich life, in knowledge, skills and loved ones around me. (De Volder 2019, personal communication, 8

May)

This statement nuances the previous statement, whilst being “skilled in job interviews” might not have much to do with someone’s actual competencies, there are indeed differences between individuals in the extent to which they are “able to use their tools”. Furthermore,

26

both problematizations of ‘having distance to the labor market’ and social exclusion

presuppose a spatial understanding of social interactions as a useful way to view reality. The labor market and jobs are understood as spaces or points in space where one can be excluded from, or where one can have distance to. This has consequences for the produced effects of this problematization, as will be discussed in the next paragraph.

In the statements above by Mama Loes, “getting the job” can be described, in Bacchi’s (2009) terms, as a non-problem. Looking at a variation of the problematization of exclusion in one of the other cases: Makers Unite, helps explaining why “getting the job” is a non-problem. Whilst the principal understanding of having lower chances on the labor market being related to a mechanism of exclusion, is similar to the statement above, Makers Unite defines success more precisely here. Makers Unite defines success as having a job that matches an

individual’s ambitions, talents and capabilities, as viewed by the following statement:

It's about a sense of belonging. Integration is a political term that has nothing to do with how you experience society. I believe that you can have a job, pay taxes, have a passport, but that does not necessarily mean that you feel you are part of society. If you look at major social problems, then that is the result of a lack of inclusiveness. This was apparent two generations of immigrants ago already, people had a job, passport and a house, but did not feel part of society. If you can really make a contribution, feel active, you will actually participate. That is inclusiveness for me. Do work at supermarket Albert Heijn? Or is there something else you can be doing, in which you really believe and is a challenge? What do you think you can really contribute? The key is trust, trust in the government for example, that's something that you have to build, by working together. We believe in the power of people. Discrimination in the labor market is one of the aspects of a lack of trust. (Schweichler 2019, personal

communication, 3 May).

Taking into account this definition of success, merely ‘getting the job’ becomes a non-problem, leaving the possibility that this job does not reflect the needs and wants of the employee, unproblematized. Makers Unite director Thami Schweichler stresses a lack of inclusiveness as the root cause of the problem, therewith inexplicitly referring to labor market discrimination. Schweichler broadens the problem by making actual societal contribution

27

according to individual talents and capacities the ‘holy grail’ of inclusiveness. A simple job might not be enough. When individuals can fully develop their capacities and potential regarding work and function fully within their jobs, they have a higher “sense of belonging”. Throughout the data, similar problematizations, like ‘having distance to the labor market’, ‘having lower chances to get a job’ and ‘social exclusion’ keep appearing, for example in the following statements:

"People often think that as a social entrepreneur you start with a world-improving idea. Those recycled blouses could be seen as such, I could never throw away anything, so that's like an intrinsic motivation. Then I thought, it's simple kind of labor, it's one pattern, one thing you make. So, for me, the choice was made quickly, to help people who want to get started, rather than people who already have a great chances to get a job.” (Creutzberg 2019,

personal communication, 8 May)

"Companies select and select, and discriminate more than necessary." (as stated by Loes de

Volder in: Ackermans 2019).

In addition, job interviews do not fit the principle of open hiring, because everyone should have equal chances for a job, regardless of work experience, training, limitations or background. (De Volder 2019, personal communication, 3 May).

These women merely get opportunities to work and few people do something about that.

(Creutzberg 2019, personal communication, 8 May)

Next to exclusion, Loes de Volder mentions the Dutch social welfare system as a structural societal problem. According to de Volder, the extensiveness of care and unemployment benefits people receive, undermines the independency of individuals to find their place in the labor market:

The societal goals of Mama Loes? First, make fun and make people happy, this applies to both our customers, suppliers and employees. If I really have to articulate it socially, the goal is to give every person the chance to earn your own money independently and take care of

28 yourself. In today's Dutch society we offer a lot of care and assistance to people with a

distance to the labor market, I believe that people remain dependent in this way. I think you should give everyone the chance to take care of themselves. We offer people that chance by helping them to work. (De Volder 2019, personal communication, 8 May).

Overall, the visions on societal problems of all three cases of social enterprises with innovative hiring models are largely overlapping. The social enterprise leaders point out ‘having distance to the labor market’, ‘having lower chances to get a job’ and social exclusion as the most important problems in relation to their business. Furthermore, the social enterprise leaders stress the unused potential of people with distance to the labor market as a societal problem and an opportunity for social enterprises.

