Lucy Findlay

Are we reaching peak greenwash? Finding a better solution.

As I write the movers and shakers of the business and political world are meeting in Davos for the World Economic Forum.  I’m sure that there will be the usual platitudes about how good business is at addressing the world’s crisis as well as pointing to ‘evidence’ to support this claim.  

Economic, social and environmental trends, however, paint a different picture.  Oxfam has brought out its annual inequality report (this year’s aptly titled Inequality Inc.) to coincide with this event.  It’s depressing but not that surprising to see existing inequality continuing to grow exponentially.   

Headlines are that since the beginning of Lockdown in 2020, the world’s 5 richest men had doubled their substantial fortunes. It also shows that the power of the corporate is exacerbating inequality and climate change through behaviours that run counter to ‘good business’ – a mixture of squeezing workers, tax dodging, privatising public services and pollution – i.e. being driven by shareholder private gain rather than social and environmental good despite all the talk of business being ‘purpose led’.  Are we reaching peak greenwash? Many of the checks and balances (for example Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting) are mere window dressing as are the messages about corporate altruism and putting people and the planet first.   

What is needed (confirmed by the report) is for governments to reimagine and shift their view of what makes the private sector include wider business models such as social enterprise.  It’s not a fringe, hippy activity – it should be a desirable mainstream destination.   

Even those politicians that support social enterprises are too enmeshed in the current business paradigm to realise the full potential of our sector. This is why we have become part of the Future Economy Alliance which advocates for the wider social economy to be taken more seriously in building a more sustainable, equitable future economy in the UK. 

Unfortunately, most governments and many businesses are going in the opposite direction and doubling down on corporate-led, cheaper, short-term decisions driven by excuses like the cost-of-living crisis (that affects the poorest most) as well as short-term political and shareholder expediency.  

The shareholder profit equals good efficient business equation embedded in our worldwide culture and financial systems.  It’s so ingrained that mainstream financial products and tax incentives are driven by this assumption, which is why there is a dearth of alternative businesses and finance to support their growth and flourish. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. We need to decouple shareholder profit from business and support other viable models such as social enterprises and worker cooperatives.  And it’s not only the business model that counts – it’s also about the journey that the organisation is on.  What we don’t need is a load more incentives (tax breaks and financial products) to perpetuate the business status quo- we need the government to listen and act to incentivise new and existing, good well-run social enterprises that are really delivering social and environmental value rather than shareholder value.  We also need to incentivise conversions from the extractive business model towards a more regenerative approach (through the application of tools such as those by the Doughnut Economics Lab) 

This is where accreditation comes into its own. Recent research from the platform In Good Company shows that despite the challenges of the current economic climate and consumers spending less, ethical businesses still see accreditation (66%) as important in verifying their claims and showing their ethical credentials.  Governments need to be supporting those who can back up their claims and verify true social value.   

Our accreditation journey demonstrates that social enterprises can be the best at this.  Social enterprises cannot sit still stating that their business model makes a difference without striving to be even better at what they do.  We are the leaders in setting standards for what makes good business, governments should be looking to us to demonstrate best business practices, but we need to ensure that we can independently verify any claims that we make.  This is why we would encourage existing social enterprises to look towards progression to our new Silver and Gold accreditations.  The process will help you become the best that you can be!

Crowdfunding for social enterprise, the future of match funding and how to get it!

The Crowdfunding Coach

My name is Bertie Herrtage and after 5 years as the Senior Coach at the fundraising platform Crowdfunder UK, I started my own business ‘The Crowdfunding Coach’, promoting crowdfunding education within the Third Sector. I specialise in donation and rewards based crowdfunding for social enterprises and I’m a strong advocate for the use and development of ‘match funding’ opportunities to plug the financial gap that these organisations are facing.

Social enterprises perform well when crowdfunding

Back in 2018, I started to see that social enterprise campaigns performed particularly well when crowdfunding. This was because of what we call a ‘dual motivation’ to support them. Their service to society attracted donations and their capacity for trade allows them to offer rewards, which are products or services in return for a financial contribution. The use of rewards in the crowdfunding context acts as a further incentive to give, encouraging supporters to pledge more money, increasing the average spent on a donation-only campaign from £20 to £50.

I believe that crowdfunding should be part of the financial life cycle of every social enterprise because the process is an accelerator programme in itself. Beyond raising the money they need it allows these organisations to benefit from the inherent; story telling, marketing, audience development, networking, product testing and content creation involved. With less than half of VCSE organisations rating their digital skills as “good” (Gov, 2022), crowdfunding serves us as an opportunity to correct that.

Social Investment

It’s been my experience that social enterprises are being steered towards social investment but with 42% of social enterprises under 5 years old (SE UK, 2019), they often do not have the necessary revenue to take on debt. Furthermore, with the median amount of repayable finance sought at £50,000 (Good Finance, 2023) these numbers are not appetising for banks to lend, because the due diligence and administration alone rubs out the profit in the deal. In an economic climate where the average grant awarded is £12,000 (dsc, 2023) and ‘almost half of social enterprises report the amount of suitable finance available to their organisations is insufficient’ (SE UK, 2023), we know that we need to be more creative about where this funding is going to come from.

Crowdfunding is a technology which allows for a more collaborative and transparent approach to finance. Instead of a bid for a grant or investment done behind closed doors, it’s done out in the open on a digital stage. 

Collaborative finance

Match funding is based on the belief that there is no one financial solution to the funding of these organisations. Instead, the answer is to enable a more collaborative approach to finance which involves; government, local authorities, corporations, trusts and the public. The premise being that the more funders we can encourage to host match funding opportunities through crowdfunding, the less pressure the organisations put on their own networks. This is especially relevant for smaller organisations in less affluent areas and in the context of the cost of living crisis that we’re in.

What this will take is for the traditional grant making organisations to become more comfortable trialling the distribution of their finance in new and innovative ways. By even making small pots of finance available through this method, they will be quickly able to see what the demand is, how the application process suits them and most importantly, witness the benefits of public participation and the impact of collaborating with other funds on the financing of these organisations.

The technology is already here and crowdfunding platforms like Crowdfunder UK have the potential to become one-stop-shops for organisations in need of finance. By making multiple funds available under one roof, the process of finding appropriate finance becomes much easier to navigate for these organisations and therefore much more accessible.

Here’s an example of how match funding works

Fat Macy’s

fat macy'sA social enterprise based in London which is tackling the impact of our housing crisis by providing support for those at risk of homelessness. Fat Macy’s allows those they work with to save for a deposit and develop skills through a culinary and hospitality training programme, thereby helping them into work.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/fat-macys-big-supper-club 

After closing last week, Fat Macy’s has successfully raised £56,454 from 203 supporters of a £50,000 target (the median amount of repayable finance sought by a social enterprise).

The current breakdown of what they have raised

Match funding: £34,155

Access’s ‘The Cost of Living Resilience Fund’: £17,350

Aviva Community Fund: £10,225

Aviva Employee Giving: £1,520

Sovereign Network Group: £5,000

Solus Employee Giving: £60

The public: £22,299

Luminary Bakery

My next example is a social enterprise which uses baking as a tool to take vulnerable women on a journey to employability and entrepreneurship, equipping them with transferable skills for the working world.

In November this year, Luminary Bakery raised £51,386 from 360 supporters and if you have a few minutes to spare, please do watch their crowdfunding video, it is very inspiring!

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/youempowerher

This is the breakdown of what they raised through crowdfunding

Match funding: £31,528

British Airways ‘The Better World Community Fund’: £15,000

Avios donations: £516

British Airways Executive Club: £516

Aviva Community Fund: £13,426 

Aviva Employee Giving: £2,070

The public: £19,858

As we can see, £50,000 is an achievable target for social enterprises to reach through crowdfunding, provided that there are the match funders there to support them.

The process is simple, create a project on Crowdfunder.co.uk and by adding information about where you are based and who you benefit, you’ll quickly see which match funding opportunities are available to you. The secret is to submit your applications before launching your campaign, thereby ensuring you know exactly what the shape of the opportunity is before you start. The good news? Crowdfunder UK charges 0% fees for social enterprises.

At The Crowdfunding Coach, I offer a free 1-2-1 consultation for social enterprises. If your organisation is based in the UK and you’re interested to see how crowdfunding might be of use to you, please reach out via one of the channels below.

E: bertie@thecrowdfundingcoach.org

Instagram: the_crowdfundingcoach

LinkedIn: bertie-herrtage-11987663

 

Social Enterprises: Why Greener Methods Make Sense

In collaboration with Social Enterprise Mark CIC, I am exploring the challenges social enterprises face in adopting environmentally sustainable strategies and operations. It’s increasingly clear that as a planet we need to radically reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we release, produce less waste and help the natural environment recover. Many companies are shifting to strategies which not only ‘do less harm’ but actively help replenish the resources we use as society.

But let’s acknowledge it isn’t as easy as all that. Embarking on the journey towards more sustainable and climate-conscious operations can be a daunting task for social enterprise leaders in the UK, who already have a difficult balance of running a successful socially-driven organisation. It can seem complicated, needing time and money to make the transition to greener suppliers and methods.

It’s important to note that small businesses can make a huge difference – a recent OECD report showed that SMEs produce 70% of Europe’s carbon emissions. We can all contribute to a radically reducing greenhouse gases across the world.

It’s also important to recognise that this transition is not just about reducing your carbon footprint – it’s also a strategic move that can bring significant business benefits. In this blog, I’ll explore why greener methods make sense for social enterprises and provide six top tips to help you get started on this transformative path.

Why Greener Methods Make Business Sense

  • Meeting Customer Expectations: A Forbes report recently showed, more than three quarters of Gen Z and millennial consumers consider environmental sustainability in their purchasing decisions. By adopting greener methods, you not only meet customer expectations but also attract a larger and more loyal customer base.
  • Attracting and retaining the best talent: Gen Z and millennials care deeply about the environmental credentials of companies they work for. Over half research the sustainability of the prospective employer before they accepting a job. Greener companies also enjoy lower turnover. All companies must make sure that its strategy, purpose, operations are meaningful and fulfilling to its teams.
  • Cost Savings: Sustainability isn’t just about saving the planet; it’s about saving money too. Implementing energy-efficient technologies, reducing waste, and using less water and other resources can lead to substantial cost savings. These savings can be reinvested in your social enterprise’s mission or used to improve your products and services.
  • Risk Mitigation: Climate change and environmental degradation pose significant risks to businesses. By embracing sustainability, you can mitigate these risks. E.g. being prepared for supply chain disruptions caused by extreme weather events can keep your operations running smoothly.
  • Access to Funding: Investors and grants providers increasingly favour enterprises with strong sustainability credentials. By adopting greener methods, you improve your chances of securing funding that can help you grow and scale your social enterprise.
  • Enhanced Reputation: A reputation for environmental responsibility can set your social enterprise apart from the competition. It can open doors to partnerships, collaborations, and opportunities that may not have been available otherwise.

The Social Enterprise Mark Community Told us What’s Stopping Them:

We recently asked the Social Enterprise Mark community on LinkedIn what the main barriers are to adopting climate-conscious actions and operations. Responses showed that some social enterprises are unsure how to go about assessing their practices and adopting greener strategies and operations, or that it is too expensive or will take too much time.

Barriers % Response
Unsure what to do/how to start 46%
Too costly/resource intensive 54%
Transition is too difficult 0%
Unsure of business benefits 0%

In response to your answers, I’d like to suggest some tips on how to start considering your environmental impact which do not have to turn your business upside down or blow the budget.

Six Top Tips to Get Started Without Costing the Earth

  • Conduct a Sustainability Assessment: Start by understanding your current environmental impact. You can use free or inexpensive tools to conduct either a light-touch or more thorough assessment of your operations to identify carbon reductions. This assessment should encompass energy usage, waste production, supply chain practices, and more..
  • Set Clear Sustainability Goals: Discuss what you want to achieve around sustainability. Whether it’s reducing greenhouse gas emissions, minimising waste, or sourcing sustainable materials, having clear objectives will guide your efforts and help you track progress..
  • Get Started: explore some easy switches for supplies you already use which could have a big sustainability impact:
  1. One of the most impactful things a business (or an individual) can do is move their money to ethical financial institutions. There are banks which intentionally avoid funding fossil fuels, mining and other extractive industries and instead invest in renewable energy and technologies. 
  2. The other big switch is your energy supplier. Shifting to renewable electricity promotes its greater use across the grid and will encourage yet more future investment and lower costs. Find ways to use less energy eg. insulating your premises, or downsizing offices.
  3. Find simple ways to reduce water use and waste – saving money as well as carbon.. 
  4. Another area, albeit often with a bit more to consider in terms of time or cost, is transport. There may be lower carbon options for freight, deliveries, commuting and business travel. 
  5. One area which might be a surprise – your IT servers and web hosting can be much more carbon intensive than you’d think. Greener solutions can be found where the hosts use renewable electricity and offset the emissions from cooling refrigerants. 
  • Release the Power of Your Staff Teams! Sustainability is a collective effort. Engage your team members by raising awareness about the importance of sustainability and involving them in the decision-making process. Encourage their input and ideas for greener practices – they might come up with interesting, innovative ways to get things done differently..
  • Collaborate and Seek Expertise: Don’t go it alone. There are lots of free resources with carbon calculators, checklists and guidance. If you want more bespoke support that doesn’t cost the earth, check out companies like Green Small Business or Small99 who support SMEs on their sustainability journey.
  • Measure, Communicate and Celebrate Progress: Regularly measure your sustainability efforts to track your progress toward your goals. Communicate your achievements and challenges to your stakeholders; celebrate your progress and make your staff and customers proud! 

While the transition to more sustainable and climate-conscious operations may seem daunting or costly, it’s a journey that holds immense promise for social enterprises. 

By embracing greener methods and integrating environmental sustainability into your strategy where appropriate, you not only contribute to a healthier planet but also unlock a range of business benefits, from cost savings to enhanced reputation. You can strengthen your social mission by using responsible practices. With determination and commitment, you can navigate this green path and lead your social enterprise toward a stronger and more sustainable future.

I hope this article gives some food for thought on how social enterprises can start to consider their sustainability and start to make changes to greener practices. 

Social Enterprise vs Entrepreneurship: Are we Missing the Point?

Often the term social enterprise is laden with certain assumptions and stereotypes – many of these come with the term ‘entrepreneur’.  Entrepreneurs are presented as ‘mavericks’ challenging the status quo, systems and processes and not conforming to the norm.  In a nutshell, Silicon Valley types! 

It’s liberating to be different and to think about how to solve a problem creativelyWithout creativity and challenge many of the world’s problems would remain unaddressed with no identified solution to fill the gaps left by the state and the market. However good social enterprises should not be flash-in-the-pan start-ups aimed at ‘high growth’ to pay back shareholders, focused on a couple of heroesThey are here to stay for as long as the social challenge exists and to create and mould themselves to the next challenge whatever that isThis is why I don’t agree with the social enterprise leaders who say ‘I’m working myself out of a job’.  There will always be social and environmental challenges and we need good social enterprises to address them as they come along rather than constantly having to reinvent the wheel. 

Thinking of the current world situation with war so close both in Russia and the Middle East, I am reminded of my trips to Siberia in 2018 and 19, where I first learned of the rise of the ‘NGO’ in the early 90s when the whole economy collapsed.  People were struggling to feed themselves.  Academics at the university I attended were growing potatoes in the woods. Women (and by and large they were and are women) community leaders got together to fill the gaps as state intervention completely disappeared.  They formed organisations like the Siberia Centre that raised money and created NGOs to help the community cope and support other NGOs – a concept previously unheard of.  I don’t think that these women would have classed themselves as mavericks and entrepreneurs though.  They just got on and did what needed to be done, creating social infrastructure for the long term, where the system had failed.  Increasingly Siberian social enterprises

 are now filling these spaces (also mainly led by younger women) addressing all sorts of social and environmental problems including recycling and eco-fashion. 

What we need internationally, are good, well-run social enterprises with longevity and resilience and an ability to adapt to the challenges that society presents.  It’s a journey.  It’s not enough to just have the right legal structure and cause, we need to show continual improvement and consistent social impact.   

Social Enterprise Silver Mark

This is why we have extended our services to launch the missing step in our social enterprise pathway – the Social Enterprise Silver Mark.  The Silver Mark is aimed at social enterprises that want to show maturity and continual improvement.  They are on a journey to excellence, providing independent proof, a supportive tailored process and recommendations for achieving our highest level of excellence (the Social Enterprise Gold Mark) using the same robust criteria and assessment methodology, but with lower evidence thresholds and capacity requirements from the applicant.  The Silver Mark also offers a chance for reflection and celebration that social enterprises don’t often get because they are so busy changing the world! 

 

We will be welcoming our long-standing friend and founding Chair of The Big Issue Nigel Kershaw who join us to speak at our online celebration.  I hope to see you there.

 

 

Details of the launch event can be found here:

The Social Enterprise Silver Mark – Launch Event

 

 

If you are interested in accrediting your business to show your ethical and purposeful social enterprise credentials, you can register your interest here. You can also take our short online quiz to quickly identify if your business is eligible.

If you would like to keep up to date with our latest news please sign up for our newsletter.

Wooden tiles spelling 'blog' with a pen and pad in the background

University sector finances are broken; can social enterprise be the solution?

Dr Eric LybeckBy Dr Eric Lybeck, Lecturer & Presidential Fellow at University of Manchester

The world of academia, particularly within research-intensive universities, is undergoing a seismic shift. Growing financial challenges threaten our longstanding academic traditions and structures, but amidst this turmoil, might social entrepreneurship provide a means of preserving what’s best in higher learning, while at the same time, breaking down the barriers between ‘town and gown’?

The looming financial crisis in top-tier research universities

Recently, the Financial Times highlighted an alarming trend: a majority of Russell Group research-intensive universities in the UK have reported an average financial shortfall of about £2,500 for each domestic undergraduate student in the ongoing academic year.

Even more concerning, financial analysts predict this deficit could double, reaching £5,000 by the year 2029-30. This looming financial challenge recalls the pronounced funding crisis of the mid-1990s, a crisis that controversially culminated in the introduction of university tuition fees.

However, the fiscal crisis for universities goes beyond tuition fees. With uncertainty around Horizon Europe funding coming into play, inflation and related pressures, the apprehensions concerning the management of research expenses have skyrocketed. Navigating the tight rope of funding becomes harder and harder for individuals and institutions.

Zooming in on the day-to-day operations of these institutions, the root of the problem becomes evident. The days of armchair philosophers is well and truly gone. Contemporary academics find themselves ensnared in a relentless pursuit of research funds, often to merely keep their roles intact. The fierce competition of these bidding processes, combined with an archaic accounting system, exacerbates the issue. Soaring overheads are gauged against the number of full-time researchers creating perverse incentives when these cost-benefit calculations are integrated into grant proposals.

More and more value projects get sidelined as non-viable within this environment. The highly bureaucratised system becomes inherently biased towards larger-scale projects, neglecting the smaller yet often transformative experiments and more humble projects. Sadly, many academics, once at the forefront of innovation, are retreating or leaving the profession simply to conduct their research properly.

Investing in Civic Engagement

Civic University NetworkIn response to the overemphasis on ‘world leading’ research and a global student market, a ‘Civic University Commission’ was established to encourage more local engagement. This has since been supported by the government, research councils, and a ‘Civic University Network’ is based in Sheffield Hallam to document best practices.

However, while the terminology surrounding ‘civic engagement’ and ‘social responsibility’ is becoming a regular fixture in boardroom discussions, there remains a mismatch between intent and action. Initiatives hastily labelled as ‘civic’ often prove to be mere reiterations of previous efforts. Universities’ genuine commitment and strategic investment in robust civic engagement is still wanting.

This discrepancy means many community projects, despite their undeniable potential, are left in limbo, as academics, burdened with ever-increasing teaching and research responsibilities, find it difficult to engage – then, when funding is sought, the same competitive atmosphere pervades experiences, resulting in more failed bids than successful investments in community-led initiatives.

Such a lacklustre approach often leaves community partners disillusioned. They feel the brunt of unsuccessful funding bids, experience the sting of unmet promises, and grapple with the void left behind post-project completion even when initial projects are successful, but not sustained by follow on funding.

Social Entrepreneurship: A Way Forward?

With a bit of foresight and ambition, universities could solve these problems, through investment and engagement with social entrepreneurs. Imagine a more collaborative future where academic researchers partner seamlessly with community organisations, leading to projects that resonate with real-world impact.

Instead of transient associations, these alliances promise lasting change, with the flexibility to morph based on genuine community needs and not just the whims of fluctuating research grants.

However, for social entrepreneurship to gain a firm foothold in academia, several inherent challenges must be overcome:

  • Lack of experience: Academia desperately requires pioneers in this realm. Initiating student and faculty groups for exploratory projects could serve as a starting point. With firsthand experience, these pioneers can refine strategies and catalyse widespread change.
  • Time constraints: Social entrepreneurship projects, by their nature, demand patience. Universities need to recognise this and be willing to invest time in such transformative ventures.
  • Funding: Even though the ultimate aim is to attain self-sustainability, initial capital is indispensable. Governments can bridge this gap by offering specialised grants aimed at fostering both university-led and community-driven social entrepreneurial initiatives.

Conclusion

The financial clouds gathering over research-intensive universities are undeniably dark. But within this challenging environment lies a promising chance for reinvention. By embracing social entrepreneurship and bolstering civic engagement, academia has the potential to evolve and adapt in this changing landscape.

 


Dr Eric Lybeck is a Presidential Fellow and Lecturer at University of Manchester. He is committed to making universities and places better through research, engagement and teaching. He contributes regularly to media in print, television, radio and online on a number of topics including issues around culture wars, higher education policy and politics/culture generally. 

Photo of a woman speaking with text overlay: "The world is changing, and governments and businesses need to change with it, not remain stuck in the old paradigm."

Having real teeth: A taxing issue

I’m not talking about dentists or crowns (although we do have a brilliant Mark Holder in Peninsula Dental that does this!), rather tax breaks for social enterprises and businesses that can prove they are achieving a better world through their business model.

We can help prove and evidence this as all of our social enterprise accreditations independently verify that the business is led by social and environmental objectives rather than shareholder gain, and therefore could be used to help identify such businesses where tax breaks are applicable. In this blog I examine why we now urgently need this bold step.

Many political parties claim to want more businesses that are truly ‘purpose led’ but have not backed it up with specific policy or legislation. The world is changing, and governments and businesses need to change with it, not remain stuck in the old paradigm. Straightforward tax breaks would really make a difference and stimulate the growth that is so urgently needed.

The UK Government has consistently resisted the provision of simple fiscal incentives for specific types of company, preferring to remain agnostic on structure despite evidence that social enterprises contribute so much to the economy as well as tackling social and environmental issues. The sole recent tax relief aimed at social enterprises in England (which is now finished) was Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR), which was aimed at investors rather than for the business itself and was largely irrelevant to most social enterprises as they can’t take equity investment (not to mention it was complicated to administer and understand).

Rather than incentivise certain beneficial types of company that help deliver policy objectives, the orthodoxy is that the market will provide outcomes and investment due to the profit motive. The profit driver above all other considerations comes at a cost to non-financial outcomes. The time has come for all parties to challenge this orthodoxy, particularly in delivery of goods and services that people depend upon for their daily lives.

The current scandal around water companies perfectly illustrates why we need governments to incentivise in the right way. Currently, financial rewards are reaped for those that asset strip in the name of higher dividends – ignoring the social and environmental consequences of not investing in these aspects of the business. There have been other recent well-known cases often led by private equity firms making quick returns at the expense of long-term stability and reinvestment in staff and infrastructure.

‘Shareholder primacy’ as it’s known, is also one of the relatively undiscussed but key reasons that the UK is facing relatively high levels of stagnation and inequality according to a briefing by the Common Wealth Think Tank. The researchers have noted that it leads to behaviours that are much more pronounced in the UK – i.e. extracting larger shareholder payouts rather than investing in the workforce and the company, which leads to lower productivity. Their research finds that there is a correlation between democratic governance and higher levels of investment within the business. The pressure from financial markets to ‘disgorge cash’ has impact on both investment and thus sustainable growth.

Governance (i.e. the set of rules about how the company is set up) is an essential part of being ‘purpose led’. How can you have a business that extracts as much dividend and equity for shareholders as possible yet claims to be driven by social and environmental purpose? In the UK, the main stakeholder tends to be the shareholder – with relatively low priority being given to others such as the local community, employees and the environment.

Many political parties claim to want more businesses that are truly ‘purpose led’ but have not backed it up with specific policy or legislation. The world is changing, and governments and businesses need to change with it, not remain stuck in the old paradigm. Straightforward tax breaks would really make a difference and stimulate the growth that is so urgently needed. We will be lobbying parties for this change with our social enterprise partners on the Business Plan for Britain campaign. Watch this space!

If you are interested in accrediting your business to show your ethical and purposeful social enterprise credentials, you can register your interest here. You can also take our short online quiz to quickly identify if your business is eligible.

If you would like to keep up to date with our latest news please sign up for our newsletter.

Photo of a woman speaking with text overlay: "This is why social enterprises are far more than businesses, in the conventional narrow interpretation of the word. They are the fabric of the community that picks up those that are left behind for whatever reason by the wider economy and society due to market failure as well as providing goods and services that add social value."

Why should we be thinking beyond the ‘better business’ message?

In a few weeks we are holding our Beyond Better Business conference in Manchester.  It will be preceded by a drinks reception, which Andy Burnham will be attending the night beforehand, showcasing and celebrating local social enterprises.   

This theme is very pertinent and current in many ways, but particularly whilst the actions of business are increasingly being put under the spotlight following the allegations at the CBI, a body that purports to represent the wider business world in good practice and leadership.  


Whenever I have communicated with the CBI we seem to have been on a very different wavelength and it’s a constant source of frustration in many business fora that social enterprises are not understood or somehow seen as ‘not proper business’ because we put our stakeholders before financial gains for shareholders. We are often marginalised and ignored. The same goes for business departments of government.   

But this is not to say that the wider business community cannot learn and adapt to become more like social enterprises. B Lab (the home of B Corp for the UK) for instance use the strapline Let’s use business as a force for good. They talk about “redefining the role of business within our economic system so that every business is a force for good”. However, social enterprises have social good as their core mission, it goes beyond mere window dressing or ‘purpose signalling’… It’s in their DNA. 

This is why social enterprises are far more than businesses, in the conventional narrow interpretation of the word. They are the fabric of the community that picks up those that are left behind for whatever reason by the wider economy and society due to market failure as well as providing goods and services that add social value.   

The social enterprise raison d’être is making a difference by tacking some of the knotty issues that society faces, in a nimble and entrepreneurial way. They often fill the gaps that other businesses don’t or won’t reach, because their central mission is to solve a social/environmental problem (whilst making money to sustain themselves in achieving their social/environmental mission). It is this emphasis which makes social enterprises different from the mainstream business community. Many businesses that are not set up in this way just don’t get the values and motivations that drive social enterprises, their leaders and their wider stakeholders. 

This is why social enterprises are far more than businesses, in the conventional narrow interpretation of the word. They are the fabric of the community that picks up those that are left behind for whatever reason by the wider economy and society due to market failure as well as providing goods and services that add social value.   

I hope that at last we will soon see a paradigm shift in the concept and interpretation of ‘business’, the finance that supports it, along with the organisations that represent it. We need an end to macho toxic cultures that interpret ‘being commercial’ as financial growth before everything else with a bit of ‘purpose signalling’ to cover the cracks.   

If you want to join in and be part of this movement please come to our conference and if you’re a social enterprise, you can future proof your credentials and show your commitment to making a positive impact by becoming an accredited social enterprise!  

Lucy Findlay

Deeper than ESG – finding our soul

International Women's Day logoOn this International Women’s Day let’s think differently and do the world a favour by acting differently. It’s not about more of the same with a ‘female’ badge attached to it.

Women often feel that they don’t fit in the male-led business world, because they want to make a difference, not just make lots of money and be judged on how much their business turns over (this applies to many men that don’t fit the standard mould too!)

Growth vs degrowth or scaling up vs scaling out – we are not anti-growth, we are instead trying to make the world question the old assumptions and value not just financial outcomes that lead to certain types of behaviours, e.g. excessive personal financial profiteering of those in positions of power, taking priority over social and environmental considerations such as pollution, social inequality and exploitation.

A recent article The struggle for the soul of the B Corp movement by Anjli Raval of the Financial Times has ignited a debate on social media about how we truly know and identify businesses that are doing the best by people and planet, brought on by the B Corp certification being awarded controversially to the likes of Nespresso and Brewdog (now removed).

Subsequently I have been doing a lot of thinking around this issue. How do we truly know that a business is values based? There are so many different methodologies out there from looking at the outputs and outcomes (social value, impact and the rise of ESG reporting), to proving the DNA/governance of the business and its drivers (purpose driven and/or asset locked), to name a few.

There is no single answer, as we know that if an organisation is determined to ‘greenwash’, those in control will probably find a way to do it. However, there are ways in which we can reduce the likelihood and challenge the fundamentals of business – i.e. who owns it, who benefits (profits) from it, who is on the Board and the main mission all help.

Our Social Enterprise Mark accreditation independently proves that individual #shareholders are not in the driving seat, due to what’s termed an asset lock, which limits profits from dividends and on sale/closure. It also requires that social impact is measured and reported. Although B Corp certification does require a purpose driven mission statement, there is no restriction on shareholders profits and the pick and choose approach via the points based system can potentially let businesses off the hook – i.e. disguise the #antisocial actions. Our Social Enterprise Gold Mark goes even further, by further examining stakeholder involvement, social impact and business ethics – points are used  but there is a minimum number of points required.

In order to make a fundamental shift in this logjam we need to be much more revolutionary and precise in what we mean by the term business growth. We are truly stuck on one business model that provides a very limited set of benefits… Our traditional methods of accounting and valuing a business all point in this direction and investors perpetuate this. They are all holding us back and are not fit for purpose!

The criticism of this limitation of profits approach to business ethics is mainly due to the reduction in ability to attract growth investment (i.e. equity investors that take a stake in future profits and sale of the company) especially at start-up and growth phase. Social impact investment tends to be this type of funding – it requires very high rates of financial return as well as a social return.

Many people don’t realise that social enterprises which look for additional finance to grow are therefore largely reliant on debt finance (often known as social investment, with expensive interest rates) or grants (tend to be linked to specific outputs and hard to come by and need to be replaced).

In order to make a fundamental shift in this logjam we need to be much more revolutionary and precise in what we mean by the term business growth. We are truly stuck on one business model that provides a very limited set of benefits – i.e. financial return with financial products that respond in similar limited way. Our traditional methods of accounting and valuing a business all point in this direction and investors perpetuate this. They are all holding us back and are not fit for purpose!

There is a growing movement that recognises the challenge, with solutions that help redress the imbalance of financial interests as opposed to sustainability, yet to penetrate mainstream education of economists, business schools and accountancy let alone the professions and professional bodies themselves.

Rethinking Economics logoBut there are signs that this is changing. The Rethinking Economics network is doing some excellent work in this education space and there are forward looking professionals leading the charge for change.

The frustration is the time and the lack of progressive thinking from mainstream economists, politicians and financial professionals. I hope that over the next year we see an acceleration of a shift in thinking and that I am not saying the same all over again on IWD2024!

Text: "13 years of' and Social Enterprise Mark CIC logo with text "upholding the standard for social enterprise"

Celebrating 13 years of impact as a social enterprise accreditation authority

Lucy Findlay at launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in 2010

Lucy Findlay at launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in 2010

It’s hard to believe that today marks 13 years since we launched the Social Enterprise Mark. We are now officially a teenager!

After a challenging few years, where we have, amongst other things, faced capacity issues, we are excited to move into this new phase of growth to further develop the business, including updating our systems and expanding our assessment capacity in order  to help us reach out to more businesses globally, helping them drive their ethical and sustainable business practice and standards.

Consistently for the last 13 years, we have been committed to raising the standards of, as well as building the capabilities of, social enterprises as competitive, sustainable businesses dedicated to maximising social impact, and also broadening the reach, awareness, understanding and adoption of the social enterprise business model.

Even with the immense challenges thrown at us all over the past few years, we have been delighted to see our international network of accredited social enterprises continue to grow, as more and more organisations seek to prove their social enterprise credentials. In 2021/22, the total number of organisations holding one of our accreditations increased by 10%.

Yellow background with orange and white circles and Social Enterprise Mark logo with text 'Impact Report 21/22"With a larger network comes increased opportunities to create impact, and to mark our anniversary, we are excited to share our 2021/22 impact report, which summarises the impact we created during 2021/22 in our role as an advocate for the social enterprise sector.

In creating this report, we used data from our 2022 stakeholder survey, which consulted our Mark holders and wider stakeholders on the development of our accreditation services, to ensure our services continue to address the evolving needs of the growing social enterprise sector.

As a customer-focused organisation, we were delighted to see increases in key indicators of customer satisfaction, including 100% of Mark holder respondents agreeing that our social enterprise accreditations “prove their commitment to contributing towards the creation of a stronger and fairer economy” and “help them communicate the significance of being an accredited social enterprise to our employees, partners and other stakeholders”.

It was also pleasing to see that over 95% of respondents agreed we play an important role as an advocate and representative for the social enterprise sector. As this is one of our core values, it is really important to us that we are living up to this (and our other values).

A key area we focused on in the last year was our networking function – we have successfully developed several networks to better support our diverse community of Mark holders and supporters, including an international women’s leadership network and our growing HEI network, as well as connecting and expanding our Ambassadors,. We were excited to establish a new partnership with Cambio House for Change to host not one, but two national conferences, which focused on how social enterprise can be better embedded into higher education.

Group of people holding Social Enterprise Mark certificatesWe also further developed our existing partnership with Social Impact Ireland to accredit and raise the visibility of new and existing social enterprises in Ireland. Attending the official launch of the Social Enterprise Mark Ireland in Dublin in November was one of my highlights of 2022. As I mentioned in my previous blog, it was great to meet the first cohort of eight inspirational social enterprises that have been supported by Social Impact Ireland to achieve the Social Enterprise Mark.

