ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
2
PILLARs' GRADES (1-5) & DESCRIPTION
3
4
PILLAR I: FUNDING AND CAPITAL ACCESS
5
Score 1:
Several factors prevent most social enterprises from accessing diverse funding sources. Local funding sources are virtually nonexistent, while foreign support is limited to a very narrow set of social enterprises partnering with international organizations. Sources of public funding and the value of local spending for social enterprises need to be increased to meet their needs. Funding institutions and donations for the support of social enterprises are also limited. Most social enterprises cannot conduct local fundraising activities or have enough income-generating activities, such as selling products or services.






Score 2:
Some social enterprises can access a few funding sources, but these are limited and often insufficient to ensure long-term financial viability. Local funding sources are rare, and foreign support is generally restricted to a limited number of social enterprises with specific partnerships. Sources of public funding and local spending on social enterprises are growing but still inadequate to meet their needs. Funding institutions and donations for social enterprises are available but limited. Many social enterprises struggle to conduct local fundraising activities or generate enough income by selling products and services.
Score 3:
A moderate number of social enterprises have access to various funding sources, providing a reasonable degree of financial stability. There is a mix of local and foreign funding, although it is insufficient for long-term security. Public funding sources and the value of local spending on social enterprises are improving but need further enhancement. Funding institutions and donations are present and somewhat helpful. A significant number of social enterprises engage in local fundraising activities and generate revenue through the sale of products and services, though this is not yet widespread.		Score 4:
Many social enterprises have multiple funding sources, enabling them to confidently approach financial viability. Local and foreign funding sources are relatively robust, though there is still room for growth. Sources of public funding and local spending for social enterprises are substantial and contribute positively to their financial health. Funding institutions and donations for social enterprises are reliable and play a significant role in their financial structure. Most social enterprises can conduct local fundraising activities and generate substantial income by selling products and services, supporting their financial sustainability.		Score 5:
Most social enterprises have multiple funding sources, allowing them to remain financially viable in the long term. In addition, many social enterprises generate revenue from selling products and services. Sources of public funding and the value of local spending for social enterprises contribute to their financial stability. Funding institutions and donations for the support of social enterprises are also essential components of their financial structure. 
6
PILLAR II: SUPPORTING SYSTEMS
7
Score 1:
The legal environment severely restricts the ability of social enterprises to register and operate due to the restrictive and/or confusing nature of legal provisions. Access to finances is very limited, and social enterprises generally cannot compete for government contracts due to burdensome, discouraging, and opaque requirements. Foreign resource access is also highly restricted. Few experts specialize in social enterprise law, and their services are often prohibitively expensive. There are a minimal number of active support organizations or resource centers (hubs, incubators, and accelerators). Such existing entities are providing limited services and support to social enterprises. Business support and efforts to form networks or coalitions are hampered by a lack of capacity and/or mistrust among organizations. Education and training opportunities are scarce and primarily funded by international programs. Inter-sectoral partnerships are limited or nonexistent, with little recognition of their value. Access to information is inadequate, and society, as well as various stakeholders, largely ignore or undervalue the contributions of social enterprises to social development. Their values, work, and impact are neither acknowledged nor celebrated. There is a general lack of support and understanding of their role in addressing social issues.








Score 2:
The legal environment presents several challenges for social enterprises, with restrictive and confusing legal provisions hindering their ability to register and operate effectively. Access to finances is limited, and competing for government contracts remains difficult due to burdensome and opaque requirements. Foreign resource access is slightly more available than at the lowest score but still highly restricted. Only a few experts specialize in social enterprise law, and their services remain expensive. A few support organizations or resource centers exist but provide very limited services and support. Business support is minimal, and efforts to form networks or coalitions are weak, often hindered by a lack of capacity and mistrust. Education and training opportunities are rare and primarily dependent on international programs. Inter-sectoral partnerships are minimal, and the contributions of social enterprises are generally undervalued by society and stakeholders, with little recognition or celebration of their work and impact.