Effects (solutions offered) motivations and subjectification

The effects that are produced by the problematizations as discussed above, can be

distinguished in discursive, subjectification and lived effects, as proposed by Bacchi’s WPR approach (2009). I will limit this paragraph to the discussion of discursive and subjectification effects, lived effects will be discussed in chapter 5 and 6 (p. 44). Discursive and

subjectification effects follow from problematizations. In the case of SE for labor

participation, the discursive effect can be translated as the story that is told about the solution to the problematization, including motivations on why this is the best solution to the problem and how this solution came about. What is most apparent when social enterprise directors speak of solutions, is that they consider themselves as advocates, according to the definition of social advocacy I introduced in the theoretical framework. To recap, the definition of social advocacy I adopted was:

“London (2008: 313) defines social advocacy as ‘the act of supporting an idea, need, person or group’. Representation is an important aspect of advocacy, since advocacy arises in cases where groups struggle to find leverage to speak for themselves. Advocacy relies on two types of behavior: ‘speaking up’ and ‘taking action in order to effect social change’ (idem: 314). When speaking up, the goal is to create awareness on a particular problem and generate positive attitudes towards solutions to that issue. Taking action involves recruitment of the

29 likeminded, forming organizational structures, delivering services, influencing policy makers and raising money.”

Initially, the social enterprise leaders did not explicitly label themselves as advocates. However, when I proposed the academic definition as introduced in the theoretical framework, all three directors undoubtedly confirmed they view themselves as such:

Yes I see myself as an advocate, a large part of our work is inspiring the public. It also started with that. I would like to show that it’s possible: in general, there is a very fragile picture of refugees, which is not right. I want to show that it is possible to give a chance to newcomers to work. (Schweichler 2019, personal communication, 3 May)

In this statement, Schweichler refers to advocacy as an act of inspiring people. The intertwining of ‘speaking up’ and ‘taking action’ as referred to by London (2008: 313) is illustrated in this quote, taking action shows what is possible and provides ‘proof’ that what is envisioned, is achievable. A similar reasoning about the intertwining of ‘speaking up’ and ‘taking action’ is made by Creutzberg, her practical experience motivates her to let herself be heard, she explains how it gives her knowledge on specific issues. Furthermore, she stresses that having this knowledge makes her feel responsible to share this with the public:

Yes I am for sure, certainly at municipal level and also national level. Because I have daily experiences in practice, I think I should let myself be heard. Policymakers do not always have the right practical experience. We run against certain prejudices and regulations that

contradict each other. I think that we must absolutely take this responsibility. I have never been a typical activist, but I have become increasingly activist. These women have little opportunities and few people do something about it. The bias here is that these women all sit on the couch at home with their husband. While in the majority of our women is left by there men, or he is the one on the couch. These are women who are accustomed to working very hard, at home, and would like to be employed. So that sort of thing is complicated, it is often also about unemployment beneficiaries. You often have a lot of regulations for people with assistance allowances: extra bikes etc. But what do you do when you fall between two stools? For example, a woman of 30 who is married to a man of 70, which is not so much apparent in

30 Dutch society, but that is very normal in Islamic societies. That man then has an AOW

pension, which means that the woman has no more rights. I think it is important to act against this. In addition, of course, I hear that women, compared to six, seven years ago, are treated much more aggressively because they wear a head scarf. That is not the most cheerful side of the story. (Creutzberg 2019, personal communication, 8 May)

The social enterprise leaders motivate and self-legitimize their role as advocate through daily practical experience. Next to that, the daily experiences they gained throughout the years, are mentioned as the most important reason why they should be social advocates. In other words, it is how they legitimize their role as advocates for themselves and to others. They feel the responsibility to take this role, sharing the knowledge they gained through their practice. This experience is based on the opportunities for work and education or personal development they provide.