We see 2023 as a key transitional year as we strengthen our Board, team, systems and processes to better equip us to reach the next phase in our journey, growing our gravitas, ethics, values and maturity.

Photo of Lucy Findlay with text overlay: Access to finance: challenging social investors to think differently

Access to finance: challenging social investors to think differently

Good Finance logoIn a guest blog for Good Finance UK, Lucy explores common barriers to accessing finance, including her own lived experience as founding Managing Director of Social Enterprise Mark CIC, and challenges social investors to escape the ‘business-as-usual’ approach that enables inequity.


Time and again access to finance comes out as the number one barrier to growth for social enterprises.

In this post, I want to drill down into what we mean by the terms ‘access to finance’ and how social investors can provide more flexible, accessible solutions.

In my research for this blog, I investigated the data that originates from the State of Social Enterprise Report in 2021 (SEUK). Interestingly, the effects of Covid and the economic crisis have reduced access to debt and equity finance (social finance) as a barrier to growth from 18% in 2019 to 6% in 2021.

The much larger barriers to growth were:

·       72%: Operational issues e.g. accessing customers,
·       61%: Economic factors such as cash flow
·       36%: Financial reasons e.g. grants.

Does this mean that social finance becomes largely irrelevant in times of crisis?  Even more so when we see the eye watering interest rate rises that are likely to see over the next year.

My thoughts are that this is not the case. However, we must see social finance within the wider context of pressures facing social enterprises and, as with any product/service, it needs to adapt, and provide flexible and hybrid products. In tandem, we also need to see social enterprises acting with a social value/sustainability head on rather than acting like corporates in their growth ambitions.

Continue reading Lucy’s blog on the Good Finance website.

An International Business Model: The Challenges and Highlights

Visiting Dublin during 2022’s Global Entrepreneurship week to announce the first cohort of Social Enterprise Mark Holders at the renowned Rediscovery Centre was a Watershed moment. The event had a great celebratory atmosphere beginning with the launch of the Social Enterprise Mark Ireland and hearing of the support from Social Enterprise Republic of Ireland (SERI) for accreditation and how important it is in gaining credibility for the sector as well as the ensuring quality standards are set and maintained.   


I would like to celebrate each and every one of those social enterprises who all spoke so eloquently about what the award meant to them. The event included moving stories about the journeys that founders and their supporters had been on.

To quote the founder of Alex’s Adventure, Nicole Ryan, “Gaining the Social Enterprise Mark for Alex’s Adventure has been one of the highlights of my career”. The death of her 18 year old brother in an accidental overdose in a nightclub inspired her to change the world for the better and become his story teller and catalyst. She gave up her engineering career to speak across the country to young people and help them make the right choices leading to Alex’s Adventure drugs education programme.

More pictures and case studies can be seen on the Social Enterprise Mark Ireland website.   

For a small social enterprise such as ours, getting the international business model right is a challenge both for capacity and quality assurance. Our international delivery partners have been crucial in sharing their understanding of the local social enterprise community as well as what we are trying to achieve, i.e. a clearer standard for social enterprises to ensure there is a robust business model which will support businesses to make a real difference and tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges, e.g. global inequality and climate change.

We essentially want greater recognition of the social enterprise business model as part of the redistributive business solution in a world where business is often extractive. 

Social Impact Ireland team

Going forwards, we want to achieve sustainable scale through both a network of licensed partners and a network of peer assessors. Key to this has been our partnership with Social Impact Ireland, who have worked with us for the last three years to capacity-build and support a number of social enterprises as well as getting these businesses prepared for accreditation via the Social Enterprise Mark

This was a long journey given the different governance structures as well as the lack of recognition and relative youth of the social enterprise sector in the Republic of Ireland. It required patience and diligence from both sides, but I think it’s fair to say it was a true partnership that worked together to overcome what could have been insurmountable obstacles at times.   

In 2023 we want to build on our learning and, alongside building more partners, equip our Mark holders themselves to grow through a programme of trained peer assessors, who will help us spread the word and develop our own capacity to respond to the huge opportunities that international accreditation of social enterprise can bring.

Watch out for more in our newsletters and social media 

Business Investment: What is Degrowth?

By Lucy Findlay MBE, Managing Director of Social Enterprise Mark CIC

What is Degrowth? Is it something you’re familiar with? Keep reading and I’ll explain why it’s important.

During the 10th Anniversary Party for Big Society Capital, I was asked, along with 9 others about my experience of social impact investment for their blog. My answer was ‘I think it is a confusing term as lots of people have different interpretations of what social impact investment actually entails and sometimes that can be a bit of a barrier, especially for women and ethnic minorities who think ‘well why can’t I just go and get this investment from a bank? Why do I need this type of investment and what does it mean, does it mean I get special credit for activities that I am doing?’

Therein lies the problem. Why can’t we just go to a bank, why don’t banks understand our sector, why is there a need for social investment and does social investment solve the root cause? In my view, the root cause is the way, the narrow way, that business has been defined over the years as well as the narrow group of people that define it. Most specifically to the assumptions around the term ‘growth’ and ‘return on investment’.

For this reason, my antennae are being increasingly attuned to the term ‘growth’ and questioning what that means. For most automatic equates to getting bigger financially and greater financial  return for shareholders and other investors.

Ten voices from across the social impact investment sector on ten years Big Society Capital

Is Green Growth just “another” wealth creator?

More recently the term ‘green growth’ has gathered momentum – as a more palatable version. The assumption behind this term is that we can invest in green technologies and the green economy and keep on growing the financial bottom line which will help tackle climate change ie we can have it all and wealth will trickle down to the poorest. However, in a week of record summer temperatures in a cost of living crisis this is not the reality that we are seeing. Climate change targets are not going to be hit and social polarisation is getting worse, not better. This largely because profit and financial growth are still the main concern when it comes to growing an economy and aim of business – ie is Green Growth just another wealth creator? I’ll let that question sit with you.

degrowth-image-Creative-Commons-Licence

Let’s talk Degrowth…

We need to think completely differently about growth to create sustainability – a system change. I was pleasantly surprised to see that some in the investment community are beginning to engage and embrace this idea. I came across an excellent seminar this week on concept of ‘Degrowth’ organised by US Investment Bank, Jeffries.

Degrowth, essentially recognises that we need to put social and environmental concerns before profit and create business that works in harmony with society and the environment, rather than fighting it on the fringes through tick box mitigation measures whilst carrying on with the same financial growth trajectories and assumptions.

This requires a complete rethink of what business is and why discussions in current business communities often feel ‘cross purpose’, even within the specialist social enterprise and investment community. We need to think radically about how we design a different ecosystem led by those that have been marginalised by it rather than adapting the current system incrementally led by those that have ingrained.

 

Do you feel confident with the investment options available?

Here are some helpful Links

Guides & Resources by Good Finance

Social Investors, Funds & Advisers

Jennifer Wilkins’ Presentation on Degrowth to Jefferies

Big Society Capital Website

Blog: Ten voices from across the social impact investment sector on ten years

Photo Credit
Big Society Capital 

Employee Ownership

Dispelling the myths of Social Enterprise, Employee Ownership and Purposeful Business

It is frustrating that the wider world tends to have a very narrow understanding of what the key characteristics of being a good business are. This is not helped by the media’s portrayal of a macho business world in programmes such as The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den and follows the news that often focuses on corporate scandal and businesses that are solely focused on the delivery of profit for shareholders at the expense of other models of business.

The rise of the ‘Purposeful Business

This polar focus is not the reality as most business owners and stakeholders realise that there is more to being a business than just making a financial profit, particularly in the light of climate change.  The rise of the ‘purposeful business’ has become a noticeable trend over the last few years. These types of businesses should aim to tackle the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and address the negative effects of economic development.

One of the main ways to ensure that a business is driven by a social purpose and social impact though is to embed this in the governance of the business through either a specific legal structure/form such as a Community Interest Company (CIC) or an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS) that can limit shareholder financial gain.

Another way to ensure that a business is social values-driven is to write purpose, values and rules into governance both within governing documents and via the modus operandi of the Board of Directors and in the interaction with stakeholders.  This means that such a business can have a variety of legal forms. Social enterprises (SEs) and employee owned businesses (EOs) are good examples of these types of business. The Social Enterprise Mark ensures that that there is rigour in this approach by accrediting governing documents, trading levels and social impact.

Below we look in more detail at the overlap between the two and bust some myths associated with both:

Why consider employee ownership?

Becoming an employee-owned business intrinsically helps to create a people-centred business that values its staff. As the first large law firm in the UK to give all eligible members of staff an equal share in its profits, Stephens Scown is leading this approach and attracting interest from beyond the legal sector. In their experience, employee ownership means staff become more engaged and motivated to achieve growth with a view to the wider ethos and impact of the business. It also promotes a culture focused on each person’s contribution to the business and this in turn can support the development of a purposeful business.

The link between employee ownership and social enterprise

Becoming a social enterprise creates a values-led business because it puts people and planet before profit for shareholders. The Social Enterprise Mark has 12 years’ experience of applying and accrediting this approach internationally in all sectors. Additionally, in many cases there is an overlap between social enterprises and employee owned businesses because of the close relationship to values and valuing people. A good example of this is Social Enterprise Gold Mark Holder Integrated Care 24 urgent care providers which have offered company shares to all employees with the aim of gaining better staff engagement and ownership.

   

Myths around EO and SE abound, though. Here we outline a few of them:

Employee ownership and social enterprise models only work for a certain size of company

Not true… The John Lewis Partnership is a longstanding example of a large employee owned business. Market Carpets in Devon with 29 employees is a smaller example. In the social enterprise world we have a number of mark-holders with multi-million pound turnover such as University of Westminster and The Growth Company.

All the shares must be held by employees in the case of EO

A founder in an EO may wish to retain a shareholding as they are not retiring or it may be a family business with family members actively working in the business.

A social enterprise cannot have shareholders

Most do not have shareholders, but there are shareholder models such as Community Interest Companies Ltd by Shares and Community Benefit Societies but any dividend distribution is either zero or limited to 35% of profits.  At Social Enterprise Mark, a dividend cap of up to 49% of profits is also acceptable.

The employees use their own money to buy the company in the case of an EO

Not true…the company could seek bank funding but usually the purchase price is settled using the profits of the company over a period of time.

Both SE and EO are very niche rather than mainstream business models

Not true – in January 2021 it was found that employee ownership represented 1 in 20 private company sales. It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 social enterprises in the UK. So long as the business is maximising social value rather than profit for individuals the many businesses could qualify as Social Enterprise’s for the Social Enterprise Mark.

A founder/shareholder (if a social enterprise has shareholders) will lose money if they choose Employee Ownership or Social Enterprise over a trade sale/company sale

True and false in both cases – it may be that the perfect purchaser wants to buy the company for more than it is worth because it fits into their strategic plan or the company is their main supplier in the case of an EO. If certain criteria are met, choosing employee ownership can be advantageous from a tax perspective for a founder as there is a capital gains tax exemption if at least half the business becomes employee owed. In the case of a CIC limited by shares, shares can be sold at a rate that a buyer is prepared to pay. This rate is likely to be limited, however, due to the limitations placed on assets and profit distribution.

If a business is employee-owned the employees could do what they like with it!

Not true – the company’s managers are accountable to the employees rather than external shareholders. If the company has a governing document, this will usually set out how decisions should be made and if certain criteria should be prioritised in decision making such as the likely impact on the climate or employees of a decision.

A social enterprise can be sold to a private company and lose its social enterprise status

True and false – a social enterprise should have some form of asset lock which maintains its independence from its parent that it is sold onto. In the case of the Social Enterprise Mark accreditation there’s a requirement that any parent company also holds an asset lock or can demonstrate a business case as to why it doesn’t (in very rare cases)

Offering different legal structures for a business out outside the Company Ltd by Shares model helps to ‘bake in’ social impact for employees and stakeholders.

Greater understanding and uptake of these models would help to ensure that social and environmental action are part of the business DNA.

We need greater profile of these alternatives rather than resorting to more common legal forms which put individual shareholder gain at the centre.

As the old saying goes ‘legal form should follow business function’.

By Catherine Carlton (Stephens Scown LLP) and Lucy Findlay (Social Enterprise Mark CIC)

Be the Best

The Golden Thread: Embedding social enterprise for better student outcomes

All professional worlds have their own jargon.  The term ‘being student-centred’ is an important one for universities, but can be a challenge to achieve for an institution that has so many competing priorities. The increasing politicisation of the university world has also led to challenges around what exactly this term means.

On 25th April 2022, we held our first face-to-face networking meeting as part of a collaboration conference, for two years at the University of Westminster, one of our Social Enterprise Gold Mark holders. It was a really exciting and energetic event. The summary report can be found on our website.

Dr Peter Bonfield, Vice Chancellor, University of WestminsterBeing more student-centred around social enterprise was a key topic flagged up at the event. Dr Peter Bonfield, Vice Chancellor at University of Westminster said that 1 in 5 of their students go on to set up their own businesses, with many looking to make a difference to society and create a better world. Generational trends show that Generation Z are much more socially and environmentally conscious with many dedicated to fighting social and environmental change.

Mission and values are therefore of increased importance to students in gaining a higher education. They also want to see evidence of how these are being delivered at all levels of the institution. This is why the social enterprise business model is so crucial.  It provides the framework for a business that is creating social and environmental value as its raison d’etre.  It links directly into, for example, the delivery the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and civic responsibilities.

It is not a by-product; it is a state of mind and culture – the Golden Thread.

Findings from our conference show that there is a need to make better connections between the different threads from the student’s point of view, both inside and outside the teaching environment. For instance, extra-curricular activity needs better academic credit as well as making the better links to local social enterprises by bringing the ‘outside in’ through knowledge exchange (KE) activities.

Finance is another area that needs greater connection and thought. Many universities are still not embedding social value with equal emphasis to financial value into their finance modules themselves. This leaves a disjointed approach whereby social value often sits separately in a different function within the institution.

SEEchange Conference Roundtable DiscussionsAchieving the right advice and type of funding and support is also a challenge with much start-up funding and support focusing on a narrow base of STEM and high growth companies. Pitching competitions can also act as a barrier as many more socially motivated and marginalised students to not feel confident in this style. We need more links to peer-to-peer lending and support programmes outside the university setting as well as pivoting internal university support (including pump priming and growth capital) to help social enterprises grow sustainably.

When a university shows leadership in this area, we see jigsaw pieces come together for students too. There are good examples of how universities, such as Westminster (that hold our Gold Mark) have done this as set out in my joint article with Diana Beech for HEPI.

By making more distinctive links between student’s needs, teaching, the community, research and values, we see the best outcomes for a supportive environment and greater sustainability for all in the longer term.

Lucy Findlay MBE

Managing Director, Social Enterprise Mark CIC

IWD Reflections for 2022

Welcome to a very poignant International Women’s Day. 

This year it is so sad to remember where I was 2 years ago when I celebrated with my Siberian peer exchange and good friend Irina Makeeva and her family in Novosibirsk, followed by a trip to see Swan Lake.  In the days following, I met so many amazing people interested in and actively engaging in making a difference to their local and regional economies through social enterprise and social innovation. 

One of my most abiding memories, however, was when I listened to a disabled girl sing a popular tune at the local folklore school with her friends.  She sang with so much passion and hope.  She was due to sing the song with the star Jasmin who made the song a hit later that year, but then Covid19 intervened.

This year we have agreed with our Russian peers that we need to support one another symbolically – Women in Solidarity.  We are making a small gesture of cooking each other’s national dishes.  I have just made a big pot of Borsht!

Today we also celebrate a year of our Women’s Leadership Network which was launched on IWD21.  In a world where women often don’t identify with the term ‘leader’ we have together to exchange stories, tips and thoughts from inspirational women.  These are now all recorded and can be viewed on our YouTube channel. At today’s event we will be hearing from Daniela Papi-Thornton who will be speaking about her leadership journey and thoughts on reclaiming social entrepreneurship from the niche.

On Wednesday we are extending our celebrations to partner with out friends at Millfields Trust to run another women’s networking session in Plymouth on the theme of Breaking the Bias featuring Jenny Evans, an award winning young entrepreneur and artist. She studied textiles at Cardiff Metropolitan University, has won Santander’s University Entrepreneur’s national competition in 2017, and went on to set up a high growth, investor backed business in 2018 after raising a seed round of £350,000.   It’s not too late to sign up!

 

Lucy Findlay MBE

Managing Director, Social Enterprise Mark CIC

#BreakTheBias #IWD2022

Image of a typewriter with a piece of paper with the word 'opinion' typed on it

Statement on the Adebowale Commission on Social Investment

By Lucy Findlay MBE, Managing Director of Social Enterprise Mark CIC

We welcome the findings of the Adebowale Commission on Social Investment, which states that a new approach is needed to social investment.  It is true that social enterprise has been deprioritised, particularly by the big players, due to the perceived challenges of reaching social enterprises, the rigidity of the financial products as well as the bias and lack of understanding of the financiers and experts that make the decisions which has led to inequality and discrimination.

When I remember back to the early days of government involvement with the setting up of Big Society Capital, there was an explicit remit to lend to social enterprises. We had early discussions with them about the need to be clear about that market, to demonstrate true social impact. Part of the reason for the dilution, in my opinion, was the lack of transparency, which allowed a diversion of funds away from the sector. Such transparency can be provided through the use of independent accreditation standards, like the Social Enterprise Mark.

I have blogged on this issue at quite some length as well as leading the charge to try to get mainstream providers to adjust their approach to government emergency loans. It is my firm opinion that we need an overhaul of how the mainstream finance world works to make it fit not only for social enterprises but other types of business that put society and the environment first. This can only be done by engaging much better with stakeholders and gaining their ownership and direct involvement in decision making as well as being clear about the types of business that really offer social value in their DNA.

I welcome the approach of the new Growth Impact Fund, which is due to be launched by Big Issue Invest, UnLtd and Shift. This potentially represents a big shift in thinking that should be applied to all social investment (both mainstream and more ‘niche’) through being flexible, supportive and involving the expertise of those that have ‘lived experience’. I hope that this expertise will be mirrored in the makeup of the investment committee too as demonstrated by the likes of international beacons of expertise, such as SheEO.

Find out more about the findings of the Commission and read the report on the Social Enterprise UK website.

Wooden tiles spelling 'blog' with a pen and pad in the background

All we want for Christmas is… freedom (not just from Covid!)

Stacks of gold coins with small plants on top next to a wooden houseCentral to social enterprise is the principle that the generation of revenue from customers can be used to create a business that uses this revenue to create social value. Alongside this, that the reinvestment of any/most profit, can allow us to address social and environmental justice, thus transforming society for the better, rather than for shareholder gain. The Social Enterprise Mark requires that this principle is written into the constitution and governing documents.

we need to be clearer about the detrimental effects that growth for growth’s sake have on the delivery of social value and justice

The main argument against this asset locked model is often that it doesn’t facilitate equity investment as investors want to make a profit either through shareholder dividends or from a sale of the business as they exit. Equity investment is a tool used to enable the company to scale/grow quickly.

The main arguments against equity investment however are a loss of control to outside influencers that have different motivations and a potential mission drift as investors require a financial return. I would also add that we need to be clearer about the detrimental effects that growth for growth’s sake have on the delivery of social value and justice. In particular, very large social enterprises can end up displacing smaller grassroots community-led businesses that may well create greater social value.

Ed MayoWhen we look back to the early days of social enterprise, there was not this urge to scale up and copy the standard business/corporate model. Social enterprises worked together and supported one another in order to increase their social impact – the emphasis was on identity not trade – this was well articulated by our friend Ed Mayo in a guest blog written for us in January. He also mentioned that this has had its limitations in terms of scale and argues for a scaling out model (i.e. working more effectively together to combine resources).

This ‘living within your means’ business approach is known as ‘bootstrapping’ but has become unfashionable because of its perceived limitations in scaling up the business. However, as Ed points out, there are ways that we could be promoting this model in order to maintain our values, creating focus as well as maintaining control of the outcomes whilst addressing the scale issue by working more effectively together. For instance, we can address unfashionable challenges and market gaps using the bootstrapping model, because we don’t need to persuade others of our ‘pitch’.

I might stick my neck out and say that the majority of social enterprises are using the bootstrapping model, but it gets little profile as it is perceived as lacking by most current business thinkers. This is one of the reasons that social enterprises have not been attracted to social investment – or any other types of investment for that matter.

Until we live in a time where investors are not just motivated by financial return, we need an approach that is fit for our social/environmental purpose and gives us the freedom to reinvest primarily in the mission that we set out to address.

 

 

Coins in a glass jar and three stacks of coins on a table in front on a blurred green background

Activating for a more financially inclusive world

Just 2.2% of total mainstream business investment finance goes to female led start-ups. It’s estimated that this falls to a pitiful 0.0006% for black women. The levels of deal are also way out of kilter, with women achieving on average just 1/3 of the total investment of men. These figures reflect the disparity faced by 51% of the population, not a minority.

No going back; State of Social Enterprise Survey 2021It’s true that things in the social enterprise world might be a little better in terms of business inclusivity. According to the latest State of Social Enterprise Report 2021, 47% of social enterprises are led by women, and diversity is growing with women from racialised community more likely to be running start-ups, but at the same time these organisations tend to have a lower median annual turnover (£31,900 compared with £100,000 for the mainstream world, although some of this difference may be because of higher start-up levels).

For this blog, Social Enterprise UK has kindly supplied a further breakdown of figures from as yet unpublished survey data around access to finance by ethnicity and gender. These  provide valuable insight.

It shows that over the last year women that have applied for finance have asked for less (median £30,000) than either men (£55,000), white ( £50,000) or BAME businesses (£50,000), whilst BAME led business have been 50% less likely to get the finance they aspired to (median £25,000) when compared with male (£50,000), female (£25,000) and white led businesses (£40,000). This suggests there may be a lack of confidence amongst women to apply for finance in the first place, and although the BAME led businesses might have high aspiration levels, these are matched with a much lower success rate in gaining the finance that they ask for – more research is needed to understand what are likely to be complex additional barriers that these communities experience.

Largely, the finance world’s response to the barriers to business finance has been adaptation of the existing model or the provision of a slightly different version tailored to address those businesses that don’t fit the standard mould, e.g. social investment organisations.

Here are some my observations:

  • A high level of risk aversion to anything outside the established (male led) norm in business lending in mainstream finance. Conversely high levels of risk were exposed in another side of their business, e.g. investment banking which led to the financial crash
  • The standard and adapted approach being marketed to a more diverse audience and it being the audience’s fault that they are not ‘investment ready’ rather than looking at the system/product itself and asking why it is not fit for purpose
  • The system being rigged against a more diverse outcome because it is designed, awarded and implemented by the white men who award those in their own image and prize ‘scale’ at any cost and presentation of ideas into a format that fits the ‘dazzle me’ mould (reinforced in the general population by formats such as Dragon’s Den and The Apprentice)
  • Financial ‘group think’ which leads to laziness and a lack of questioning of trends and norms in the financial world (also seen in social investment), whereby everyone jumps onto a bandwagon without questioning. Those that do question feel stupid because they do not have the right financial language/terminology to challenge and feel legitimate. I would liken this to the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome
  • Financial targets valued over social impact targets, which lend themselves to volume of safe deals rather than really addressing barriers for those that are most marginalised
  • The term social impact investment – that has become a catch all for start-up venture capital due to most businesses wanting to demonstrate a social impact. Demonstrating social impact is of course a desirable attribute for all businesses, but using the term social impact investment is confusing for those that really are marginalised and unable to access venture capital due the requirement for high financial returns for equity stakes

I was interested to see a recent interview in Pioneers Post with the CEO of Big Society Capital (BSC) to publicise their refreshed strategy. The interviewer points out that diversity is not mentioned once in the strategy despite being a priority. To be fair on BSC they do mention that they want to see both more diverse lenders and recipients, but this is in the context of “supporting enterprise growth and scaling business models to create more social impact.”

Many women led social enterprises define growth in a different way and see ‘scaling out’ (i.e. creating and working with other others to achieve social impact) as a way to achieve impact growth, not traditional scaling up to increase the financial turnover and profitability of the business that they run. This of course is how co-operatives work – growth is via greater collaborative and collective working

The conclusion that I draw from these observations as well as speaking to others, is that it’s time for a complete rethink and systems change in line with the new business world which must put social justice and tackling climate change at its heart.

SHEEO logoMy number one recommendation from recent research is SheEO– a global community of radically generous women that all believe that needs to be a shift in business paradigm and that women and non-binary people are leading the way. It seems to be modelled on the Women’s Lending Circle approach. It was founded by the inspirational Vicki Saunders, who is a Canadian serial entrepreneur. The community raises investment capital through Activator contributions and vote on those ventures that they want to support. These ventures work together to share resources and support one another and decision making is democratic and peer based requiring a level of engagement and understanding that is much more supportive than a standard finance providers. The application process is also simplified.

I became an Activator myself recently following listening to Vicki on a number of occasions, most recently at our Social Enterprise Mark Women’s Leadership Network . I would encourage you to have a listen or Google her as she has a real zeal for doing things differently.

Secondly, in the UK a new community has been set up by a woman led social enterprise – The Angelfish Community. It is a new online help forum aimed at helping start-ups and established social enterprise led by women and BAME communities. It will also aim to provide investment to those target groups via a democratic decision-making process like SheEO. They are welcoming feedback from those that engage.

In conclusion, I think that we are still in the foothills of creating the sort of offerings of appropriate finance for the types of business that we need for the future alongside being in the paradigm shift required to change businesses to address the future challenges that we all face. Some of us can see this and get frustrated just talking about it. We are not going to change the world without a bit of imagination and we need to support those that are moving in the same direction as us and activating on their convictions.

 


See below for links to specialist and mainstream providers, which can provide information and support:

Stacks of gold coins

Certification and social enterprise wages

This blog was produced in collaboration with social enterprise bodies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA.

Wages are a highly discussed topic across most sectors and industries. Around the world there is ongoing publicity that highlights concerns around modern slavery, exploitation of workforces and disparities in income.

When it comes to social enterprises there can be the expectation that they go above and beyond on wages, by virtue of their model – doing business for good. Wages are a complex area in general and, for social enterprises, there are unique circumstances that further affect approaches and perceptions.

We know that as social enterprises we must value staff, ensuring that they are being paid fairly, especially for those that are marginalised or prone to exploitation – for example, people with a disability. We also know that social enterprises need to attract talent and skills to the team.

As a group of international social enterprise certifiers and standard setters, we all recognise that we want to be more effective in creating transparency and understanding around these points. Giving the issue more prominence can assist and empower those that work in social enterprises, as well as create confidence in the ‘social enterprise brand’ for customers. Across social enterprise certifications/accreditations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and USA – there are standard principles that we each apply around wages.

The focus for all certifiers is on the broader remit and raison d’etre of a social enterprise – i.e. evidencing social, cultural and environmental purpose being at the heart of the business. However, all certifiers include some form of ‘sense check’ on wages, for example through self or public declarations, and understanding pay policies and challenging ‘out of the ordinary’ pay levels where they are visible. However, wage audits and verification, which are not checks mastered in the regular domain, are not a pass-fail criterion of social enterprise certifications.

Amongst the certifiers there are several consistent issues and questions that arise around wages:

Concerns of underpayment

For some certifiers, stakeholder underpayment has now become a key issue, particularly for the most vulnerable employees and where there is no minimum wage legislation as a safety net, as is the case in the USA, where minimum wage varies by state.

Other concerns of underpayment have arisen in Australia, where many social enterprises pay employees with a disability an acceptable productivity-based rate. Although lower than minimum wage, these rates are consistent with legal requirements and enable these individuals to have employment where they otherwise might not attain it. While this is an ongoing subject of debate in Australia, solutions have and continue to be developed to equalise outlier wages.

Disparity in salaries

A further consideration is very high salary payments, with a focus on the pay differentials between highest and lowest paid staff.  Across all certifiers this is not an easy assessment and there are a variety of considerations at play including the sector of the organisation.

For example, in the UK there is a need to set salaries to attract locum GPs in the NHS, while other industries face similar shortages of skills which can affect wages. In the UK, the Social Enterprise Gold Mark standard considers pay differentials between highest and lowest paid staff but doesn’t have a pass/fail approach, rather a collective scoring on a number of ethical issues.

Paying yourself is not at odds with social mission

All certifications also report the issue of founder underpayment, which has largely fallen under the radar. At times each of the certifiers has encountered social enterprises founders, particularly amongst younger generations, who are uncertain as to whether they can draw a wage and how this would be viewed in the certification assessment.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what social enterprise is about. Social enterprise has to become a sustainable business, nobody can afford to work for free ongoing and indeed this may mask underlying viability issues. On the other hand, we expect social enterprises not to be duplicating the ‘fat cat bonus’ and huge pay differentials that have dogged other sectors.

Some social enterprises, where their business model allows for it, go over and above legal obligations, while others resource wages within their means and in line with minimum or legal requirements. Aside from a sense-check there are no hard and fast rules around payment of wages in social enterprise certification. The variations in legal context, industry and workforce means there are different and valid approaches. Ultimately, we should be looking at what social enterprises can achieve within their own industry and national context.

For seekers and stakeholders of certification, the issues around wages may affirm or challenge assumptions and experiences. The local certification bodies are a resource to tap into as questions and issues arise.


Contributors to this blog: Social Traders (Australia), Social Enterprise Mark CIC (UK), Akina Foundation (New Zealand), Buy Social Canada, Buy Social USA, Society Profits (USA), and Social Enterprise UK.

Watford Workshop employees

Creating better jobs and careers for disabled people

The recent Paralympic Games remind us how disability can motivate and challenge the public to see beyond the disabled stereotypes, but often the images and memories disappear quickly once they are over, as we see medallists struggle with barriers encountered in daily life, e.g. access to decent toilets on trains.

Having had a temporary disability myself (I have now recovered), I have a much greater appreciation for how little mainstream society considers the needs and challenges that disabled people face. It is not only equality of access to things like services and jobs, it is attitudes towards disability which can make people feel worthless and unable to contribute to society or the economy. This has been made worse by policies such as the move to Personal Independence Payments, which have contributed to the marginalisation of those in need of financial support to maintain a decent quality of life.

The government estimates that there are around 14 million disabled people in the UK, but nobody knows the true figures, as many people do not declare their disability or see themselves as disabled for a variety of reasons, including the stigma of being labelled. Whilst 4.4m disabled people are employed, you are twice as likely to be unemployed if you are disabled. Those in work also report discrimination around perceptions of the types of suitable job roles, a lack of flexibility and adjustment to help people participate and being overlooked for promotion.

In a world where business is increasingly about recovery and a positive contribution to people and planet, actively engaging and being inclusive as an employer is an essential part of the picture and makes best business sense especially at a time of staff shortages.

The delayed National Disability Strategy, which was published last month, seeks to address some of the points that have been made about employing disabled people, but the reality seems to be very slow progress, for those who have been observing this sector for a number of years. We agree with our partner UnLtd, which stated in a recent blog on the topic that they welcomed a commitment to more support for disabled people starting a business via BEIS, but the lack of formulation of any detail of what this might look like is frustrating.

Disabled employment campaigners, such as Jane Hatton from social enterprise Evenbreak (a specialist job board for disabled people), call for mandatory reporting for all employers, which the Strategy currently falls short on (preferring only to look at this issue with larger employers, with no firm commitment). This reporting should also include retention, progression and equality of pay.

We also welcome a recognition that Supported Businesses have played an important role in pioneering best practice for those people that need more support than the standard Access to Work package. The Strategy mentions for the first time the Proof of Concept for businesses that can be more flexible with their support and help those with more challenging access issues onto the first rung of employment with intensive support, with the goal to ultimately help them access a job in mainstream employment.

We have been working with DWP on this issue for a number of years as an active member of the Supported Business Steering Group and are keen to open this opportunity out to more social enterprises. However, we believe that these jobs must be of a high quality and fulfilling, allowing progression into equally high-quality jobs.

Social Enterprise Disability Employment MarkThis is why we developed the Social Enterprise Disability Employment Mark (and Local Authority Disability Employment Mark) – to verify and accredit the motivations and credentials of those businesses that carry out this important task.

We are currently piloting the assessment process alongside the DWP Proof of Concept roll out.

Ultimately all employment should be an activity that improves self-worth and confidence. In a world where business is increasingly about recovery and a positive contribution to people and planet, actively engaging and being inclusive as an employer is an essential part of the picture and makes best business sense especially at a time of staff shortages. Social enterprises and the supported business sector are leading the way in helping to create more inclusive businesses, but they need the support of government to help to achieve this both in terms of resources, recognition and urgency.

What the NHS White Paper means for social enterprise urgent care providers

By Mark Cockerton, Advisor on urgent healthcare & GP out-of hours services

Mark CockertonWe will soon be having a(nother) reorganisation of the NHS.

I’m assuming that readers will have read the White Paper so I haven’t covered the detail of those proposals. As a very broad summary: A major feature of the 2012 reorganisation was to introduce automatic tendering of NHS healthcare services and bring the commissioning of NHS healthcare services under the jurisdiction of the Competition and Markets Authority.

Both of those are going to be reversed next year. It says it all that the previous ‘reforms’ are being dismantled by the governing Party that introduced them.

9 years too late in my view…

Competitive tendering

Regular tendering of urgent care services has become commonplace. There is precious little evidence of any VFM or service quality benefits arising from tendering; neither are there any shining examples of that process improving collaborative working in urgent care. Some of you will disagree with that, however my assertion is that it isn’t the competitive tendering process that drives service quality.

Many of us remember the world before competition when our organisations were fully-compliant against all 13 NQRs and there was an immediate action plan drawn up to deal with any non-compliance. The assumption that including a requirement to collaborate in a contract specification would mean that collaboration would follow is a pretty damn naïve one. It often had the opposite effect with services much less inclined to collaborate after being in competition with each other during a tender process.

