The sharing economy has burst forcefully onto the scene in a wide range productive sectors (transport, tourism, finance, etc.). This collaborative approach is proving itself to be efficient in terms of business management, while also offering opportunities for citizens to exchange values (providing them with greater autonomy) and in many cases reducing their ecological footprint. Despite these virtues being hard to dispute, a critical and constructive inspection must be carried out to see whether sharing economy companies are also helping to change society's values, or if they are simply making capitalism more efficient. In the analysis for this article, a) we differentiate between the wide variety of actors in the sharing economy according to their purpose; and b) we present three avenues of exploration in which interest has been growing over the past year (the Sharing Business Model Compass, platform cooperativism, and Commons Collaborative Economies). Now is a critical moment if we are to guide the evolution of the sharing economy towards reaching its full potential. This is a complex matter that should not and indeed cannot be simplified.

This article analyses the sustainability of the monetary system, with a systemic focus based in complex thinking. This thinking is far removed from the simple and the conventional, considering not only the distinct actors involved in the system but also the relationships and interactions between them. It is a way of thinking that views systems not as static or permanent, but as dynamic equilibriums linked to adaptation and change.

Being a socio-ecological system, the monetary system is subject to the dynamic behaviour of an adaptive cycle, which in turn is part of a panarchy of systems drawn to different scales across space and time. It is only when one considers this nested network of interconnected systems that it is possible to ensure the sustainability of each system individually and of the group as a whole.

The current monopoly of money in the form of bank debt has reached a point where it is so rigid and centralized it has become unsustainable. Proof of this can be seen in the systemic crisis we are currently living in. From a systemic focus based in complex thinking, this article analyses how the introduction of complementary currencies into the monetary system is one way in which its sustainability can be improved, also contributing to the sustainability of the planetary system as a whole, both economically and environmentally.

Since the 1980s, worldwide there have been numerous socioeconomic initiatives driven by ideas that differ from capitalist concepts such as accumulation of wealth, maximizing of profits and consumerism. These new initiatives appear all around the economic cycle: resources management, production, marketing, consumption, the financial system, the distribution of surplus and the circulation of currencies. One of the names most commonly associated with such initiatives is social and solidarity economy. In the future these initiatives may provide an alternative to the current dominant system.

Financial exclusion, while producing greater social exclusion and poverty, is contributing to the emergence of new types of organization in finance, banking and non-banking. Based on ethics and solidarity, such organizations favour the inclusion of the most marginalized groups. Ethical banking and community banking (including credit unions) offer an alternative to conventional banking and are increasingly being accepted. Moreover, civil society itself is leading a movement through which new non-banking ethical and solidarity finance initiatives are also emerging. Examples include financial services cooperatives, integrated cooperatives, collaborative finance, self-financed communities, time banks, social currencies and community development banks, among others. This paper analyses the main aspects arising globally from these processes of change, and highlights potential risks where these initiatives are used by large financial and non-financial corporations through new finance technologies (FinTech). Ethical and solidarity finance have become an appropriate instrument for inclusion, but certain risks remain that must be taken into account.

Social entrepreneurship has existed for as long as there have been social problems needing responses and solutions. In recent years, new forms of business have been developed that respond to social and environmental challenges, and which combine aspects of non-profit organizations with others of for-profit companies. In this article we start by defining social entrepreneurship, which has specific characteristics and needs that are distinct from those of conventional entrepreneurship. This difference has enabled the development of a financing market specific to this field, which attempts to provide suitable responses to the different types of organizations operating therein. We then go on to look at the financing models available to social initiatives and the cases and situations that make some more appropriate than others.

All forms of social organization that have existed throughout human history have satisfied human needs in diferent ways. That is, they have given different answers to the three basic questions considered by Economics: "what to produce?", "how to produce it?" and "for whom to produce it?" The only trait that all forms of social organization have in common is their consideration of enterprises as the basic unit of production for goods and services.

Therefore, the way decisions are made in firms – the power game forever determining which interests are given priority over others – is key to understanding how the three above-mentioned questions are resolved. As such, faced with various proposals calling for an enconomy that prioritizes people over capital, we need to consider alternative ways in which business can operate.

In light of the above, this paper reviews the wide range of business models that criticize or question the principal of investor-owned firms, ie organizations whose main goal is not to make a profit whatever the cost. The paper provides an overview and comparison detailing the origins of such business models, which include co-operatives, labour-managed firms, B Corps, and Economy for the common good.

In recent decades, different manifestations of Social and Complementary Currencies (SCCs) have emerged. SCCs are exchange mechanisms that offer an alernative to legal tender, aiming to stimulate trade within a circle. Their use is justified by the very definition of money as an agreement or law made by the community. Such currencies can be divided into six categories: currencies backed by official currencies to optimize the circulation of the legal tender by retaining it; currencies backed by other goods and/or services to inject liquidity into the community; currencies issued by the public authority that are circulated extensively because of their usefulness for paying taxes; mutual credit systems where members' positive or negative balances equate to the right to ask for the equivalent value of goods and/or services or the duty to provide them, respectively; SCCs issued as bank credit, with counter-cyclical effects to stabilize economic activities; and Fiat SCCs, which come into being without collateral, and need to be carefully managed to avoid accumulations in some businesses or overissue leading to hyperinflation. Each model's advantages and disadvantages must be studied carefully to decide which is most appropriate.