Interorganizational Cooperation and Social Capital Formation among Social Enterprises and Social Economy Organizations: A Case Study from the Region of Attica, Greece

Abstract

Measuring social capital has been a challenging task over the past few decades, and, still, many of its dimensions and manifestations have not been thoroughly or evidently explored. The possible causes may be the ever-changing evolutionary perspectives that take place within the various levels of analysis—micro, meso, and macro—or within the various settings, where some of its core dimensions—bonding, bridging, and linking—are developed, or even among the contexts where its core determinants and features—trust, norms, connections, ties, etc.—are observed. Having in mind the various streams of research and theoretical discourses on social capital formation, this paper aims to surface the identification of the possible evidence on the formation of social capital among social economy organizations, and particularly among social enterprises. In doing so, it aims to explore the relational and cognitive features that drive social enterprises in their interorganizational cooperation with other social enterprises and third-sector organizations. The findings suggest that the central components of social capital, such as the sharing of common values, trust, reciprocity, and trustworthiness, are among those features that were valued most among the participants in the survey during their cooperation and engagement in common activities with other organizations.

1. Introduction

Social capital has attracted scientific research, both in theory and practice, during the last four decades, because, among other things, it provides the lenses through which to understand—part of the underlying properties and attributes behind the causes as to why individuals, communities, organizations, and societies advance and progress towards certain directions, or not concerning—their social and economic well-being. Like all other forms of capital, social capital denotes the accumulation of a number of resources that, all together, constitute a stock of intangible but, in this case, measurable, assets. Although measuring intangible assets has been, and continues to be, a challenging task among field researchers and academics, there is evidence that, as a resource itself, social capital may lead to, among other things, social cohesion, community development, empowered and responsible citizens, better organizational performances within organizations, as well as to competitive advantages for organizations in the arena of profit markets and the third-sector economy.

A vast body of literature is concentrated on exploring the various dimensions and manifestations of social capital, and it has as its units of analysis: “the individual” (Stone 2001); the household (World Bank 2004); or a country/community. There is less focus on organizations (Burt 1992), which are included at the meso level of analysis (group/organization) (Field 2003; Bhandari and Yasunobu 2009; Austin and Seitanidi 2012). With regard to the latter unit of analysis, whereas the empirical studies that concern the levels of trust and cooperation among and within firms and organizations make up a significant part of the literature, empirical investigations with regard to interorganizational trust, the very qualities and attributes of the causes behind the building of networks, and the levels of cooperation among social enterprises or third-sector organizations, are somehow scarce, or generic in nature, and there is no systematic overview in the literature.

In this context, the main purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the relational and cognitive features that drive social enterprises to engage in cooperation with other social enterprises and civil society organizations, and to participate in networks and in collective activities. However, having in mind the “difference between insight and evidence” (Putnam et al. 1993, p. 12), it should be stressed from the outset that this paper aims to surface the indications on the existence of social capital among social enterprises, and to provide both an informative, as well as a suggestive, pathway for further research with regard to social capital research between organizations. Therefore, the main assumption that will be explored concerns the stipulation that cooperation and collective action among social enterprises with other third-sector organizations (associations, NGOs, foundations, etc.) is, among other outcomes, the result of the existence of social capital “outcomes” (Field 2003, p. 125), such as trust, the sharing of common values, and reciprocity among the individuals and members of those enterprises and, therefore, among the organizations themselves. The value framework, which forms the base and which guides the social enterprise activity, and which goes along, in many cases, with the competition (limited or no exchange of resources among enterprises) for financial and human resources, and with, therefore, interorganizational cooperation as an outcome of the existence of social capital, is an outcome that is related to both the enterprise’s collaborative culture, and the striving towards gathering and securing the necessary resources for its effective operation. The findings that support this assumption are based on a survey that was distributed in the Region of Attica, in Athens, Greece, among social enterprises.