Had NHS competitive tendering been a success when judged against the huge cost of the organisations (including CCGs and Commissioning Support Units) set up to service the system, we’d have been given examples showing us how well it was all working. I have never seen any VFM comparisons taking into account the cost of commissioning, contracting and tendering.

Given the failure to achieve notable service improvements from competitive tendering there is strong public and NHS staff support for scrapping section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and for removing the commissioning of NHS healthcare services from the jurisdiction of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. That’s something that I also support as the current commissioning arrangements are not fit for purpose.

Collaboration and integration

I believe that different parts of the NHS and other healthcare Providers will work together more easily once they are freed from feeling they need to erect barriers with organisations that could potentially compete with them, whenever the next tender is issued. Fear of future competition from ‘partner’ organisations is something I frequently observe and its a serious barrier to co-operation in the urgent care sector currently.

That’s because the local Acute Trust, Community Trust, Ambulance Service, GP Federation, Primary Care Network and commercial provider can (and do) compete with the Social Enterprise provider to deliver urgent care services; either alone, or in partnership with another organisation. I can’t think of another part of the healthcare system that has such a range of organisations competing to deliver it, or where tendering opportunities have been more plentiful. The replacement of the requirement to regularly tender urgent care contracts and replace that with the expectation that local Providers will collaboratively work together in an Integrated Care System, to provide the best service possible with the available resources, has my support… in principle.

However, there are huge challenges coming for organisations that have followed a policy of remaining ‘independent’ and made little progress towards integration. There are many references in the White  Paper to ‘placebased’ services and those organisations operating in areas where they have little geographical relevance as they won their contracts in areas where they had no history of service delivery are particularly threatened.

Threats

Where are the threats to Social Enterprise organisations, including UHUK members, providing urgent healthcare and unscheduled primary care?

  • Having worked for one of the Pathfinder Integrated Care Organisations I learned first hand how easy it is to push an ‘external’ Provider outside the integrated care system. How would an organisation without longstanding links to a local geographic area and enjoying little emotional ownership from local primary care and patients, be able to ‘win’ against an alliance of Acute Trust/ Ambulance Service/ core local Primary Care organisation and Local Authority?
  • Without enjoying strong local emotional ownership, or being fully embedded within local primary care and/or having local ‘political’ support, social enterprise and commercial organisations risk losing their contracts when the term ends. In my view.
  • The alternative outcome is that organisations external to the Integrated Care System may be offered a ‘take it or leave it’ financial envelope that will be very unattractive. The expectation is of course that the Integrated Care System delivers value-for-money. Those core organisations inside the System will seek to maintain their income so far as possible by forcing those organisations outside the System to take the brunt of efficiency savings.
  • Any commercial and social enterprise organisations that have depended on a strategy of continually securing new ‘out of area’ contracts to replace other ‘out of area’ contracts lost in competitive tendering processes in order to maintain their financial security, are particularly threatened. That’s because their prospect of securing future contracts in areas where they don’t currently have a very well-established presence is going to be minimal.
  • Future integrated urgent care contracts are very likely to be secured by collaborative arrangements between local Acute Trusts, Local Authorities, a core local Primary Care Organisation and Ambulance Trusts. Any provider outside the local area and the Integrated Care System is, by definition, going to be unable to define how they will be able to offer integrated care.
  • Organisations that have built an integrated management structure and physical infrastructure paid for by a contract portfolio that includes ‘out-of-area’ contracts are likely to have their future financial viability adversely affected. The economy of scale issues that drove their organisational development become financial barriers when the organisation needs to downsize if it loses one or more contracts that it is unable to replace.
  • Politically, Acute Trusts/ Ambulance services/Community Trusts/ Mental Health Trusts/ Primary Care Collaboratives and Local Authorities have a size and influence that no Social Enterprise could ever hope to match.
  • High-level discussions will already be taking place between NHS Trusts, Local Authorities and Ambulance services to position their organisations in the Integrated Care Systems. Agreement about who from those organisations is going to become the Chief Executive Officer may already have been reached.
  • In some areas Primary Care will have been included in those preliminary political discussions. However, only those social enterprise providers that are extremely well-established locally and have some local political clout will be a party to those discussions. That is also something I saw in the Pathfinder Integrated Care Organisation I worked for. By the time Primary Care joined the discussions it was clear that alliances had already been formed between the Acute Trust and Ambulance service and it was catch-up from that point. Securing appropriate influence for the Primary Care organisation against the combined might of the Acute Trust and Ambulance Service, when the CEO of the Acute Trust was the CEO of the Integrated Care Organisation following a deal with the Ambulance Trust ‘was a challenge!’.
  • Bear in mind that the Boards of Integrated Care Systems need only to include NHS Trusts, Local Authorities and Primary Care. There is certainly no expectation or requirement that Social Enterprise providers have a seat on the Board and very few will do.’

Plan for action

  • There is still nearly a year until the new Integrated Care Systems are expected to be up and running in April 2022. So there is still time to build a ‘political alliance’. The obvious alliance for social enterprise urgent care organisations is with local Primary Care Organisations but building relationships with local Acute Trusts/Ambulance services/ Local Authorities is essential too.
  • Social Enterprise urgent care providers tend to have unrivalled access to local GPs and that gives an opportunity to improve relationships and ensure that the organisation is ‘emotionally embedded’ within local primary care.
  • Much of the high-level strategy on the establishment of the Integrated Care Systems will be undertaken by senior clinicians. Clinical Directors of the organisation should be outward-looking and seeking to establish effective working relationships and networks with all other local healthcare Providers, including Acute Trusts and Ambulance Trusts. It is not the time for organisations to be inwardly-focussed.
  • All other Senior Managers should be given an objective to build effective working relationships with local healthcare providers. The Chief Executive has a vital role in building the most effective working relationships with CCG leadership.
  • Dust off the organisations constitution and ensure that it is being followed, particularly with regard to the involvement of patients, staff and GPs in the organisation. At times of change, buy-in and support from local people is often valuable.
  • Dust off too the latest tender submission you made and remind yourself about the promises made with regard to integration, seamless care, joint working, patient involvement etc.
  • There will almost certainly be a due diligence process before a Social Enterprise provider is included in an Integrated Care System so make sure you are keeping to your Constitution and can demonstrate how you are different to a commercial provider.
  • If there is any opportunity to work with the Acute Trust/ Ambulance Trust/ Primary Care – take it.
  • Any organisation that is dependent on ‘out-of-area’ contracts to maintain financial viability should be reviewing its exit strategy for those contracts and making plans to limit its financial exposure if those contracts are lost and replacement contracts are not secured. That includes reviewing its management structure so that staff and managers are identified to particular contracts and can be TUPE’d should individual contracts be lost.

Summary

The proposed reorganisation is, in my view, the biggest threat to the viability of Social Enterprise providers since the introduction of NHS 111. Leadership of those organisations need to step up and help to secure their future. Those organisations that are still around in 3 years time will be those that have been able to form political alliances and relationships with far larger organisations.

 


Mark Cockerton has 40 years experience in the NHS and not-for-profit urgent care sector. He is currently Managing Director of Urgent Healthcare Solutions, which provides leadership and support services including tendering, organisational development, interim management, IT and telecoms advice, HR support, mentoring services, patient involvement and financial advice exclusively to the Social Enterprise urgent health sector.

Wooden tiles spelling 'blog' with a pen and pad in the background

The role of accreditation in
the Post-Covid world

Our 2021 stakeholder survey findings make for encouraging reading. Given the extreme challenges of the previous year, it was promising to see a general feeling of optimism for the future. The majority of respondents were positive they could continue trading for more than a year, with only a handful reporting they would only be able to continue for 3-6 months in the current trading conditions at that time (Feb/March 2021).

A similar position is reflected in recent sector research from Social UK, which shows 65% of social enterprises have grown a healthy cashflow to support them for at least the next three months. This reinforces the earlier findings in February, which showed 65% of social enterprises expected to hold their position or grow.Table showing the cashflow position of social enterprises over time

Source: Social Enterprise UK

Comments from our survey suggest there is a renewed and strengthened determination to collectively take the opportunity to change the way we all do business for good, to put social enterprise front and centre, as we look to recover from the economic effects of the pandemic.

“Over the pandemic people have pulled together more, and I think now might be the time for social enterprises to be the solution for many of the jaded adults who are fed-up with mass consumption, and massive profits going to a few. They want to be part of something, rather than a bystander.” Emma Lower, CEO of Lendology CIC

As we know from our recent Making a Mark competition, social enterprises went above and beyond in their response to the Covid-19 outbreak, adapting to the constantly changing situation to provide much needed support to local communities and wider society.

At a time when there is much talk about ‘purposeful business’ and ‘building back better’, it is clear that social enterprises have led the way in this regard and need more recognition for this leadership. Social enterprises are not a social bolt-on afterthought to try to show how we are engaging with UN Sustainable Development Goals; we have this mission at our very core. Nor are we the charity sector asking for more grants (although this of course would be nice!) We are using our business model to create true sustainability owned and led by its stakeholders who can maximise social value in any investments made by governments and prove it.

Graph visual showing 81% feel there is an increased need for accreditation in the Post-Covid worldThe importance of proving this was also reinforced via consensus from survey respondents on the increased need for accreditation in the post-Covid world, in order to identify businesses that are genuinely operating in the interests of people and planet, rather than being driven by the requirement to create shareholder profit.

With the proliferation of businesses now looking to demonstrate their ‘purpose’, it will undoubtedly become more important to have standards that hold businesses to account on their sustainability claims. In this vein, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has recently set out recommendations for businesses when making such claims, after their research found that 4 in 10 corporates in the sectors analysed are providing misleading sustainability-related claims.

This highlights the importance of accreditation and standards systems in an increasingly crowded marketplace, where more and more businesses are wanting to align themselves to the purposeful business agenda. Although, it is positive to see a movement towards mainstream businesses wanting to become more sustainable, and focus on more than just profits, I am cynical (along with many others in our sector) that it is more often than not a marketing ploy in response to the rise in consumer and investor demand for more ethical products and services.

As the CMA’s chief executive Andrea Coscelli said: “Too many websites appear to be pushing misleading claims onto consumers, which means that companies offering products with a genuine environmental benefit are not getting the customers they deserve. People should be able to easily choose between those companies who are doing the right thing for the environment and those who are not.”

Although the CMA research was more product focused, the same point applies to service providers and B2B markets, where we are also seeing a rise in the use of communications around purpose and sustainability, which can generate confusion as to which businesses are actually ‘walking the talk” when it comes to their claims around their social and environmental responsibility.

All this points towards a new mandate for accreditation – to provide independent verification of such claims and to uphold robust and relevant standards by which businesses can be held to account. As an organisation that has been providing accreditation for the social enterprise sector for more than a decade, we pride ourselves on the comprehensive pathway to standards of good practice and excellence that we have developed to recognise and build the capabilities of social enterprises as competitive, sustainable businesses, dedicated to maximising social impact above shareholder profit.

I am pleased to say that feedback from our network of accredited social enterprises shows that we are achieving this. 90% of respondents to our stakeholder survey said that our social enterprise accreditation reinforces their positioning as a business that is primarily committed to using profits to maximise social impact above that of individual gain. This was up from an already high 83% in our last stakeholder survey in 2019.

Graph visual showing 91% agree that Social Enterprise Mark CIC provides a route to standards of excellence in social enterprise, by encouraging and supporting continual improvement in line with best practiceAn overwhelming majority (91%) also agreed that Social Enterprise Mark CIC provides a route to standards of excellence in social enterprise, by encouraging and supporting continual improvement in line with best practice. This was up from 87% in the 2019 survey.

It was also positive to see that 9 out of 10 of our Mark holders would recommend our accreditation to other social enterprises, which suggests we are providing a worthwhile and useful service for the sector.

Of course, there is always room for improvement, and we continually look to adapt and evolve our standards to ensure we are addressing the changing needs of the growing social enterprise sector. The survey responses contained constructive feedback in terms of what we could do better, which included the indication that there is more work to be done in increasing wider awareness of social enterprise in general, as well as our social enterprise accreditations and the role they play in creating a fairer and more resilient economy.

“I’m not sure how well known the Mark is. We still need more awareness of it to reach the levels of Fair Trade/Living Wage etc to have more impact.” Gareth Hart, Founder of Iridescent Ideas

The general outlook for social enterprises is good, but we need to do more to raise our game, and show how we change lives whilst developing better friendships and alliances with those that share our views. At the moment it feels like we are the hidden treasure. We all bear a responsibility to share our news more widely but we do need more volume and less timidity about why our business model is best, along with asserting our core differences from the mainstream – i.e. putting stakeholders and social/environmental mission first, reinvesting for good and proving our social value.

Person holding sign saying 'Planet over Profit'

Turning the business on its head: challenging the finance led culture

“The difference between rich and poor is becoming more extreme, and as income inequality widens the wealth gap in major nations, education, health and social mobility are all threatened.” Helene D. Gayle (CEO of The Chicago Community Trust)

It is now well acknowledged that the biggest and most pressing issues of our time are climate change and wealth inequality. We know that climate change is changing our planet and affecting the world’s ecosystem, potentially beyond repair, affecting the poorest and increasing the number/severity of natural disasters. We also know that more unequal societies lead to political instability, shorter lives for both rich and poor as well as more corruption and crime.

So why are we still only measuring and managing business performance through how much money is made?

The system is rigged towards financial gain being an end in itself, and one which leads to its own set of behaviours, which do not sit comfortably with the goals of social and environmental justice.

“If you really think that the environment is less important than the economy, try holding your breath while you count your money.” Guy McPherson (award-winning scientist)

Most university business courses teach that the value of a business is partially measured through something called EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), alongside other financial measures, e.g. order book, balance sheet etc. However, this formula makes some assumptions about value and growth because of its focus on earnings, through which shareholders derive profit. This approach facilitates a well-trodden road of a founder setting up a company, attracting in other equity investors in order to grow (attracted by future dividends) and eventual exit with hopefully high financial returns for both the founder and shareholders. The central tenet of this business model is that it focusses on the financial bottom line – i.e. wealth creation.

This wealth-creation based model is now completely ingrained to the point whereby anything else is just seen as an add on. Social value for instance, is a nice ‘add on’ if you can prove financial growth.

It was not always thus. Before the wider global wealth creation model was so prevalent, many businesses saw their role as being an active commercial citizen at the heart of the local community. Take for, example the role of the bank manager. The manager knew his (as it invariably was) community and an investment decision would include an understanding of what that business was trying to achieve, rather than a simple decision-making formula via an automated website. This is one of the reasons that social enterprises are unable to access affordable mainstream finance and has been a frustration for social enterprises trying to access emergency loans over the current crisis. They are just not understood as businesses.

In other countries we have also seen a more varied approach to shareholder profit led models. The recent European Super League development was the result of football club owners that wanted to profiteer from their clubs at the expense of the wishes of their fans and players. The German model, whereby 50% +1 of the shares are owned by fans to ensure that the wishes of the main stakeholders (i.e. the fans) do not become a side line and their social mission is not eroded.

Listening to today’s students and young people, there is a recognition that things need to change and that we can’t keep on with more of the same behaviours and actions. Many current students want to change the fundamental approach to their future careers – putting ‘making a difference’ first. This trend will become more marked as future generations have to live with the effects of current short-term, financial-maximisation thinking.

“Success isn’t about how much money you make; it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives.” Michelle Obama (Former First Lady of the USA)

There has been some movement in recognising that the current system is not working and needs changing, but the question is whether the proposed solutions will make any real difference. Recent developments have included tweaks such as better reporting with the rise of what’s known as ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance); the 3 factors which guide investors as to what is an ethical investment in a business or corporations.

Sustainable Development Goals wheel iconThere are also active attempts to link activities to the UN Sustainable Goals (SDGs). Other businesses have looked to accredit themselves as B Corps to show their sustainability standards through a B Corp assessment process.

However, most developments do not in themselves tackle the fundamental problem of inequality, the redistribution of wealth and those most affected by climate change. Campaigners such as the TUC and Oxfam have highlighted the growing disparities with shocking examples. For instance the TUC’s High Pay Unit reported that, in 2014-18, returns to shareholders rose by 56% in the FTSE 100, growing nearly 7 times faster than the median wage for UK workers, just 8.8%. In 2019, Oxfam reported that the combined wealth of the world’s 22 richest men outstrips the wealth of all of the women in Africa.

The combined wealth of the world's 22 richest men is more than the wealth of all the women in Africa. Visual shows the number 22 = Africa with a female symbol

To address these challenges, we need fundamental changes to:

  1. financial accounting rules and convention, which still provide information on the basis that investors are only interested in financial returns, and not the consequence of these returns, to emphasise the financial bottom line as the ultimate measure of success (with social and environmental concerns as a mere filter)
  2. the ownership structures, which still place the concentration of wealth in the main driving seat, as well as changing the fiduciary duties of those owners (shareholders) to compel wider considerations of social and environmental impacts

It is only by limiting the power of the shareholder to expect the same financial returns whatever the social and environmental impact, along with a greater empowerment of stakeholders to drive business goals, that we will see fundamental change. This is where social enterprises and the wider social business family, including cooperatives and mutuals, lead the way. They put the impact on their stakeholders first, rather than as an aside to shareholder profits. The fundamental point is that these types of businesses need to be at the forefront of how the world views business, not just an afterthought.

The existing business teaching system needs a fundamental rethink as it gets its students ready to deliver to the current system and norms. It will require a complete shift in emphasis in business school and accounting teaching across the board. It is not good enough to give the option of a ‘social impact investment course’ and a tweak to ‘governance’; these aspects need to be interwoven throughout and the financial return bias detected and adjusted. Social enterprise should be the primary model of business taught.

We know most students are now looking to make a difference in their future careers, being very concerned about social and environmental issues as the next generation will be the most affected. There is clearly a demand as well as a moral imperative. We now need the education system to catch up and put changing the world at its heart.

Multicoloured image of two hands grasping each other

Why it is time for Social Enterprise to
Buy Social

Ed MayoBy Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Pilotlight

It seems simple enough; social enterprises should trade together more. It is a bootstrap way to build a social economy and emerging from the pandemic, we need to pull together to build back better.

But we are a long way from this. Would it surprise you to know that, on one recent estimate, only one out of every four social enterprises are purchasing products or services from other social enterprises?

The early days of social enterprise were rooted in identity rather than trade. The flag of social enterprises attracted people who were willing to affiliate with a big idea and were liberated by it. The focus has been on new and growing social enterprises, spreading the model. Looking back, one legacy of this voluntarism has been its limits. Instead of building systems and scale, it is as if we have been working on the assumption that we can only change the world one social enterprise at a time.

How we do expect to build a social economy if we are not taking more care ourselves of how we direct our own spend?

To go fast, the saying goes, you should travel alone. But to go far, you should travel together.

There are three questions perhaps to ask ourselves:

  1. Why is collaboration not more prevalent across social enterprises?
  2. What can we do to encourage effective supply chain collaboration?
  3. Should we look to work across wider businesses with purpose?

The co-operative sector, overlapping with social enterprise of course, has long had an answer to these. It is called Principle 6 – co-operation between co-operatives – and it is embedded in international frameworks, national regulation and the articles of co-operatives themselves around the world. I would argue that we need the equivalent of a Principle 6 for the wider social enterprise sector.

Trade and exchange between co-operatives (secondary co-operation) has been at the heart of where co-operatives have been able to grow and make a big difference, in areas such as Northern Italy, Basque Spain, Finland and Francophone Canada.

In any region, once you have more than 10% market share through social enterprises such as co-ops, there can be an impact throughout the entire economy. Emilia Romagna in Italy for example is the region in Europe with the highest percentage of co-ops in regional gross value added, over 40%, and the lowest level of social and economic inequality. The networks of inter-trading across co-operatives in Italy, based on Principle 6, has led to the formation of wonderfully sophisticated financing mechanisms, such as mutual guarantee societies (a model we have never had in the UK) as well as development funds dedicated to new enterprise formation. In a ‘pay it forward’ model, every new social care co-operative in Italy commits to supporting a further co-op when they themselves are up and running.

We do have some great examples of social enterprises trading together:

  • Photo of a can of ale in front of a full beer glassToast Ale has made beer with Divine Chocolate. Enjoy!
  • CSH Surrey has been proactive in looking to buy social and also to support social enterprises in their trading area.
  • Over the lockdown, Renaisi, a social enterprise that helps people overcome disadvantage and exclusion, found new solutions through collaboration with other social enterprise, working with Bikeworks to deliver food and Hubbub to source mobile phones.
  • Cosmic has partnered with 3 Spirit UK and with Iridescent Ideas to deliver training and consultancy.
  • At Pilotlight, we have expanded the support service that we provide as a social enterprise ourselves from charities alone to include wider social enterprise. We are working for example now with Generation Success, which supports people from under-represented backgrounds into careers in business.

There are then those social enterprises who are set up to serve social enterprises, such as Roots HR, an accredited Social Enterprise Mark holder. Indeed, the Social Enterprise Mark itself would be an example, as a secondary service for social enterprises, as is FLOCERT, the fair trade accreditation service.

These are hopeful examples. The expansion of social enterprise associations and networks at UK, devolved and local level is a sign too of people wanting to connect and work together. But the reality of practice falls far short of this, as recent data from Social Enterprise UK for its research panel reveals.

Extract from Social Enterprise UK research, showing how social enterprises engage with other social enterprises

Source: Social Enterprise UK

Only 11% of social enterprises buy social for things that are core to their business and a further 12% buy social for incidentals such as office supplies, training or food/drink. Taken together, it appears that around one in four social enterprises (23%) are buying from other social enterprises.

This may just be too low an estimate. The research methodology didn’t allow for multiple choice answers and there are other positive forms of collaboration that the data points to, notably a further 11% that supply to social enterprises and 21% that partner with social enterprise in service delivery. It is also a significantly lower estimate than data from the State of Social Enterprise report in 2019, which suggested that around one in three social enterprises (36%) generated income by trading with other social enterprises – although the same report also cautioned that this level had reduced compared to two years before (43%).

As a sector, our focus is on others. We want to persuade others to buy social and in this, we are following the money. I estimate that for every penny of expenditure by business on corporate social responsibility, £25 is spent on procurement that could be open to social enterprise, while for every penny given by government in charitable grants, £1 is spent on procurement.

Buy Social corporate challenge badgeThe Buy Social Corporate Challenge (and in Scotland) is going from strength to strength, with over 20 private sector partners now signed up. £91.5million has been spent by them with social enterprises. Extraordinary efforts have also been made with the Social Value Act, to open up public sector procurement, for the state to buy social. From 1st January 2021, all major central government procurements must now explicitly evaluate social value, where appropriate, rather than just “consider” it.

But how we do expect to build a social economy if we are not taking more care ourselves of how we direct our own spend?

We have a big task ahead of us and working together has to be a component of this. We need to think social and buy social in far more creative ways if we are to build an economy based on values and enterprise.

Some of the comments from survey respondents for Social Enterprise UK help perhaps to explain why this is currently so low. The enthusiasts are finding a way – “In our retail shop, we stock a wide of products from other social enterprises who share our values of good design and creating impact with every purchase. We also rent space in our offices and showroom to other social enterprises.”

But the practical barriers are putting off others:

  • buying social is “not very important as there are not many to work with.”
  • “I have not found other social enterprises in the textile industry who I can work with.”
  • “We prioritise social enterprises as our suppliers but haven’t found many out there (we’re in retail, selling zero waste products).”

We can’t wish these barriers away, but equally they could be a priority for business development in the sector, because if buying social is to take off, here are the primary business opportunities.

At one point, Marks & Spencer was the most important source of small business development in the UK, with a team of 150 technicians who worked with domestic clothing suppliers to bring products to market. Why could co-operative retailers such as The Co-op, Midcounties, Central England, Lincolnshire, Scotmid and Southern Co-op, for example, not play a similar, patient role in bringing forward social enterprise products onto the shelves? After all, thirty years ago, as I saw, they were key to making things work for fair trade.

Where businesses collaborate in this way, it is possible to create a better outcome for all involved. Collaboration in business helps us to problem solve. It brings people together and opens up opportunities to learn from each other. Collaboration opens ups channels of development and of marketing that may have been closed before. Above all, it boosts morale, reducing the feeling of isolation and creating a sense of contribution and shared purpose.

Headline statistics from the Social Enterprise Census 2019There are opportunities here. In Scotland, the Social Enterprise Census concluded that the social enterprise sector – including housing associations and credit unions here – spent £3.98billion collectively in the last financial year.  Imagine the multiplier if we spent more of that through high quality and high impact social enterprises. Indeed, in conversation with me on this, Chris Martin, Chief Executive of Social Enterprise Scotland, suggests the need now for a Buy Social Challenge for social enterprises; to help map their spend and set targets for purchasing.

Just the process of mapping spending, as local authorities such as Preston have found, can help identify opportunities for business development. In the co-operative sector, many of the large ‘secondary’ co-ops in areas like Finland and Francophone Canada were formed by primary co-ops generations ago, coming together to create service providers. With the demand side on side, the suppliers they formed faced none of the usual early-stage trading challenges of winning sales for a new entrant. As businesses owned by co-ops, this also bound the new enterprises into a wider sector, with accountability flowing back to those they were serving.

Arguably, for scale, we could also be looking towards an integrated approach to buying social, including all organisations in social ownership and impact – including co-ops, mutuals, employee-owned firms, worker co-ops, B Corps, charities and non-profits.

Pauline Gannon of Social Impact Ireland tells me that this is exactly what is needed: “a true, innovative, pathway forward to putting social at the heart of all business, not just social enterprise.”

But I know… start on definitions again and we are all more likely to fall out than hang together.

We need a green, employment rich, caring and creative economy for the UK. This could be and ought to be led by social enterprises… We need to compete at scale, and to do that, we need to pull together.

Even Principle 6 in co-operatives has proved patchy in some countries and some sectors – international research by Euricse suggests that it is one of the least observed of the seven co-operative principles dating back to the nineteenth century Rochdale Pioneers.

We have a big task ahead of us and working together has to be a component of this. We need to think social and buy social in far more creative ways if we are to build an economy based on values and enterprise. Rather than celebrate simply the numbers of social enterprise, we should test the extent to which we are creating social enterprise value chains at scale. Imagine cascades of buying social throughout the economy and the effect this could have.

We need a green, employment rich, caring and creative economy for the UK. This could be and ought to be led by social enterprises.

We are not here to mess about, nor simply to sing our own praises as a sector. There is a bigger prize. We need to compete at scale, and to do that, we need to pull together.

It is time for social enterprise to think big… and to buy social.

 


Ed Mayo is Chief Executive of Pilotlight – an award-winning charity and social enterprise which transforms the lives of disadvantaged people in the UK by offering charities and social enterprises access to the strategic business support they need to become more efficient, effective and sustainable.

Thanks to the following for their contributions to this blog post – Chris Martin (Social Enterprise Scotland), Julie Hawker (Cosmic), Pauline Gannon (Social Impact Ireland), Andrew O’Brien (Social Enterprise UK), Rose Marley (Coops UK), Martin Shaw (Association of Financial Mutuals).

Group of people wearing orange t-shirts with 'Student Volunteer' on the back

Why youth social action and enterprise is the answer to a post-pandemic future

By Fiona Walsh and Junior Graham

Student Hubs logoStudent Hubs is a national charity that works with five UK university partners to deliver extracurricular and in-curricular social action programmes. Each year, we work with over 1,800+ university students to support the communities in our five Hub cities of Bristol, Cambridge, Kingston, Southampton and Winchester.

One of the biggest community groups we work with are young people, particularly young community participants facing disadvantage. It is these young people who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, with 16-25 year olds seeing record unemployment, mental health issues at an all time high, and the issue of digital exclusion making schooling and education even more challenging. There is no doubt that the long-term impact of Covid-19 will continue to be felt by these young people for years to come.

Our vision and mission is about mainstreaming student social action, engaging university students with social and environmental challenges faced by our communities and creating active citizens for life – something we desperately need in the midst of the current crisis. So how can youth social action and social enterprise support these groups to thrive beyond the pandemic?

Students and young people need confidence and support

Young people are currently isolated, away from their peer and support networks, and potentially dealing with factors such as grief, unemployment, lost learning and lack of opportunities. Before we start with new opportunities, we need to support the crisis of confidence that lots of young people will be currently facing. This requires 1:1 support, role models and interventions which listen to young people and provide meaningful frameworks to get them to a place where they can see themselves making a difference again.

Through Student Hubs’ youth social action programme, LinkYouth, taking place at Kingston Hub in London, a key part of the offer is about providing mentorship, group work and 1:1 discussions for young people. This allows young people to be seen and heard, to have their opinions valued, and to have the confidence to recognize what they bring to the table, as well as for students to see themselves as leaders and role models in this space.

Students and young people need skills and experience

Once students and young people have found their motivation and confidence, that’s when the focus on skills, experience and learning can come back. Through social action, volunteering and social enterprise, students and young people become advocates for themselves, raising money and awareness for causes, and growing their skills in leadership, teamwork and communication in a supportive environment.

Young people need to make the change they want to see

A group of young people holding up signs reading motivational, bold, ambitious, socialFinally, it’s important that young people see themselves as the solution to a better future. But this requires other people to advocate and believe in them, and space for young people to reflect on this for themselves. These are the tools we will need to rebuild post-Covid, and social action and entrepreneurship allows young people’s ideas to blossom, and for them to provide the solutions their community needs.

We see this in our Service Learning programme at Kingston Hub, where we build social action into the university curriculum, with students becoming consultants and researchers for local community groups facing individual challenges. The programme allows students to have the opportunities to use their academic knowledge, support their community, and give back in a way that they may have struggled to access outside of their degree course.

At Kingston Hub, we’re currently working in partnership with the Rio Ferdinand Foundation through our Service Learning delivery, engaging Graphic Design students to create content for their 10 year anniversary launch, designing activities dedicated to engaging young people into activity. They are also working with students from the Children and Youth Development course at Kingston University to create content for their social media campaign encouraging young people into activities online.

We call all be active citizens

Becoming an active citizen for us at Student Hubs means being an active member of the community, volunteering, being a conscious citizen, and supporting others to thrive. By investing in this future, we can support the students and young people who have been so negatively affected by the pandemic, and build something better for the future we hope to see.

If you want to find out more about Student Hubs and our work, you can go to www.studenthubs.org or email Fiona Walsh at fiona.walsh@studenthubs.org to find out more about our partnerships, training and Hub model.

 


Fiona Walsh is the Sales Director at Student Hubs. Junior Graham is the Kingston Hub Programme Manager

Wooden tiles spelling out the MIND THE G_P

Mind the gap: Women’s leadership in social enterprise

By Lucy Findlay (MD of Social Enterprise Mark CIC), Julie Hawker (Joint CEO of COSMIC) and Pauline Gannon (CEO of Social Impact Ireland)

International Women's Day banner with photos of Lucy Findlay, Julie Hawker and Pauline Gannon

Like many, as three women leaders in the social enterprise sector, we have been carrying on supporting our teams and negotiating our businesses around the challenges of this time of crisis. For us it has meant looking hard at what we are doing, exploring different ways of working and responding to the needs of our customers and stakeholders as well as planning for how we will contribute to a better society moving forwards.

Now, there is no denying that leading any organisation, business, charity has been tough this past year whether male or female. But it’s also true that many, many women in leadership positions do not benefit from established networks for their support and peer learning. And this applies in business, charity, but especially in social enterprises where the prioritisation of networking and support has rarely been strong, and even less-so during this time of unprecedented crisis. But as we start to put our heads back above ground-level once more, its clear we need support.

Women tend to lead with more empathy and tend to have a personal connection to the work they do within the Social Enterprise space. A global pandemic has heightened the need for empathy, a need we, as women, rise to meet. Whether it’s the teams we work within, our services users, friends or family, with the heightened need for empathy comes also a heightened feeling of stress. 

So, when life is so frenetic, as we have experienced in particular over the past year, it can be hard to focus on our own support needs and this can lead to a feeling of isolation and disempowerment. Technology can help, but sometimes it adds to the communication pressure that we all feel, which can be overwhelming both in our businesses and in our private lives (which have merged more than ever over the last year). Zooms and Teams meetings also makes it harder to read the room and respond to the needs of both our staff and customers, who are all affected by the pandemic themselves.

Leadership programmes are hard enough to come by in social enterprise let alone a programme aimed at women. This need is more urgent now than ever, we all crave that quality connection with like-minded women in a space that inspires but also allows the real issues to be discussed, along with much needed peer to peer support.

Many women who find themselves leading social enterprises have a recognition that they “never chose to be CEO – the job chose me!”… our passion is often the factor that led us to achievements, and to role seniority. Our commitment, vision and values provided the leverage to get to the top. And it’s a lonely place, particularly during the past year.

Focus and facilitated time are essential for creativity and innovation are much harder to come by. Craving connection with those who inspire and understand our space, drive and ambition. You can’t just go for a coffee with a friend or colleague and chat! All three of us have found that much of our drive and strength come from informally speaking, exchanging ideas and working together and this becomes much more of an effort when we can no longer meet face to face.

We have also had brief discussions about how we gain more formal support through leadership programmes. According to the 2019 State of Social Enterprise Report, 40% of social enterprises are run by women. We did a bit of research and found….. nothing! Leadership programmes are hard enough to come by in social enterprise let alone a programme aimed at women. This need is more urgent now than ever,  we all crave that quality connection with like-minded women in a space that inspires but also allows the real issues to be discussed, along with much needed peer to peer support.   

There are some great initiatives which are adding profile to the work of women leading in Social Enterprises, including the Natwest WISE100 celebrating the top 100 women working each year – 2020 included Lucy for her work with Social Enterprise Mark CIC. But there are no specific networks or peer learning programmes that we could find. And so this got us thinking – is this a gap we could fill?

International Women's DayThis made us think about how we get the conversation going. Being three female ‘action takers’, we immediately recognised the opportunity to celebrate International Women’s Day today (8th March) by starting the much needed conversation. Therefore, we have decided to invite you, the women who inspire us, as a start. Some of the Social Enterprise Mark community’s international women leaders and supporters will attend an initial meeting to discuss this very issue and how we can better support one another as a network.  We can’t wait to hear the ideas!

