© The Author(s) 2025. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License Vol. 14, No. 2 (2025), pages 235-256 https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2025.14.2.12026 Submitted: May 6, 2025 Accepted: Aug 18, 2025 Published: Dec 17, 2025 Article The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece: barriers and prospects for Social Economy Entities Lampros Lamprinidis 1, * 1 University of West Attica, Greece *Correspondence: lamprinidislampros@gmail.com Abstract. This study explores whether and how Social Economy Entities (SEEs) in Greece engage with Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP), as introduced by Law 4412/2016. It investigates the extent to which SEEs—specifically KOINSEPs and KOISPEs—are aware of, participate in, and benefit from SRPP provisions such as Articles 20 and 110, and identifies institutional barriers they encounter. Using a mixed-methods approach combining surveys and interviews, the findings reveal that while KOISPEs demonstrate higher awareness and participation, KOINSEPs face legal unfamiliarity, bureaucratic complexity, and liquidity constraints. Public authorities, in turn, often lack SRPP-related knowledge, contributing to limited implementation. Despite these challenges, SEEs propose concrete reforms, including quotas, administrative simplification, and targeted support structures. The study contributes to the literature on strategic procurement and highlights the importance of institutional capacity, legal clarity, and trust in enabling inclusive economic policies. Keywords: Socially Responsible Procurement; Social Economy Entities; KOINSEP; KOISPE; public contracts; Greece; social economy JEL classification: H57; L31; I38; D73; O35 1. Introduction Public procurement represents a strategic tool not only for achieving economic efficiency but also for promoting broader social objectives, such as inclusion, equity, and sustainable development (Lamprinidis, 2024, 2025 a & 2025 c). Within the European Union (EU), this approach has been institutionalized through Directive 2014/24/EU, which explicitly allows for the integration of social and environmental criteria in public contracts. This paradigm shift has been described in the literature as a transition from “traditional” to “strategic” or “socially responsible” public procurement (McCrudden, 2004; European Commission, 2017). Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) refers to the inclusion of social https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 236 Lamprinidis considerations—such as the promotion of employment opportunities, social inclusion, and support for vulnerable groups—into procurement processes (Amitsis, 2014). In Greece, Directive 2014/24/EU was transposed through Law 4412/2016, which includes specific provisions for the participation of Social Economy Entities (SEEs) in public tenders, particularly in Articles 20 and 110. These articles provide a legal basis for reserving contracts for social enterprises and including social clauses in procurement procedures. Despite this legal framework, empirical evidence regarding the uptake and effectiveness of SRPP in Greece remains limited. While policy documents such as the National Strategy for Public Procurement (2016–2020) and its successor for the period 2021–2025 emphasize the need to strengthen the social dimension of procurement, implementation has been inconsistent. Moreover, the National Strategy for Socially Responsible Procurement, required by the 2021–2025 plan, has not been officially issued, revealing a significant gap between legislative intent and policy execution (Lamprinidis, 2024, 2025 b & 2025 c). This study seeks to address this empirical gap by investigating how SEEs in Greece— particularly Social Integration Enterprises (KOINSEP Entaxis) and Limited Liability Social Cooperatives (KOISPE)—engage with the SRPP framework. It explores their level of awareness of the legal provisions, their participation in public tenders, the barriers they face, and their proposals for improvement. By doing so, the research aims to contribute to both the academic literature on SRPP and the policy discourse on how public procurement can be leveraged to support the development of the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). 2. Objective and methodology of the field research 2.1 Research objective and rationale Public procurement is increasingly recognized as a policy lever capable of achieving not only economic efficiency but also social justice, inclusiveness, and sustainability (Amitsis 2014 & 2016 ; Apostolopoulos et al, 2019). This transformation is most clearly reflected in the European Commission’s promotion of Strategic Public Procurement (European Commission, 2017), which encompasses Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) as a key pillar. SRPP enables contracting authorities to integrate social considerations—such as employment of disadvantaged groups or support for social enterprises—into public tendering processes (Geormas, 2013; Kassavetes, 2013; Ntoulia, 2015). Greece, a Member State marked by a prolonged economic crisis and deep structural inefficiencies, presents a particularly relevant case for examining the implementation of SRPP. Although Law 4412/2016 transposed Directive 2014/24/EU and