Apart from the arguments to be expected on the specific articulation between work and capital within their business model, supporters of the Social and solidarity economy (SSE) frequently emphasize the territorial anchoring or anchoring of their ventures in order to distinguish themselves from conventional capitalist firms. If we take this argument seriously, then this territorial anchoring should be seen as having at least two potential consequences. On the one hand, territorial anchoring offers specific resources to social economy ventures: better connections to the needs of the territory, together with fluid relations with local policy-makers and businesses thanks to historically-constructed mutual trust and social capital. On the other hand, territorial anchoring means that social economy ventures are particularly sensitive and permeable to local factors, be they of an economic, cultural, social, political or institutional nature, that may have less virtuous effects on their development. These factors might be local political patronage, social and ethnic divisions, local economic crises, or structural weaknesses (areas which are isolated, agrarian, mono-industrial, etc.) To put this another way, territorial anchoring is not virtuous per se. Rather, its effectiveness depends on a positive combination of economic, social, spatial and political factors.