If you are interested in joining discussions on this in the future please let us know by emailing us on enquire@socialenterprisemark.org.uk. Do keep an eye on our newsletter too.

 

The Need for Social Housing

By Calum Rosie, writer and correspondent for Immigrationnews.co.uk

Calum RosieIn a time when the world’s richest people have increased their wealth by $600bn, almost 100,000 people in the UK are facing homelessness thanks to the economic turbulence caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, adding to the staggering number of people currently living unhoused across the country.

Homelessness in the UK has always been a shameful issue, but due to recent circumstances surrounding the pandemic, the UK Government’s failure to address it is tantamount to a national disgrace. And since the government refuses to take positive action, what then can the country’s charities and social enterprises do to tackle homelessness? Unfortunately, there probably isn’t one simple solution, but rather a multitude of techniques will be required.

To that end, many charities and social enterprises are turning to social housing as a temporary salve to the homelessness issue. Social housing will provide safe, affordable, and high-quality homes to those most in need. It acts as an alternative to other temporary accommodation and aims to give people who would otherwise be homeless the support to escape from that life.

Social housing will allow residents to live and socialise together, and is a superior alternative to the likes of homeless hostels and even council housing, because trained staff will be on site to provide meaningful, 24-hour support to residents.

Well-known homelessness support charity Shelter recently commissioned a report on their vision of how to tackle homelessness in the future, where they recommended constructing 3 million more social homes, introducing new rent reforms to increase the standard of living across the board, and advocated for social renters to have a more vocal presence in the community.

Other notable charities and social enterprises that support this notion include Edinburgh’s Social Bite and Cyrenians. They have worked together to build a Social Village in the city, staffed by skilled social support workers who can provide one to one support to help residents achieve their goals.

Similarly, Community Campus ’87 is working hard to combat youth homelessness in Teeside by providing vulnerable young people with a place to live, as well as a personal support worker to help them break the cycle of homelessness, while Brighter Futures is providing employment skills and training to unhoused individuals in the Staffordshire community.

So it’s clear that some of the UK’s top charities and social enterprises support the idea of social housing, and for very good reason. This kind of housing is incredibly important, as it addresses two major problems that the UK is facing. Firstly, the trained staff present in social housing help to tackle a huge issue that exists in tandem to homelessness: mental illness. Around 80% of unhoused people have some kind of untreated mental illness which may act as a barrier to their successful reintroduction into society. With a dedicated staff, this barrier may be overcome, and it may well help the residents escape homelessness for good; it is certainly vastly superior to providing accommodation with no such support offered.

This support will come in a variety of ways: during their time living in social housing, residents can engage in social activities, including shared exercise and cooking lessons, which can reduce isolation and improve mental health. They will also be taught new life skills that will benefit them when they move on, and staff will help all residents find permanent housing, and after their stay will provide ongoing support in order to ensure that they will be successful in their new home.

Secondly, social housing promises to provide quality housing for low-income families and individuals. In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, we are in desperate need of safe and secure housing for all, not just those who can afford it. Social housing can provide this, because the charities and social enterprises who are dedicated to its implication won’t cut corners in the interest of profits.

This will be a much-needed change to the current private rental sector, which is experiencing sky high rent prices for low quality, even dangerous accommodations. Shelter predicts that this sector is currently reaching a breaking point, and that in the coming years, we will need more than ever a way to support low income individuals to escape not only homelessness, but also being trapped in extortionate and unsafe rental properties.Summary of recommendations from Shelter report on future of social housing

So, while social housing may not fight the causes of homelessness in the way we inevitably must, it provides a much-needed balm to the wounds homelessness causes. A country cannot be deemed successful or worthy if it fails to provide the most basic of human needs, housing, to every single citizen, and if the UK government refuses to shoulder this responsibility, then we must all do everything we can to support the charities and social enterprises that will.

 


Calum Rosie is a writer and correspondent for Immigrationnews.co.uk, a website dedicated to shedding light on immigration injustices and social issues.

A pebble with text 'Stay safe and be kind' sat on a rock

Building back better – make 2021 a
Year of Empathy

Lucy FindlayThe end of 2020 was a relief for many of us, but here we are in 2021 facing many of the same challenges, with the world seeming in many ways a more difficult place despite the roll out of the vaccine.

Many people are really struggling with the current conditions. Back in the early summer, a UCL study reported that a fifth of vulnerable people had considered self-harm or suicide. This was really brought home to me recently with a personal experience of knowing someone firsthand who sadly became a victim of this struggle a few weeks ago.

It made me dwell and contemplate on what’s important in life during this awful lockdown. How can we support each other better and build a more caring world within the confines in which we find ourselves in? How can we really listen and understand what people are saying? What is really going on in the heads of people when we don’t have the ability to read their faces and gain eye contact and share informal time and conversation?

The irony of Covid-19 is that it is intensely personal, as it has affected all our lives, but at the same time the response seems intensely impersonal, as it applies blanket rules and conditions that are not nuanced to personal circumstances.

In so many ways 2020 was a brutal year for mental health and well-being. The phrase ‘be kind’ was much touted but has often seemed hollow. Empathy has been in short supply and the government and press have increased the pressure on people and increased conflict through endless clickbait of blame, sensationalism and doom. Social media also encourages angry knee jerk responses that lead to conflict and a lack of compassion.

The irony of Covid-19 is that it is intensely personal, as it has affected all our lives, but at the same time the response seems intensely impersonal, as it applies blanket rules and conditions that are not nuanced to personal circumstances. Not being able to comfort one another and grieve properly is so cruel.

Brexit discussions are also a good illustration of the economic and personal rules Vs the personal impact. The government and press focus has all been on the blanket economic and trade implications of a deal, without considering the personal and emotional devastation it has wrought for so many people whose lives and families have been turned upside down due to the end of freedom of movement.

We need to think much more broadly about the breadth of the economy and what the economy must look like for the future. Scaling and globalisation need to be looked at through a fundamentally different lens.

Emotional impact is collateral damage that is not a valid discussion in a world that is obsessed with measuring and evidencing ‘things’ – and government policy follows this pattern. There is a divorce of emotional impact from the economic arguments, as if somehow the economy is not the result of the actions of inherently emotional beings (i.e. us!)

I would argue that we have to start seeing the two together with equal weighting, which is where social enterprises excel. Really listening and responding to the needs of those stakeholders and the challenges facing them goes back to the heritage of our movement – e.g. the cooperative model, which allows for people to support one another alongside creating wealth for the collective good. We as social enterprises need to be more conscious of getting better at working together too.

At the heart of our economy are human beings who are all being affected by the unprecedented challenges that we face currently and to ignore this will not lead us to Building Back Better – just a more divided incoherent society that cannot address the challenges of climate change and social polarisation.

It saddens me to see that the government have put together a Build Back Better Council that comprises all the same old faces of big corporations and businesses – where is the human side of that? We need to think much more broadly about the breadth of the economy and what the economy must look like for the future. Scaling and globalisation need to be looked at through a fundamentally different lens.

Ed MayoAs individuals we can each play our part too.  My colleague and friend Ed Mayo (formerly of Co-operatives UK and currently CEO of Pilotlight), has recently called for 2021 to be a Year of Empathy.  He recommends the following actions:

  1. Cultivate your curiosity – choose novels, newspapers or networks that talk to different realities than your own.
  2. Listen actively – ask open questions, hold back on judgement, share what you learn.
  3. Try a dialogue and not just a conversation – where the purpose of talking is not necessarily to reach agreement but rather to understand each other, including the differences and dissonances (‘dialogic communication’).
  4. Express your empathy – as a feeling, empathy spreads when it is visible, a phenomenon seen early when infant children cry when others do the same (the ‘chameleon effect’).
  5. Be generous, not just in a spontaneous, but in an organised, regular way, so that it becomes part of who you are.

I would also add:

  1. Try to analyse and be aware of your emotional impact – how is what you are saying impacting someone else, why are they responding in the way that they are? Be aware that people may have a lot of stress going on in their lives that might not be evident.
  2. Ask how someone is and really listen – if you are not feeling good, say so! It’s good to share.

In a Year of Empathy we need to get much better at hearing and responding, but we also need to think in a much more joined up way. At the heart of our economy are human beings who are all being affected by the unprecedented challenges that we face currently and to ignore this will not lead us to Building Back Better – just a more divided incoherent society that cannot address the challenges of climate change and social polarisation.

Social enterprises and their wider social economy family are doing a great job, but we need to be even better, and we desperately need amplification through allies and new converts to seeing the world through a joined up social, empathetic, environmental and economic lens.

Photo of a crowd with someone holding a banner saying 'Fight today for a better tomorrow'

Take action today for a better tomorrow

Lord John BirdBy Lord John Bird, Founder of The Big Issue

In 2016, I, an ex-beggar, ex-rough sleeper, ex-offender, ex-Marxist and an ex-racist (among other things) was elevated to the upper chamber of the United Kingdom’s bicameral legislature: the House of Lords. Why had I applied, you may ask? Gone through hours of interviews and applications forms? And what did I have to give to this reputed institution?

The short answer is that I am the founder of The Big Issue. An improbable social invention, a disruptor to charities and an emulsifier to the classes of society. Its success and my reputation grew from its novelty and usefulness: not a charity, but a social enterprise responding to a crisis. It sold opportunity. For The Big Issue’s customers were not those that read its magazine, but the homeless population who exchanged their money for the ability to work. At no point would a Big Issue vendor feel victimised or feel disempowered in their capability to shape their life. A seemingly odd approach to the vulnerable, and yet the only one I was comfortable with, given my experiences being in situations like theirs.

Out of the box thinking is what some have called it – something people have since characterised me by. Have you ever wondered what is intrinsic to out of the box thinking? Well of course, the box itself must not be working; it must be caging the aspiration of your thought and multiplying unoriginality. In 2016, Parliament was the box to me. Hence, my compulsion to intellecutally infiltrate the House of Lords to understand why our system broke and then to fix it.

Big Issue Today for Tomorrow campaignThe result is that in January 2020, I introduced my Wellbeing of Future Generations bill and launched my Today for Tomorrow campaign (just in time for Covid-19).

The aim? To bring about a culture of long-termism by shedding light on the unintended consequences of past actions. Jolt those who were on autodrive into a new way of thinking and as a result, tackle climate change, pandemics, poverty, mental health (and so on).

The negative consequences of not considering long-term wellbeing has become increasingly evident: to mention but a few, it has led to mass extinction of biodiversity (limiting our ability to make medicinal and agricultural discoveries), created waves of pollution which negatively impacts our health and is making mass migration evermore likely as climate change makes lands uninhabitable.

As with anything, we must start by diagnosing the problem: democracy, the best of the flawed systems available, on too many occassions is built on a process of short-termism. Hence, by putting checks and balances in place, we hope to avert the problems created by this attitude: like by emplacing a committee in Parliament to review the effects of all incoming legislation on the long-term and amend that legislation accordingly or by conducting assessments on the likely future trends and risks in our country, taking children’s views into account, so we can prepare for them well ahead of time.

This month our campaign notched into overdrive, as the date for the bill’s second reading in the House of Commons approached (now delayed due to Covid). The pinnacle of this will be our ‘Wellbeing Week’, running 25th – 28th January, which provides MPs the opportunity to have a 5 minute chat (online) with a few young people, actively seeking social justice in areas such as climate change, racism or mental health. This will hopefully offer MPs the chance to understand why protecting future generations and focusing on long-term wellbeing may just be our silver bullet.

So please visit our website now to take part in our Call to Action, making sure your MP attends! I came to the House of Lords, compelled to fix a broken system. With your help, hopefully I can.

 


Lord John Bird is the founder and Editor in Chief of The Big Issue. The Today For Tomorrow is a cross-party campaign powered by The Big Issue. The Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill is being led through Parliament by The Big Issue founder, Lord Bird, and is co-sponsored by Caroline Lucas MP.

Is your website fit for purpose?

Cosmic logoBy Pete Goff, Head of Web Development at Cosmic

At a time when face-to-face interactions are limited to 2-metre distances and people are staying at home, the online presence of your Social Enterprise takes on new importance. Therefore, now may be a good time to improve your website and enhance the user experience.

Whether your enterprise is involved in hospitality, leisure, retail or any number of industries, Covid-19 likely means that your shopfront and customer engagement has moved online.

There are many steps you can to take to maximise the value of your website, keeping customers, beneficiaries, funders and partners happy.

Here are some ideas:

  1. Adjusting your current website, to enable you to sell and take payments online, or deliver services remotely and virtually. Pivoting your business model and processes can be the key to thriving (or surviving) during times of difficulty.
  2. Reviewing the Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) performance of your website. This reflects how highly search engines, such as Google, rank your website when people search for it. It is important that your site is visible to the right people – helping your to promote your service/product/cause to your target audience.
  3. Enhancing the visitor experience of your website, ensuring that the speed of loading, the ease of navigation and the enjoyment of the content are all as good as they can be. Does your site respond to different screen sizes, such as smartphones? (You can check here). Is it accessible for people with reduced sight? These are considerations you might need to take into account.
  4. Securing your website, to avoid risk of malicious attack, and to give confidence to your customers and visitors. Do you have an SSL certificate? This provides the “s” in “https”. Without one, Google can penalise your performance in searches, and many popular browsers like Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox will warn customers that your website may be unsafe to browse.
  5. Aspiring to reach new audiences, attract new customers, win business, promote new causes – this is what the correct online presence can help you with. There’s more to it than just having a website. You need to ensure that your site up to scratch (as above), but you also need to take advantage of other areas of Digital Marketing: use of social media, advertisements, mailing-lists, newsletters, blogging and content creation.

If you feel that you would like advice or support on any of the above issues, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us at Cosmic. We can provide you with trainingtechnical IT supportdigital consultancy, and website development. Helping our clients as much as we can in these troubling times is top of our agenda.

 


Cosmic is a Social Enterprise which specialises in digital skills training, digital consultancy, IT technical support and website development. It provides an innovative range of services and support to help people identify their Digital need and to progress with their ambitions.

Coins in a glass jar and three stacks of coins on a table in front on a blurred green background

Navigating a last-minute government loan… is it worth it?

Lucy FindlayUnfortunately, we are in the dreaded second wave and are now facing the resulting increased restrictions to all our lives again. We will be continuing to lobby for more support for the sector with our New Economy Alliance partners, but in the meantime you could consider (or reconsider) the existing government loan schemes, which are open to applications until 31st January.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I have been working with the Alliance to take a specific lead on banking, trying to work through some of the blockages that social enterprises have been experiencing in accessing government products. In particular, I have been working with Barclays to troubleshoot the common issues.

In order to gain more insight we recently carried out a survey on behalf of the Alliance to get a better handle on the issues for social enterprises, and I have used this information to help you navigate the vagaries of the emergency banking process, should you choose to!

I’ve talked about the challenges around social investment in many of my past blogs. In particular that, as social enterprises, we end up paying much higher interest rates than mainstream businesses due to a lack of understanding of business form and also the perception of risk, backed up by the eligibility algorithm used to make decisions by mainstream finance providers.

Therefore if you can access a fully government backed Bounce Back Loan (BBL), it’s well worth considering due to the excellent terms, which unfortunately current social investors (who are much more social enterprise friendly) cannot match due to their size. This option is what I will be focusing on for this blog.

However, it is also worth pointing out that there is also another scheme – the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan (CBIL) – aimed at larger businesses, which is more difficult to access due to the requirement for the bank to guarantee part of the loan. A specialist version of this – the Resilience Recovery Loan Fund (RRLF) – can be accessed via consortia of social investors led by SIB Group. If you want to know more, there is a very helpful toolkit put together by Big Society Capital on their website.

Bounce Back Loans

The terms of the BBL include:

  • no arrangement fees
  • zero interest for the first 12 months
  • 2.5% interest rate with re-payment over 6 years (no fee for early repayment)

Essentially, it’s free money for 12 months, which can really help a temporarily tight cashflow and also provide longer term boost with the long repayment terms and low interest rates.

There are a couple of caveats here, though – the first is that the official deadline is the end of November, although we are hoping that this could be extended by the Chancellor. Our survey also picked up on some common barriers for social enterprises, which include:

  • Banks will only lend to existing customers and not all banks offer BBLs. It’s largely mainstream banks and this excludes Unity Trust and Triodos, which are popular banks for social enterprises.
  • If you have to set up a new account with a mainstream bank, start right now as it can take weeks, if not months. Many of the mainstream banks have currently closed to new customers (although this is currently being reviewed in light of the recent extension of deadline to BBLs by the government). On top of this there is a lack of understanding of social enterprise legal structures and governance, which is biased toward Companies Ltd by Shares.
  • In some cases, the banks have subcontracted out the processing of loans, and seem to rely heavily on technology which doesn’t necessarily understand businesses that are out of the standard mould. Thus, it is difficult to communicate with them one to one which can be very frustrating as customers get passed from pillar to post trying to get an answer.

From the limited responses to our survey, the Co-operative Bank appears to be the most straightforward supplier of BBLs for social enterprises, although it has not been bringing on new customers for BBLs. The most problematic banks appear to be Natwest and HSBC, mainly due to issues/delays with setting up new accounts. Barclays has developed a specialist process, but are currently closed for new bank accounts to access BBLs, so only existing customers should apply.

In summary, I would advise anyone with a straightforward Company Limited by Shares or Community Benefit Society model, who already bank with one of the direct providers (especially the Co-op Bank), to consider applying for a BBL.

If you are a Community Interest Company or Company Limited by Guarantee it might be more complicated, especially if you need to set up a new bank account. As the scheme closes in January, it’s best to apply ASAP and be prepared to be patient!

Increasing stacks of pound coins

Building Back Better and
the Growth Obsession

Lucy FindlayRecently I was interviewed about the possible barriers that women social enterprise leaders face in order to scale up their businesses, and it got me thinking: What do we mean by growing? Who are we growing for and why do we need to grow? 

It seems to me that society sees business growth through a very narrow lens – usually increase in turnover, staff and financial profitability, and, in the case of mainstream businesses, increase in shareholder value. But if we are talking social benefit are the same set of assumptions true?

The current economic crisis has highlighted a few trends that might be challenging the above assumption that economies of scale are always desirable. This trend has been stark in retail and food (with the exception of online), where  large faceless chains are now facing financial difficulties and smaller local shops that offer something different and a personalised service are the ones that are more likely to survive.

The government doesn’t want to get it either.  They carry on outsourcing to the same old massive companies to achieve a mediocre service. Social enterprises are encouraged to ‘scale up’ and ape these bland corporate mediocre monoliths. But we have seen the price of this. Look at the failures of these giants in primary healthcare that are now being propped up by the ideology that local can’t deliver.

The excuse is that it is just too complicated to deal with lots of little suppliers who cannot scale up to meet government demand. There are cases where small businesses can come together in consortia, but this is often very complicated to arrange, especially in reaction to opportunities with very little advance warning.

We need to challenge our assumptions about delivering better and more responsive goods and services into a different paradigm that reflects the new world, where the central challenges are tackling climate change and global social inequality.

I was recently made aware of the Government’s Strategic Suppliers list, which work directly with Crown Representatives in government departments. This direct relationship with government highlights the access that many big corporates have to government, which provides a direct channel of communication not open to other smaller suppliers.

So, how do we resolve all this? The Social Value Act provides some openings, but this approach is broad brush and generic. The whole system of social procurement needs to be turned on its head. We need to challenge our assumptions about delivering better and more responsive goods and services into a different paradigm that reflects the new world, where the central challenges are tackling climate change and global social inequality.

The Build Back Better agenda will not be achieved if we build back faster making the same fundamental and outdated mistakes leading to, yet again, the house collapsing in a few years’ time.

Social value is a central tenet for its delivery of a local and sustainable solutions, where the supply chain can be externally verified. The primary motivation should be to make society a better place and lower our carbon footprint.

We need a diversity of business approach that grows sustainably, not a uniform mono-culture which tries to tweak around the edges. The Build Back Better agenda will not be achieved if we build back faster making the same fundamental and outdated mistakes leading to, yet again, the house collapsing in a few years’ time.

Wooden tiles spelling 'blog' with a pen and pad in the background

How the ecosystem can enable social enterprises to build back better

Dr SalBy Dr Sally Kah, social entrepreneurship researcher and lecturer in business

Build Back Better should win the popular slogan of the year. In fact, we should call 2020: We Failed, But We Will Build Back Better. Now that we are slowly coming out of lockdown, how might we begin to build back better? What do we need to do to build back better? In the context of social business, what mechanisms are required to build back better? These are critical questions we must answer if we are truly going to build the local and regional economies back better.

Before I talk about how social enterprises can build back better, let me briefly explain why social enterprises are better equipped to address the implications of the global health pandemic. Social enterprises are organisations established to address social, economic and environmental issues. They use dual logics, that is, for-profit and not-for profit initiatives to create social change in society. These institutions can adopt any legal structure, operate through any organisational size and, in any sector of the economy – at least in the UK. Their fundamental principles and framework for doing business are about tackling complex societal problems. Therefore, social enterprises understand the social and economic implications of the pandemic and the interventions required to address them. However, these institutions face internal challenges, namely, changing workspaces and the financial constraints due to the lack of business (e.g. for-profit social enterprise). They also face external pressures in terms of the increased need for their social interventions, especially in deprived localities.

Therefore, building back better will require comprehensive mechanisms and a dose of cognitive processing. The social enterprise ecosystem is a framework that will enable social enterprises to build back better. The purpose of the ecosystem is to provide specific blocks to demonstrate important enablers for developing the organisation. In research authorised by the European Commission on 29 European countries, six dimensions of social enterprise ecosystem were identified:

  • certification systems, marks and labels;
  • legal framework;
  • social (impact) investment markets;
  • impact measurement and reporting systems;
  • networks and mutual support mechanisms;
  • specialist business development services and support
Certification systems, marks and labels

Certification systems, marks and labels are formal ways to validate systems and processes in an organisation. Certifying systems are vital for adding value to the technical and non-technical elements of the enterprise. For example, obtaining certification from Social Enterprise Mark CIC (or a national equivalent) is a value proposition and competitive advantage for procurement. Research has shown that implementing management or accreditation standards improves performance. It also exposes accredited organisations to different networks and supply chain opportunities.

Legal framework

The legal framework can also determine the opportunities and constraints that social enterprises face; therefore, consideration must be given to different actors and regulatory frameworks. For instance, opportunities may arise for social enterprises with a specific legal structure that determines their social identity, such as the Community Interest Company (CIC) in the UK. Many countries are now developing innovative legal frameworks to support social enterprises and the social economy more widely. In Spain, Sociedad Laboral was designed to facilitate the buyouts of employees from failing businesses. This framework presents an opportunity for social organisations in Spain.

Social investment

Another dimension of the ecosystem to enable social enterprises to build back better is social (impact) investment markets. Social investment is a common theme in the world of policy, particularly in Europe. The UK is the world’s largest social investment market, worth £3.5 billion. There are many investments and funding opportunities for social enterprises and Big Society Capital is working to increase access to investment. It is imperative that social organisations understand the finance systems in their region and the relationship between the typology of social impact and the investment.

Social impact measurement

Regardless of the significance of the social intervention, evidence of the impact created is crucial to funders, policymakers and the wider society. Impact measurement and reporting systems are vital instruments to establish legitimacy. Although many social enterprises face the challenge of identifying the right tool or framework for measuring impact, there are organisations and research papers that identify tools to capture the impact created. The New Economic Foundation is one such organisation, with a list of over twenty social impact tools for organisations in the third sector.

Networks

Networks and mutual support mechanisms differ across regions; however, they are important resources for collaboration. Networks can be formal (i.e. the School for Social Entrepreneurs) or informal (i.e. social networks). Networks that serve as incubators tend to provide resources through Corporate Social Responsibility funds, mentoring and workspace for innovation. The Global Social Entrepreneurship Network is one organisation that supports early stage social start-ups. More established social enterprises can network through membership at Social Enterprise UK, the British Council for social enterprise reports, and initiatives across the UK Commonwealth countries.

Specialist business development support

Finally, the specialist business development services and support dimension recommends seeking tailored business support for enterprise development or growth. Specialist support is now offered by universities and independent research centres, whose primary role is to contribute to knowledge on this topic. One of the most popular research centres is the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Oxford. Collaborations between universities and social innovation hubs are becoming popular and more accessible. For example, in Rotterdam, a foundation and the city established a network of specialist advisors to train students from a business school to provide six-month mentorship programme for start-ups.

To conclude, social enterprises are game-changers and social impact creators can succeed and fail like any other business model; however, their fundamental principle for addressing social, economic and environmental issues places them in the best position to tackle the implications of COVID, both at local and regional levels. To address these challenges, the six dimensions of the social enterprise ecosystem discussed above are pivotal to building back a better and fairer society.


Dr Sally Kah is a social entrepreneurship researcher, and lecturer in business. She investigates the social impact of social enterprise in the UK.

Sally is currently working on projects that examine the social impact of vocational education and training programme on young women and, the social impact practice of social enterprises in specific regions of the UK. She has presented her research at recognised conferences – International Social Innovation Research Conference, Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the British Academy of Management. 

Multicoloured image of two hands grasping each other

Are we any better? Bringing diversity to social enterprise thought leadership

Most of us are aware that more diversity within the workplace leads to a better performing business. The WEF recently published a report that shows overwhelming evidence for this. Increasing diversity is also vital to ensure that the business remains relevant to its customers and stakeholders in the way that it both delivers and develops its products and services. This is especially important for social enterprises, as we are trying to ensure that we build more inclusive products and services that are designed to support those that are marginalised from the mainstream market.

The Black Lives Matter protests have highlighted how Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people and communities are often designed out of solutions or ignored completely in favour of those that fit with our own images, biases and privileges. We would hope that this is not the case with social enterprises, and the figures from last year’s State of Social Enterprise report are more encouraging, with 13% being BAME led, 35% with BAME directors and 42% BAME social entrepreneurs. However, we certainly cannot sit on our laurels and say we are anyway close to being a truly diverse business sector when it comes to leadership and, in particular in my observations, thought leadership.

I have observed that social enterprise thought leaders are overwhelmingly white and in the main, male. Having been in the social enterprise sector for more than 20 years I think that this trend has become even more embedded without many noticing.

Fundamentally different, by putting social value at the heart, as social enterprises we need to live and breathe our values through our leadership and promotion. Thus, thought leadership is a central plank to our business model and its development. We often play a unique position in policy formulation, advocacy and delivery to those marginalised from mainstream society and the economy on many different levels. However I have observed that social enterprise thought leaders are overwhelmingly white and in the main, male. Having been in the social enterprise sector for more than 20 years I think that this trend has become even more embedded without many noticing.

So, why is this happening? I have been pondering… it may be because we have been trying to over compensate around the business message of social enterprise, thus veering to emulate the business sector? We want to be taken seriously as a business (not a bunch of ‘hippies’ as some would phrase it!) and stereotypical business tends to be dominated by white men talking to other white men.

Without more diverse voices leading the discussions about the direction of social enterprise for the future, we risk narrowing the dialogue and missing the real social issues by ignoring the marginalised voices to whom our goods and services aim to help.

I also think it’s about the assumptions around business growth. Often new-start businesses are much more diverse in their roots and leaders (and the stats show this). However, when it comes to business growth/scaling, the language becomes more complex and finance led, which can alienate and push the original social motivation sideways, i.e. you need the right set of language skills, ‘business speak’ and connections with the likeminded to fit in and get on. Ironically we are asking for our economy to become more people led, but it feels like social enterprise has to fit the old finance led economy mould to grow. I was interested to see for instance, that Divine Chocolate has recently had to change their business model away from social enterprise to grow and gain investment.

Therefore I would argue that we should be promoting, encouraging and supporting far more varied voices in the analysis and leadership of the sector, alongside challenging our recruitment and governance mechanisms. Without more diverse voices leading the discussions about the direction of social enterprise for the future, we risk narrowing the dialogue and missing the real social issues by ignoring the marginalised voices to whom our goods and services aim to help.

Lucy Findlay

Building back better after the crisis

UPDATE 09/06/2020

In the below blog, which I wrote at the end of April, I spoke about now being the time to #BuildBackBetter and how we need a new vision for the future that “transcends traditional political boundaries”.

To be effective, #BuildBackBetter has to be a broader movement, encompassing both sides of the political spectrum, and I am pleased to see more forces do seem to be coming together in this way. Compass, the centre-left think tank, has brought together a core group of trade bodies, think tanks and network organisations to ensure that there is wider ownership of the campaign.

They are inviting others to add their voice to a broad-based call to ‘Build Back Better’ from the coronavirus crisis, which they hope to launch this month. They write:

There should be a simple statement of what #BuildBackBetter means, around which people could gather and from which they can build. We think that can be done by bringing a significant group of civic leaders from across all walks of life as signatories to a relatively short statement, and then publicising this through a mainstream and social media campaign. It is important that this is not led only by those whom the media and political leaders would expect to support it. It needs to come from a group with diverse political views. And it should not be party political – politicians should only be asked to back it after it is launched.

They have created a statement and are now asking a range of civic leaders to give it their support. You can sign up here – they welcome organisations to be signatories as well as individuals.

 


Covid-19 has shaken the world to its core. There is not one aspect of our daily lives that hasn’t been touched, and this is mirrored all across the world. It seems a lifetime since our 10th birthday party and my trip to Siberia at the beginning of March. Life will never be the same again and we now have to face the struggle for survival of vast parts of our economy as we protect ourselves and our loved ones from the unseen danger everywhere in our communities.

The most worrying thing to me is that the situation is exacerbating the huge chasm between rich and poor around the world. Recent research from Oxfam warns that the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic could push half a billion more people into poverty unless urgent action is taken to support developing countries.

half a billion more people could be pushed into poverty by Covid-19

We see this especially starkly in countries such as India, where crowded conditions caused by poverty make social isolation impossible, as well as the challenges of an economy dependent on the poor servicing the rich often hundreds of miles away from their homes. The poorest do not have the resources to stay at home, and in some cases don’t even have a home, or a home that is safe. It is the poorest that are dying in much greater numbers due to greater exposure, poor diet and healthcare, amongst other factors. They are also the ones that are likely to face long term economic hardship.

“Social enterprises and community organisations are the businesses that provide the ‘glue’ that holds society together often where the traditional market and public sector doesn’t provide.”

Frustratingly, the government has advocated community solutions to inequality, but largely not funded them. Social enterprise is a case in point. With government divesting themselves of community support programmes and increasingly relying on social enterprises and charities to fill the gaps, they have pushed the business and independent approach to self-help and then snatched this revenue away in the crisis without replacing it.

Instead, there has been a focus on helping social enterprises and charities that are dealing directly with support to tackle the effects of COVID 19. This completely misses the point. Social enterprises and community organisations are the businesses that provide the ‘glue’ that holds society together often where the traditional market and public sector doesn’t provide. They also have greater flexibility to create a more ‘person’ based, flexible  solution in their locality, rather than the clumsiness of a centralist approach.

“The social enterprise sector cannot simply be reinvented if there are major shut-downs. It takes years for social enterprises to become sustainable businesses and they interweave solutions to problems that politicians often do not acknowledge exist or, if they do, they don’t know how to tackle.”

When we emerge from this crisis will the economy and revert back to more of the same (like we saw after the 2008 financial crash), or a more nuanced personal approach that recognises that humans are part of an eco-system? I think most people agree that there was something really wrong with society that let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The gulf has been getting bigger every year and on top of this we have a climate crisis.

We need to think differently and social enterprises are examples of this in action. The social enterprise sector cannot simply be reinvented if there are major shut-downs. It takes years for social enterprises to become sustainable businesses and they interweave solutions to problems that politicians often do not acknowledge exist or, if they do, they don’t know how to tackle.

This has to be the time to grasp the nettle and #BuildBackBetter. We need a new vision for the future that transcends traditional political boundaries. We need to be working with both the left and the right and getting the media on board and, more to the point, working outside the boundaries of the UK as well encapsulating a more local approach. A world-wide movement is required that will transcend the forces of those powerful interests that will default to previous setting.

To this end, we are working with partners in the UK social enterprise and social value movement to campaign to #SaveOurSocEnts in order to #BuildBackBetter.

#SaveOurSocEnts campaign partners

We are also reaching out to wider allies, and have become members of the Well Being Economy Alliance, an international movement to put people at the heart of economic decision-making, not economic growth at all costs.

We need to stop being territorial and join together to create a safe and better future for all.

Image of two open hands

Financial support for social enterprises during COVID-19

By Ishita Ranjan, Project Manager at Good Finance

It’s been over a month now since we went into lockdown, and as individuals and businesses fight to adapt, we are all adjusting to life in the new normal.

This is no different for social enterprises; some have struggled to operate and have lost entire revenue streams, others have adapted business models, traditional brick and mortar businesses operations have moved to digital delivery, and some have even managed to thrive in a changing world.

We’ve seen and heard some amazing stories. For example, Creative Optimistic Visions, who work to positively influence and support people who are vulnerable to victimisation and abuse, have moved to online classes to ensure they can keep delivering. The Good Loaf, a social enterprise bakery, has pivoted to a click and collect delivery service, and Oddbox, a fruit and veg delivery service, has expanded their catchment area for deliveries. From providing PPE, to keeping essential services going, to ensuring basic good reach at risk groups, social enterprises are making their mark on the new normal.

However, many social enterprises and charities are also struggling to survive, whether that’s due to significant drops in revenue, furloughed work forces or uncertainties about the future of their business model. Whatever position you’re in, it’s important to understand some of the key areas of financial support that are in place.