introduced enabling provisions (notably Articles 20 and 110), existing literature indicates a persistent implementation gap (Lamprinidis, 2023). This gap raises critical questions regarding the actual engagement of Social Economy Entities (SEEs) with the procurement system and the state’s institutional capacity to operationalize inclusive procurement policies. The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece The main objective of this research is to assess the extent to which SEEs in Greece— particularly Social Cooperative Enterprises for Integration1 (KOINSEP Entaxis) and Social Cooperatives of Limited Liability2 (KOISPE)—are aware of, participate in, and benefit from the SRPP framework. The study also aims to identify key structural and institutional obstacles and to capture SEEs' own proposals for improving SRPP policy design and implementation. 2.2 Theoretical and conceptual framework This research is conceptually grounded in theories of strategic procurement, institutional embeddedness, and social innovation. It draws on the work of McCrudden (2004) and Arrowsmith (2010), who describe public procurement as an instrument of distributive social policy, and applies institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) to understand the interactions between policy design, administrative systems, and third-sector entities. Within the SRPP context, the “implementation gap” can be conceptualized as a function of: • Regulatory ambiguity • Limited institutional knowledge • Uneven capacity across public and third-sector actors These factors jointly shape whether legal provisions (such as contract reservation mechanisms) become effective tools or remain symbolic commitments (Amitsis, 2016; European Commission, 2021). 2.3 Methodological design This study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to explore both behavioral patterns and contextual explanations. This design ensures triangulation and enhances the robustness and depth of findings, particularly in an under-researched policy field such as SRPP in Greece. 1 KOINSEPs Entaxis are a category of social cooperative enterprises established under Law 4019/2011, aiming to promote the labor integration of vulnerable social groups such as people with disabilities, former addicts, ex- prisoners, and others facing social exclusion. They operate as autonomous legal entities with a strong social mission but receive less institutional support compared to KOISPEs. At least 40% of their workforce must come from the targeted vulnerable populations, and their activity spans various sectors, from services to environmental and cultural initiatives. 2 KOISPEs were established under Law 2716/1999 as part of Greece’s mental health reform and are legally recognized as both social cooperatives and mental health service units. They aim to provide supported employment opportunities for people with mental disorders, promoting their psychosocial rehabilitation and integration into society. KOISPEs are officially linked to the National Health System (NHS) and enjoy institutional recognition, allowing for enhanced cooperation with public authorities, including direct awards under specific conditions. 238 Lamprinidis 2.3.1 Population and sample The research targeted the total population of Greek SEEs eligible under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016: • 29 KOINSEP Entaxis and • 28 KOISPE, registered in the National Registry of Social and Solidarity Economy as of October 2020. These two categories (Tables 1 & 2 in Appendix A) were deliberately chosen due to their legal recognition as social integration entities, their theoretical eligibility for SRPP mechanisms, and their operational diversity. KOISPEs, governed by Law 2716/1999, are older and institutionally more embedded, while KOINSEPs—established under Laws 4019/2011 and 4430/2016— represent a newer, more dynamic yet fragile segment of the Greek social economy3. A total of 57 entities were contacted via official emails and phone numbers. 23 completed responses were collected, yielding a response rate of 40.35% (Table 1 in Appendix A), which is deemed acceptable given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the limited administrative capacities of the target population. 2.3.2 Data collection Primary data were collected between October 2020 and January 2021 through a structured questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The survey instrument was divided into four sections: 1. Legal awareness (knowledge of relevant laws and directives) 2. Tender participation and success (2016–2019) 3. Obstacles and challenges (pre- and post-award phases) 4. Policy recommendations A Likert-scale was used for rating perceived barriers and funding priorities, while open-ended questions captured narrative insights and recommendations. Where possible, respondents were asked to specify the number and type of tenders they participated in under Articles 20 and 110 of Law 4412/2016. In cases where digital participation was infeasible, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted to ensure inclusivity and improve data quality. 