2. Theoretical Overview

At the heart of the concept of social capital is the condition that connections, networks, and shared values and norms have value (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998; Putnam 2000; Borgatti and Foster 2003; Field 2003; Scrivens and Smith 2013), and that they are beneficial for individuals and social entities, such as the organizations and groups within a community, as well as for communities as a whole. Social capital consists of intangible resources, such as connections, social relationships, contacts, social ties, shared values, and shared norms and networks, and it “exists between individuals and organizations” (Kay and Pearce 2003, p. 3; Kay 2005, p. 162) within a community in local, regional, or national settings. According to Field, “connections can be profitable; like any other form of capital, you can invest in it, and you can expect a decent return on your investment” (Field 2003, p. 12). Thus, as a resource itself, social capital is linked to both social and economic development, the well-being of people (“How’s life”, OECD), as well as with enhanced organizational performances and active citizenship.

With regard to the latter, perhaps one the most fundamental features of social capital is that it “promotes cooperation between two or more individuals” (Fukuyama 1999)1, as well as “cooperative behavior” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 245), and that it provides the individuals and groups within a community with the resources that facilitate coordinated and collective action (Putnam et al. 1993; Lochner et al. 1999) to address common social needs. Promoting collective action when addressing social problems enhances what Field calls, the “nursery of a democratic society” (Field 2003, p. 30), and the “cooperation across civil life” (Field 2003, p. 30), as well as active “civic engagement” (Putnam et al. 1993), which lead to the development of a robust civil society, which, in turn, is a “necessary condition for modern liberal democracy” (Fukuyama 1999).

Furthermore, the notion of social capital provides a conceptual framework for the understanding of the social ties, relationships, and connections that individuals form, either with each other, within a particular social group of friends, colleagues, or kin, which is known as “bonding” social capital, or, with other social groups, which is known as “bridging” social capital (Gittel and Vidal 1998), while it also provides the empirical lens for an inquiry into the grounds and the underlying qualities and properties of interorganizational cooperation across all sectors of the economy. According to Burt, “the social capital of people aggregates into the social capital of organizations” (Burt 1992, p. 58). In this respect, the sum of the connections, relations, and contacts, as well as the sharing of common values and commitments that members of a social enterprise have with members of other social enterprises and third-sector organizations, consists of the stock of the social capital of the enterprise. Therefore, in the case that “a key person leaves an organization, social capital in relation to other organizations is likely to decline” (Kay 2005, p. 165), and this could possibly have an effect at the operational level, or on the overall cooperation of an organization with other organizations.

Social enterprises comprise “social units” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), which, similar to organizations in other sectors, cooperate within the frameworks of a cluster, a transnational cooperation program, a social business or a collaborative network, an incubator, or when engaging in collective action that is aimed at addressing a particular cause or need. They may even cooperate and compete at the same time for resources, which is an activity that has been termed, “coopetition” (Arenas et al. 2020; Nascimento et al. 2021). Cooperation, either at the individual level or at the organization/group level, concerns the exchange of information and resources among the parties involved, whether formally (based upon signed contracts or agreements), or informally (communication, knowledge sharing, and networking on the basis of mutual understanding and trustworthiness), which, in turn, is based on a certain degree of common commitment, willingness, and trust that the other party will perform the tasks assigned and will fulfill their part of the role in the cooperation scheme. When it comes to social enterprises, in particular, interorganizational cooperation, on the basis of shared values and commitment—people and society come first—transforms into the creation of “collaborative social value” (Zollo et al. 2016, p. 12), and into greater social impact. The issue of the creation and “co-creation” of collaborative social value as an outcome of interorganizational cooperation is also evident when viewed among the interplay of third-sector and private business organizations (Austin and Seitanidi 2012; Barraket and Loosemore 2018).