Diagram showing funding and finance opportunities to support social enterprises

Social Investment

Grants will often be the type of money most needed at the moment, however social investment could be an option when you:

  • Need bridging finance: where it’s clear where the repayment will come from
  • Are pivoting your business model: when you have a good business plan that may have additional risk in delivery
  • Are operating business as usual: where revenue streams appear resilient or unaffected and you are delivering your plans pre-crisis

In light of the Covid-19 crisis, social investors are looking at a number of options to help the sector, including exploring new funding and adjusting existing funding. Here’s a few ways of finding out more:

  • Learn about new emergency finance options being offered by social investors to extend the Government’s Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) to social enterprises, making it easier for them to access. This includes the Resilience and Recovery Loan Fund, specifically aimed at social enterprises and charities, as well as the Community Investment Enterprise Facility, which is aimed at small enterprises that have a positive impact in their communities.
  • Use Good Finance’s investor directory to explore which social investors are providing emergency finance and are open to new investees.
  • Read more about how social investors are responding and their key messages in this open letter.

Grants

For many organisations, grants will continue to play a crucial role in supporting them during this time.

Government Support

Through the budget and subsequent Treasury announcements, there is a range of Government support that is available including:

  • Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: HMRC will reimburse 80% of furloughed workers wage costs, up to a cap of £2,500 per month
  • Business Bounce Back Loans: will help small and medium-sized businesses to borrow between £2,000 and £50,000
  • HMRC Time to Pay Scheme: because of Coronavirus you may be able to delay (defer) some tax payments without paying a penalty
  • There are also several dedicated grants and schemes for specific sectors or issues

The below cribsheet explains all the various types of support, as well as what charities and social enterprises can access.

A diagram outlining government support for social enterprises and charities

If you want to find out more on any of the above types of financial support, visit the Good Finance COVID-19 Resource Hub or Tweet @GoodFinanceUK.

 

Lucy Findlay with Irina Makeeva, Yulia and Anna (Green Squirrel) at Social Enterprise festival in Novosibirsk

To Russia and back… by the skin of my teeth!

The rate of current social and economic change is breath-taking. My second visit to Siberia will forever be associated not only with the horrors unfolding in Western Europe but also the capacity for human kindness, generosity and love in a society that is often stereotyped and treated with suspicion.

It began as a fairly routine trip, albeit with the Coronavirus headlines in the press but not really penetrating much further than advice not to shake hands and to wash them for 20 seconds. The plane out to Moscow was very quiet, but the final leg of the journey to Novosibirsk in Siberia was packed, as the following day (Sunday) was International Women’s Day, a major holiday in Russia. Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia, after St Petersburg and Moscow, and is 7 hours ahead of GMT. The city’s name means ‘new Siberia’ due to its relative youth growing largely over the time since the arrival of the Trans-Siberian Railway and it’s positioning away from Moscow during the Cold War.

On arrival I was greeted by Irina (my exchange peer) at the airport. Hugs that were becoming less commonplace in the UK were still generously shared around and although I mentioned Coronavirus, it was mainly in the context of jokes about toilet paper shortages in the UK!

International Women’s Day celebrates all women and is a big family occasion. I was invited to Irina’s sister-in-law Polina’s house where I met Irina’s family, including her parents-in-law Vladimir and Luba. They live in Chita, which is further East near to the Mongolian border. It sounded a lovely place with its own bottled spring water (although quite an acquired taste!) Vladimir is originally from Buryatia, which is a republic in the Far East (of Russia) where they have their own dialect and the native people, Buryatians, are ethnically similar to Mongols. Luba however is originally from Crimea and told me that it was controversial for her to have married a man from an ethnic minority. Luba is a musician and a very passionate woman and even though they didn’t speak any English, I felt an immediate bond thanks to Irina’s excellent translation services!

Students at the Lel folklore school in NovosibirskThe next day, a state holiday, I was guest of honour at the Folklore School ‘Lel’. This school keeps up the traditions of Siberian traditional singing and dancing for girls who are interested in becoming ‘folklore’ teachers. They taught the stories behind the dances and songs and even invited me to join them to become a dancing ‘fence’!

I was very touched by all the dedication and that the girls showed, particularly when a deaf girl showed me how she passionately ‘signed’ along to a popular song (she was apparently due to sign to the song when the star who sang it appeared in Novosibirsk, live on stage!)

Olga, one of the teachers, spoke English and told me that she had visited the UK in in the 1990s with her mother. Apparently she attended an exchange to Portsmouth and even met the mayor, although they were embarrassed to say that they didn’t remember his name. I explained that mayors of most major cities in the UK are merely ceremonial and it was unlikely the people of Portsmouth would remember either (apologies to any local councillor’s reading this)! Afterwards we all shared some cake, tea and pies (a Siberian speciality) and the students were interested to hear English actually being spoken as a ‘real’ language (not as a school subject). There are so few foreigners that come to that part of the Russia.

Lucy Findlay at Novosibirsk’s Technical University Innovation/Incubation HubFollowing the extended celebrations, we started work later the next day as I was still adjusting to the time difference. We went to speak to a number of students and lecturers from Novosibirsk’s Technical University at their Innovation/Incubation Hub. It was an open invitation and appeared to attract a number of different disciplines including environmental sustainability and healthcare. It was a small gathering, so we were able to have a conversation about the lessons of certification as well as the challenges of different disciplines taking on different agendas. It seems academic silos are the same the world over. It was encouraging that a number of academic social entrepreneurs were very engaged in developing their ideas.

One of the reasons that I travelled to Russia again was because we wanted to explore a new ‘social enterprise regulation’, which was approved by the government last January. This allows mainstream businesses to convert to become social enterprises. There is much more regulation and restriction of organisations depending on their legal structures. For instance, NGOs are largely unable to trade and can only gain income through foundations. This poses challenges and it is hoped that the new law will enable existing ‘for profits’ and new social enterprises to set up.

On this basis, the local Chamber of Business organised an event for local business people, which I addressed with the help of my new translator Yuliya. There was a lot of interest in the idea of social enterprise and some interesting questions. I got the general feeling that social enterprise led accreditation was a welcome alternative to more regulation from government, so I’m not sure how much the new law will help with conversions, although it was interesting to hear that the spirit of the new laws seemed spookily to map our criteria! Perhaps the work that we did a number of years ago with Russia’s Our Future Foundation helped to shape this?

Lucy Findlay with Irina from disability led NGO in SiberiaI also visited a local disability support organisation, set in a very ‘Soviet style’ housing estate. The building (but none of the bills) was provided for free by the local authorities, but this came with restriction clauses in terms of use – no commercial activity was allowed. This was very frustrating for the boss Irina (another one!) who obviously had huge entrepreneurial flare but could not sell the pottery that her clients were making (only donations are allowed).

They had however managed to corner the market in Russian Braille school textbooks, which they are allowed to sell, but these were huge and space restricted due to the building size. We talked through potential solutions, the main being to find a better building as well as potentially setting up a separate trading company, but it seems much local and federal bureaucracy puts up barriers to the development of social enterprise in Siberia, even if there is a new law.

Clothes and fabric at Green Squirrel recycling social enterprise in SiberiaEnvironmentalism is a real growth area in Siberia. Recycling is carried out but it is not yet embedded as there are no kerbside recycling schemes. I visited Green Squirrel, which is run by a very enthusiastic bunch of young people who I met last time I came to Siberia. They collect recycling and reuse/upcycle many of the items donated where they can. I was given a set of waterproof shoe covers made out of old umbrellas (very useful for cycling!)

However, it’s clear that these sorts of schemes have traditionally been ad-hoc and grant led, which means they need to scale up or find other income generating activities in order to achieve financial viability. The concept of cross-subsidisation seems to be pretty new in Russia (or at least to the groups that I encountered), perhaps to historical state and subsequent business culture/NGO grant reliance.

Akademgaradok UniversityThe crescendo of the trip was the 2-day Social Entrepreneurs Festival, which had been one of the main reasons for the timing of my visit. It was held at Akademgorodok – a university about 10 miles outside Novosibirsk in the woods. It’s an amazing campus and has an interesting history, as it was built largely on the initiative of a number of academics who came together in the 1950s to set up an idealised scientific community ‘away from it all’. It’s like a small city within its own right, albeit in lovely wooded surroundings. We were based in a weird, futuristic building locally nicknamed ‘the geese’ as it emulated two geese kissing.

The festival brought people from towns and cities across Siberia. I was the only international visitor and it seemed hard for people to get their head around the fact that I wasn’t from London… Devon was not a place that they had heard of!! I was one of the headliners but it was a new challenge giving a keynote whilst waiting for translation. I was feeling a bit off colour too, so was worried that I might be Case 0 of Coronavirus in Siberia!!! I also had an interesting discussion with an American who has lived in Russia since the 90’s (I first met her last year). She had some great ideas about the greater level of ambition that the social enterprise world should be taking in Novosibirsk given her US experiences.

Lucy Findlay speaking about social value at workshop at Social Enterprise festival in NovosibirskI was relieved that I felt much better on the second day when I ran a Social Impact workshop talking to a number of NGOs with Irina and Yuliya on translation duty. We used our Social Impact Guidance to take people through the steps and discuss each point, in groups. Because we had a number of new organisations in the group some of the discussions were more academic, but it did help to clarify better the objectives and plan for the impact that they wanted to make.

I was amused to have a very nice guy in the group who was representing Siberia’s arm of Putin’s political social support organisation. I tried to persuade him that their social impact should be about supporting and enabling social enterprises rather than setting them up and running them!!

The festival was my last official appointment, but alas not the end of dramas due to Coronavirus. During my last evening in Novosibirsk I had a message from my brother saying that Russia was partially closing its borders. The message was ambiguous so it wasn’t clear whether my flight from Moscow airport would be cancelled. I quickly got in touch with Irina and my husband to see if we could find out more. We couldn’t ascertain much so I was on tenterhooks until I finally made the flight back from Siberia to be reassured at the airport that my connecting flight from Moscow was indeed still scheduled. Of course subsequent to this I realised that other people abroad have not been as lucky as I was.

Coronavirus aside, it was an amazing trip and many heartfelt thanks go to Irina, her family and her colleagues at the Siberian Centre. I hope to be able to return the hospitality when she is finally able to visit us in Devon, although I don’t know if we will ever be able to compete with the warmth and friendliness of the Siberian people. I have now been bitten by the bug and long to go back, maybe as a tourist, to explore the amazing lakes and countryside – but probably later in the summer (or beyond) when there is no danger of a global pandemic!!

Lucy Findlay with Irina Makeeva, Yulia and Anna (Green Squirrel) at Social Enterprise festival in Novosibirsk

Person in a wheelchair unable to cross a chasm

The real barriers faced by disabled people looking for work

Jane HattonBy Jane Hatton, Founder/Director of Evenbreak

There is much talk about the disability employment gap and its causes. At Evenbreak, we wanted to find out from the real experts (disabled job seekers themselves) what barriers prevent disabled people from gaining work.  People on the Enactus programme at UCL conducted research on our behalf. They received an overwhelming response from more than 700 disabled participants, giving compelling evidence into the real lived experiences of disabled people.

By far, the most significant issue for disabled candidates is finding employers that they feel confident to apply to. Over 82% of respondents said that their most pressing problem was finding truly disability-friendly employers. Whilst many employers describe themselves as ‘equal opportunities employers’, this was rarely borne out in practice, particularly in relation to disability. And 71% of respondents rated employers poorly when it came to empathy and understanding around disability.

The second biggest barrier identified was a lack of confidence in the recruitment process, including a fear of the process being biased or discriminatory throughout. Candidates felt their opportunities to demonstrate their qualities and skills were limited. This included a lack of offering adjustments (which were rarely mentioned in job adverts), relying on CVs and work experience when their opportunities may have been limited, and the nature of interviews (50% said the face-to-face interview was their biggest barrier, with 75% regularly experiencing an obvious lack of interest from interviewers.

Lack of confidence in their own abilities appeared to be the third biggest barrier, including concerns about how employers might perceive them.

Broadly what this research demonstrates is that there are many ways that employers can remove barriers for disabled people, and some are quite easy. Ensuring that disabled candidates know that employers are serious about their talent is important, and there is a clear need for recruitment processes to be more inclusive and accessible.

One of the enduring mantras in the world of disability is “nothing about us, without us”. This makes perfect sense – why would non-disabled people try to second-guess what works for disabled people? It’s the reason Evenbreak only employs disabled people, and it’s the reason Evenbreak commissioned this research.

Now the barriers are known, it’s time we all work together to remove them. Are you in?

Email me on janeh@evenbreak.co.uk if you would like a copy of the research findings.

Books and a gavel and hammer

Accessing advice on social enterprise legal structures

Kath WalklingBy Kath Walkling, Account Executive at Byfield Consultancy

Social Enterprises – A Marked Distinction

Currently there is no single UK-wide legal definition for social enterprises. Within the social enterprise sector, it is generally agreed that certain criteria should be fulfilled by organisations claiming to operate a social enterprise business model. These include:

  • Trading primarily for defined social or environmental purposes, in contrast to trading to maximise the benefit of shareholders and owners;
  • Earning at least 50% of income from trading;
  • Having independent ownership; and
  • Committing to spending at least 51% of any profits on achieving social or environmental purposes.

For greater public trust and recognition, it is advisable to apply for accreditation, such as that offered by Social Enterprise Mark CIC (SEMCIC). It is responsible for the Social Enterprise Mark (SEM), the only internationally available accreditation for social enterprises, therefore securing global visibility. The accreditation body provides a checklist of the points mentioned above, externally assesses whether a business has fulfilled the criteria and regularly monitors successful applicants. Should your business not qualify at the point of application, SEMCIC also provides guidance about how to make the necessary changes.

The governing documents of a social enterprise, to be filed at the relevant authority, must clearly state its purpose. A number of law firms and legal advice platforms are available to ensure that you successfully set up your community-orientated business.

Free Legal Advice

Idea - To-do - Doing - DoneUnderstanding the complexities of the differing legal structures, law firm Tozers has created a free resource pack in collaboration with SEMCIC. The pack gives explanations of the various legal structures and statuses available to businesses, which include:

  • Community Interest Company (CIC);
  • Charity;
  • Company limited by shares;
  • Company limited by guarantee;
  • Charitable Incorporated Organisation;
  • Registered Societies – Co-operative society and community benefit society

Advice is given on the financial, reputational and regulatory implications of each structure.

For example, a company limited by shares is unlikely to automatically meet the SEM criteria. This company is usually established in a corporate environment. It issues shares to shareholders, encouraging investment for the company’s growth while also maximising shareholders’ benefits. Specific clauses, such as its trading purpose to be primarily for social or environmental purpose, must be inserted in order to attempt to qualify for the SEM.

CIC RegulatorOn the other hand, in most cases, a CIC should automatically meet the SEM criteria. Although this company can be limited by shares or guarantee, it will naturally have a social or environmental purpose, will be independently owned and will be approved by the CIC Regulator.

In addition to the resource pack, Tozers provides a free 30 min call or meeting to existing or prospective social enterprises. Businesses which have already received the SEM also receive a 5% discount for further legal advice.

A number of other law firms also give advice and provide a briefing note on their website about the services which they offer:

Other Platforms for Advice

Purposely

Purposely is a free online tool which advises businesses on inserting the correct clauses and objectives in governing documents.

The platform provides model articles for businesses to adopt. For example, the Model 4 articles will meet the SEM qualifying criteria. The Model 3 articles similarly address the social and/or environmental concerns of a social enterprise. It lacks, however, a legal commitment to reinvest the majority of profits back into the business itself and the services it provides; it is therefore less likely to qualify.

GetLegal – free/discounted legal documents

Bates Wells LLP provides legal documents optimally priced for charities and social enterprises.

Using the platform, GetLegal, businesses can access free documents such as:

  • Tips for setting up a social enterprise business;
  • Q&A before starting a social enterprise;
  • Q&A about charity tax; and
  • Advice for protecting your social mission.

For a reduced free, other documents can be accessed such as:

  • Checklist of filing requirements;
  • Pros and cons of charitable status; and
  • Setting up a social enterprise – a guide to legal forms.
Summary of Advice

If you really want to hit the mark, contact a specialist law firm which can give you the appropriate advice to help you set-up a successful social enterprise business.

Gift box with red ribbon

Beneath the marketing wrapping:
is social value at the heart?

Our 10-year anniversary has given me cause to reflect more so than usual.  To me, the world seems to have become much less transparent and harder to negotiate. What you see might not be what you actually get, e.g. fake news, greenwashing/purpose washing, uncorroborated rumours on social media etc. In light of this, ‘authenticity’ has become the new buzz word in all walks of life, including the business world.

Many businesses are all striving to differentiate themselves through talking about being ‘purpose driven’ and authentic to their values. But what evidence is provided that they really are doing business differently? Or is it just a thin veneer or ‘wrapping paper’?

“With so many jumping on the bandwagon in the social value world, it’s getting harder and harder to differentiate.”

The argument is often made that if more businesses are aiming to be more impactful then this is inherently good. However, if this is not backed up with action then it can lead to cynicism, particularly when it’s obvious that the evidence points in a different direction. One thing is clear, the current status quo is not working so we need to get more radical and less image conscious.

This is why you need to get under the wrapping to get to the heart; what is the real motivation?  We need to ask questions, such as:

  • Is there any proof of impact and purpose claims or is it just a cynical ploy and tick-box exercise used as part of a marketing strategy?
  • Who has overall responsibility?
  • Is it part of the organisation’s governance?

With so many jumping on the bandwagon in the social value world, it’s getting harder and harder to differentiate. I would argue that at the core/heart of this is whether the company is mission driven or shareholder driven, as by definition, shareholder primacy always puts the financial gains over other considerations.

“Profit is a desirable by-product and allows for the creation of greater social value; it is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Social value is at the heart, not just a convenient marketing wrapper.”

How do companies act?Despite public and business perception, shareholder primacy is not enshrined in law in the UK and there is some flexibility, which is why we are part of the How do Companies Act campaign.

But this is not the case in the USA. The rise of the B Corps in some North American states helped to challenge this assumption by providing a new alternative legal structure facilitating deviation from the domination of shareholder financial gain. Outside the USA, the B Corp model has helped to indicate that a business can sometimes change its governance to promote business as a force for good, but this is only a small step change in the right direction. It’s important to remember that B Corp status is not the same as social enterprise.

I would recommend listening to the below recent podcast from our US colleague Eric Lombardi, who set up the USA’s biggest zero waste social enterprise, where he talks about how we can change the face of business. He explains so well his thoughts regarding turning current thinking on its head to address huge environmental waste challenges, not only in the US but worldwide. He explains how social enterprise presents a unique way forwards over and above B Corp.

We need to be more radical, as even B Corp status does not address the fact that shareholder value is still a central tenet. This is fundamentally different from businesses that put the act of solving an environmental and or social problem at the heart and why they were established in the first place.

This is why the restriction of shareholder profit and asset lock in social enterprises is so important. Profit is a desirable by-product and allows for the creation of greater social value; it is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Social value is at the heart, not just a convenient marketing wrapper.

Social Enterprise Mark 10th anniversary

A new decade marks ten years of the Social Enterprise Mark

As is my usual custom as we begin a new year, I wanted to share my reflections on 2019 and look ahead to what 2020 (and a new decade!) may bring.

Lucy Findlay at launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in 2010

The national launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in February 2010

I am particularly excited about this year, as it marks the tenth anniversary of the launch of the Social Enterprise Mark. I am so proud of what we have achieved during this time – the Mark has evolved from a regional, funded project to now being the only internationally recognised standard of good practice in social enterprise. We aren’t resting on our laurels though, we have bold ambitions for scaling and building firmer foundations for our work, both in the UK and internationally, and I am excited about the opportunities that lie ahead for us in 2020.

In my new year blog in 2019, I mentioned there was likely uncertainty ahead for the sector, as well as the wider world. Well, here we are a year later and not much has changed on that front! Once again, I think we need to buckle up and be prepared to evolve to adapt to changing situations and take advantage of opportunities as they come along.

The good news is that this is something that we social enterprises excel at! The latest sector research from Social Enterprise UK showed that, despite the economic and political turbulence, UK social enterprises are outperforming mainstream SMEs in terms of increasing their turnover, hiring more staff, high levels of innovation and increasing their social impact. This positive trend is also mirrored internationally. Our visit to the Social Enterprise World Forum in Ethiopia last year gave us a real flavour for the diversity and innovation that social enterprises are exhibiting internationally.

Challenge is where social enterprises thrive, so I feel confident that we can continue to come together as a sector to tackle these and be recognised as a credible and sustainable business model, as well as standing out from the crowd with our different way of doing business.

It’s always hard to summarise what has happened over the course of a whole year into a few sentences, but I have picked out a few of my highlights from 2019:

Moving forwards, these are our plans and priorities for the year ahead:

Providing a pathway to good practice and excellence

As always, our main focus will be on providing robust and credible standards for the sector and supporting social enterprises to demonstrate the added social value they create.

After ten years of developing these standards, we have built a portfolio of accreditations for social enterprises at every stage, which provide a comprehensive pathway to good practice and excellence.

Social Enterprise Mark CIC accreditation badges

In an effort to support those just starting their social enterprise journey, we have recently launched the new Aspiring Social Enterprise accreditation. This entry-level accreditation helps new start-ups to demonstrate their commitment to social enterprise principles from the start and offers tailored support to achieve the recognised standards of good practice represented by the Social Enterprise Mark.

Developing more partnerships

Increasingly, I see our future in creating alliances with like-minded partners (in the UK and further afield), which believe in the need for accreditation. This helps our visibility and reach to social enterprises around the world and will amplify the message and help to create a more global movement for better business and making a difference.

The valuable connections we made at the Social Enterprise World Forum last year will, I hope, mean that we develop closer working relationships to build our knowledge of the social enterprise movement in different countries. We plan to attend the World Forum in Canada later this year, and we also have a couple of international exchange visits, with Richard taking part in the Euclid Network MedUP! peer exchange with a partner in Tunisia, and I will be returning to Siberia to follow up with contacts made during my visit there last year.

Aligning our criteria with the SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals wheel iconResponding to feedback from our Mark holders and international partners, we acknowledge that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a powerful global framework to address the pressing social and environmental issues that we all face, and are pleased to have joined the UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development (UKSSD), which brings organisations together to accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals in the UK.

The work of social enterprises spans these various goals and accreditation is a constructive force in ensuring organisations maintain a momentum towards achieving them. We are looking into aligning our accreditations with the SDGs, especially with regard to how Mark holders report on their social impact. We have made a start on this by asking Mark holders to report on which SDGs they include in their monitoring and reporting of social impact, as part of the annual and full review assessment process. We have also added a new section in listings on the directory to show which SDGs our Mark holders are working towards.

Recognising long-standing Mark holders

Save the date; 2nd MarchLast but by no means least we are so excited to be celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Social Enterprise Mark this year. We are planning an event in London to mark the occasion – more details to follow soon, but in the meantime do put the date in your diaries… 2nd March.

A key part of this celebration will be recognising those organisations that have held the Mark for ten years. We certainly couldn’t have made it to this milestone without these pioneers, which recognised the value of the Mark to their organisation and the wider sector, and I want to personally thank them for their support over the last decade.

I hope as many as possible can join us for the celebrations on 2nd March. In the meantime, all the best for the year ahead!

Artist painting a wall with 'The future will be different' written on the back of their jacket

Social enterprise Vs.
anti-social enterprise?

Oxfma report: just 8 billionaires own the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion peopleRecently there has been a flurry of news and a growing acceptance from the public that the brand of capitalism that puts the shareholders’ interest above all else, is broken. Indeed, the FT recently reported that City Fund managers are calling for a radical rethink and an end to the constant obsession with economic growth.

We are in the middle of societal and environmental disaster, made evident by huge levels of income inequality and poverty (last year Oxfam reported that the world’s richest 1% bagged 82% of the world’s wealth), as well as the Climate Emergency.

It was also interesting to see the recent announcement by the Labour Party regarding their intention to revise the Companies Act to “take on the excesses of the shareholder model and lay some of the foundations of a stakeholder economy”, should they win a majority at the upcoming election.

Last week a shocking new report from the TUC and High Pay Centre highlighted just how broken the ‘shareholder first’ model really is. The evidence set out in the report shows how, in the corporate world, delivery to the shareholder has become an obsession.

Even those more enlightened CEOs who have tried to move outside the straightjacket to take into consideration people and planet (e.g. Unilever) have ended up being potentially strong-armed back into the prevailing model by becoming vulnerable to ‘Hostile Sustainability Raiders’ – i.e. hostile takeover organisations that jump in (in order to make quick financial returns) because the share price has dropped due to lower dividends. Short-termism is factored indelibly into the corporate business model.

The evidence of the resulting behaviours leads to stark consequences not only for those working for those companies, but also to their wider stakeholders and communities. The more money that is extracted for shareholders, the less there is for anything else. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) budgets, increases in wages for workers and social and environmental impact come in as the ‘poor relatives’.

The following startling statistics illustrate the reality versus the hype:

  • In 2018, BP spent 14 times and Shell 11 times more on their shareholders as they invested in low carbon activity
  • Between 2014-18, while FTSE 100 returns to shareholders rose by 56%, the median wage for UK workers increased by just 8.8% (both nominal)
  • In 2018, the 4 largest food and drinks companies paid shareholders almost £14 billion – more than they made in net profit (£12.7 billion). To put that into perspective, just a tenth of this shareholder pay-out is enough to raise the wages of 1.9 million agriculture workers around the world to a living wage
  • Gender inequality is much higher in FTSE 100 companies (the gender pay gap is double the national average), as cheaper women’s labour helps to support increased shareholder returns

Person holding banner saying 'Planet over Profit'Shareholder primacy is reinforced in the Section 172 of the 2006 Companies Act, which requires company directors to act in the interest of shareholders, and only ‘have regard’ to a wider set of stakeholders. There are no significant examples of a director being held to account for their failure to ‘have regard’ for their wider stakeholders. We are working with Social Value UK and other partners to change this.

The How Do Companies Act campaign aims to change accounting behaviour to ensure that accounting practice also takes consideration of social and environmental impact.

Social enterprise (a business model that puts society and the environment before shareholder profit) is part of the solution to this rampant anti-social/environmental trend. We have been saying this for a long time.  Rather than shareholder gain being the sole driver, social enterprises focus on the three ‘P’s:

  • Purpose – social mission locked in through governance and legal form as well as creating social impact as a central tenet (including environmental objectives and impact)
  • Profit – profit and dividends shared by stakeholders for the benefit of the purpose. Check out my colleague Richard’s recent blog for more information on this
  • Power – the involvement of and dialogue with stakeholders around decisions making

Social enterprises (that hold the Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark) dedicate a majority (at least 51%) of their profits to social and environmental purpose, as well as being dedicated to changing society for the better in the way that they conduct their core business. They therefore compare favourably on many different indicators of social benefit mainly because they are focused on social good:

Social Enterprises

(Source: State of Social Enterprise 2019)

FTSE100 (Multiple sources)

Pay real Living Wage

76%

37%

CEO to worker pay ratio

8.4:1

145:1

Shareholder profits

25%

80%

Directors from ethnic minorities

24%

2%

Female CEOs

41%

7%

Given all of this, it is pretty clear that if we are to change society for the better and to tackle the climate emergency we need to challenge much more radically what it means to be a business. We need to stop teaching and assuming that it’s all about getting financially more wealthy and see wealth in a much wider context – creating a better world for all.

Performers at the Social Enterprise World Forum 2019 opening ceremony in Addis Ababa

Getting out of our rut and into the colourful Brave New World!

Lucy Findlay speaking to visitors to SEMCIC stand at SEWF 2019I loved the recent Social Enterprise World Forum, not necessarily for the speeches (as I was busy running our stand so didn’t see those), but for the inspirational people that we met and spoke to. Ethiopia provided a boost to energy levels and a lack of cynicism that is humbling. It made us question ourselves but at the same time feel part of a wider picture.

It was colourful, enthusiastic and buzzing. It didn’t matter that the buses were late for dinner, the feeling of being part of something huge and positive more than made up for ‘Africa time’!

I read Heidi Fisher’s recent blog, where she shared her own reflections on the conference, and she is totally right – we are playing too small. We need to embrace the world and accept that we are not leading the way in the UK. We have so much to learn from those that literally have to get up and go and do it for themselves (albeit with the aid of technology). Someone said to me recently “If there is no money, then it forces partnership work” and they are right. Where there is a will there is a way.

It also highlights the very small world that the UK social enterprise sector inhabits and the rut that we have got into whilst much of the world around us has changed. For example, the obsession that we have for replacement of the state in the delivery of public services and more recently the metamorphosis of getting into corporate supply chains. I am not suggesting that these are bad, but we need to recognise them for what they are; someone else’s agenda – sometimes the means to an end but not an end in themselves.

“Let’s stop arguing about definitions, how we influence government policy and how to get corporations to take us seriously, and instead work with partners to develop a new more colourful and ambitious vision where social enterprise has a key place in changing the World.”

We need to turn this on its head and get back to our roots where social enterprises’ strengths are –  to deliver where the market fails, because it focuses on doing good, not making money for shareholders. African social enterprises models inspire us because that is exactly what they are doing, without funding, government contracts or supply chain deals (as Heidi refers to in her video above).

You can find out about the conference speakers here, and Pioneers Post provided great coverage of the event.

We need to find our family and replug into our values and drivers as well as starting to connect more effectively into those that share them. It was great to chew the fat with a number of people internationally who share this vision, but we need to translate this into action. We at Social Enterprise Mark CIC are in the foothills but want to find others that want to climb the hill!

Let’s stop arguing about definitions (we all know what’s important), how we influence government policy and how to get corporations to take us seriously, and instead work with partners to develop a new more colourful and ambitious vision where social enterprise has a key place in changing the World.

Collage of photos from the Social Enterprise World Forum 2019

Person holding sign saying 'Planet over Profit'

Social enterprise:
to profit or not to profit?

By Richard Cobbett, Assessment and Compliance Manager

Richard CobbettArguably, what principally distinguishes a social enterprise from other forms of commercial enterprise – including other types of “social business” – is the commitment to distributing the majority of profits generated towards social purposes. So why is it that some social enterprises take pride in the label of being “not for profit” organisations – literally going out of their way not to generate a profit? The irony of this is that it could be said these social enterprises are failing to adhere with the fundamental principle that distinguishes their business model.

“wouldn’t it be more useful focusing on what a social enterprise is, rather than resorting to a somewhat reductive label of what it is not?”

There are some who therefore flinch when they hear this “not for profit” label being used in describing social enterprise. As shorthand, it describes an organisation that is not primarily constituted to create personal profit for individuals, or other purely commercial interests – which includes organisations who may not be primarily constituted to serve social needs, address community disadvantages, or similar interests. So wouldn’t it be more useful focusing on what a social enterprise is, rather than resorting to a somewhat reductive label of what it is not? The label can be as misleading as it is helpful, sometimes seeing social enterprises written off as unviable businesses, not worthy of support and investment – because they are deemed to be “uncommercial”.

One possible complaint is that the social enterprise model of profit distribution is one that prevents a business from investing in its commercial success, therefore making it less viable. But this is false: a social enterprise is not prevented from retaining and using profits to sustain, develop or grow the business. If there are additional profits beyond this available for distribution, dedicating them to social purposes, rather than the pockets of individual investors, does not intrinsically make social enterprises any less commercial.

“The more profitable a social enterprise is, the more it can invest in activities and resources that create social benefit.”

GrowthThe reality is a social enterprise should operate along the lines of any other form of business. A social enterprise is committed to pursuing commercial success through trading, but it does so in support of its social objectives and to maximise its potential to generate social benefit.

The sustainability of a social enterprise, and its ability to maximise social outcomes, is therefore dependent on it being commercially successful – in it being profitable. The more profitable a social enterprise is, the more it can invest in activities and resources that create social benefit. But on a more vital level, being a profitable business means a social enterprise is helping ensure it can continue to exist and fulfil its social purposes in the long term.

Some social enterprises may justifiably argue that their in-year expenditure represents an investment in social purposes that has resulted in a deliberate suppression of would be profits; furthermore, in doing so they have avoided corporation tax and have therefore been able to invest more in their social purposes by doing so. Just because they resourcefully managed their income in a cost-effective fashion within the business year, does not necessarily mean the business is unprofitable. This leaves the question, does being a profitable business mean a social enterprise has to show consistent profits each year?

“The model in which a social enterprise “spends all it earns” does not necessarily mean they are either unprofitable or failing to maximise their social output: they may instead be maximising it through the application of income that could have turned into potential profit.”

Although this is a more immediately transparent indicator of commercial success and viability, it is by no means the only one. The social enterprise commitment to profit distribution should necessarily take into consideration its ongoing expenditure and investment, both in terms of how these show fulfilment of social purposes as well as actions to remain commercially viable. But how a social enterprise actually demonstrates its primary commitment to investing in the achievement of social purposes is much more of an organic process; there is rarely a neat equation of “x profits from last year = y social output this year”. Plus, the model in which a social enterprise “spends all it earns” does not necessarily mean they are either unprofitable or failing to maximise their social output: they may instead be maximising it through the application of income that could have turned into potential profit.

How a social enterprise reviews and reports on such matters to stakeholders and communities of interest therefore becomes significant in being able to show transparency of action in line with stated purpose and principles of operation. At the very least it represents good practice for social enterprises to aspire to this.

“Broadly speaking, (expenditure on social impact) falls into three categories: service enhancements, delivering free or subsidised outputs, and altruistic contributions.”

It is fair to say that approaches to social impact reporting amongst our Mark Holders are mixed (which is likely a fair reflection of the sector in general). Most social enterprises just take for granted that income and profits simply carry on sustaining their general social mission. But simply highlighting key areas of expenditure and investment does not have to be a costly or time-consuming exercise, and it at least shows a willingness to explain such matters – which a social enterprise can then be held accountable to. In having started to ask Mark Holders questions about their social impact, we are starting to see common sorts of example emerge in this regard.