3 For the examined Social Economy Entities, entrepreneurship represents the primary source of income, followed by public procurement (Figure 1 in Appendix B). However, due to their greater recognition by the Greek public administration, KOISPEs participate more actively in the public procurement market—where such contracts constitute a comparatively more important revenue stream than for KOINSEPs (Figure 2). The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece 2.3.3 Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS v26, applying descriptive statistics, cross- tabulations, and subgroup comparisons between KOISPEs and KOINSEPs. Qualitative responses were thematically coded, enabling the identification of patterns regarding institutional knowledge, perceived barriers, and adaptive strategies. The combination of both data types enabled the research to explore not only what is happening (e.g., participation rates) but also why (e.g., perceived exclusion, lack of institutional trust). 2.4 Methodological limitations Several limitations must be acknowledged: • Small sample size limits statistical generalization, though the study is exhaustive within its targeted population. • Self-reporting bias may affect certain responses, especially regarding sensitive topics such as legal knowledge or trust in institutions. • The study reflects the pre-pandemic institutional context (2016–2019), although it includes pandemic-related data collection challenges. Nonetheless, the research offers rare and valuable empirical insight into the lived experiences of SEEs navigating the SRPP landscape in Greece. 3. Awareness of legal framework and participation in public tenders A core objective of this study was to investigate the degree of familiarity among Social Economy Entities (SEEs) with the legal and institutional framework governing Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) in Greece. Awareness of such provisions is not merely informative but critically determines the capacity of SEEs to access, interpret, and utilize procurement opportunities. The survey results reveal a considerable knowledge gap, particularly among KOINSEP Entaxis. Approximately 34.78% of all respondents stated they were unaware of Directive 2014/24/EU, which serves as the foundation of SRPP in the EU and has been transposed into Greek legislation through Law 4412/2016. When disaggregated by organizational type, the gap becomes stark: over half of KOINSEPs (54.55%) were unfamiliar with the directive, compared to only 16.67% among KOISPEs. A similar pattern emerged regarding awareness of the SRPP concept itself: 54.55% of KOINSEPs indicated they were unfamiliar with SRPP, while the vast majority of KOISPEs demonstrated adequate knowledge. These discrepancies may stem from differing degrees of 240 Lamprinidis institutional maturity, access to information channels, and the extent of engagement with public authorities. More granular analysis concerning specific articles of Law 4412/2016 further supports this observation. While only 13.04% of respondents were unaware of Article 20—which allows for the reservation of public contracts for SEEs—this group consisted solely of KOINSEPs. For Article 110, which allows for the incorporation of social clauses in tender evaluation criteria, 26.09% of all respondents declared unfamiliarity, with the figure again disproportionately higher among KOINSEPs (36.36%) than KOISPEs (16.67%). These findings illustrate an institutional asymmetry in legal literacy that risks reinforcing structural exclusion. Organizations with limited awareness are less likely to pursue tenders, perceive themselves as eligible, or navigate complex administrative procedures. Participation data further reflect this reality. Between 2016 and 2019: • 17 SEEs reported participating in tenders under Article 20, with 16 winning at least one contract (Figure 3 in Appendix B). • 60% of participants engaged in up to four tenders (Figure 3), and a similar percentage secured up to four wins (Figure 4). • When broken down by type: 12 KOISPEs and 8 KOINSEPs participated (Figure 5); 11 KOISPEs and 5 KOINSEPs were successful (Figure 6). • Notably, 37.5% of KOINSEPs did not participate in any tender, compared to 0% among KOISPEs (Figure 5). • Furthermore, no KOINSEP had success in more than 4 contracts (Figure 6), whereas KOISPEs showed stronger engagement, with 24.9% participating in over 15 tenders (Figure 5) and 18.2% winning more than 12 contracts (Figure 6). Under Article 110, a similar trend emerged. The average participation per entity was two tenders, with most success concentrated in low-volume engagement (Figures 7 & 8). Again, KOISPEs outperformed KOINSEPs, suggesting not only a higher degree of legal and procedural familiarity but possibly greater institutional trust from contracting authorities (Figures 9 & 10). Collectively, these findings confirm that legal awareness, institutional positioning, and engagement with SRPP are deeply intertwined, shaping the actual ability of SEEs to access state resources via procurement. 