Interorganizational cooperation is a field of inquiry that is most commonly viewed among economics, sociology, and organization theories, such as transaction cost economics, agency theory, the resource-based view, social network theory, social exchange theory, organizational learning, and the resource dependency theory (Salancik 1995; Fhionnlaoich 1999; Nahapiet 2009; Pouwels and Koster 2017). Although most of the research is concerned with cooperation and the existence of social capital among privately owned firms, commercial and industrial networks and clusters (Gabbay and Leenders 2001; Koka and Prescott 2002; McEvily and Zaheer 2004; Inkpen and Tsang 2005; Mu et al. 2008; Pérez-Luño et al. 2009; Macke et al. 2010; Tomlinson 2012; Neale et al. 2013; Faccin et al. 2017; Ortiz et al. 2018), interorganizational cooperation, and the inquiry into the existence of social capital among third-sector organizations and social enterprises, in particular, seem to be researched to a lesser degree, with few references, as far as the English literature is concerned (Nahapiet 2009; Weber et al. 2013; Cambell and Sacchetti 2014; Zollo et al. 2016; Hai 2017; Arenas et al. 2020; Saz-Gil et al. 2021).

With regard to the latter, there are two primary dimensions of social capital that are identified and applied when exploring interorganizational cooperation, namely, “relational” and “cognitive” social capital, with “bridging” and “external” social capital also comprising the crucial concepts and dimensions that substantiate the patterns of exchange and cooperation among organizations. According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), relational social capital focuses on, and is embedded in, the personal relationships that people establish and develop through their interactions, and to the “assets created and leveraged through relationships” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 244), such as trust and trustworthiness. A key dimension and element of relational social capital (the others being “trustworthiness”, “norms and sanctions”, “obligations and expectations”, and “identity and identification” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 244), which explains why people from different organizations engage and opt to collaborate with others, and to exchange their resources, is trust.

Trust comprises a key concept in economics, social sciences, and organization studies, and it has been extensively reviewed within the framework of interorganizational cooperation and interfirm relations (Zaheer et al. 1998; Darley 1998; Rindfleisch 2000; McEvily et al. 2003; Zaheer and Harris 2006; Mu et al. 2008). Either as a relation, a condition, or an “expectation” (Putnam et al. 1993), trust has also been reviewed in the context of social entrepreneurship, particularly within the framework of cooperative enterprises, and the studies include surveys for both the members of cooperatives that are natural persons, and, to a lesser degree, for members that are legal persons (Hansen et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2015; Hatak et al. 2016; Bauwens and Defourny 2017; Deng et al. 2021; Saz-Gil et al. 2021). According to Tsai and Ghosal, “when two parties begin to trust each other, they become more willing to share their resources without worrying that they will be taken advantage of by the other party” (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998, p. 467). Thus, trust comprises a cornerstone of effective cooperation and of the mutual achievement of goals and outcomes among collaborating organizations. It minimizes risk, the “probability of opportunism” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 245), as well as transaction costs, which are “the costs of monitoring and enforcing agreements” (Putnam et al. 1993, p. 166), while it allows for collaboration between partners so that they can interact and “communicate more frequently”, and “invest time and effort into the collaboration” (Weber et al. 2013, p. 4).

On the other hand, the cognitive dimension of social capital “refers to resources that provide shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 244), and, overall, to a shared vision and common attitudes and beliefs, as well as to a common understanding between organizations or network members with regard to the goals and outcomes to be achieved (Uphoff 2000, p. 5; Inkpen and Tsang 2005, p. 153). According to Tsai and Ghosal, “common values and a shared vision…may also encourage the development of trusting relationships” (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998, p. 466), which leads to mutual beneficial cooperation among organizations. Cooperation itself entails a level of trust, where trust “build(s) up into cooperation and collaboration” (Kay 2005, p. 168), or where it may even be an “antecedent of cooperation” (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998, p. 467). For Weber et al., social enterprises need to share the same “cognitive frame” in order to “successfully transfer knowledge and translate existing resources into innovations” (Weber et al. 2013, p. 4). It is therefore essential for organizations to form and share a common value framework in order to develop trustworthy connections and trusting relations, as well as to have a common commitment and a shared culture, so as to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation.

The social capital dimensions, particularly relational and cognitive social capital, as well as the social capital outcomes, such a trust, reciprocity, common values and commitment, and shared norms, are the key components of the cooperation and collective action between organizations. They facilitate the exchange of resources, and they are vital pillars for the development of beneficial outcomes, not only for the stakeholders of a cooperation scheme or a collective action, but also for the overall output of those collaborations by the strengthening and proliferation of the ties and connections among their members, which also leads to greater civic engagement and empowerment in the case of third-sector organizations.