Score 3:
The legal environment for social enterprises is moderately supportive, with some legal provisions in place, but still facing occasional restrictions and complexities in registration and operation. Access to finances has improved, allowing more opportunities to compete for government contracts, although requirements can still be discouraging and somewhat opaque. Foreign resource access is moderate but not fully open. There is a growing number of experts specializing in social enterprise law, though their services are not always affordable. Support organizations and resource centers are more active, providing a broader range of services, although not uniformly across all regions. Business support is available but not extensive, and while networks and coalitions are forming, they are still developing. Education and training opportunities are increasing, with some support from local programs. Inter-sectoral partnerships are emerging, and the value of social enterprises is gaining some recognition among society and stakeholders, though it is not yet widespread.
Score 4:
The legal environment is largely supportive of social enterprises, with comprehensive legal provisions that facilitate registration and operation, though minor restrictions may still exist. Access to finances is significantly improved, with social enterprises being able to compete for government contracts with less burdensome and more transparent requirements. Foreign resource access is relatively open. A considerable number of experts specialize in social enterprise law, making their services more accessible. There are numerous active support organizations and resource centers nationwide, providing a wide array of services and support. Business support is robust, and well-established networks and coalitions exist, fostering cooperation and capacity building. Education and training opportunities are widely available and include both local and international programs. Inter-sectoral partnerships are common, and the contributions of social enterprises are broadly recognized and celebrated by society and various stakeholders, though there is still room for greater acknowledgment and support.
Score 5:
The legislative and regulatory framework recognizes the significance and contribution of social enterprises, providing special advantages such as tax deductions, exemptions, social procurement criteria, and a streamlined registration process. Social enterprises can freely engage in fundraising and accept funds from various donors: There is a full respect for the rule of law and minimal state harassment. Local and comparative expertise on social enterprise law is available. Nationwide support organizations and resource centers, viewed as allies by social enterprises, offer advanced training, IT and legal support, and informational services. Social enterprises have formed networks and coalitions supported by local experts, with robust support networks including hubs, incubators, and accelerators providing essential business support, education, and information access. Society and various stakeholders recognize and celebrate the values, work, and contributions of social enterprises to social development.
8
PILLAR III: HUMAN CAPITAL
9
Score 1:
The ecosystem is severely lacking in human resources, with a narrow and limited array of skills and knowledge available, which significantly hampers the development of social entrepreneurship. There are virtually no formal or informal education programs that offer theoretical or practical learning opportunities for students interested in the social economy. The labor force is generally unskilled and unmotivated, with few, if any, opportunities to integrate into the social economy sector.
Programs, resources, and support mechanisms targeting vulnerable groups are scarce or non-existent. There is little to no access to training, mentoring, or funding opportunities, resulting in the exclusion of vulnerable groups from participating in social entrepreneurship.
Volunteering rates are exceptionally low, with very few volunteers engaged in the social economy. Volunteering regulation is either non-existent or ineffective, discouraging community members from getting involved. Volunteering is neither valued nor widely accepted within the community.
There are very few, if any, active Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) supporting social entrepreneurship. Those that do exist provide minimal services and lack collaboration, resulting in a weak or non-existent support network for social enterprises.









Score 2:
The ecosystem exhibits significant deficiencies in human resources, with a limited and somewhat narrow array of skills and knowledge, which impedes the development of social entrepreneurship. There are few formal or informal education programs, and those available offer limited theoretical and practical learning opportunities for students interested in the social economy. The labor force is generally under-skilled and lacks motivation, with scarce opportunities to integrate into the social economy sector. Programs, resources, and support mechanisms for vulnerable groups are minimal and not widely accessible. Limited training, mentoring, and funding opportunities are available, leading to the marginalization of vulnerable groups from participating in social entrepreneurship. Volunteering rates are low, with a small number of volunteers engaged in the social economy. Volunteering regulation is weak and does not effectively encourage community participation. Volunteering is not widely valued or accepted within the community. A small number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) support social entrepreneurship, but they provide limited services and often do not collaborate, resulting in a weak support network for social enterprises.