4. Obstacles faced by social economy entities in public procurement tenders To better understand the barriers that hinder participation, the survey asked SEEs to identify obstacles encountered during procurement processes. Responses revealed a consistent pattern of structural and operational barriers that impede meaningful access to public contracts (Figure 14 in Appendix B). The most frequently cited challenge was bureaucratic complexity (21.21%). SEEs described overwhelming documentation requirements, non-standardized administrative procedures, and a The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece lack of digital interoperability as persistent hindrances. These burdens fall disproportionately on small-scale SEEs, which often lack administrative personnel and procurement expertise. Financial constraints represented the second most prominent barrier (18.18%). The requirement to submit bid and performance guarantees, combined with limited access to credit or banking services, effectively excludes many SEEs from the procurement landscape. This liquidity issue is exacerbated for newly established or early-stage cooperatives. A critical third barrier (15.15%) was identified as the lack of awareness and capacity among public authorities. Many contracting officials either do not fully understand the SRPP framework or are hesitant to implement its provisions due to legal uncertainty or administrative inertia. This leads to conservative tender design that favors established private suppliers over socially oriented actors. Other frequently mentioned obstacles included: • Lack of procurement knowledge within SEEs, making it difficult to prepare competitive bids without costly external consultants; • Opaque eligibility criteria and legalistic language in tender calls; • Perceptions of closed procurement networks, with SEEs believing that certain contracts are routinely awarded to the same actors; • Delayed payments, further weakening the financial sustainability of successful SEEs. These findings echo broader concerns in the literature about the mismatch between SRPP ambitions and institutional readiness, particularly in countries where procurement systems remain compliance-oriented rather than impact-driven (European Commission, 2017). 5. Obstacles faced by SEEs during contract execution Even for SEEs that succeed in public tenders, the post-award phase presents new layers of challenge (Figure 15 in Appendix B). The most prevalent issue reported was delayed payments by contracting authorities (32.14%). Such delays—often extending beyond the contractual deadlines—create serious cash flow constraints, especially for SEEs operating on limited reserves or dependent on timely payments for payroll and operational costs. Beyond financial delays, institutional mistrust and lack of understanding were also noted (14.29%). Several SEEs highlighted tensions with public officials who failed to appreciate the distinctive nature of socially driven service delivery, particularly when projects involved vulnerable groups (e.g., persons with disabilities, mental health service users). In many cases, SEEs were monitored under rigid performance frameworks more suited to for-profit contractors, resulting in strained cooperation and procedural friction. Interestingly, 17.88% of respondents stated that they did not experience significant problems, indicating that institutional barriers are not uniform and may vary depending on the maturity of the SEE, its prior relationships with public authorities, and the local procurement culture. Additional but less frequent challenges included: • Ambiguity in contract terms; • Inflexible timelines unsuited to social service delivery; • Lack of responsiveness from contracting bodies; 242 Lamprinidis • Difficulty in quantifying social outcomes under standard reporting templates. These findings underscore the multi-phase vulnerability of SEEs in public procurement—not only during tendering but also throughout contract execution. Effective SRPP implementation therefore requires holistic support, including adaptive contract management and administrative cultures capable of engaging with mission-driven actors. 6. Proposal for improving the SRPP institutional framework The field research revealed a wide range of proposals by Social Economy Entities (SEEs) aimed at addressing the structural barriers that currently hinder their effective participation in public procurement processes. These suggestions were not anecdotal but reflected a detailed understanding of the practical, institutional, and legal deficits that surround SRPP implementation in Greece (Figure 16 in Appendix B): 1. Procedural Simplification: The most frequently proposed reform—endorsed by over 20% of respondents—was the streamlining of procurement procedures. SEEs emphasized the need to: • minimize documentation requirements, • harmonize eligibility criteria across contracting authorities, • develop user-friendly e-procurement platforms, • reduce administrative duplication in repeated tenders. Simplification would particularly benefit smaller SEEs, which typically operate with limited internal capacity and lack dedicated legal or administrative staff. 2. Reserved Contracts and Minimum Quotas: Many respondents proposed the establishment of mandatory quotas for contracts reserved for SEEs, under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016. This measure would: • ensure regular and predictable access of SEEs to procurement opportunities, • legitimize their presence in the market, • and reflect a real commitment to social objectives through public spending. The quotas could be expressed as a percentage of total procurement budgets or as fixed numbers of tenders in specific sectors (e.g., care services, supported employment, waste management). 