Broadly speaking, this falls into three categories:

  1. Service enhancements. These are investments which go “above and beyond” service delivery requirements and expectations – ones that add value or reinforce the capability to deliver social outputs (delivering them “better”). This can include:
    • Additional infrastructure serving stakeholder needs;
    • Tools/equipment and similar resources employed in support of stakeholder needs.
    • Recruitment or training of people that is not recognisably a service requirement or expectation, but which adds to and/or improves the quality of social output.
  2. Delivering free or subsidised outputs. These are investments which show how social enterprises “deliver more” social outputs. This may take the form of:
    • Pro-bono work;
    • Outputs or outcomes in excess of contracted amounts (that are therefore unpaid);
    • Providing subsidised or free products, resources or materials, that may typically form part of a costed and paid-for service (or go beyond what this usually involves).
  3. Altruistic contributions. This is most commonly financial and therefore more easily quantifiable – donations to charities, community groups, projects etc. that support wider social or community needs. But it also encompasses other types of resource contribution. For example:
    • The free use of company resources, loans or donations of other properties, in support of social or community needs (premises space; equipment; other materials or usable assets);
    • Allowing employees to volunteer in the community, or do fund-raising on paid time.
    • Sponsorship (this may not be entirely altruistic as it involves a promotional benefit but the financial contribution could be well in excess of the value this has).

“Social enterprise is a model through which capitalism can be “re-booted”: inherently hardwired to benefit society, not just as side-benefit to the “for individual and commercial profit” motivations of shareholders and owners, but as a primary socio-economic purpose.”

There is much to be gained by raising public understanding of social enterprise as a commercial business model that generate income and profits, primarily in service of public benefit – not simply as “not for profit institutions”. Dare I say it… social enterprise is a model through which capitalism can be “re-booted”: inherently hardwired to benefit society, not just as side-benefit to the “for individual and commercial profit” motivations of shareholders and owners, but as a primary socio-economic purpose. Given the right focus and support, social enterprise can be the harbinger of lasting social change, helping reverse the deeply worrying trend through which the worlds wealth and resources are increasingly converging into the hands of the few.

Maybe this is an idealistic pipedream. But if social enterprises were to get better at shaping the conversation in these terms, it means they are more actively playing to strengths they can use when convincing others to support and do business with them.

Social Enterprise Mark logoThese arguments are bolstered by a willingness to stand up to external scrutiny of such claims, and achieving recognition for how they live up to them. This is why the Social Enterprise Mark exists. Through accreditations that define standards of good and best practice, Social Enterprise Mark CIC provides social enterprises of all shapes and sizes with a platform from which to build and better communicate what they are.

Person in a wheelchair working at a computer

Why are we not employing more people with disabilities?

Chris WalklingBy Chris Walkling

Working in a Mental Health setting, I have been a frontline witness to the many challenges my clients faced in their daily lives. And yet, surprisingly, one of the greatest challenges they had to contend with, had nothing to do with their disabilities per se

And it’s not a problem that normally comes to mind…

Boredom. 

Boredom is something society tends to reserve as a problem only for People without disabilities. But that’s not the case. Nor is it a matter of simply having a bit too much ‘idle time’.

Let’s delve into it a bit more:

Have you ever been unemployed?

I have (does that plummet my Linkedin score?). It’s a week of bliss followed by interminable hours of existential crisis. Without the structure of work, the hours seem like days, the minutes feel like hours, and the seconds crawl past.

Now imagine living like that. Every. Single. Day.

The truth is, unemployment & boredom are far more prevalent afflictions for People with Disabilities than we seem to understand.

And yet, we do appreciate the psychological toll that unemployment & boredom place on People without Disabilities. It is clinically documented that unemployment “damages emotional health”.

The literature cites:

  • Lack of structure.
  • Damage to self-esteem.
  • Increase in Anxiety, self-doubt, & Depression.
  • Sense of “helplessness” due to a lack of direction & meaning.
  • Sense of disconnection with others & alienation from society.

Why do we assume the heavy, psychological disturbances of unemployment to be reserved only for People without Disabilities?

And there’s another misconception here:

Disabled person working at a car washWe tend to think People with Disabilities don’t want jobs. Like employment might somehow be ‘too hard’ for them. An unnecessary addition to their existing challenges and stresses.

But the fact is, employment is not an additional stress they wouldn’t cope with. It’s a way to empower them. It’s a path to fulfillment, identity, resilience. 

And that’s something many People with Disabilities crave. They want to offer value. They want to be contributing members of society. 

How would we feel if society only saw us as burdens? Ignored our potential? Refused our offer to contribute? 

We’d feel miserable. Disconnected. Inhuman.

Why do we think People with Disabilities are an exception to this? Why do we place the psychological burdens of a lack of structure, meaning, sense of value or self-esteem, onto people who are often already contending with existing emotional challenges?

We seem to think People with Disabilities are too ‘preoccupied’ for employment. But the desire for a sense of meaning, life-direction or self-worth are not lofty goals reserved for the able-bodied & minded, they are fundamental human necessities.

It can be difficult to fill the hours working in an Assisted Living Setting

Meals and activities can only take up a limited amount of time. 

It is the long hours in-between that are the most agitated. And, interestingly, these are also the hours where we’d see the most behavioural incidents. It’s demoralising to have that much time to fill. It is, ironically, too much freedom

Unfortunately, the solutions offered are fairly band-aid. Doctors offer antidepressant prescriptions. Netflix & Youtube become the defaults to fill the day. 

But watching movies from 10am to 5pm, with a break for lunch and a trip to the shops, is not a conducive path to wellbeing. Not for a person who is certainly capable of gainful employment. 

Think about it:

If you’d been unemployed for a year, and your Doctor offered you a Sertraline prescription and a few DVD’s to pass the time, how would you feel about that as a solution?

I sincerely believe that every client I’ve ever worked with is capable of at least some degree of employment. And I sincerely believe the lives of every single one of them would be transformed by having a job.

We must shift our attitude towards People with Disabilities, and appreciate them for the resource & value they can offer to the community. If you are an employer, and you have suitable vacancies, I urge you to consider applications from People with Disabilities. Full-time, part-time, ad-hoc or even work-experience. 

The benefits will be entirely mutual. 

Thanks for reading. 


Chris Walkling is a freelance copywriter, specialising in helping social enterprises to build their brand and sell their story.

Challenging the tribal culture to create a brave new world

Given our current political situation we see the negative effects of self-interest and not seeing other points of view at first hand. Many of us ask, why can’t we all work together towards the common good? The sad thing is that tribalism often trumps deviating from the party line in our political system.

In my professional life I have sat in a number of business fora over the years and I often feel like I don’t fit and identify properly. It’s often about the prevailing assumptions, accepted positions and customs and practice that lead to certain behaviours, without any real questioning of those underlying assumptions, i.e. a culture. I’m pretty sure it’s not just about me running a different type of business, more about a dance where everybody knows the steps and cannot deviate from the pattern. If you are unaware of or question the steps, you are cast out or never permitted to be part of the dance (unless you chose to learn them and fall into line of course).

“we need a more a more democratically accountable leadership with clarity about who we are, why we are different and how we can change the prevailing business model.”

Over the years I have found a more extreme version of this lack of fit in the social enterprise world. I’m not sure it is just because I am a woman, although some of it undoubtedly is. Given the wider involvement of women in leadership positions, and the maturation of the sector you would assume that this type of block was less common. However, I feel it’s worse as the tribal culture has spread with the growth of the term across the world.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many social enterprises and leaders beavering away at trying to change the world and supporting each other to do this, but then there are others that decide whether you fit into the established model of the way to do things. If you challenge prevailing thought, then you are irrelevant or worse to the self-nominated gatekeepers. A language of inclusivity and supportiveness hides the maintenance of the status quo.

I don’t think that this will lead to the best results for our movement. We need to be business led and entrepreneurial with more creativity and diversity to ensure that the sector is not just seen through one lens. I’ve been giving it a lot of thought and we need a more democratically accountable leadership with clarity about who we are, why we are different and how we can change the prevailing business model. Most importantly, it should be led most importantly by social enterprises, boosted and supported by those that that share our true values.

“We need to learn from the huge wealth of experiences internationally, instead of trying to control and fit everyone into the same old mould.”

Lucy Findlay and Rebecca Dray signing Social Enterprise Mark franchise agreement

I am currently delighted by the discussions that I have had recently with my colleague Rebecca Dray in the USA about the different attitudes that she sees on a day to day basis. The sector there is largely untapped and there is so much enthusiasm for an openness and transparency about trying something different. We need to go with it and learn from the huge wealth of experiences internationally, instead of trying to control and fit everyone into the same old mould.

I love social enterprise, but we won’t grow and develop and reach our true potential if we don’t welcome diversity.

Lucy Findlay

Tips for getting started in social enterprise

Social Entrepreneur IndexI was delighted to be involved in judging applications for the inaugural Social Entrepreneur Index earlier this year – it’s always great to see more people join the social enterprise community, committed to running their businesses for the good of people and planet.

I know it can be a daunting prospect for those just starting their journey into social enterprise, so as a ‘seasoned campaigner’, I wanted to offer some advice to start you off on the right track:

  1. Clarify your business proposition – regardless of how virtuous your social mission is, if you don’t have a viable business proposition behind it then it will be hard to create social value that is sustainable in the long-term.

  2. Do your research on the market you are entering and be clear from the outset on what it is that your business will deliver, and to who. Defining who your customers are is very important – you can then involve them in the development of your product/service offering to be sure it meets their needs.

  3. Be clear about what it is you are trying to change – you will need to be able to clearly articulate what issue(s) you are addressing and what changes you aim to make. This will make it easier for you to communicate your mission to your stakeholders (customers, employees, partners, local communities etc), and will help you to measure the impact you are having. We routinely ask our Mark holders to demonstrate how they are working to meet their social objectives and realise this isn’t an easy task for most. We have developed a set of social impact questions, which are designed to help social enterprises think about the social impact they create, and to communicate this clearly and succinctly.

  4. Get advice and support – build relationships with those who support your mission and share your vision – create a network of allies who can offer advice and point you in the right direction. Take advantage of the advice and guidance that is available for new social enterprises just starting up, such as the packages provided by UnLtd. Also, learn from the experiences of others – checking out the Social Entrepreneur Index Ambassadors is a good starting point, as they have a wealth of experience and insights.

Aspiring Social Enterprise accreditationIn our mission to support social enterprises at all stages to work towards credible sector-agreed standards of good practice, we have recently introduced an entry-level accreditation for aspiring social enterprises. This enables new social enterprises to prove their commitment to social enterprise principles from the outset, and get started on the pathway to social enterprise excellence.

Applicants will receive tailored support throughout their social enterprise journey, initially enabling them to understand how they can meet the good practice criteria defined by the Social Enterprise Mark, which will hopefully provide useful considerations for future development. For example, we offer tailored support to enable you to get started on measuring and articulating your social impact.

To find out more please get in touch – you can call our helpline on 0345 504 6536 or can register your interest here.


First published on the Social Enterpreneur Index website on 12th August 2019

Rachel Fell at UIMP social enterprise conference_Santander July 2019

Reflections from Santander

By Rachel Fell, Business Development Manager

Buenos Dias! Hola, me llama Rachel Fell. Which, translated to English is … Good Day! Hello, my name is Rachel Fell.

This is about the extent of the Spanish I managed to speak during my presentation at the Social Enterprise and Sustainable Development Goals conference a few weeks ago in Santander, Spain.

Luckily, they had translators on standby to translate our presentations to the Cantabrian people, as well as those visitors from further afield. It was my first visit to northern Spain – and what a delight it was… wonderful food, wine, and coastal walks, accompanied by a comfortable climate. As you may know, they do not speak much English in northern Spain (hence the need for translators), so I had to dig deep to bring out some of the trusty phrases I learnt back at school to get me by whilst I was away on this trip!

Rachel Fell presenting at UIMP social enterprise conference in Santander July 2019I was invited to speak by Ana Fernandez-Laviada, a Professor at the University of Cantabria, who I met at an Enterprise Educators UK event last year, which was hosted by Social Enterprise Mark Holder Plymouth Marjon University. I was asked to talk about the Social Enterprise Mark accreditation initiative and how this is working in the UK, particularly within the education sector, and also to share our experience in international development.

The event, organised by the Cantabria International Campus, UIMP and the University of Cantabria, was held at the beautiful Palacio de la Magadalena. The objectives of the week-long event were to raise awareness of social enterprise and to inspire organisations and individuals to implement social enterprise initiatives.

Rachel Fell outside Palacio de la Magadalena in Santander

I was speaking on Day 2, which opened with Professor Jonathan Levie of the National University Ireland Galway. Jonathan shared some great examples of students who have gone on to start their own social enterprises, such as The World’s Big Sleep Out, Revive-Eco.com and the Ocean Clean Up.

Jonathan ended his session by sharing with us some interesting statistics on the distribution between economic, social and environmental motives of entrepreneurs in the UK. Interestingly, back in 2009 the biggest motivator was economic fulfilment, whereas now the focus is much more centralised between all three – phew, how reassuring to see how this supports the demand for the social enterprise business model!

He also emphasized how “It’s about being entrepreneurial, not just about wanting to start a business”, which I know we all feel strongly about here at SEMCIC when talking to our Mark Holders about being credible businesses who know how important it is to balance their social mission alongside being sustainable.

Karel Vanderpoorten from the European Commission followed with a session sharing what they are are doing on social enterprise and also shared some great examples of social enterprise initiatives from around Europe, such as The Social Club in the Hague and Magdas in Austria.

This was followed on nicely by Holke Brammer of Yunus Social Business, who shared their plans to address and support the Sustainable Development Goals using 5 pillars:

  1. Access to Finance
  2. Access to Market
  3. Improving framework conditions
  4. Social Innovation technologies and new business models
  5. International collaboration

Gareth Hart presenting at UIMP social enterprise conference in Santander_July 2019Following my own presentation, Gareth Hart, Director of Plymouth’s social enterprise Iridescent Ideas and Chair of the Plymouth Social Enterprise Network (PSEN), shared with the audience all the great things the ‘Social Enterprise City’ of Plymouth is doing around social enterprise and how PSEN supports this work.

So, all in all it was a fantastic day to attend. The other speakers were very interesting to listen to and network with. Although I can give an account of the days programme I participated in, it was just a small part of what was organised across the week.

Other speakers included the CEO of AUARA (the first Spanish social enterprise to be awareded the Social Enterprise Mark) Antonio Espinosa, our good friend Dr Emily Beaumont of Plymouth Marjons University, Chris Blues from the Skoll foundation, as well as representatives from B-Corp, UnLtd, Ashoka and Enactus. The week was closed with the awarding of a Honoury Doctorate to Professor Muhammad Yunus.

I came away from the event feeling a camaraderie with those I met and talked with, who are also serving to promote the inspirational and diverse world of social enterprises. In a time of much uncertainty and fragmentation between countries, it was nice to feel that together we all have the same passion and drive to make the Sustainable Development Goals work and create an environment where social enterprises thrive.

 

Lucy Findlay

Challenging perceptions to close the disability employment gap

Friday 28th June was the fourth UK Employability Day; a day for employers and employment support organisations to celebrate their hard work supporting people to enter or progress in employment. The theme this year was ‘Closing the Gaps’; with the disability employment gap – the difference in the rate of employment of disabled and non-disabled people – at around 30%, a figure which has remained unchanged for more than a decade, action clearly needs to be taken.

I’m very new to this specialist field but my main observations have been that disabled employment often seems to be stereotyped into a) volunteering or b) low paid manual work. According to Scope, 1 in 3 people see disabled people as less productive than non-disabled.

Such attitudes have led to significant unemployment, underemployment and under-valuing of the skills that disabled people can bring to the workplace. Often, this could be changed with minimal adjustments and a more flexible and creative approach to how a particular job is carried out.

Disabled employees photo montage

I watched the final episode of The Restaurant that Makes Mistakes recently and although it did a good job of raising the profile of what people with dementia can do on a voluntary basis, I was disappointed that a) it could not be carried on as a social enterprise if it was a viable business, and b) that it’s led to mainstream restaurants taking on more people with dementia in an unpaid capacity. If they are doing a good job, why are they not being paid for it? Disabled people should not be subsidising the profits of the restaurant trade!

With this in mind, we welcome some positive messages coming out of Government – Theresa May recently announced a set of new measures to break down barriers faced by disabled people. This included a consultation on proposed measures to help employers better support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions in work, which will be published soon.

At a recent roundtable discussion with DWP and organised by UnLtd, I was pleased to connect with like-minded businesses to look at how social enterprises and entrepreneurs can be supported to address the disability employment gap and to support UnLtd in its aims to help address this with Government.

Social Enterprise Disability Employment MarkOver the last 18 months, we have been working with the Supported Business Steering Group to develop a new quality standard for social enterprises that have a focus on providing supportive employment for disabled people. The Social Enterprise Disability Employment Mark (SEDEM), launched in April, has been designed to ensure that employment standards for disabled people are raised and are fulfilling the greater challenges set out in the 2011 Sayce Report, which examined how more disabled people could be supported into employment.

SEDEM recognises exemplar employers that promote equality and diversity, by providing valuable support to those people that encounter the greatest barriers to work, enabling them to find and maintain meaningful employment. It’s not just about providing a job for disabled people, it’s about creating good quality jobs and providing a pathway for career development.

We want more social enterprises and entrepreneurs to think about how they can move into being exemplars of good practice in helping disabled people get decent jobs. We encourage people to register their interest in applying for this new standard of transparency, which includes a Committed status for those that are not quite there yet.

We need to shift attitudes and move to action. Many people experience some kind of disability or long term condition over their lifetime. Currently we are missing out on the extensive skills that disabled people can bring, and the fact is that increased diversity in the workplace can actually increase business performance.

Social enterprises are well placed to lead by example, being values led businesses. So what’s stopping us?

 


Guest blog written for UnLtd, published on 19th July 2019

Society Profits logo

Society profits from new social impact support business launching in the USA

By Rebecca Dray, CEO of Society Profits

Lucy Findlay and Rebecca Dray signing Social Enterprise Mark franchise agreementA growing movement across the USA is getting a substantial boost this month, as we launch Society Profits in Michigan, bringing with us the Social Enterprise Mark accreditation and a partnership with the Good Market online platform.

Society Profits will be the first social enterprise support business in the USA to offer curated access to accredited, transparent and trustworthy sellers that exist solely for the purpose of doing good in our communities and for our environment.

Social enterprise is a growing business sector in the USA, combining the best of the non-profit and for-profit sectors; running businesses that sell everyday goods and services in companies that reinvest their profits for social or environmental benefit. Social enterprises often exist to employ those farthest from the labour market and tend to be run by women and minority ethnic groups. Research suggests that the USA social enterprise sector employs over 10 million people and has annual earned revenues in excess of $500 billion. I believe that consumers and corporate purchasers want to rest assured that buying from these companies is genuinely giving money directly to those in need, and that externally verified accreditation is essential for this transparency.

Offering third-party accreditation to social enterprise businesses, and routes to market through social impact procurement, is a concept that has been benefiting society in other parts of the world for many years. I feel strongly that this approach has real potential for local communities in the USA, helping the many hundreds of social enterprise companies in the country to grow and diversify. When the public can trust that a business is reinvesting all of its profits in social or environmental causes, they can buy with confidence and vote with their wallets for a better way of doing business.

Last week, I was in London with Lucy Findlay to sign the exclusive US franchise agreement for the Social Enterprise Mark – the only global accreditation standard for social enterprises. The Social Enterprise Mark uses rigorous criteria to externally verify that an organization is operating as a social enterprise.

There is no other accreditation like this currently in the United States. The Social Enterprise Mark goes further than the B Corp Certification. B Corps are for-profit businesses committed to responsible practices, whereas social enterprises have a social or environmental purpose baked into the very core of their business model. The Social Enterprise Mark accreditation provides a set of clearly defined standards for social enterprise and externally verifies that these standards are being upheld.

Good Market logoI am also excited to be working in partnership with Good Market to provide a curated online platform and marketplace that makes it easier to find and connect with accredited social enterprises. Good Market has a basic curation process that is accessible to startups and local initiatives, but enterprises that have third-party verification earn additional points and are recognised as being at a higher level. When it comes to social procurement, third-party verification is critical. Corporations and other institutional buyers need to be fully confident that they are sourcing products and services from accredited social enterprises.

To find out more about Society Profits, becoming an accredited seller or socially responsible buyer, please contact me via email or on +1 734 623 9907.

Person in suit doing yoga pose

The case for investing in the wellbeing of your staff, and the key to getting it right

By Heather Kelly, Founder of Aura Wellbeing

 

“When the well’s dry, we know the worth of the water.” Benjamin Franklin

 

Heather KellyKeeping our wells abundant, thriving with water is essential for survival. For an organisation, survival and success is dependent on performance of employees. For staff to perform at their best, to thrive, being at both optimal physical and mental health is a big contributor.

Workplace wellbeing is something that’s been making a recent splash in the business world. Some employers may be still looking on with hesitation to get their feet wet, wondering if it’s a fad or fashion. Well think back to Corporate Social Responsibility fifteen years ago and where it’s evolved to today, the fashion of workplace wellbeing is likely to stay, and here’s why.

The majority of the measures by companies to improve workplace wellbeing were until recently considered ‘perks’ or employee benefits. But as research from the Global Wellness Institute shows, $3billion is the current cost of work-related stress to businesses worldwide. And the 2017 Farmer/Stevenson Thriving at Work report revealed that the yearly cost of absenteeism to UK employers alone is £8.2billion. And these numbers are on the rise.

The matter of employee health and wellbeing is no longer a ‘nice to have’, it’s becoming a hard, economic factor of productivity. Governments, economists and a growing number of employers are urging that it’s time to take this topic as seriously as we take research and development and investment in technology.

The positive news is progress is being made. The UK government has set workplace mental health standards for employers to follow (Farmer/Stevenson Thriving at Work); some employers are now including performance indicators on staff health and wellbeing in annual reports (like Thames Water); and even the young Royals are campaigning for improved mental wellbeing in workplaces (Heads Together & Mental Health at Work).

So, if you’re a business leader who is considering getting your feet wet, you may ask, where do we even start? And what’s the most efficient and effective way to embark on the journey.

With mental health or stress contributing to the majority of absences, it’s suggested that core investment should be made here. But with more research now making links between what we eat and our mental and physical wellbeing, it’s important to also promote healthy eating alongside physical exercise for overall illness prevention.

But the key to getting it right is not making this a box ticking exercise. According to survey data from The Global Wellness Institute, if an employee identified their company as genuinely “caring about their health/wellness” that employee’s overall health, stress and job engagement/satisfaction improved significantly.

But what does creating a culture of care look like in practice?

  • Having a robust wellbeing strategy and running targeted awareness campaigns throughout the year.
  • A culture that nurtures strong, supportive relationships between staff and managers (offering training on how to effectively line manage mental wellbeing).
  • Execs & managers leading by example, consistently walking the talk when looking after their own wellbeing alongside the workforce’s.
  • Encouraging a culture where people can be as open and honest about their mental health as they are about their physical health.
  • Encouraging unplugging from work on holidays and during unsociable hours.
  • Providing paid wellness days for staff to look after self-care.

For Social Enterprises, often small or medium-sized businesses, operating with leaner teams and operating budgets—reliable and well human resource is critical. When business objectives are already social mission-driven, creating a culture of care by looking after the wellbeing of one’s own arguably has a natural values-alignment.

It’s no surprise that one of the UK’s leading providers of workplace mental health support, Mental Health First Aid CIC, is a social enterprise who shuts its doors one day a year for all staff to take a wellness day.

For such future-thinking businesses, starting to re-assess their role in promoting wellbeing as both a business imperative and as part of their wider social responsibility is becoming fashion—they’re understanding the worth of their workers so, as Benjamin Franklin would say, their wells will not risk going dry. Even if the bottom line or Health & Safety are the initial motivators for many, with consistent top-down commitment, creating a genuine culture of care and thus a sustainably well workforce is achievable.

 


Heather Kelly was formerly Business Development Manager at Social Enterprise Mark CIC, and now works as a Wellbeing Consultant and Health and Wellbeing Coach at Aura Wellbeing.

How helpful video content can boost your online traffic

Chocolate Films logoBy Alexandra Lens, Digital Marketing Officer at Chocolate Films

YouTube is not only the most popular video hosting platform in the world, it is also the second largest search engine.

Are you surprised? Then have a think: what was the last time you turned to video to learn something? If you recently looked up how to cook chili con carne, how to unclog your sink or how to do squats properly, chances are you found the answer on YouTube.

In Google’s popular communication strategy ‘HERO, HELP, HUB’, this is the HELP content.

HELP films are designed to answer any question your audience might ask or search for online. They allow you to show your organisation’s human side by being helpful and answering the public’s needs.

Crucially, they also drive traffic to your video channels, social media accounts and website. Is there a question clients ask you time and time again? What explanations are people actively searching for online related to your product or industry? Answer those questions and you will pull people to your content, whilst establishing your brand as an expert in the area.

1. HOW-TO VIDEOS

One popular type of HELP content are How-To Videos. This film we produced for Migrant Help teaches newcomers in the UK how to use a cash machine to withdraw money:

Ask Us About Animated Explainers

Another example, is Historic Royal Palaces showing viewers how to perform a Victorian-style Morris Dance.

2. EXPLAIN HOW YOU OPERATE

HELP films can be a response to questions about your organisation’s way of working, or your area of expertise. Here, bakery-cafe chain Le Pain Quotidien tells the story of how they produce organic coffee, from bean to brew:

3. SHARE PRACTICAL INFORMATION

HELP videos can also communicate practical information about your organisation, business or venue with your audience, like The Wallace Collection in London showing school groups how to enjoy a visit to the museum. We made this film in the most relevant way possible – with the help of local primary school children:

This is just the start of what HELP videos can be. Depending on your industry, organisation, products and areas of expertise, you can think of many more types. What about a tutorial for a specific product, a review from a customer using your new service, or a team member answering FAQs?

Keep in mind: what questions are your audience asking and actively searching for online? Answer those with helpful videos and you’ll drive traffic to your online channels.

For more information and advice on using video to boost your business, see our free e-book:

Chocolate Films e-book download button


This blog was first published on the Chocolate Films website on 5th June 2019.

Lucy Findlay

Outside our echo chamber – getting the bigger picture on growth

Sometimes in the social enterprise world it can feel like we are talking into an echo chamber. We all want to change the world, but we are talking to ourselves!

Cathedrals Group Lord Dearing Memorial Panel May 2019Earlier this moth, I was privileged to speak at the Cathedrals Group annual Lord Dearing memorial lecture panel. A question was raised about the priorities for personal action on climate change.

I was sitting alongside the eminent environmentalist Sara Parkin, and we both pointed out that essentially governments and business have succeeded in letting themselves off the hook by personalising the issue (i.e. what do I have to do ?), rather than focusing on what needs to be done at a national and international level to make businesses (by far the biggest polluters) change their ways and clean up their acts. As this is the Year of Green Action (I am proud to be an Ambassador) and we have a Climate Emergency, we should be concentrating on keeping up the pressure to see the bigger picture.

In a few weeks we will hold our annual conference. Our line-up is great and wide-ranging, focusing on the thorny topic of economic growth. It’s not just about social enterprise, it’s about the fundaments of what we need to see in changing society and business for the better. We are constantly fed a diet of messages about business being the answer to all problems… If this is the case, why do the world’s richest 1% now own more than the rest of us combined?

An Oxfam report published earlier this year shows that our economy is broken, with hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty while huge rewards go to those at the very top. With the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, it is clear we have failed to create a more socially just society. I’m really looking forward to having Alex Maitland from Oxfam’s Future of Business Initiative delivering the opening keynote at our conference on 20th June to set the scene.

Our friend Heidi Fisher has just written a great article, which questions how we can change from an intervention-based approach to a prevention-based approach, i.e. a world where social enterprises exist to prevent a problem rather than treat it. Many successful social enterprises, such as the Big Issue with their ‘hand up’ rather than ‘hand out’ ethos, help people get back on their feet, and are also taking steps to try to address the root of the problem, but homelessness is still on the increase. To achieve a solution requires a more fundamental change in thinking by government and society as a whole about the social impact of all our activities and policies.

The recent Social Mobility Commission’s annual state of the nation report reinforces what we have known for some time: many people left behind on low wages (which have not kept up with living costs), which holds them back from building a better life for themselves and their families. We know that higher levels of inequality lead to political instability, shorter lives for both rich and poor, as well as more corruption and crime. At a global level, extreme inequality is undermining the fight against poverty and widening other inequalities (e.g. gender and race inequality).

Urgent action needs to be taken to close the gap between rich and poor and to address climate change, so join us at our conference and help us to change the world!

Buy conference ticketsFor more information about our conference, and to book your tickets, follow the below link:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/growth-a-force-for-good-social-enterprise-mark-cic-conference-2019-tickets-54593630017

I hope to see you there!

How workforce engagement is delivering financial efficiencies

By Brian Jones, Chief Executive of Partnership of East London Co-operatives

Brian Jones, PELCAs a Social Enterprise delivering healthcare services, we are committed to the principles upon which we were founded, however, it is equally important to recognise that the organisation has to be financial sustainable to meet future demand.

I became CEO of the organisation at a time when we had lost a major contract and more than half of the 350 workforce were due to be transferred to the new provider; there was an urgent need to understand the core costs of the business and reduce the size of the organisation.

In order to deliver savings successfully you need to engage with staff, ensuring that they form part of the journey. Senior leaders within the organisation should remain positive about the process, providing reassurance to staff about the future.

In the past six months, we have delivered more than £1million of financial efficiencies, enabling vital funds to be redirected towards the frontline care of patients. This has been achieved in a number of ways, including the renegotiation of property rents, performance management of suppliers and by also focusing on the workforce and the internal culture.

It is important to recognise that any pursuit of cost savings should not be done in isolation or in a way that could be perceived as a ‘top down approach’; this can destabilise a workforce as people naturally feel unsettled and nervous about their job security. In order to deliver savings successfully you need to engage with staff, ensuring that they form part of the journey. Senior leaders within the organisation should remain positive about the process, providing reassurance to staff about the future.

By having this early discussion with staff, they felt part of the process, affording them the opportunity to produce sensible ideas to reducing costs.

I believe that we have been successful, because we have engaged our people in the process, being open and honest about the need to reduce our overheads and reposition the organisation; enabling us to invest in delivering high quality, safe services for the future. Like your organisation, our staff were hardworking and dedicated to delivering a high quality service to the patients that we serve, however, we knew that we needed to focus time and energy upon specific areas. In advance of starting this journey, I met with staff to explain the strategy that we would be pursuing and the rationale for it, ultimately, reducing overheads, enabling us to redirect those savings towards improvements.

By having this early discussion with staff, they felt part of the process, affording them the opportunity to produce sensible ideas to reducing costs. Despite pursuing a significant financial recovery program, the most recent staff survey has produced some unexpected results; high levels of staff satisfaction and recognition from staff that they felt valued by the management. These were some of the highest levels of staff satisfaction that we have achieved in our 14 year history.

Organisations shouldn’t be afraid or embarrassed to renegotiate with suppliers; we pursued an approach of informing our suppliers what we were willing to pay, versus what they were charging us.

With limited contractual information, the fastest way in which I was able to determine potential areas of savings was by simply spending a few hours reviewing our bank statements. This gave me an immediate snapshot of our suppliers, the costs attributable to each and provided me with an understanding of where to focus my time.

Organisations shouldn’t be afraid or embarrassed to renegotiate with suppliers; we pursued an approach of informing our suppliers what we were willing to pay, versus what they were charging us. There are numerous websites available where you can benchmark a vast array of different services, and we were able to use this as a baseline for conducting negotiations. Using this approach, we were able to reduce the cost of across a number of areas ranging from consumables through to software; all without a requirement for us to extend our existing contract periods.

We used a similar approach to that which is widely seen across the retail sector at the moment, of liaising with our landlord to obtain a rent reduction at our corporate offices. Initially hesitant, the landlord agreed a compromise which enabled our organisation to a real term rental and service charge reduction.

Embarking on an efficiency program can be daunting, but this can be a lever to effective change whilst still managing short term priorities with strategic goals and long term vision. It’s a balance between realising the positive economic aspects of change in conjunction with social aspects of workforce engagement.

The process of delivering financial efficiencies are typically focused upon identifying and achieving savings, identifying new ways of working can also be used to reduce costs. We are, at pace, now working with partners across the UK and Europe to develop new services based upon AI technologies. The repositioning of the organisation, coupled with our reduced overheads has meant that we have been able to pursue growth opportunities – we are on course to increase turnover by 20% this year.

Workplace change shouldn’t necessary have a negative effect. In our case, whilst undoubtedly there were pressures of managing an increased workload, there was an upbeat vibe across the organisation. Embarking on an efficiency program can be daunting, but this can be a lever to effective change whilst still managing short term priorities with strategic goals and long term vision. It’s a balance between realising the positive economic aspects of change in conjunction with social aspects of workforce engagement.  Leadership provides the key, to facilitate and realise cost savings within a stable environment.  Once balance is achieved, it then provides a platform for growth, sustainable development and produces the foundations from which the organisation can build upon.

Lucy Findlay with Irina Makeeva and young social entrepreneur Anna in Novosibirsk

From Russia (Siberia) with love

What an amazing experience. My recent trip to Siberia, for the second leg of the Euclid Network PeerEx exchange, far surpassed expectations and well and truly dispelled the myths – there were no gulags and it wasn’t -40 degrees! In fact it was spring so only just below freezing most of the time.

I arrived in trepidation into Novosibirsk, Siberia, having briefly and bizarrely crossed paths with my husband for an hour at Moscow Airport (I was flying out, whilst he was flying home from a trip to Kazan). What are the chances of that?!

My exchange partner Irina Makeeva made me feel so welcome.  Both she and her ten year old son Kuzma (who was keen to chat in English) gave me huge hugs when I arrived. I think our chatting in the taxi to the hotel was a bit fast for him as he apparently only understood the word ‘recipe’ on the whole journey – so started the food focus of my trip! Novosibirsk is 4 hours ahead of Moscow (which is 3 hours ahead of UK) so the added jet lag was probably going to be an issue too.

They have mitigated their risks through trying to diversify and build income generation models. They have bought their own premises (building ownership seems to be an important part of NGO business practice in Russia), but they are also more reliant on Government funding as a result of the situation.