3. Interorganizational Cooperation and Third-Sector Organizations in Greece

Social enterprises compete in the market for resources, whereas they cooperate in order to “transfer and pool resources of all kinds” (Hardy et al. 2003, p. 325) so as to ensure their survival and to allow them to pursue their strategic goals more effectively. The bulk of the research regarding interorganizational cooperation and the generation of interorganizational social capital concerns mainly for-profit enterprises, whereas little knowledge is available in terms of the features and attributes that underpin and reinforce the interorganizational cooperation among social enterprises, even when compared to cooperatives. The early evidence concerning interorganizational cooperation involving third-sector organizations and social enterprises, in particular, together with organizations from the public and for-profit sectors in Greece, may be traced to the establishment of the Development Partnerships during the implementation of the EQUAL Community Initiative between 2000 and 20062, and later through the implementation of the Local Action Plans for Employment (Topsa)3, and Local actions for vulnerable groups (Topeko)4, which were cofunded by the European Structural Fund, which involved the establishment of development partnerships among actors from all the sectors at the local level, and commonly providing resources in order to create and provide job and entrepreneurship opportunities for the unemployed, and for people belonging to vulnerable groups. Participation in business partnerships for social enterprises, but with no data that has surfaced as of yet as part of the evaluation of the program, have also taken place within the framework of the multimillion program, “Research–Create–Innovate”, which was cofunded by the European Fund for Regional Development (2014–2020).5

In general, the social enterprises in Greece do participate in transnational consortia and engage in clusters, and even participate in small-scale local or thematic projects by cooperating with each other; however, there is no evidence that has surfaced in the form of an empirical investigation on the attributes and the relational, structural, and cognitive features of the partnerships in which they are engaged, nor on the relations within and between the whole array of the previously or presently existing advocacy networks of social entrepreneurship. The same applies for cooperatives, as such, where trust and cooperation comprise the foundational principles and the inherent features among the members, and equally when cooperatives engage in “inter-cooperation with other cooperatives” (Saz-Gil et al. 2021, p. 5). However, the collective action of the members, interorganizational cooperation, and the provision of benefits to members may not always be guaranteed conditions, as it seems in the case of agri-food cooperatives (Sergaki 2010; Kontogeorgos et al. 2016).

It seems that, beyond the sporadic reviews and surveys that appear from time to time, no systematic review in the context of a national public or regional agency has taken place to measure and assess social capital at its various levels and dimensions (context-/time-/unit-specific analyses) in Greece, with the data stemming principally from independent research and indexes, such the World Values Survey, and the European Values Study. On the other hand, interorganizational cooperation, although widespread along the spectrum of the for-profit business sector, remains under-researched in the empirical investigations that concern the degrees and the various dimensions of cooperation and social capital formation among social enterprises, or between social enterprises and third-sector organizations, whereas there is a growing trend of interorganizational cooperation among for-profit enterprises and social enterprises within the framework of corporate social responsibility, but this inquiry, as such, goes beyond the research focus of this paper.

Moreover, the building of partnerships and interorganizational cooperation in the for-profit sector in Greece is based on, among other things, a wide network of R&D clusters and industrial parks, which foster partnerships and interorganizational cooperation with particular regard to corporations and SMEs, with minimal or no visibility of the third-sector organizations involved, but including, as well, the notable presence and participation of universities and public research organizations. Although there is evidence, at least during the last decade, of the increasing cooperation and formation of collaborative partnerships among businesses and third-sector organizations, particularly NGOs, within the framework of corporate social responsibility projects (Tsardanidis 2014; HIGGS 2018), interorganizational cooperation among social enterprises, either independently or within the various supporting and advocacy social entrepreneurship networks, or with other organizations, scarcely appears in the context of the various independent projects, and it remains an area of further investigation that should incorporate, in particular, the dimension of the formation of interorganizational social capital.