As mentioned before, Mama Loes hires employees for logistic work on first come, first serve basis, regardless of experience, education or other backgrounds. Furthermore, employees hired through open hiring are supported by a life-coach, provided by the

government agency for employee insurance (uivoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen), who helps them with “societal skills”. Makers Unite works with people with a migration background in so called “social inclusion programs”, which are a combination of education, personal development and voluntary work. The premise here is that participants of the program are eventually matched by Makers Unite to an employer or directed to further

education which matches talents and needs of participants. Vanhulley’s organization model is comparable to Makers Unite. Women with a migration-background are offered a one-year educational program, during which they work in the atelier as volunteers, while they are educated to develop and explore their talents and working skills. The women are coached to make a plan for their next step after the one-year program, this can be an internship, job application or further education.

These are the solutions provided by the social enterprises, they offer opportunities for work and personal development. Why are these solutions effects of the problematizations as discussed in the previous paragraph? To recap, the most important problematizations were ‘having distance to the labor market’, ‘having lower chances on getting a job’ and social

31

exclusion. The solutions provided by the social enterprises are addressing these problems, by either aiming to ‘reduce distance’ between (potential) employer and (potential) employee, ‘improve chances’ to get a job or ‘include’ people who do not feel a sense of belonging. For example, as expressed in the following statement by Jolijn Creutzberg in the newspaper

Dagblad van het Noorden and by Loes de Volder in the newspaper in NRC Handelsblad:

They learn to work in teams, take responsibility, organize their daily lives well. In short, they become motivated individuals and fantastic employees (as stated by Jolijn Creutzberg in:

Nielsen 2015).

She is optimistic: “if the work does not go well due to lack of knowledge or skill, then we teach the employee how to do it, right? And suppose an employee has problems at home, then he or she can talk to a coach. As long as the motivation to work is there,” says De Volder. "We see it as a kind of youth training in football. Everyone is meant to grow." (as stated by

Loes de Volder in: Sterk 2019).

These are examples of how social enterprise leaders explain how ‘learning’ improves chance of ‘getting a job’. Next to that, the spatial understanding of social interactions, that is

presupposed, provides an interesting discursive element, that echoes through in the way offered solutions are formulated. Suggesting distance between (potential) employer and (potential) employee, implicates that there are two directions in which the distance can be reduced. Both parties, employee and employer can take effort, invest and as a result the distance between the two can be reduced. Whereas the problematization of an individual having little ‘opportunities’ or ‘chances’ on the labor market, provides little insight on the role of the (potential) employers. Another example is given by Loes de Volder, where she explains why she wants to conform to employees:

A lot of us are biased. There is a big challenge, those boxes do not have to be straightforward or square, they have to move a little, you have to create your own rules. We do this by

changing the context and the expectation pattern. By filtering out very accessible work. That's thinking in possibilities, I feel inside that I want to mean something to someone. What

preconditions should I adjust? On the one hand perhaps the profitability of my business, it can cost money. On the other hand, I want my company to learn how to get the best out of

32 human beings in order to make it productive. It requires a personal effort to think about this, it does not give me stress, but it is a challenge. (De Volder 2019, personal communication, 8

May)

Thus, the effect here is that spatially, the employer is moving closer towards the employee, by conforming behavior or business decisions. With regards to subjectification, the target groups that are acted upon are marginalized groups with distance to the labor market: in the case of Makers Unite people with a refugee-background, in the case of Vanhulley women with a migration-background. In the case of Mama Loes ‘anybody’ regardless of background and experience, which resulted in job positions taken by people with distance to the labor market (to be elaborated on in chapter 6). Furthermore, society as a whole, and in particular

customers are targeted to make them more aware of the (potential) capacities and talents of people with distance to the labor market, as illustrated by the following statements:

When the customer buys a product from us, the customer also buys a message and a piece of awareness. Everyone in our production-consumption chain is part of the solution to the social issue. (Schweichler 2019, personal communication, 3 May)

I visit customers with my story. In general they do not have regular contact with Muslim women – you just notice they enjoy the story. I often hear back after the contact, 'it is unbelievable that these women cannot get a job '. Then I wonder, how many times have you been in contact with such a person? There I really feel that responsibility, I can create these meetings, and I like to see that works. (Creutzberg 2019, personal communication, 8 May)

Sub-conclusion 1

Sub-question 1: How do social enterprises who focus on labor participation frame issues on the labor market and the societal role of their business?

To conclude the first chapter and answer the first sub-question, the social enterprises leaders of the three cases generally problematize ‘having distance to the labor market’, ‘having lower chances to get a job’ and social exclusion. The underlying presumptions to these