My first day was spent initially having a look at the sights of the city. It is actually the third largest city in Russia (after Moscow and St Petersburg). It grew due initially to being on the Tran-Siberian railway line, and its distance from Moscow attracted a national relocation of people and services in the 1950s due to the threat of Nuclear War. The city has a lovely centre with an opera house and old giant statues of Lenin, some revolutionary soldiers and workers in the central Red Square. Myth has it that it is also the centre of Russia – but many places claim this.

We then went on to spend the day with Irina’s colleagues at the Siberian Resource Centre, to hear about the work that they are doing to support NGOs across the region. It was set up just after the fall of Communism in 1994/5 by three visionary women who identified the need to work with government to coordinate support and training for fellow NGOs (as well as an element of quality standards). Funding comes from a variety of sources, but they have challenges, especially more recently when they fell foul of government suspicion about the activities of foreign funded NGOs, and were declared ‘foreign agents’. The label was only removed once all foreign funding was sent back.  This also led to a suspicion of me, from the authorities, I later learned….

They have however mitigated their risks through trying to diversify and build income generation models. They have bought their own premises (building ownership seems to be an important part of NGO business practice in Russia), but they are also more reliant on Government funding as a result of the situation.

In the evening we went out for a lovely dinner with the whole Resource Centre team. The Siberians make fine salads and I was amazed at the diversity of what was on offer. I was told that due to the food embargos there is now a good market in ‘Polish’ cheese (French repackaged in Poland) and Belarussian Prawns (no coastline!).

Interestingly, charity shops in Russia are completely different to the UK, as there is no heritage of them. So having seen what other countries have done, they have reinvented the concept – a much more modern, young and fashionable feel (again, primarily run by young people).

The following day was an early start, with a business breakfast and filmed interview with the Siberian social entrepreneur network Smart Concept, which is shown below.  It turned out that they were due to hold a Festival of Social Entrepreneurship in Novosibirsk that weekend. I was asked lots of questions, but the one that surprised me most was ‘What do you think of Jamie Oliver?’ Obviously celebrity chefs get coverage the world over.

We then did a filmed tour of featured social enterprises.  All were run by hugely enthusiastic young people and included both a Dog and a Cat Café (not together!) as well as charity shop. Interestingly, charity shops in Russia are completely different to the UK, as there is no heritage of them. So having seen what other countries have done, they have reinvented the concept – a much more modern, young and fashionable feel (again, primarily run by young people).Cat and dog cafes in Siberia

After a very late lunch, we got a taxi to the district outside Novosibirsk to a place called Akademgorodok. It is a purpose-built science university, built in the woods in the 1950s, designed to attract young scientists, enticed by the relative academic and lifestyle freedoms being so far from Moscow.

Museum apartment at Akademgorodok in SiberiaOver a ‘soft vodka’ and herbal tea, we discussed how people lived in this community in the time of the USSR in the ‘living museum’ of a local academic’s house. She has set the apartment up with typical Soviet 1950 furnishings as a replica of the early days of the institute as well as collecting a huge level of knowledge and artefacts from the 50s and beforehand (even dating back to the last Tsar). It appeared that collecting these items and indeed finding them is relatively rare in Russia.  She was very impressed with my vintage 1920s brooch.

Impressively, more than 50% of the income is earned – the closest I’d seen to a sustainable social enterprise model

Lucy Findlay and Irina Makeeva with Margarita at Constellation of Heart FoundationOn my final Siberian day I visited Margarita Semikova, who runs the Constellation of Heart Foundation. Margarita is a driven, enthusiastic woman with a strong business sense and set up the NGO that links companies to volunteering opportunities and training opportunities as part of their CSR. As with many NGOs it seems that there are rich benefactors on the Board. In this case the Board member had bought and paid for the renovation of a property in a shopping centre the middle of a very trendy student area in Novosibirsk. The property had originally contained many spaces for NGOs, including a training suite, café and shop.

However, the local authorities decided to raise the ground rental overnight, so much of it had to be reconverted to commercial space to bring in the income to cover costs. It’s Margarita’s desire that this will all be reconverted once business is better. Impressively, more than 50% of the income is earned – the closest I’d seen to a sustainable social enterprise model – but it just goes to show how fleet of foot you need to be in Russia to address the next challenge.  But Margarita is a determined woman!

Euclid Network PeerEx group in Moscow_March 2019Following my trip to Siberia, Irina and I travelled back to Moscow to meet our fellow PeerEx colleagues, who had mainly been in Moscow and St Petersburg (except Kate Welch, our eminent Social Enterprise Mark Ambassador, who had been in Nizhny Novgord!) We were greeted as the survivors – because we had been in Siberia. Irina gave me a t-shirt which I wore saying ‘I’ve been to Siberia and survived’!

The exchange trip finished with a trip to the British Ambassador’s House for the grand finale – a slice of Britain in Moscow… it was all I would have expected, complete with cucumber sandwiches and British portraits in a suitably grand building overlooking the River Moskva. I was also asked to speak about my impressions, which were as follows:

  • Social enterprise seems to be a growing but unknown sector (outside Russia)
  • There is some great practice that we can learn from (especially around refreshing charity shops and using them as community hubs)
  • There are challenges to sustainability including government bureaucracy and taxes, cultural suspicion of foreigners especially classifications of ‘foreign agent’
  • We could do more together including linking to the university communities better and helping Russian NGOs have a greater online presence (there is an issue though with different alphabet and social media)
  • The world is people and we all experience the same things and whatever the barriers we need to work more closely to help address them
  • I feel privileged to have met so many lovely people and will never forget my trip to Russia and Siberia (which is in Russia whatever people tell you!)
Colleagues fist bumping

You need never walk alone

Tim SegallerIn the final of a short series of blog posts on sustainable leadership and team-work in social enterprise, leadership coach and social entrepreneur Tim Segaller explains why strong working relationships can make all the difference

So far in this blog series, I’ve explored two foundations for long-term success in social enterprise. Firstly, authentic vision and leadership: founding your business on the solid ground of a focused social vision, and on your natural leadership strengths – rather than unrealistic and pressurising ideals. Secondly, mental resilience: maintaining energy and inspiration in the face of complex pressures – through simple but powerful mindfulness-based techniques.

The third foundation is building strong relationships. As social beings, we all thrive when we’re in good connection with others. Surrounding yourself with the right people – and getting them on board with your social mission – is critical for your business. This includes all the people you work with or for – employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

Some people may have more natural ‘people skills’ – but it’s also possible for anyone to learn how to nurture and strengthen healthy relationships at work. In my work with leaders and teams, there are two related ways I help them do this.

Firstly, let’s look at emotional intelligence (EQ) – the subject of much research in the last 20 years. Put simply, it’s about understanding and being comfortable with the emotional landscape of both yourself and those around you. Leaders and managers with a high EQ are able to really ‘get’ other people – their motivations, preferences, and challenges – and use this knowledge to make good decisions in everyone’s best interests. Helpfully, the best way to train EQ is through precisely the same set of mindfulness-based skills as outlined in my previous blog on resilience. It’s all about deepening your awareness of self and other.

Secondly, there’s the ‘co-active’ model of leadership and communication. Sometimes the people we work with or for may get stuck – bogged down in complexity and over-thinking, or lacking confidence or relevant experience. When that happens, there are simple processes you can follow to help others access their own problem-solving resources. It’s about stepping into a ‘facilitative’ mode and giving others the space to think clearly and creatively – rather than stepping in to micromanage or fix things for them. Not only does this support others’ long-term development, it also frees up your time and energy to focus on the bigger strategic picture.

As I come to the end of this blog series, let’s sum up my three foundations for sustainable leadership and team-work into a single narrative. By cultivating inner qualities of resilience and resolve, you’re able to think more clearly, calmly and creatively. This allows you to access the ‘fuel’ of your authentic vision and leadership strengths – to keep you going when marketplace challenges get tough. Personal resilience also naturally leads to great working relationships, which are an essential support to anyone navigating the rocky landscape of growing a successful social business.

 


Tim Segaller will be running a workshop on ‘Sustainable leadership and team-work in social enterprise’ at the Social Enterprise Mark Conference on 20th June 2019. Book your conference tickets here. To find out more about Tim and his leadership coaching and training, go to www.enlivenedminds.com

Working with the grain of your brain: mental resilience for social enterprises

Tim SegallerIn the second of a short series of blog posts on sustainable leadership and team-work in social enterprise, leadership coach and social entrepreneur Tim Segaller explores the importance of mental resilience for social enterprises

My first blog set out the challenge of sustaining energy, creativity and inspiration in the face of complex challenges. I introduced three key foundations:

  1. authentic vision and leadership;
  2. mental resilience;
  3. strong relationships.

In exploring the first foundation, I explained why your vision and mission statements should be authentic, inspirational expressions of your desired social impact. And I made a case for an ‘authentic’ leadership ethos – based on your own natural leadership strengths – rather than striving to become the ‘ideal’ leader. This blog focuses on the second foundation: mental resilience.

Running a social enterprise can be tough (while rewarding!). Once the ‘honeymoon’ set-up phase has passed, there are many complex challenges: securing finance for scaling up, managing cashflow, and recruiting the right people. Such challenges can lead to frantic fire-fighting and plate-spinning. You may manage the intensity for a while. But eventually it’s likely to catch up with you – leaving you and your teams stressed, exhausted and inefficient. In the worst cases, it can lead to burnout or going bust.

The good news is that there are simple approaches to help you maintain energy and inspiration in the face of these stresses. Taken from the practice of ‘mindfulness’, they’ve been shown in neuroscience research to develop a steady mind – for focus, clear thinking and productivity. I’ve helped hundreds of people learn these skills, structured around a simple ABC formula:

Awareness – of your mental and physical experience

Being with experience – creating space to deal with intractable problems and challenging emotions

Choosing wisely – by responding flexibly instead of reacting automatically

For a taste of this approach, try this short exercise: Sit comfortably with your eyes closed. Notice sensations of breathing in your belly. If your mind gets distracted – by thoughts, memories or plans – just come back to your breathing. Keep doing this for a few minutes.

This exercise gives your brain a ‘power rest’, allowing the mind to become clearer and sharper, and the body more energised. It’s like rebooting yourself – so you can approach whatever is ahead of you with more clarity and resolve.

This is what resilience is all about, and it’s arguably the most important capacity at work. It allows you to adapt wisely to fast-changing conditions, which is critical for social enterprises. Sometimes the bright glare of your social vision can obscure the need to shift focus or tweak your business model. Resilience gives you mental agility to continually fine-tune strategy to meet the twin demands of delivering on social impact, and securing revenue and growth.

When you’re resilient you’re also better able to relate better to the people around you, and to build strong relationships. That’s what I’ll be exploring next week in my third blog.

 


Tim Segaller will be running a workshop on ‘Sustainable leadership and team-work in social enterprise’ at the Social Enterprise Mark Conference on 20th June 2019. Book your conference tickets here.

To find out more about Tim and his leadership coaching and training, go to www.enlivenedminds.com

Runner on road

A marathon not a sprint: long-term success for social enterprises

Tim SegallerIn the first of a short series of blog posts, leadership coach and social entrepreneur Tim Segaller explores how social enterprises can sustain energy, creativity and inspiration for the long haul

The passion, determination and creativity of social entrepreneurs are qualities to be celebrated. They are driving the growth of the sector, and broader social change.

My experience as co-founder of a coaching and training social enterprise, and in coaching leaders and teams in organisations, has taught me the critical importance of sustaining these qualities in the long-term – particularly in the face of complex challenges like accessing finance to scale up, managing cash flow, or recruiting and retaining the right people.

Most social entrepreneurs have shown they have the capacity to deal with tough challenges, otherwise they wouldn’t have got their businesses off the ground in the first place. But we all have our breaking points under pressure – in the worst cases leading to total burnout or going bust.

So how can you and your teams sustain energy and inspiration year after year, even when the going gets tough? That’s what I’ll be exploring in this blog series. I will set out three key foundations:

  1.  authentic vision and leadership;
  2. mental resilience;
  3. strong relationships.

Starting with the first: authentic vision and leadership. Every business needs a clear vision to provide ongoing focus and motivation to its people. This is particularly so for a social enterprise, as delivering on its social mission is usually as important as the need for revenue. So it’s vital to ensure your vision and mission statements fully and accurately reflect your original inspiration. They should be clear, heartfelt expressions of the social impact you want to achieve and why. Crucially, they should feel authentic and uniquely yours – rather than a worthy but bland general statement that you can’t really connect with.

On the theme of authenticity, let’s turn to leadership ethos. An easy trap to fall into, particularly in challenging times, is to think you must master new leadership models or skillsets. Of course there are always useful new tricks to learn. But often striving hard to reach a ‘corporate’ ideal can leave you feeling stressed and exhausted – preventing you from thinking clearly and acting decisively.

It’s far better to lead naturally, as yourself, based on your own distinctive leadership style and inspiration – trusting you’ve got what it takes to succeed. I’ve seen this many times in my work with leaders and teams: things run more smoothly when people play to their strengths and make space for their completely human imperfections.

None of this means that you should be complacent or resistant to learning and change. Successful social enterprises adapt to their environment – shifting focus and strategy, and evolving their business model. I’ll be exploring exactly this in more depth in my next blog, in the context of my second foundation – mental resilience.

 


Tim Segaller will be running a workshop on ‘Sustainable leadership and team-work in social enterprise’ at the Social Enterprise Mark Conference on 20th June 2019. Book your conference tickets here.

To find out more about Tim and his leadership coaching and training, go to www.enlivenedminds.com

Karen Stanton, York St John University

Enhancing the contribution HE makes to the economy and society

By Professor Karen Stanton, Vice Chancellor of York St John University

In higher education (HE), we are certainly fond of the old acronym! I’m not sure how many people outside the sector will have heard of the TEF, REF and KEF. These refer to the Teaching Excellence Framework, the Research Excellence Framework and the Knowledge Exchange Framework.

Although, there’s much to be said about both TEF and REF, the focus of this piece is KEF, the newest of the frameworks, which is currently out for consultation until 14th March.

In November 2017, the Government asked the HE regulator of the time, HEFCE, to develop the KEF to support its Industrial Strategy ‘Building a Britain fit for the future’. Now led by Research England, KEF aims to enhance the contribution HE makes to the economy and society. In return, it seeks to bring the inspiration of that wider world back into universities and colleges.

The KEF has 2 main purposes:

  1. to provide Universities with information on their knowledge exchange activities
  2. to ‘provide business and other users’ with a ‘source of information, which may increase visibility of potential university partners and their strengths’

Research England is setting out to assess a University’s Knowledge Exchange performance against 7 perspectives:

1) research partnerships;

2) working with businesses;

3) working with the public and third sector;

4) skills, enterprise and entrepreneurship;

5) local growth and regeneration;

6) IP and commercialisation;

7) public and community engagement.

The inclusion of the 7th perspective (public and community engagement) should be applauded, and Research England thanked for its inclusion. But how is it to be measured and presented? It is proposed that a ‘narrative’ will be part of this process.

Social Enterprise Gold MarkIt is to be hoped that the Social Enterprise Gold Mark, which York St John University is proud to have achieved, will be recognised as part of the evidence to be used to demonstrate that universities are doing the right thing about knowledge exchange. The Gold Mark recognises business excellence and best practice in governance, business ethics and financial transparency. It is the only quality mark to provide a framework for achieving social enterprise excellence and recognises the important activity that institutions are doing in their local communities.

So, what can you do about KEF? If you believe that Universities should have a role in social justice and social enterprise, then you should go online and take part in the KEF consultation exercise – it is open to individuals and organisations.

Perhaps you might what to join me in commenting on the phrase ‘provide business and other users’ with a ‘source of information, which may increase visibility of potential university partners and their strengths’, quoted earlier in this blog. It important that we exchange the knowledge created and kept in universities with the most vulnerable members of our society.

The KEF, and particularly the public and community engagement element, is surely the framework which reflects many university’s values and their commitment to social justice and social enterprise. The Social Enterprise Gold Mark provides a quality standard that could be used to measure how far universities are achieving this.

 


Professor Karen Stanton is Vice Chancellor of York St John University. York St John changes lives by helping students to develop the confidence, knowledge and adaptability they need for a successful graduate career and fulfilling life.

Karen  is also a Trustee of UCAS, Vice Chair of the Cathedrals Group and a member of the GuildHE Executive, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. She is also an Ambassador for the Uprising Charity and Inspiring Digital Enterprise Award.

Lucy Findlay speaking at International Social Enterprise Conference in Sri Lanka

Looking outwards – Sri Lanka and beyond…

International Conference on Social Enterprise and Social FinanceIn January I was lucky to be invited to Sri Lanka by Lanka Social Ventures, to address the 2nd International Conference on Social Enterprise and Social Finance. It was an amazing and unforgettable experience in so many unexpected ways.

The conference itself attracted very high profile speakers, such as the Governor of the Bank of Sri Lanka, but as is often the case with conferences, it was the discussions that happened on the side lines that fascinated me. We learnt a lot, even from my whistlestop three day trip!

The need for sustainable business models that will keep addressing the social and environmental challenges faced once the aid agencies inevitably pull out is becoming more pressing.

Firstly, the vibes that I picked up are that the social enterprise movement in Sri Lanka is such an obvious fit for the sustainable development of their economy. The country has gone through so much recent turmoil, with the combination of the civil wars and the devastating Tsunami in 2004. This has made the country relatively aid and donor focused, which brings its own set of challenges. The need for sustainable business models that will keep addressing the social and environmental challenges faced once the aid agencies inevitably pull out is becoming more pressing.

This is where the women-led social enterprises combined with the Fair Trade model come in! I was amazed at the level of co-operation and synergy between these entrepreneurs and business owners. The social enterprise business model fits in so many ways, for instance in addressing the extreme social challenges faced by women trying to earn a living, many of which have to travel to the Middle East to access work.

Having been so well embedded in the Fair Trade world, the Sri Lankan’s completely ‘get’ that there is a need for meaningful external certification/accreditation/ verification.

Selyn handloom weavingThose that stay experience huge challenges finding work that can be combined with the challenges of child rearing, as well as older women, who also find it hard due to cultural constraints. Examples of local social enterprises include Selyn, which is 99% women led and empowers women by giving them flexible working arrangements to make beautiful handloomed products to fit around their family commitments.

I was also very impressed with the way in which all these businesses have come together to develop the Good Market. Led by another impressive female social entrepreneur, Amanda Kiessel, this directory has over 825 ethical businesses, which are mainly social enterprises, based in Sri Lanka and now further afield. It has been very much community-led and is clear about the importance of certifications for all the producers and suppliers, to provide reassurance to buyers.

I encourage you to join it (although most suppliers are currently in Sri Lanka, it is expanding), it uses the Social Enterprise Mark to verify social/environmental impact and is free to apply!

This brings me onto the issue of certification and accreditation. Having been so well embedded in the Fair Trade world, the Sri Lankan’s completely ‘get’ that there is a need for meaningful external certification/accreditation/ verification. Following the conference, I was working with a number of stakeholders to develop ideas for an accreditation for social enterprises. One of the main challenges and issues discussed was ‘How do we ensure that this is robust and that the assessors have credibility too?’

We are the business models of the future and we can prove our credentials by being social impact led, commercially viable and focused on our stakeholders rather than profiteering for shareholders.

Erinch Sahan speaking at International Social Enterprise Conference in Sri Lanka

Erinch Sahan of WFTO

My final point is about alliances with the wider new economy movement – i.e. those that want to see genuine changes to the prevailing business models and the importance of credible certification in this mix. Brexit has made us look inwards, which is not healthy. The conference gave me a chance to catch up yet again with the pioneering David Brookes of Social Traders in Australia and the inspiring Erinch Sahan from the World Fair Trade Organisation (he was keynote speaker at our 2018 conference).

In Victoria (Australia), the government has its own social procurement policy, which requires that goods and services are bought from social enterprises. This seems much more robust than our Social Value Act and requires robust certification, which is provided through the Social Traders Mark. It is also clear that the World Fair Trade Organisation is the social enterprise wing of Fair Trade, with its own robust certification of social enterprises in its network.

We must work with these key allies to stand up to the challenges. We are the business models of the future and we can prove our credentials by being social impact led, commercially viable and focused on our stakeholders rather than profiteering for shareholders. As comments at the recent World Economic Forum prove, global corporate behaviour has caused a lot of the trouble we find ourselves in – we therefore need a radical change, not anti- business, but business that shares its wealth much more fairly with all people, not just those select few at the top. This is something we will be addressing at our 2019 conference, which will examine whether growth is always a good thing.

To hear more about social enterprises and Fair Trade in Sri Lanka I would recommend listening to the below WFTO podcast with Erinch Sahan, Amanda from Good Market and Selyna from Selyn.

Kat Luckock

What to include in your Social Impact Report

By Kat Luckock, Founder of Share Impact

So, you’re starting to think about developing your Social Impact Report and what you might need to include in it.

Like all documents or materials you produce for external consumption it’s important to think about who your audience for this report is – what will they be interested in reading about? What are the key messages you want to convey to them? And, what might they be looking for?

What's your story chalkboardThere’s no point creating pages and pages of facts and figures if it’s not useful and relevant to those reading it.

This list is not exhaustive but is to help you start planning what you might need to bring together in to a report. This way you can start to think what you don’t have and how you’re going to start collecting or finding it.

The essentials of what to include:

  • Why your organisation exists and what you do
    • What are the needs / problems you’re trying to solve?
    • Do you have evidence to back this up? Be sure to include this
    • What are you trying to achieve? What is your vision, mission and values?
    • What do you do?
  • Headline figures – These are often good to include as an infographic. The purpose of this is to highlight those key facts and figures you want to share, if people read nothing else of the report you want them to read this bit – sometimes includes outputs as well as outcomes and impact data. Some organisations choose to share just these as an infographic on their website.
  • Detail of your outcomes and impact – This should form the bulk of your report for obvious reasons. What have you actually delivered and achieved – what evidence do you have to back this up? This could include your:
    • Ouputs and outcomes – what you’ve actually delivered and the immediate change
    • Social Impact
    • Financial Impact / Social Return on Investment (SROI)
    • Environmental Impact
    • Testimonials, Quotes or Case Studies (which bring the data to life)
  • Lessons learnt and areas for improvement – it’s always good practice to recognise the things that haven’t gone as well as you’d hoped or planned for, as well as the things that did. A report that doesn’t include any information about targets not being reached, or things that didn’t work out as planned always feels slightly disingenuous. So, explain what didn’t go as planned, way you think that was the case and how you plan to improve it next year or what you’ve learnt from it.
  • Next steps and plans for the future – this can be a good place to outline your intentions, goals or objectives for the next 12 months. Maybe as a result of your evaluation you’ve decided you’re going to do something differently or change the way you operate. Alternatively, this could include reflections on your impact measurement approach, recognising gaps in the data and how you plan to develop this in the future.
  • Basic overview of your finances – for most organisations including a summary of your headline figures (income, expenditure and operating profit/loss) for previous year, current year and project forecasts for next year is a useful addition to a social impact report. It provides useful data to potential funders and investors, as well as partners and others potentially looking to support or work with you. Even if they’re not what you had hoped for it shows openness and accountability (it’s public information anyway once you final your accounts).

Photos on laptopIt’s also important to include images of your organisation ‘in action’ to bring the data and stories to life. This isn’t about creating a wordy document resembling a thesis. It should reflect your brand and form part of your wider business and marketing strategy, think about what needs to be shared and what you can leave out. The simplest impact reports are often the best.

Here are some optional extra’s you may also want to consider including in your report:

  • An executive summary or Welcome from your CEO/Board
  • If this is your first impact report it can be nice to include your ‘Journey so far’ or Key Milestones you’ve had along the way. Often best demonstrated on a simple timeline.
  • About the Founder/ your team – again depending on the purpose and audience of your report this can be another nice way to introduce who you are
  • Your Theory of Change or how you’ve gone about collecting data and measuring your impact (methodology)
  • Thanks to – funders, partners, supporters etc
  • Who you work with or have been supported by – key partnerships / funders

 


Kat Luckock is an Impact Strategist & Business Coach for social entrepreneurs and ethical retailers. She specialises in helping businesses measure and communicate their social and environmental impact to stakeholders and customers so they can build communities of support and increase sales and income. 

Kat works with social entrepreneurs all over the world and is excited to write a series of posts for the Social Enterprise Mark blog throughout the Autumn. This blog was first published on the Share Impact website on 14th January 2019.

Rising to the challenge with social enterprise

As we begin a new year, I am sure I am not alone in reflecting on 2018 and looking ahead to what 2019 may bring.

With continued political, economic and social turbulence, there is surely much uncertainty ahead for the social enterprise sector (as well as the wider world), what with the international rise of populism and the implications of the impending Brexit still not certain. One thing that will remain constant is the need to evolve and adapt, and the need for social enterprise to take advantage of the opportunity to do things a little differently.

Undoubtedly there will be numerous challenges for us all to face in the year ahead. I want to continue to work together to address these challenges whilst promoting social enterprise as a sustainable and credible business model (for now and the future).

On a personal note, my 2019 got off to an exciting start… I am delighted to be appointed an MBE for services to social enterprise in the Queen’s New Year Honours list. This accolade is testament to the growing strength of the social enterprise sector, and a recognition of the work that Social Enterprise Mark has done in raising the profile of both social enterprise and accreditation.

As we look ahead to the new year (our tenth year of providing credible standards for the social enterprise sector!), we have a number of priorities, the core of which remains providing robust and credible standards for the social enterprise sector and demonstrating its added social value. I have outlined our key plans for 2019 below:

Opening up the Social Enterprise Gold Mark to smaller social enterprises

Social Enterprise Gold Mark

Through consultation with our Mark holders, we have become aware that the fees for the Social Enterprise Gold Mark can present an obstacle to some smaller organisations.

We want to open up this valuable Mark of social enterprise excellence to as many as possible, and therefore have decided to reduce the annual licence fee for the lower fee tiers (up to £15m turnover), in order to enable some of our smaller customers to benefit from the higher level of accreditation and the support that the Gold Mark process offers.

Continued growth in new markets

In 2018, we continued to push the boundaries of the traditional social enterprise world, and we plan to do more of the same in 2019:

  • International:
    • The Social Enterprise Mark now has a presence in 11 different countries. We hope to continue our international expansion in 2019.
    • I am delighted to have been invited to the International Conference on Social Enterprises and Social Finance in Sri Lanka later this month to speak about the importance of assessment and accreditation for social enterprises.
    • I am attending the Euclid PeerEx exchange visit to Siberia and Moscow in March, to share good practice and catch up with our Russian friends
    • After attending the 2018 event in Edinburgh, we plan to attend the 2019 Social Enterprise World Forum in Ethiopia in October.
  • New quality mark for Supported Businesses:
    • Over the last year, we have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Supported Business Steering Group to develop a new quality mark/framework for businesses that provide extra employment support for disabled people with the greatest barriers to work.
    • Social Enterprise Disability Employment MarkThe Social Enterprise Disability Employment Mark (SEDEM) will provide assurance to DWP on the quality of employment outcomes for disabled people, which will hopefully help to ensure a long-term future for these businesses, which provide vital employment opportunities for people who have a disability.

Raising standards in social enterprise

We will continue to develop the Social Enterprise Mark and Gold Mark, based on the feedback received in the consultation we conducted in 2018. This may include the introduction of new tiers/levels of accreditation to provide a more comprehensive journey to social enterprise excellence.

Responding to feedback

In the next month, we will be sharing a stakeholder survey, which will provide an opportunity for Mark holders, partners and other stakeholders to give feedback on their experience of the service we provide, and to have their say on the future direction of Social Enterprise Mark CIC and our accreditation services. This feedback is invaluable as it will enable us to develop robust and credible standards that meet the evolving needs of the expanding social enterprise sector.

We would love to hear your plans for the year ahead. Here’s to a successful 2019 and may the social enterprise sector continue to diversify and expand to create positive social change.

Stacks of gold coins

Paying workers in your social enterprise

By Shaziya Somji, Managing Director of Harris Accountancy

This is the third in a series of posts Shaziya is writing for our guest blog.

Shaziya Somji, Harris Accountancy ServicesOnce an organisation decides to pay individuals, it will need to consider setting up payroll in order to pay the correct income tax, national and pension contributions.

To set up payroll, the organisation must register with HMRC as an employer and submit payroll information monthly or quarterly to HMRC, along with the payment of PAYE and NIC.

Employers don’t pay the first £3,000 of employer’s National Insurance Contributions, provided certain conditions are met. From April 2020 this allowance will be restricted to employers with a NI bill less that £100K.

There are instances where an organisation can pay individuals as self-employed individuals/contractors. However, the organisation has to consider off-payroll working rules (information available on the Gov.uk website).

There are three main areas to consider in order to establish if an individual is employed or self-employed:

Factors in employment status

Control

Who decides what, how, when and where the worker completes the work?

Substitution

Can the worker send a substitute?

Mutuality of obligation

Is the employer obliged to offer work and is the worker obligated to accept it?

 

Below is an outline of the rates applicable for payroll:

  • Income tax: payable from gross wages at 20% at basic rate or 40% for higher income earners.
  • NIC Employee: 12% or 2% for higher income earners
  • NIC Employer: 13.8% payable by the organisation
  • Pension by employee: 3%
  • Pension by employer: 2%

For all of the above, there are allowances – please see links in the list of references below.

 


Shaziya Somji is Managing Director of Harris Accountancy; an accountancy firm specialising in working with CICs and Social Enterprises. For further details or advice on tax for your organisation please book a free call  via 0121 4558055 or online at www.harrisaccountancy.co.uk.

References:

Shaziya Somji, Harris Accountancy Services

Investment relief available for social enterprises

By Shaziya Somji, Managing Director of Harris Accountancy

This is the second in a series of posts Shaziya is writing for our guest blog.

Harris AccountancyAn organisation can look for loans and investments that would entitle the investor to a tax relief, provided it meets the conditions of that particular scheme. The organisation can check with HMRC prior to receiving the investment through an Advance Assurance and a Compliance statement, which must be sent to HMRC every time shares are issued under the scheme.

See the references list at the end of this post for links to detailed information on the applicable criteria.

Below is more information the available tax reliefs:

Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR)

Community Interest Companies (CICs), Community Benefit Societies with an asset lock, and charities can apply for this relief when raising finance through shares and loans (charities however can only apply for loan investment tax reliefs).

This relief would entitle the investors to 30% tax relief on their investment provided the investment is held for three years, along with certain criteria being met. On disposal of the investment there are tax reliefs available to cover any gain. (*see Capital Gains Tax relief below)

Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS and SEIS)

Companies with a permanent establishment in the UK can apply for EIS relief within 7 years of their first commercial sale. This scheme offers 30% tax relief to the investors. When a company is raising funds (i.e. when it starts to trade) then it can apply for the Seed EIS within two years. This would enable investors to benefit from a generous 50% tax relief.

For all schemes there are eligibility criteria and conditions to be met in order to enable investors to benefit from the tax reliefs.

Capital Gains Tax Relief

When shares held in above schemes are disposed, gains arising on disposal on investment can be exempt if it has been held for three years.

Alternatively, one can claim for deferral relief. This can be applicable when you invest in SITR, EIS or SEIS the year you have a gain on disposal. The gain may be chargeable in later years. Here is a link with additional information.

Research & Development tax credits

R&D tax credits can be claimed by companies that work on innovative projects in science and technology. It can be claimed even if the project is unsuccessful. This tax credit allows you to deduct an additional 130% of the qualifying costs.

More information on the criteria and how to claim can be found here.

 


Shaziya Somji is Managing Director of Harris Accountancy; an accountancy firm specialising in working with CICs and Social Enterprises. For further details or advice on tax for your organisation please book a free call  via 0121 4558055 or online at www.harrisaccountancy.co.uk.

References:

Diagram explaining taxes for social enterprises

Taxes explained for social enterprises

By Shaziya Somji, Managing Director of Harris Accountancy

This is the first in a series of posts Shaziya is writing for our guest blog.

Shaziya SomjiIt is a common misconception that Social Enterprises are exempt from tax. For HMRC, social enterprises are treated the same as limited companies for tax purposes. On a positive note, there are some reliefs available to social enterprises and charities.

In order to help you understand the different areas, I will be writing a series of guest blogs for Social Enterprise Mark CIC, which will cover the below topics:

• Corporation tax and VAT
• Payroll taxes
• Investments reliefs

Corporation Tax

Corporation tax is payable on the annual surplus (profit) at 19%. This is normally payable nine months and one day after the accounting year end. A simple way to work out an estimate of the surplus would be as below*Corporation tax calculation

*This is an estimate to enable you to budget. There would normally be adjustments and reliefs before coming to the final corporation tax figure. Also see section below on Grants.

VAT

An organisation needs to consider its ‘taxable turnover’ on a regular basis to monitor if it has reached the VAT registration threshold of £85K.

A few definitions first; taxable turnover is the income received that is considered chargeable to VAT, i.e. this excludes any income received that may be exempt or outside the scope of VAT. For example:

  • Exempt supplies would be health services provided by registered doctors, education provided by an eligible body, and insurance services.
  • Outside the scope of VAT are voluntary donations to a charity, postage stamps provided by Royal Mail and welfare services provided by charities.

VAT is charged at either standard (20%), reduced (5%) or zero rate (0%), and these all count towards the £85K threshold.

Here is a link to an extensive list of services and its respective VAT category.

There are options for organisations to register for VAT accounting schemes provided they meet the requirements. Click here for more information on the schemes.

From April 2019, organisations registered for VAT (compulsory registration) will need to comply with the HMRC new system of MTD (Making Tax Digital), which requires documentation to be held digitally and VAT returns to be submitted to HMRC electronically. For this reason, it will be advisable for organisations to use software compatible with HMRC Application Programming Interface (API) for book-keeping. (More details can be found in VAT Notice 700/22).  Software like QuickBooks are compatible with MTD.