3. Capacity Building for Contracting Authorities: A recurrent theme in the responses was the limited institutional knowledge of SRPP among public officials. To address this, SEEs proposed: • development of training modules on SRPP and social clauses, • issuance of legal guidelines and templates, • and the inclusion of SRPP objectives in public sector performance indicators. Capacity building would empower public officials to act with legal certainty and avoid defaulting to risk-averse procurement practices. 4. Targeted Incentives and Regulatory Flexibility: Some entities called for incentive mechanisms for contracting authorities to increase SRPP uptake, such as: • accelerated payment schedules, • bonus points in tender evaluation criteria for social impact, The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece • and exemption from certain audit obligations for contracts awarded to SEEs. These measures could mitigate concerns about administrative burden or legal vulnerability. 5. Financial Instruments and Support: Given the liquidity issues reported, SEEs advocated for: • public guarantee schemes to replace traditional bank guarantees, • pre-financing mechanisms for contracts awarded to SEEs, • and easier access to microcredit or procurement-specific financing tools. Such financial infrastructure would enable SEEs to meet bidding requirements and deliver services effectively without excessive cash flow stress. 6. Establishment of a Central SRPP Coordination Body: Several SEEs emphasized the lack of coordination across ministries and procurement authorities. They proposed the creation of a dedicated inter-ministerial unit or helpdesk that would: • oversee SRPP implementation, • track compliance with Article 20/110 provisions, • and serve as a national focal point for both SEEs and public buyers. 7. Conclusions Public procurement, once confined to the technicalities of contract execution and budget efficiency, is now increasingly reframed as a vehicle for achieving broader social objectives. Within this evolving landscape, Socially Responsible Public Procurement (SRPP) holds transformative potential— particularly for countries like Greece, where structural inequalities and institutional fragmentation limit the reach of inclusive economic policies. This study has sought to interrogate not only the legal scaffolding of SRPP in the Greek context, but also its operational viability and resonance among those it purports to serve: the Social Economy Entities (SEEs). Through a focused empirical investigation into the experiences of KOINSEP Entaxis and KOISPEs, the research reveals a persistent implementation gap between the formal provisions of SRPP and its real-world impact. Although the legal foundation—principally Law 4412/2016—is ostensibly aligned with EU Directive 2014/24/EU, its potential remains largely unexploited due to a convergence of regulatory ambiguity, administrative inertia, and asymmetrical institutional capacity. 7.1 Key findings First, the study documents a striking asymmetry in legal awareness. More than half of KOINSEPs were unfamiliar with core legislative instruments governing SRPP, a reality that severely constrains their ability to identify, assess, or pursue public tenders. In contrast, KOISPEs—more embedded in institutional networks—demonstrated greater familiarity and success in procurement processes, underscoring the role of organizational maturity and historical legitimacy in navigating state systems. Second, even when SEEs are aware of SRPP provisions, they encounter multi-layered structural barriers: excessive bureaucracy, opaque eligibility criteria, financial guarantees 244 Lamprinidis inaccessible to small entities, and recurrent delays in payment. These obstacles not only reduce participation but often negate the very social purpose procurement policies are designed to advance. Third, contracting authorities themselves emerge as critical yet underprepared actors. Lacking technical guidance and policy clarity, many opt for risk-averse approaches that default to conventional procurement practices. This institutional conservatism reproduces a cycle of exclusion and limits the diffusion of social criteria into mainstream tendering procedures. Nevertheless, the study also captures a more hopeful dimension. SEEs—despite their marginalization—articulated concrete, pragmatic policy proposals to enhance SRPP implementation. These include the introduction of reserved quotas, the creation of technical support structures, and simplified administrative pathways. Such responses reflect not only operational need but a strategic willingness to co-shape the policy environment. 7.2 Theoretical contribution By centering the lived experience of SEEs within a formalized but under-activated institutional context, the study contributes to strategic procurement theory in two important ways. First, it illustrates that legal transposition is insufficient without administrative translation—laws require enabling conditions, not just existence, to become effective instruments of policy. Second, it demonstrates that trust asymmetries and perceived institutional legitimacy are not epiphenomenal, but central to how policies are internalized and acted upon by third-sector actors. Moreover, the Greek case problematizes assumptions of policy convergence across the EU. It shows that even within a shared regulatory architecture, local institutional cultures, capacity gaps, and path-dependent legacies shape the actual trajectory of implementation. 