4. Measuring Social Capital in Greece: An Overview

In order to measure and assess the “productive value” (Scrivens and Smith 2013, p. 9) of social capital, and the effects of its specific outcomes and assets, “a variety of qualitative and quantitative instruments” (Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2002, p. 9) and methods have been employed and generated over time, which provide an array of specific tools and indicators, depending on the outcome and the level, or the unit, of analysis to be measured. The inherent difficulty of measuring intangible resources, such as contacts and relations, as well as outcomes, such as trust and reciprocity, has led to the development of various methods and approaches to capture the structural, relational, and cognitive features of these resources, and to provide explanations for the magnitudes and impacts of their outcomes for individuals, social groups, and communities in local, regional, and national settings. An extensive review of the tools and instruments for the measurement of social capital is provided by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) databank on social capital (2013)6, which regards the key components and resources of social capital, such as personal relationships, trust, cooperative norms, and civic engagement at the country level, with individuals or households as the units of analysis, whereas the systematic review of Acquaah et al. (2014) provides a review of the social capital studies according to the level (unit) of analysis and the components and outcomes that were measured, which also included a list of the indexes that are used for social capital measurement7.

As far as Greece is concerned, the evidence concerning the measurement of the various facets of social capital seems to appear on a scarce basis during the 1980s (Inglehart 1988) and 1990s (Paraskevopoulos 1998), with more frequent reviews, but still not on a recurrent basis, from the early 2000s and onwards. An attempt to group the currents of the research on social capital measurement in Greece according to the levels and units of analysis shows that the largest part of the literature concerns the macro level of analysis (country/regional level), and it includes cross-country comparisons within the framework of the European Union (Christoforou 2005; Ervasti et al. 2019). This is followed by publications concerning the micro level (individual), with the meso level (group/organization) being included in a significantly smaller number of published papers and articles as part of the conducted surveys and inquiries (

Table 1. Social capital measurement according to levels and units of analysis in Greece.

Level of Analysis	Social Capital Components/Measures	Reference
Micro (Individual/Household)	Interpersonal trust; interpersonal relations; institutional trust; civic engagement; participation in organizations; volunteerism.	(Demertzis 2006)
	Interpersonal trust; social contacts; social relations; family and kinship networks; ethnic networks.	(Iosifides et al. 2007)
	Interpersonal trust; institutional trust; social trust; reciprocity; solidarity; informal (family) social networks.	(Karametou and Apostolopoulos 2010)
	Generalized social trust.	(Rontos and Roumeliotou 2013)
	Participation in community and proactivity in a social context; feelings of trust; feelings of belonging; negative climate in academic places.	(Giavrimis and Nikolaou 2020)
	Social trust; the time you spend with family members/close friends; the time you spend with people of a similar social status that you think give a boost to your life; the time you spend with people of a higher social status that you think give a boost to your life; the time you spend with people from political parties or MPs; the calls you receive during the holidays; the calls you make during the holidays; the texts you receive during the holidays; the texts you make during the holidays.	(Linardis and Fragoulis 2021)
Meso (Group/Organization)	Social trust; social altruism; equality; tolerance; humanitarianism; and civic participation.	(Daskalopoulou 2015)
	Interpersonal trust; institutional trust.	(Koutsou et al. 2014)
Macro (Country/Region)	Interpersonal trust.	(Inglehart 1988)
	General exchange and policy networks; membership in voluntary organizations.	(Paraskevopoulos 1998)
	Participation in NGOs; youth participation in associations and organizations; associational memberships; social trust; institutional trust; political engagement.	(Lyberaki and Paraskevopoulos 2002)
	Group membership.	(Christoforou 2005)
	Social trust; associational membership; membership in at least one voluntary organization; multiple organizational memberships; institutional trust; policy networks.	(Paraskevopoulos 2006, 2007)
	Civic engagement; networks.	(Jones et al. 2008)
	Participation in organizations, associations, and groups, and networking with relatives and friends; trust; solidarity and the rules of social cooperation; collective action and cooperation; information; social cohesion; sociability and integration; individual power (empowerment) and political activation.	(Poupos 2010)
	Social trust; social altruism; equality; tolerance; humanitarianism; and civic participation.	(Daskalopoulou 2015)
	Social trust; institutional trust; social networks; formal/informal networks; participation in political actions; volunteerism.	(Kanellopoulos and Fotopoulos 2018)
	Social trust; institutional trust.	(Ervasti et al. 2019)
	Generalized trust; institutional trust; ethics; aspirations; cultural rules; formal political participation; latent political participation; associational activity; activism.	(Daskalopoulou and Karakitsiou 2020)