Score 3:
The ecosystem is moderately equipped with human resources, offering a fair range of skills and knowledge that somewhat contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship. There are some formal and informal education programs available, providing both theoretical and practical learning opportunities for students interested in the social economy. The labor force has a mix of skilled and unskilled workers, with moderate motivation and some opportunities to integrate into the social economy sector. Programs, resources, and support mechanisms for vulnerable groups are present but not extensive. There are some training, mentoring, and funding opportunities available, but these do not reach all vulnerable groups effectively. Volunteering rates are moderate, with a reasonable number of volunteers engaged in the social economy. Volunteering regulation exists but is not strong enough to fully encourage community participation. Volunteering is somewhat valued and accepted within the community. Several Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) support social entrepreneurship, providing essential services but with limited collaboration, resulting in a somewhat effective support network for social enterprises.

Score 4:
The ecosystem is well-equipped with human resources, showcasing a diverse array of skills and knowledge that significantly contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship. There are numerous formal and informal education programs available, providing comprehensive theoretical and practical learning opportunities for students interested in the social economy. The labor force is skilled and motivated, with ample opportunities to integrate into the social economy sector. A wide range of programs, resources, and support mechanisms is available, targeting the most vulnerable groups. There are extensive training, mentoring, and funding opportunities, promoting inclusivity and active participation in social entrepreneurship. Volunteering rates are high, with a significant number of volunteers engaged in the social economy. Volunteering regulation is positive and encourages community participation. Volunteering is highly valued and accepted within the community. Many Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play an active role in supporting social entrepreneurship, providing essential services and collaborating effectively to create a robust support network for social enterprises, though there is still room for further enhancement.
Score 5:
The ecosystem is rich with human resources, showcasing a vast and diverse array of skills and knowledge that significantly contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship. Formal and informal education programs abound, providing both theoretical and practical learning opportunities for students to engage in the social economy. The labor force is skilled and motivated and has ample opportunities to integrate into the social economy sector.
A comprehensive suite of programs, resources, and support mechanisms is available, targeting all vulnerable groups. These include extensive training, mentoring, and funding opportunities, ensuring inclusivity and active participation in social entrepreneurship.
Volunteering rates are exceptionally high, with a significant number of volunteers dedicated to the social economy. Volunteering is well-regulated and highly encouraged, fostering a culture that motivates various community members to get involved. This positive attitude towards volunteering is deeply ingrained in the community, where it is both valued and widely accepted.
Numerous Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) actively support social entrepreneurship. They provide essential services and collaborate effectively to create a support network for social enterprises.
10
PILLAR IV: QUALITY OF LIFE
11
Score 1:
Access to the internet is severely limited, hindering communication, education, and business opportunities. Crime rates and instances of domestic violence are high, reflecting an unsafe and unsupportive community. The prisoner population is large, indicating ineffective rehabilitation programs and an unjust legal system. Average salary/wage rates are low, making it difficult for residents to maintain a comfortable living standard while living costs are disproportionately high. CO2 emissions are elevated, and there is a significant lack of green public spaces, contributing to an unhealthy and unsustainable environment. The Environmental Performance Index is low, showcasing the community's lack of commitment to ecological responsibility.
Key demographic metrics, such as the average death rate and life expectancy at birth, indicate poor health and well-being. The doctor per capita ratio is unfavorable, and a large portion of the population lacks health insurance, resulting in inadequate healthcare access. City organization is deficient—walking and bicycle path coverage is sparse, and only a small percentage of people have access to public transport, leading to inefficient and unsustainable mobility. Roads are in poor condition, and a significant percentage of the urban population faces long commutes, reflecting inefficient city planning. The city's organization, planning, and development do not promote social entrepreneurship, and they lack supportive zoning regulations, thoughtful urban design, and robust infrastructure.