7.3 Policy implications For SRPP to function not as rhetorical ornament but as a pillar of inclusive economic governance, the following imperatives emerge: • The Greek state must move from normative proclamation to operationalization, ensuring that Articles 20 and 110 are not symbolic but actively utilized across procurement authorities. • Capacity-building must be systemic, encompassing not only training for public officials but the institutionalization of knowledge management, procedural clarity, and legal certainty. • A national coordination mechanism—possibly situated within an inter-ministerial structure—should be established to monitor implementation, support SEEs, and streamline procurement practices with social objectives. • Lastly, the inclusion of targeted financial instruments (such as guarantee schemes) could mitigate the liquidity barriers faced by SEEs, enabling them to compete on more equitable terms. The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece 7.4 Limitations and future research This study, while rich in empirical insight, acknowledges its limitations. The sample is limited in size and scope, reflecting only a segment of the broader SEE landscape. Moreover, the time frame (2016– 2019) does not account for subsequent institutional developments or policy shifts. Future research should: • Analyze judicial interpretations of SRPP-related disputes, as legal precedent increasingly shapes administrative behavior. • Conduct comparative studies across EU Member States to identify best practices and common failures. • Assess the social return on investment (SROI) of SRPP contracts in order to substantiate their broader developmental value. 7.5 Final reflection The findings of this study call into question the assumption that legal reform alone can drive institutional change. They also challenge the idea that SEEs are passive beneficiaries of social policy. On the contrary, Greek social enterprises have shown they are critical agents, capable of diagnosing policy failures and proposing viable alternatives. What remains is for the public sector to respond—not through temporary measures or pilot programs, but through structural inclusion, co-governance, and a new procurement ethos anchored in solidarity, sustainability, and strategic impact. Acknowledgments This article is derived from research conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation at the University of West Attica. The material has been further developed and adapted to reach a broader international academic audience. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my academic supervisors for their valuable guidance throughout the research process, as well as to the participating Social Economy Entities for their cooperation. Special thanks are also extended to the support structures and research staff who contributed to the fieldwork. This work received no external funding. 246 Lamprinidis References Amitsis, G. (2014). The collective challenge of active inclusion of vulnerable groups: Developmental lessons from Social Europe [in Greek]. Papazisis. Amitsis, G. (2016). Emblematic initiatives for the preservation of social cohesion in the era of the Memoranda: The model of the National Strategy for Social Inclusion [in Greek]. Papazisis. (Series: The Reform of the Social State, No. 1) Apostolopoulos, N., Dermatis, Z., & Liargovas, P. (2019). Social economy and social entrepreneurship: The European and Greek experience [in Greek]. Patakis Publications. Arrowsmith, S. (2010). The law of public and utilities procurement. Sweet & Maxwell. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2014). On public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 94, 65–242. https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024 Doulia, T. (2015). Social economy and social entrepreneurship [in Greek]. Oselotos Publications. European Commission. (2017). Making public procurement work in Europe and for Europe (COM (2017) 572 final). https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vki7eq1l0yr4 European Commission. (2021). Building an economy that works for people: An action plan for the social economy (SWD (2021) 373 final). https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24986&langId=en Geormas, K. (2013). Introductory note. In K. Geormas (Ed.), Social economy: Theory, experience and perspectives [in Greek]. Alternative Publications. Kassavetes, D. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in Greece. In K. Geormas (Ed.), Social economy: Theory, experience and perspectives (pp. 45–81) [in Greek]. Alternative Publications. Lamprinidis, L. (2023a). The EU model of socially responsible public procurement. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 8(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.1852 Lamprinidis, L. (2023b). Challenges of the Social Economy Action Plan for Greece in light of socially responsible public procurement. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 8(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.1843 Lamprinidis, L. (2024). Socially responsible public procurement as a tool for the development of the social economy (Doctoral dissertation). University of West Attica. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/56439 Lamprinidis, L. (2025a). Socially responsible public procurement as a tool for the development of the social economy. Papazisis Publications. (Series: Reforming the Welfare State, Vol. 13) Lamprinidis, L. (2025b). Socially responsible public procurement and the social economy: European and global institutional approaches. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 10(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.3297 Lamprinidis, L. (2025c). Social entrepreneurship and social security: Synergies for sustainable social policy. Market Economy: Modern Management Theory and Practice, 24(2), 9–28. Law 2716/1999. Development and modernization of mental health services and other provisions [in Greek]. (1999). https://www.elinyae.gr/ethniki-nomothesia/n-27161999-fek-96a-1751999 https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024 https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vki7eq1l0yr4 https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24986&langId=en https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.1852 https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.1843 https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/56439 https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.3297 https://www.elinyae.gr/ethniki-nomothesia/n-27161999-fek-96a-1751999 The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece Law 4019/2011. Fourth amendment – Law No. 15 – Law 4019/2011 [in Greek]. (2011). https://www.eiead.gr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/publications_docs_4h-tropopoihsh- no.15-N.-4019-2011.pdf Law 4412/2016. Public works, procurement and services contracts – Harmonisation with Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU [in Greek]. (2016). https://ia37rg02wpsa01.blob.core.windows.net/fek/01/2016/20160100147.pdf Law 4430/2016. Law on Social and Solidarity Economy [in Greek]. (2016). http://elib.aade.gr/elib/view?d=/gr/act/2016/4430 McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum, 28(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00099.x https://www.eiead.gr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/publications_docs_4h-tropopoihsh-no.15-N.-4019-2011.pdf https://www.eiead.gr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/publications_docs_4h-tropopoihsh-no.15-N.-4019-2011.pdf https://ia37rg02wpsa01.blob.core.windows.net/fek/01/2016/20160100147.pdf http://elib.aade.gr/elib/view?d=/gr/act/2016/4430 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00099.x 248 Lamprinidis Appendix A – Tables Table 1. Sample of the Field Research. Type of entity Total contacted Responded KOINSEP Entaxis 29 11 KOISPE 28 12 Total 57 23 % of KOISPEs responded 42,86% % of KOINSEP Entaxis responded 37,93% % of Total Entitities responded 40,35% Table 2. Geographical Distribution of SEEs in the Field Research. Type of Entity East Macedo nia & Thrace Attica North Aegean Western Greece Western Macedo nia Thessal y Ionian Islands Central Macedo nia Crete Pelopon nese KOISPE 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 KOINSE P Entaxis 1 5 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Total 2 9 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece Appendix B – Figures Figure 1. Sources of funding for entities. Figure 2. Sources of funding for SEEs by importance and entity category. 250 Lamprinidis Figure 3. Participation in tenders under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016. Figure 4. Success in tenders under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016. The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece Figure 5. Participation in tenders under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016 by entity category. Figure 6. Success in tenders under Article 20 of Law 4412/2016 by entity category. 252 Lamprinidis Figure 7. Participation in tenders under Article 110 of Law 4412/2016. Figure 8. Success in tenders under Article 110 of Law 4412/2016. The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece Figure 9. Success in tenders under Article 110 of Law 4412/2016 by entity category. Figure 10. Success in tenders under Article 110 of Law 4412/2016 by entity category. 254 Lamprinidis Figure 11. SEE’s Evaluation of Public Authorities’ Familiarity Based on Field Research. Figure 12. Opinions of KOISPE on the familiarity of public authorities with their operation. The implementation of socially responsible public procurement in Greece Figure 13. Opinions of KOINSEP Entaxis on the familiarity of public authorities with their operation. Figure 14. Barriers to participation in public tenders. 256 Lamprinidis Figure 15. Problems during the execution of public contracts. 1. Introduction 2. Objective and methodology of the field research 3. Awareness of legal framework and participation in public tenders 4. Obstacles faced by social economy entities in public procurement tenders 5. Obstacles faced by SEEs during contract execution 6. Proposal for improving the SRPP institutional framework 7. Conclusions References