A supportive European framework
At EU level, several frameworks converge on the same direction indicated by the recommendations. The European Green Deal positions capacity-building as a territorial mechanism to twin the green and digital transitions, provided inclusiveness and affordability remain central (European Commission, 2019). The EU transition pathway for the Proximity and Social Economy names skills development, access to finance and collaborative networks as the enabling conditions social economy actors need (European Commission, 2021). The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP) identifies digitalisation and Smart Villages as tools for improving digital connectivity and service delivery in remote territories (European Commission, 2025a, 2025b), while the Territorial Agenda 2030 points to Community-Led Local Development and the LEADER approach as the preferred instruments for place-based, bottom-up governance (European Commission et al., 2020).
A more uneven regional picture
At regional level, the desk analysis of the four pilot areas’ innovation strategies shows that digitalisation is already a strong, or very strong, horizontal priority in three of the four regional strategies — Croatia, Olomouc region and Piedmont — while explicit reference to the social economy appears only in Piedmont’s Smart Specialisation Strategy. In other words, the digital infrastructure a capacity-building programme can draw on is largely already in place; what remains comparatively underdeveloped, in policy terms, is its tailoring to social enterprises specifically. Closing that gap is precisely what the four recommendations set out to do. Two of the four recommendations already find a close match among the instruments identified by the desk analysis. The first, on organisational foundations, finds a particularly close match in Olomouc Region’s RIS3, which already funds SME consulting services and digital-maturity assessments under its “Digitalisation as a common instrument” priority — the same combination of assessment and roadmap-building envisaged for the innovation-advisor function. The fourth, on small and controlled investments, is mirrored by two Czech instruments: S-podnik/S-Enterprise, which provides interest-free loans of between CZK 400,000 and CZK 25 million and finances up to 90% of eligible costs for social enterprises, and the Innovation Vouchers schemes identified in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which support smaller, targeted forms of technical assistance — such as feasibility studies — rather than large capital expenditure.
Neither instrument was designed with this capacity-building programme in mind, and neither covers a recommendation in full. What they show is that each recommendation appears to have a plausible institutional home already operating in at least one pilot area — a foundation to build on rather than a gap to fill from nothing.
A starting point, not a finished plan
The desk analysis also indicates that this policy fit is not uniform: the Czech and Italian contexts were assessed as comparatively more ready to accommodate the project’s results, while engagement in Slovakia and Croatia may call for additional groundwork. Broader uncertainties, from the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034 to possible political change at regional level, add a further layer of caution. For this reason, the recommendations and the policy anchors identified here are put forward as a starting point, to be tested and adjusted together with pilot partners and organisations in the project’s participatory phases.
The fundamentals to pilot supportive policies. The needs assessment conducted among the sampled organisations was translated, in the LEADER-CE Research Report (D1.1.2), into four recommendations for the design of the capacity-building programme.
· The first, to strengthen organisational foundations before introducing digital tools, argues that an internal digital function — someone responsible for orienting the organisation’s digital choices — should be established before any software is purchased, and that this function needs to be tied to a clear strategy and to a review of internal workflows, rather than treated as a stand-alone technical role.
· The second, to make data governance and impact orientation an explicit priority, responds to a divergence the survey uncovered between declared priorities and actual practice: most organisations report that information on beneficiaries, donors and activities remains scattered across spreadsheets, emails and individual staff members, with no shared rules for collecting, updating or protecting it.
· The third, on modularity and flexibility, follows from the fact that seventeen of the twenty surveyed organisations employ fewer than fifty staff and cannot release employees for a linear training pathway; programme components should be usable as stand-alone units and combinable in a sequence each organisation can adapt to its own pace.
· The fourth, on piloting resources for small and controlled investments, reflects two figures from the survey: 80% of organisations stated a need for funding, and 85% called for an integrated management system such as an ERP or CRM — pointing to targeted, moderate-scale investment in software and related technical assistance, rather than large capital expenditure.
Taken on their own, these recommendations describe what the programme should do. Read alongside the LEADER-CE Policy Background Report (D1.2.1), they also indicate where such a programme can be anchored.
____________________________________________________
This article draws on the LEADER-CE Research Report (D1.1.2) and the LEADER-CE Policy Background Report (D1.2.1).
Sources: European Commission (2019), The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final; European Commission (2021), Scenarios towards co-creation of a transition pathway for a more resilient, sustainable and digital Proximity and Social Economy industrial ecosystem, SWD(2021) 982 final; European Commission (2025a), EU Strategy for the Alpine Region – Revised Action Plan, COM(2025) 750 final; European Commission (2025b), Staff Working Document accompanying the revised Alpine Strategy Action Plan, SWD(2025) 403 final; European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Committee of the Regions (2020), Territorial Agenda 2030.