). On the other hand, interorganizational social capital, as an outcome of the cooperation and collective action between social enterprises, within the Greek literature, seems to be a rather unexplored field, with no references regarding the implemented surveys as far as the literature review in this article is concerned, in either of its dimensions. Moreover, the same condition also applies to the established synergies and cooperation among social enterprises with other third-sector organizations.

It may be argued that the research on social capital measurement in Greece includes data that is primarily concerned with the structural and relational dimensions of social capital, and that it employs a variety of “proximal” and “distal” indicators (Stone 2001, p. 5), with the cognitive dimension being explored to a lesser degree. In this respect, most of the surveys focus on: “the identification of networks of civic engagement through data on membership in voluntary community organizations (NGOs); formal and informal ties/networks; associational and group membership” (Paraskevopoulos 2007, p. 8); political engagement and participation; and activism and volunteerism, whereas, in terms of the relational dimension, the main focus is directed towards, among other things: generalized (social) trust; interpersonal trust; institutional trust; social contacts; social relations; reciprocity; solidarity; and collective action (as individuals cooperating with each other). Finally, with regard to the cognitive dimension, the research is focused on aspects such as: aspirations; cultural rules; the rules of social cooperation; social altruism; equality; tolerance; and humanitarianism.

5. Exploring Interorganizational Cooperation among Third-Sector Organizations: The Case of the Region of Attika, Greece

Among the goals of the survey, which aimed to map the various aspects of the social enterprise sector in the region of Attica, Greece, was to provide insight and possible evidence on the issues of social enterprise cooperation, and on participation in collective actions with other social economy organizations, and, therefore, the possible evidence on interorganizational social capital. The survey’s timeline includes two waves, which each last for approximately two weeks. The survey was conducted for about a month in total, and by means of sending out an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire (Appendix A) to 523 organizations, which were selected after screening the public Register of Social Economy and Solidarity Organizations, which is provided online by the Administration of Social and Solidarity Organizations of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. The organizations were selected according to the following criteria: (i) Having a certification of enrolment; (ii) Having a final certification of enrolment; or (iii) Having a certificate of membership in the register. The initial number of potential participants was 596; however, there were 73 cases of people enlisted in the registry organizations for whom their E-mail correspondences could not be verified. Overall, the number of participating organizations was 99, and the survey reached a responding rate of 18.93%.

A variety of different organizational types of social enterprises comprise the sum of the survey’s participating organizations, which include, among others, social cooperative enterprises of collective and social benefit, professional unions, urban cooperatives, worker cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, work integration social cooperative enterprises, and limited liability social cooperatives. With regard to the limited liability social co-ops, since 1999, they represent the first institutionalized form of a social entrepreneurship organization in Greece, with the sole aim of supporting the social and work integration of vulnerable social groups and, in this case, people with mental health problems. The majority of organizations come under the “social cooperative enterprise organization” category, with 76 organizations out of the total (76.77%), whereas the nonprofit organizations comprise the second largest group, with 14 organizations (14.14%).

Among the limitations that may be identified in this study are its research span, which covers only two social capital dimensions, as well as the fact that it is concerned with only one geographical region, which limits the possibility of a deeper exploration and a comparative examination at the cross-regional, or even at the national, levels. However, the initial idea was that this study would function as the pilot for a larger research project on interorganizational cooperation among third-sector organizations and the meso level of analysis of social capital.