Score 2:
Access to the internet is limited, negatively impacting communication, education, and business opportunities. Crime rates and instances of domestic violence are relatively high, indicating a lack of safety and support within the community. The prisoner population is significant, showing inadequate rehabilitation programs and a flawed legal system. Average salary/wage rates are low, and living costs are high, making it difficult for residents to achieve a comfortable standard of living. CO2 emissions are high, and green public spaces are scarce, creating an unhealthy and unsustainable environment. The Environmental Performance Index is low, demonstrating a minimal commitment to ecological responsibility.
Key demographic metrics, such as the average death rate and life expectancy at birth, indicate poor health outcomes. The doctor per capita ratio is low, and many people lack health insurance, resulting in insufficient healthcare access. City organization is lacking—walking and bicycle path coverage is limited, and access to public transport is poor, leading to inefficient mobility. Roads are in poor condition, and long commute times are common, reflecting poor city planning. The city's organization, planning, and development provide minimal support for social entrepreneurship, lacking supportive zoning regulations, urban design, and infrastructure.

Score 3:
Internet access is moderate, providing some opportunities for communication, education, and business, though not universally available. Crime rates and domestic violence are at average levels, indicating a moderately safe and supportive community. The prisoner population is moderate, reflecting some effectiveness in rehabilitation programs and the legal system. Average salary/wage rates are sufficient for a modest standard of living, though living costs are somewhat high. CO2 emissions are moderate, with a fair number of green public spaces contributing to a healthier environment. The Environmental Performance Index is average, showing some commitment to ecological responsibility.
Health and well-being indicators, such as the average death rate and life expectancy at birth, are at moderate levels. The doctor per capita ratio is reasonable, and a majority of people have health insurance, ensuring basic healthcare access. City organization is fair—there is moderate coverage of walking and bicycle paths, and a reasonable percentage of people can access public transport. Roads are in decent condition, and commute times are manageable, reflecting acceptable city planning. The city's organization, planning, and development somewhat support social entrepreneurship, with some zoning regulations, urban design, and infrastructure in place.

Score 4:
Internet access is widespread, significantly enhancing most people's communication, education, and business opportunities. Crime rates and instances of domestic violence are relatively low, indicating a fairly safe and supportive community. The prisoner population is low, suggesting effective rehabilitation programs and a just legal system. Average salary/wage rates are high enough to provide a comfortable living standard and reasonable living costs. CO2 emissions are relatively low, and a good amount of green public spaces contribute to a healthy and sustainable environment. The Environmental Performance Index is high, demonstrating a strong commitment to ecological responsibility.
Health and well-being indicators are favorable, such as the average death rate and life expectancy at birth. The doctor per capita ratio is high; nearly everyone has health insurance, ensuring comprehensive healthcare access. City organization is effective—there is extensive coverage of walking and bicycle paths, and a high percentage of people have access to public transport, promoting efficient and sustainable mobility. Roads are of good quality, and commute times are short, reflecting effective city planning. The city's organization, planning, and development actively promote social entrepreneurship through supportive zoning regulations, thoughtful urban design, and robust infrastructure.
Score 5:
The vast majority of the population has access to the Internet, significantly enhancing communication, education, and business opportunities. Crime rates and instances of domestic violence are remarkably low, reflecting a safe and supportive community. For example, the prisoner population is minimal, indicating effective rehabilitation programs and a just legal system. Average salary/wage rates are high, providing a comfortable living standard while living costs remain reasonable. CO2 emissions are low, complemented by a significant number of green public spaces, contributing to a healthy and sustainable environment. For example (where applicable), the Environmental Performance Index scores highly, showcasing the community's commitment to ecological responsibility. Some key demographic metrics (like the average death rate, life expectancy at birth, and similar) underscore robust health and well-being. Also, the doctor per capita ratio is favorable, and nearly everyone has health insurance, ensuring comprehensive healthcare access. City organization is also favorable—walking and bicycle path coverage is extensive, and a high percentage of people have access to public transport, promoting efficient and sustainable mobility. Roads are of excellent quality, and a significant percentage of the urban population commutes in under 30 minutes, reflecting efficient city planning. The city's organization, planning, and development actively promote social entrepreneurship through supportive zoning regulations, thoughtful urban design, and robust infrastructure.


12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100