6. Research Elaborations

Within the framework of this study, an attempt was made to capture the two dimensions of interorganizational cooperation, the first being “collective action”, and the second being “cooperation”, as overarching conditions and constants of the interconnectedness and the existence of social capital as part of the business routines of organizations.

(i) The dimension of collective action

Collective action takes place when individuals or organizations jointly share and combine their resources in order to attain a common goal, purpose, or activity. According to Stone, “social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action” (Stone 2001, p. 4), and it embodies, among other things, the relational and cognitive components of social capital, such as trust, civic engagement, the formation of networks, common values, reciprocity, and shared norms.

The survey results show (

Table 2. Collective action.

Questions	Responses					Total Responses
Has your organization participated in a collective action with other social economy organizations?	Yes: 61 (64.9%)			No: 33 (35.1%)		94 out of 99 organizations
Do you consider those particular activities as mutually beneficial for your organization and for the organization with whom you have been collaborating?	To the greatest degree: 22 (31.4%)	To a great degree: 42 (29%)	Somewhat: 13 (18.6%)	A little: 4 (5.7%)	Not at all: 2 (12.9%)	70 out of 99 organizations

) that the participation of social enterprises (SEs) in collective action with other social economy organizations (SEOs) corresponds to 64.9% (61), among the 94 respondents, whereas 33 organizations (35.1%) replied that they did not engage in such activity. On the other hand, the activities, as part of the collective action among organizations, were found to be “mutually beneficial” for 22 organizations (31.4%) among the 70 respondents to the question, whereas they were considered as mutually beneficial “To the greatest degree” for 29 organizations (42%), and “To a great degree” and “Somewhat” mutually beneficial for 13 organizations (18.6%), with few of the participants selecting “A little” (5.7%) or “Not at all” (2.9%) mutually beneficial. Overall, they were clearly positive responses; “the activity has a mutual benefit” outcome constitutes 72.8% (51) out of the total, which indicates that “mutual benefit” is an outcome of the participation of organizations in common activities, and of their reciprocity as a feature of their cooperation.

(ii) The dimension of Cooperation

Cooperation, either between individuals, but particularly between organizations, manifests, and it is either an outcome of social capital, or it leads to the generation of social capital. With regard to this particular dimension, a number of determinants were examined, such as the frequency of cooperation, the features of cooperation, the communication and the level of its effectiveness, the participation in networks, the cooperation with organizations from other regions, and the willingness to cooperate in the future (

Table 3. Cooperation.

Questions	Responses							Total Responses
How often do you cooperate with other social economy organizations?	Daily basis: 14 (15.9%)	At least once a week: 4 (4.5%)	Whenever an occasion appears: 34 (36.8%)	Between 1 and 3 times per month: 8 (9.1%)	Less than once a month: 10 (11.4%)	Never: 18 (20.5%)		88 out of 99 organizations
Which features are most valued during the collaboration of your organization with other SEOs?	Cooperation: 61 (81.3%)	Common values: 50 (66.7%)	Solidarity: 46 (61.3%)	Trust: 45 (60%)	Reciprocity: 41 (54.7%)	Trustworthiness: 33 (44%)	Common commitment: 29 (38.7%)	75 out of 99 organizations
Which communication channels do you most frequently use during your communication with SEOs?	Internet: 59 (78.7%)	Interpersonal contact: 53 (70.7%)	Face-to-face meetings: 32 (42.7%)	Communication through participation in training, information, and awareness events: 28 (37.3%)	Communication through the post: 8 (10.7%)			75 out of 99 organizations
Would you consider the communication, while cooperating with other SEOs, to be effective (leading to good cooperation)?	Very much effective: 11 (14.3%)	Very effective: 42 (54.5%)	Somewhat effective: 21 (27.3%)	A little effective: 2 (2.6%)	Not effective: 1 (1.3%)			77 out of 99 organizations
Does your organization participate, or maintain participation, in SEO networks?	Yes: 32 (35.2%)				No: 59 (64.8%)			91 out of 99 organizations
Is your organization cooperating with SEOs from other geographical regions?	Yes: 47 (54.7%)				No: 39 (45.3%)			86 out of 99 organizations
Are you willing to cooperate with another SEO in the future?	Yes: 83 (93.3%)				No: 6 (6.7%)			89 out of 99 organizations

).

With regard to the frequency of the cooperation, the survey results show that there is an overall trend of cooperation among SEs and SEOs. Specifically, SEs engage in cooperation as frequently as on a “Daily Basis”, at 15.9%, and “At least once a week”, at 4.5%, as well as on a recurrent basis, or “Whenever an occasion appears” (36.8%), with another 9.1% of the SEs cooperating “Between 1 and 3 times per month”. All and all, it seems from the majority of the positive responses (which reach about 68.1%) that cooperation among organizations is the most preferred choice for SEs, whereas there is an indication of an existing collaborative culture among SEs and SEOs, despite the relatively significant number of those who never engage in collaboration with other organizations (20.5%).

With regard to the features that are most valued during the collaboration with other SEOs, “Cooperation” was the first choice, with 81.3% (61) among the respondents, and it was followed by “Common values”, with 66.7% (50), “Solidarity”, with 61.3% (46), and “Trust”, with 60% (45). High in the choices of the respondents were also “Mutuality”, with 54.7% (41), “Trustworthiness”, with 44% (33), and “Common commitment”, with 38.7% (29), which fill in the mosaic of the relational and cognitive social capital features that are most valued during collaboration among the responding organizations.

The communication during the participation among the organizations was also a dimension that was covered by the survey. Among the communication channels that were used by the organizations in their communication with one another, the “Internet” is featured as the primary mean, with 78.7% (59), and it is followed by “Interpersonal contact”, with 70.3% (52). “Face-to-face meetings” were also identified as a significant mean of communication, with 42.7% (32), while “Communication through participation in training, information, and awareness events” was the choice for about 37.3% (28) of the respondents.

The majority of the SEs (68.8%) deemed their communication with other SEOs to be “effective” (leading to good cooperation). In particular, 54.5% (42) of the organizations stated that the communication was “Very effective”, while 14.3 (11) stated that it was “Highly effective”. On the other hand, 27.3% (21) thought that their communication was “Somewhat effective”, whereas only a few of the organizations (2.6% (2)) believed that it was of “Little effect”.

A key perspective that also emerged from the survey is that the cooperation among organizations extends beyond the geographical boundaries of the Region of Attica, where the majority (54.7%) replied that they cooperate with SEOs from other geographical areas, while about 35.2% of the SEs participate in local, national, and European networks of organizations that belong both to the wider third sector, as well as to SE networks in particular. Finally, there is a willingness, from the majority of the participating organizations (93.2%), to engage in cooperation with SEOs in the future.

7. Conclusions

The main goal of the survey, and of this paper overall, is the provision of the indications of social capital formation at the meso level of analysis of social capital research, by surfacing evidence on the relational and cognitive features of social capital as the key dimensions of interorganizational cooperation among social enterprises and third-sector organizations. Interorganizational cooperation and the meso level of analysis with regard to third-sector organizations and social enterprises, in particular, has attracted, according to the research presented in this paper, little attention in social capital research, and they present a challenge for future research, as well as a wide area of inquiry. The results of the survey show that trust, solidarity, mutuality, common values, and common commitments are the key attributes that guide and sustain the cooperation among social enterprises and third-sector organizations, where a collaborative culture seems to be formed and comprises an essential feature of the effective cooperation and mutually beneficial collective action among SEs and SEOs.

The extent of the collaboration beyond geographical boundaries, the use of multiple channels of communication, and particularly interpersonal contacts and face-to-face meetings, as well as the identification that communication, overall, is a factor that leads to effective cooperation, are indications of social capital formation and mutually beneficial interorganizational cooperation. However, further research and empirical investigation is required in the field of social capital formation and interorganizational cooperation, among social enterprises and among organizations from other sectors, in order to capture the crucial facets of interorganizational cooperation that remain unexplored, which supports, in this respect, the promotion of research, and the visibility of the evidence in the field of social capital inquiry.