Grants received

Grants received by a social enterprise are NOT always exempt from corporation tax and VAT. It depends on the nature of service and the agreements in place. Here is a link to an article explaining this in more detail:

https://harrisaccountancy.co.uk/2016/08/grant-treatments-for-tax/

 


Shaziya Somji is Managing Director of Harris Accountancy; an accountancy firm specialising in working with CICs and Social Enterprises. For further details or advice on tax for your organisation please book a free call  via 0121 4558055 or online at www.harrisaccountancy.co.uk.

References:

Stacks of gold coins with small plants on top next to a wooden house

Delivering regional growth through social enterprise

I was recently asked to be part of a panel session at the GuildHE conference, which looked at how universities (and other institutions) can deliver regional social and economic growth.

Oxfam report: An Economy for the 99%For me, behind the fundamental issue of delivering social and economic growth, is the question ‘for whom and why’? Given that the world’s richest 1% now own 82% of the world’s wealth – we have patently been failing to create a more equal society, with many people left behind on low wages that have not kept up with increasing living costs. We know that more inequal societies lead to political instability, shorter lives for both rich and poor, as well as more corruption and crime.

So how can we change tack and look at alternatives to create a more equal society that has a stake in economic growth and addresses the needs of the locality? Social enterprises are part of the answer – these are businesses that focus primarily on the needs of their stakeholders rather than profits for shareholders.

“So what about the future? How do we move to a more sustainable society and economy? The strait-jacket view of how businesses operate must change.”

However, businesses such as the Big Issue, with their ‘hand up’ rather than ‘hand out’ approach, although helping people get back on their feet, do not tackle the root cause of homelessness. There are social enterprises that aim to do this, but I would argue that it requires a more fundamental change in thinking by society and government as a whole about the social impact of all our activities and policies. The recent UN report on poverty in the UK illustrates this, showing the shocking results of policies and actions where this doesn’t happen; effects that impact the most vulnerable – the poor, women, ethnic minorities, children, asylum seekers, single parents and those with disabilities.

I am often asked how can we measure ‘social impact’ and ‘value’? Is there a magic formula that has eluded us all this time? After many years of trying and failing to find academic answers and time consuming and expensive methodologies, there has been an admission that statistics only show us a narrow interpretation and the human stories that back up the statistics are often more important. I will never forget Nigel Kershaw, Chair of The Big Issue saying “If we’d had to evidence our social impact the Big Issue would never have got off the ground.”

All the social enterprises that apply for our accreditation are required to state how they create social value alongside showing their essential business credentials. This sometimes involves statistics but often it’s simply describing and proving how they have made a difference to and with their stakeholders.

“This is a challenge facing the wider social enterprise sector. Should we let the government off the hook by trying to fill in the gaps and delivering public sector resources, or should we find the niches where we can add value by nature of our strengths and focus?”

A number of universities are now actively demonstrating their social value through accreditation with the Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark.  We believe that enabling social, economic and cultural prosperity lies at the heart of what makes a university good at what it does, and through our HEI network we are interrogating various aspects of this conundrum. Universities, of course, are themselves wealth creators and important employers, investing money in the local and regional economy and with their capacity, skills and resources, they can reach parts that others can’t.

There is a huge range of good practice – for example York St John’s work in mental health and business development, Solent’s work with the Maritime sector, Plymouth College of Art’s placed based industrial strategy including the creative arts school in the most deprived area of Plymouth, and Winchester’s work with supporting regional suppliers and local community asset development.  I could go on!

This positioning does present some challenges though, especially in the light of austerity, declining resources at the national and regional level, as well as current uncertainties around the effects of the impending Brexit.

Professor Nick PetfordIn Northampton for example, the VC of the University recently contributed to a Guardian article about the role that the university could play, in acting as the glue in the absence of the bankrupt County Council. The university is dedicated to creating social impact, and supports all their students to understand the merits of social innovation and working with the local community to not only to provide direct employment, but also co-founding social enterprises. For example, Goodwill Solutions helps ex-offenders, addicts and former service personnel into employment. The university also works to support local community placements and supports the development of new social enterprises.

We need to be careful though, about displacement- it cannot completely take over the role of the Local Authority. As the state shrinks we could see universities’ resources being used to fill the gaps left by the withdrawal of the public sector. Where do responsibilities start and finish given the more challenging funding environment that some universities themselves are experiencing?

“It is not just about ‘a bit of CSR around the edges’ but about a more fundamental change where the stakeholders are given the same attention as the shareholders, and where the government considers ‘social value for money’ a crucial part of delivery of services.”

This is a challenge facing not only universities but also the wider social enterprise sector. Should we let the government off the hook by trying to fill in the gaps and delivering public sector resources or should we find the niches where we can add value by nature of our strengths and focus? The balance between economic and social issues always requires interpretation of where we can work best and how we can work with others most effectively to leverage scarce resources and bring in other partners, such as local social enterprises, businesses and the public sector.

So what about the future?  How do we move to a more sustainable society and economy? The strait-jacket view of how businesses operate must change. We need to look back at history to a time where businesses had a key role in their local and regional economy as part of their mission. It is not just about ‘a bit of CSR around the edges’ but about a more fundamental change where the stakeholders are given the same attention as the shareholders, and where the government considers ‘social value for money’ a crucial part of delivery of services with an equal weight and understanding to interpreting pure outputs and crude number crunching.

I believe we have a long way to go with this. In many ways we have taken steps backwards over the last few decades. I’m ever the optimist though and speaking to students and young people at recent events there has never been a clearer message that they don’t just want to make money – they want to make a difference. So perhaps there is hope for the future…

Lucy Findlay

Thinking bigger… ten years on (part 2)

This is a follow-up to my previous blog from September 2018

Last month I shared my reflections from the Social Enterprise World Forum, which I had recently attended, ten years after attending the inaugural event.

This prompted me to think about how much has changed in the social enterprise sector since then, which led me to reflect on our own development in that time. Ten years ago, we had just developed the Social Enterprise Mark and were piloting it with organisations in the South West. From what was a small regional project, we are now widely recognised as the authority and standard bearer of accredited social enterprise, both in the UK and overseas. All our income is self-generated through the direct delivery of the accreditation, or associated services.

I am a believer in practicing what you preach… last month I said the sector needs to be more ambitious and think bigger. This of course also applies to our own organisation; we can’t stand still… we continually adapt our services to changing market needs, which has included developing an international assessment process that can now be applied anywhere in the world.

International Social Enterprise Mark holdersThe Social Enterprise Mark now has a presence in 11 different countries. But we don’t want to stop there – we are thinking bigger and want to be internationally recognised as the global champion of social enterprise standards, alongside others who share our principles and values.

To this end, we are excited to have been invited to speak at a large social innovation summit in Sweden later this month, and I have also been approached to speak at an international social enterprise conference in Sri Lanka in early 2019. I am also participating in a Russian peer exchange, where I hope to build valuable partnerships with international counterparts.

As I said last month, we all need to acknowledge that collectively we are part of the bigger answer and be pro-active in finding ways to achieve this. We would love to hear your ideas about how we go about this!

Kat Luckock

Why social enterprise?

By Kat Luckock, Founder of Share Impact

This is the third in a series of posts Kat has written for our guest blog.

Why does social enterprise matter? What does it really offer us as an alternative to existing business practices?

I am super passionate about social entrepreneurship – you could say evangelical. However, I know there are many people confused by the concept and others who have simply never heard of it.

For me, if we are to make social entrepreneurship the norm (rather than the exception) and help scale it’s growth throughout the economy, more people need to learn and understand what it’s about, and also, more importantly, the impact that it can create.

Having spent the last 6 years operating in the social enterprise sector and being lucky enough to hear some amazing experts share their knowledge and insights I wanted to enable more people to access this information about what social enterprise is, why it matters, and what difference it can make.

Why Social Enterprise Virtual Summit_Nov 2018The ‘Why Social Enterprise’ Summit is my way to help in this mission. It’s a two week, virtual summit with a wide variety of guest experts talking on a diverse range of topics from what is money and where is wealth held, to why do people matter, and how are businesses and consumers responding to this changing model?

Why Social Enterprise Virtual Summit 2018

Why I created the summit…

At a conference for social entrepreneurs earlier this year I was disappointed to see so few people in attendance, especially when the speakers and content of that conference were so useful, interesting and significant. It was mentioned by many people there that these discussions needed to get out to a much wider audience. I highlighted that the conference had really missed a trick by not streaming it live and utilising social media especially as some of the speakers had tens of thousands of followers on platforms like Twitter and Instagram.

It sparked an idea I had seen done in other industries. What about a free virtual summit where people could sign up and either join live or watch and listen to the presentations and discussions at their own convenience? This way we could reach a much wider audience, in different time-zones and with differing priorities.

Attending events and conferences isn’t always easy: taking time away from work or other commitments; the cost of the ticket and travelling; arranging child care etc. All that’s required for a free virtual summit is an internet signal and computer device.

So here it is. Interested in learning more about social enterprise at a time that suits you? Join live or watch the replays throughout the two weeks (19th – 30th November).

Simply sign up here for free: https://share-impact.lpages.co/why-social-enterprise-virtual-summit/

 


Kat Luckock is an Impact Strategist & Business Coach for social entrepreneurs and ethical retailers. She specialises in helping businesses measure and communicate their social and environmental impact to stakeholders and customers so they can build communities of support and increase sales and income. 

Kat works with social entrepreneurs all over the world and is excited to write a series of posts for the Social Enterprise Mark blog throughout the Autumn. To find out more about Kat visit the Share Impact website.

Brexit – Millions are ready for an opportunity…

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

Steve Hawkins, Pluss CEOThe UK is due to leave the EU in six months. There are many questions still unresolved, but one thing is clear. Whatever decisions are made between now and next March, UK employers will face a struggle after Brexit to find low skilled workers to keep their businesses moving.

A new report from the respected Migration Observatory at Oxford University calculates that over half a million EU citizens who currently work in the UK are carrying out low skilled jobs. These are jobs that don’t require qualifications gained after the compulsory schooling age. They include 132,000 people in cleaning jobs, 120,000 in basic hospitality businesses like coffee shops, 96,000 in warehousing and 90,000 working in factories.

That’s not all. In lower-middle skilled jobs (those involving some simple training as well as school qualifications), over 80,000 EU citizens currently work in our care services, 74,000 in food processing and 68,000 in shops and stores.

With parts of the UK experiencing virtual ‘full employment’, the Migration Observatory report confirms that current plans to address the likely shortfall of labour with non-EU countries will not be sufficient as the predicted number of EU workers in the UK falls.

But there is a solution closer to home…

We know that 1.36 million UK citizens who are keen to work don’t currently have a job. This might be because they are struggling to find the right job with the right employer, or because their support needs mean they need help to develop the right set of skills to help them secure that job.

Pluss is at the forefront of employment support. We provide specialist support for individuals with health conditions and disabilities to secure the right job with an employer who feels confident that they have recruited a great employee. Our conviction is that most people, with the right support, can be helped to realise their potential in work, and can make a significant contribution to our economy.

We believe that Brexit provides a real opportunity for government to reduce the welfare budget supporting working age people, currently standing at £81bn, by providing the necessary support for many of those 1.36 million Britons who are seeking a helping hand to find work and build a career in post-Brexit Britain.

#NooneLeftBehind

Julie Hawker_Cosmic

Leading the way as a Social Enterprise Ambassador

By Julie Hawker, Joint CEO of Cosmic

Cosmic was Social Enterprise Mark holder number one. Although that position was very closely contested by the Co-operative Group South West!

In those days, I was heavily involved as Chair of RISE – the regional body supporting social enterprise developments in the South West – and therefore was also part of the team which developed and successfully launched the Mark. I also served for several years on the Board of Social Enterprise Mark CIC, working to develop its strategy for national and international developments.

Cosmic logoFor all of the years since then Cosmic has continued to support and encourage the further impact which the Social Enterprise Mark can make to the wider sector and business in general. The Mark has been a fundamental part of Cosmic’s brand identity for well over a decade now, and it has proved a highly effective way to promote to the world our social impact credentials.

Cosmic’s commitment to social enterprise remains as strong as ever, and the Mark acts as a regular reminder for all stakeholders – staff, Directors, partners and clients.

In more recent years, Cosmic has been able to embed the Mark into all of our marketing and promotional materials. As the sector and the Mark has gained wider recognition, it has become easier to describe how we use our business model to achieve social impact, but at the same time, the Mark still represents a very useful tool for us to engage in questions and discussions about how the model works at Cosmic. Describing that our commercial services (web development, training and tech support) have the ability to generate profits, which are then 100% utilised to develop social impact projects and match-fund our work in this area with other sources of funding has become a key message for our stakeholders and clients.

For example, our investment in digital apprenticeships for our own business and others, or more recently our involvement in the Enhance Social Enterprise programme, which provides digital business support for other social enterprise; both of these involved Cosmic’s own investment to achieve social impact. More broadly speaking, Cosmic operates every day in achieving social enterprise – staff, directors, partners and members all act as ambassadors to social enterprise, constantly seeking ways to achieve more social impact and share this ethos.

Cosmic is very proud to have been Social Enterprise Mark holder No.1 and we very much consider ourselves as a sector leader and ambassador. We will continue to champion the role which social enterprise plays in improving society in UK and abroad.


Julie Hawker is Joint CEO of Cosmic, a social enterprise based in Devon, which is very highly regarded for its work in addressing digital skills development and digital inclusion as key priorities across the region. Julie is also a Social Enterprise Mark Ambassador, committed to raising the profile of the Social Enterprise Mark.

Rachel Fell and Lucy Findlay at the Social Enterprise World Forum

Thinking bigger… reflections on the Social Enterprise World Forum

This year was the 10th anniversary of the Social Enterprise World Forum (SEWF) in Edinburgh. I attended the first in 2008 (also in Edinburgh). So much has changed since that year, when the world economy had taken a tumble. We now have a new world order; all the old certainties have disappeared. The world seems a much more unpredictable, prickly and divided place.

Has the social enterprise world changed too? There are certainly far fewer big annual gatherings of social enterprises and far fewer familiar faces in the audience. Our stand attracted a whole host of businesses from a truly international audience (something that cannot be said about the first one), all buzzing with ideas and enthusiasm, who genuinely ‘got’ the social enterprise message and were doing their utmost to effect change, often in challenging circumstances. But in many ways, some of the debates on the platforms have not changed and are out of touch with the international paradigm shifts.

Rachel Fell and Lucy Findlay with Hong Kong General Chamber of Social Enterprise

Rachel and Lucy with delegates from the Hong Kong General Chamber of Social Enterprise

I can’t help thinking that as a diverse and growing sector, we need to be thinking bigger as well. Although the gathering attracted 1,400 delegates, a lot of these appeared to be sponsors and government delegations. I managed to get to speak to our equivalent in Hong Kong, who felt (even more keenly than us and perhaps unsurprisingly) that we should not just be looking to government for answers. Nor should we be looking to the corporate sector for the answers. We as a sector need to be taking control of our destiny. As Indy Johar mentioned in his session, we need to be more ambitious as a sector to create real system change.

Sometimes it feels like we are just dancing to someone else’s tune – e.g. how can we get the government or corporates to buy from us and support us? Yes financial sustainability is important but it is a means to an end – to change the world!

Given the theme of our own conference this year, ‘Spreading the Wealth’, we need to think big… we need to be linking to our true allies and partnering more effectively, not just sitting in our bunker and endlessly talking amongst ourselves and preaching to the converted. We need to acknowledge that we are part of the bigger answer and find allies and partners who also believe and want to achieve this. Collectively, we should be a powerful force for change – let’s reach out and grab it!

The risk of not focusing on profit in your social enterprise

Kat LuckockBy Kat Luckock, Founder of Share Impact

This is the second in a series of posts Kat has written specially for our guest blog.

It’s true that balancing social and environmental priorities with commercial and financial requirements of a social enterprise is a challenge we all face as social entrepreneurs. However, what I’ve noticed, and increasingly been surprised by, in many quarters of the social enterprise sector is a resistance to talking about and focussing on finance, income strategies and profit to the detriment of many organisations’ success.

This seems especially the case for early-stage social enterprises or those who haven’t received external support or backing from investors. In my experience a commitment to ‘doing good’ often gets in the way of prioritising a strategy to generating reliable income. And for many early stage solopreneurs with social or environmental aims, confusion about whether profit is allowed or the conflation of making profit with being wealthy sits very uncomfortably.

“Profit in and of itself cannot be seen as a dirty concept. Rather it should be understood that it’s the choice of how to spend or invest that profit that differentiates a social enterprise with other types of business.”

I suppose it does take a particular type of person to set up a business which doesn’t allow for personal profit or shareholder returns (at least not without limits). More often than not it’s about being able to do a job that’s aligned to one’s values and commitment to make a difference on an issue they care deeply about.

The risk however is that those of us working in the sector conflate the issue of limiting personal/shareholder profit with the need to create organisational profit. The difference being that organisational profit can be used to deepen or scale the powerful social or environmental impact the organisation was set up to achieve, rather than line the private pockets of individual shareholders.

Profit in and of itself cannot be seen as a dirty concept. Rather it should be understood that it’s the choice of how to spend or invest that profit that differentiates a social enterprise with other types of business. As such, it seems essential to me, as a social entrepreneur, to focus on both: delivering the social / environmental impact and creating a robust income strategy to enable it.

Where income and finance are not taken seriously the impact is limited and the social enterprises themselves struggle to continue at all or become dependent on increasingly constrained grant funding (with all its restrictions and limited timescales). This in turn hinders the sector as a whole and limits our collective opportunity to demonstrate the difference social enterprise can make to challenging the status quo (and those we compete with on a global scale), not doing business as usual, and most importantly tackling global inequality and environmental degradation.

A secondary symptom of not focussing on wealth generation (within a social enterprise) is individuals working more hours for less income; reduced competitiveness to attract the best people for roles; lack of investment in training and development; and limited research and development for innovation or expansion in to new markets.

Without profit we limit the possibility of the social sector to expand and challenge “business as usual” to the detriment of people and planet.

To conclude I want to share three reasons why getting more comfortable with generating profit is beneficial to your social enterprise:

1) It enables sustainability

With an operating profit you know you have reserves to take you into the next financial year. Consistent profits and sustainable income also allow you to plan more than 6-12 months down the line. Being able to create a strategy of what you want to achieve that extends 2-5 years in to the future helps you make big decisions and move your business forward.

2) It enables space for research, innovation and development (note how I didn’t say growth)

With profit you can choose to invest in the areas of the business that are struggling or new areas you want to develop and expand in to. Without an operating profit it’s very difficult to find money to invest in the development of your business and harness potential opportunities in the market place. Notably this isn’t always about growth or scaling the impact but could be about improving your service, developing products or simply deepening the impact you have by being able to invest more in your social or environmental cause.

3) It increases opportunity for investment

As someone who is no expert in investment this is just an assumption, but it is my understanding that an investor or funder is always going to look more favourably on a social enterprise that is able to demonstrate how it will maintain a sustainable income and generate a profit beyond the term of their investment.

On the whole, as I understand it, investors and funders want to help organisations start, get to the next stage or innovate something new (for profit or impact) but they don’t want to fund you indefinitely. They want to know their investment or grant will pump-prime your initiative and allow you to maintain operations afterwards – so they can see a return on investment and celebrate your success with you. So planning for profit and setting this out in your proposal will give them more confidence that it’s possible to happen.

 


Kat Luckock is an Impact Strategist & Business Coach for social entrepreneurs and ethical retailers. She specialises in helping businesses measure and communicate their social and environmental impact to stakeholders and customers so they can build communities of support and increase sales and income.

Kat works with social entrepreneurs all over the world and is excited to write a series of posts for the Social Enterprise Mark blog throughout September. To find out more about Kat visit the Share Impact website.

Save time and money using digital technology for your social enterprise

Kat LuckockBy Kat Luckock, Founder of Share Impact

I like to think of social entrepreneurs as innovative ground-breaking, revolutionary AND tech savvy. The type of people who want to create change and are at the fore-front of the technology landscape – maximising the best tools to advance their business and deliver phenomenal impact.

Although there are many examples of social entrepreneurs who are like this, the majority of us at the early stage of business (1-3 years in) tend to be stuck in the reality of do, do, do and not lifting out head up to discover what tools could help us.

Okay so you’re using email, Office 365, sharing documents with your team via Google Drive (or something similar), and frequently look up your competitors on Facebook or LinkedIn but you have no idea what else is out there to help your organisation when it comes to digital technology.

No one would argue that when it comes to digital technology the world has moved on phenomenally over the past 20 years. In fact, the pace of change is difficult to keep up with at times. But how are we supposed to keep apace of all these changes and more importantly identify and decide which technologies are most useful to us day-to-day in our business?

In the first of my four guest blogs (released over the next couple of weeks), I wanted to share a variety of tools that could help your social enterprise increase its productivity, save time and as a result save money.

All the tools mentioned below are free to use, with upgrades for extra features and larger capacity. I’m sharing both tools I’ve used and some I’ve heard others recommend. They cover everything from diary management to lead generation, sales to CRM systems.

The first thing I want to introduce you to though is a little thing called Zapier. It’s like a wonder tool that links everything up so you can automate workflows and alleviate repetitive tasks in your business. Seriously, I could write a whole blog post just about this, there’s so much possibility with the tool. But if you’re using some of the other tools I mention below and you want simplify how they all connect up then check if Zapier can do that first.

Time killers! I focus in the rest of the blog on things that eat up time in your business, which could be simplified, automated or completely avoided with one of these tools.

General

The first one I know we all struggle with is losing passwords. Especially when you’re working across teams, you have new volunteers or interns helping out every couple of months, and you have to update your passwords regularly to stay secure. LastPass is your answer. Never forget a password again and give access to team members at the click of a button all in one secure place.

Time waster number two; Printing out documents like contracts and funding applications to sign and then scan back in to your computer to send via email. HelloSign is a simple tool that allows you to sign documents electronically, without all the faff and unnecessary printing.

Been sent a file or document you can’t open? Cloud Convert  supports the conversion between more than 200 different audio, video, document, ebook, archive, image, spreadsheet and presentation formats without having to download any software on your computer.

Diary Management and booking meetings

DiaryHow many hours do you spend on the phone or emailing back and forth to customers and stakeholders trying to find appropriate times to book in a meeting or call? For finding a convenient date for team or group of people Doodle is an amazing tool.

But what about when you want to allow customers and clients to book a call or meeting with you directly from your website or Facebook page? Calendly is my number one tool for showing when I’m available for meetings and helping customers book a call or meeting in my diary, without me ever having to speak to them. It also automates an email to confirm the booking and there are settings for reminders. You can also sync it with your Google Calendar (ICal or Office calendar) so you know when it’s been booked in too.

Lead Generation

Do you spend hours looking for B2B leads on LinkedIn? Try Dux-Soup; a great tool that visits thousands of profiles for you, using key words and existing networks. When people see you’ve been looking at their profile they’re much more likely to look at yours and get in touch.

Video Conferencing & Webinars

Do you spend a lot of time on the road going to meetings? Why not organise more video calls to save you time, money and carbon emissions. It’s still face-to-face, you can share documents, screens, invite others in and record the calls with Zoom – my go-to video call platform. I run my business from my laptop and I couldn’t be without Zoom, it means I can connect to clients all over the world and jump on a call with my remote team members for weekly check-ins. You can also add bolt-ons for webinars and more than 10 people.

Email Communication & Sales Funnels

So you’ve probably heard of MailChimp and maybe you’re using it. I loved Mailchimp when I first started as a social entrepreneur. It was a great way to design and send weekly newsletters to our mailing list. It’s even easier now you can create opt-in forms and landing pages to capture email address on your website or via social media. And it probably is the simplest way if you’re just starting out with a mailing list and want to create a simple email sequence to introduce yourself and warm leads up.

But for the more advanced there’s the paid-for Convertkit or ClickFunnels; two great tools for creating more advance sales funnels for different audiences, leads and product types.

And if you want more of a CRM built in, Dubsado, Hubspot, 17 Hats and Capsule are recommended (although I’ve never used any of these myself).

Social Media Scheduling & Automation

Social media channelsIf you’re not scheduling your social media so it automatically posts each day, you’re probably wasting time or not being consistent enough on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or Instagram. Hootsuite, Buffer and Planoly (an App  for Instagram only), amongst many others, are great tools to schedule all your posts for the month ahead so you do it once and forget about it.

Project planning and team organisation

Trello and Asana are two of the most popular platforms I see people using for project planning and team organisation. I also like Wunderlist for creating quick to do lists and setting deadlines or reminders for things.

Simple Graphic Design or Document Creation

Not a graphic designer? Don’t have the funds for Adobe Suite? I use Canva every single day in my business because it’s so easy to create graphics and documents.

My last money saving tip…

Website manualIf your website is just for sharing information about your products or services, or you have an e-commerce store, don’t spend thousands with a web-developer – use simple platforms like Squarespace, WordPress, Wix, Weebly or Shopify to set up your website quickly and cheaply (from as little as £20/month including domain).

 


Kat Luckock is an Impact Strategist & Business Coach for social entrepreneurs and ethical retailers. She specialises in helping businesses measure and communicate their social and environmental impact to stakeholders and customers so they can build communities of support and increase sales and income. Kat works with social entrepreneurs all over the world and is excited to being featured in the Social Enterprise Mark blog for the next few weeks.

Lucy Findlay

Blurring the lines? Responding to the Civil Society Strategy

Civil Society Strategy 2018The new Civil Society Strategy explicitly sets the direction of government, by widening the strategy of the traditional third sector to include the private sector agenda.

It has been going in this direction for years of course – the advent of Big Society Capital, Social Investment, Social Impact Bonds have often been more concerned with social value creation than legal form. Is there anything wrong with this? It seems on the face of it, a ‘no brainer’. Why would you bother about the type of organisation when it’s creating loads of social value?

At Social Enterprise Mark CIC, we are often accused of being obsessed with form over function and of being pedantic about definitions. Interestingly, the definition of Civil Society within the strategy document – “we define civil society not by organisational form, but in terms of activity, defined by purpose (what it is for) and control (who is in charge)” – is in perfect alignment with our own criteria. In a nutshell, we look at the social mission, value and objectives of an organisation. We also look at the power relationship; through requiring an asset lock and independence, and by assessing the way that shareholders (if there are any) behave in distributing profits and controlling the company.

The strategy then goes on to say:

“Businesses are changing, to pursue social as well as economic purpose. The state is helping public service employees take control of their service through creating mutuals, reforming commissioning to support local and non-profit providers, and localising power.

All of this is ‘civil society’ – not a sector, but a range of independent activity aimed at achieving social value… we use the term ‘civil society’ in this hybrid sense, and ‘civil society organisations’ may be charities, public service mutuals, or businesses with a primary social purpose. To describe the ‘core’ of civil society we refer to ‘voluntary, community, and social enterprise organisations’, or simply ‘the social sector.”

Crucially here they talk about businesses with a ‘primary social purpose’. This does not address the issue of where power sits/who is in charge. For us this is a core principle and must not be undermined, as the balance of power is crucial in the way that a company is run and who it’s really for – i.e. whose social purpose and what is happening to the profits. For example, the much-criticised Virgin Care has a social mission to provide health and social care, and I’m sure that they can prove that they are creating social value in many ways. However, the ultimate control of this company is in the hands of the shareholders who want a return for their investment, which means that ultimately it is not the patient at the centre of the company, it is the shareholder. Even if a social enterprise is created that is majority owned by Virgin Care, it is still ultimately owned and controlled by a parent company that puts profit before social value. This is why we test independence as part of our assessment.

Later on in the document, under the Business Chapter, the strategy states:

“Our leading businesses increasingly put social and environmental responsibility at the heart of what they do. It is key to their strategies for long-term, sustainable value, including how they manage risk, and how they sustain public and investor trust in their brands and business models. Alongside this, a new generation of businesses now go further and commit themselves explicitly to social and environmental purposes or missions, alongside profit, in their goods, services and how they operate.”

Oxfam report: An Economy for the 99%If this is the case, why do we have increasing social marginalisation and wealth disparity, as shown in a 2017 Oxfam report, which showed that just 8 wealthy individuals owned the same wealth as the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people. Just recently, we have also seen new evidence that the average pay of a FTSE 100 CEO is a 151:1 ratio to employees, which further demonstrates the wealth gap.

I do not mean to be dismissive about the motivations of all business, but at the same time we must not be naïve. Much of this stuff is tick in the box CSR and is not addressing the root of the problem; i.e. that there is a clear conflict of interest between being a shareholder owned and controlled business dedicated to maximising wealth, and the conditions that the business is creating for its workers and the communities that it interacts with. Can the government prove their statement above or do they take it at face value from the businesses telling them this is the case?

To be fair to the strategy, it does acknowledge that we are different as the ‘social sector’, but it is confusing that a lot of the document is not actually about the social sector at all and does not really analyse the challenges put forward in this case. I dare say, it’s far more palatable to say that social impact investment is being used to create social value, without questioning whether the social value being created is getting to the heart of the issue. Plus, who is actually in control? Is it at the expense of the marginalised?

We need a root and branch analysis of why we are creating a more unequal society and how current business practice is contributing to this. Are CEOs themselves dedicated to the creation of social value or is it a side-line in the CSR department?  I was interested to read recently that a Democratic Senator (potential Presidential candidate) Elizabeth Warren in the US is proposing an Accountable Capitalism Act, which would lead to more wealth redistribution and power to workers by giving more power to stakeholders. This is the sort of fundamental change we need.

There are lots of business people out there with great social motivations (such as those mentioned in the strategy), but until we challenge the current business model we will not get to the root of the issue, inequality will continue increasing.

Fashion

Going ‘Beyond the Badge’
in the fashion industry

By Flora Davidson, Co-Founder of Supply Compass

Flora Davidson, Supply CompassSome certification badges are instantly recognisable as a mark of assurance when purchasing a product. According to the Fairtrade Foundation, 97% of Millennials recognise the Fairtrade Mark on food, compared with 69% for the Rainforest Alliance logo and 41% for the Soil Association Organic label.  But how many people actually know what is required to acquire these certifications and how rigorous their testing methods are?

Whilst recognition is a good start, a deeper understanding of what badges actually mean and what tests and audits are required to achieve the result, will enable customers to be more discerning about the products they buy. Whilst certification bodies need to find better ways to engage and educate consumers, is it also key that consumers start to #GoBeyondTheBadge?

Fairtrade MarkEven though the shift towards more responsible consumption is gaining momentum, it’s still far from being the norm. To make matters harder for those looking to make greener and more ethical choices, certifications in garment production can be extremely confusing. Beyond the Fairtrade Mark, there are few badges with such widespread recognition. There are hundreds of certifications available for each area of the supply chain, but most of them are not consumer facing. As a result, consumers often have to rely on the brand that they purchase from to make responsible choices about their supply chain on their behalf.

The certifications brands look for in a manufacturer is often dictated by what country they are from and what products they are producing. It can seem overwhelming and overly complicated for brands to decide which certifications are the most crucial. Brands need greater clarity and visibility over what certifications actually mean in reality, what the verification process is and how reliable the results are.

Conversely, it can be difficult and costly for manufacturers to accommodate the increasing certification demands from multiple brands from multiple geographies. They can feel frustrated at paying for certifications which verify a standard they are already certified for with another body, and it can also be detrimental to their efficiency if they are having to constantly host auditors at their facilities.

As consumers are becoming more conscious about what they are buying, more certifications are starting to emerge as the industry standard. Below we have highlighted a few certifications that consumers can look for in their clothes, however it is important to dig further into each of these to understand what is Beyond the Badge.


fair-wear-foundation-logoFair Wear Foundation (FWF)

Works with brands, factories, trade unions, NGOs and governments to verify and improve workplace conditions. FWF represents over 120 brands, bringing together the key components needed to make a sustainable improvement to workplace conditions.

Brands should check if their manufacturers are certified by FWF if they prioritise having safe working conditions where their products are made.

FWF keeps track of the efforts made by the companies it certifies, and works to increase the effectiveness of efforts made by companies through sharing expertise, social dialogue and strengthening industrial relations.


Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)

Global Organic Textile StandardKnown for being the world’s most predominant processing standard for testing and verifying organic materials. It also provides a consumer label.

To qualify, textile products must be at least 70% organic fibres. There are also strict environmental, toxicological and social criteria, and a detailed quality assurance system. A manufacturer with this certification is clearly dedicated to protecting the environment while producing high-quality organic fabrics.


Confidence in Textiles – Tested for harmful substances

Oeko-Tex standardOften known as Oeko-Tex standards. It is a global testing and accreditation scheme for the screening of harmful substances within consumer textiles. It is the leading label for textiles that have been screened for harmful substances. The Oeko-Tex certificate issued by the relevant institute or responsible certification centre is valid for 12 months.


Supply Compass logoFlora Davidson is co-founder of Supply Compass.

Supplycompass is a tech enabled end-to-end production management platform for responsible brands that want to find and work with the best international manufacturers. It enables brands to find their perfect manufacturing partner at home or overseas.

Brands can create tech packs, get matched with a manufacturer and use the platform to manage production from design to delivery. Supplycompass works with brands and manufacturers to embed responsible and sustainable practises in their businesses and deliver value and create opportunities for growth.

Runners at start line

Standing still? It’s not an option

Lucy FindlayFor businesses to grow, there is not an option to stand still. Of course, this is also true in the Social Enterprise world. The social mission may remain the same, but the strategy and tactics to reach the goal must change and evolve over time to reflect the customer’s needs, changing markets and the dynamism of the communities that they serve.

One of the big challenges for the social enterprise sector, has been the huge changes in the political, social and economic environment over the last 10 years. The tides have turned and we can no longer be reliant on the old established sources of support and revenue.

We set up the Social Enterprise Mark as a project at the end of 2007, little realising what huge global changes there would be (never mind the wisdom of launching a business at the beginning of a recession!) We have changed markedly over that time.

We started out as an ‘identifier’ for those businesses that saw themselves as social enterprises. It was relatively straightforward – our assessment looked at the legal and financial details of whether you met the legal definition of social enterprise. A yes or no answer.

Interestingly, the European Parliament is now looking to set up a ‘label’ for social enterprises, 10 years after we originally launched ours! It might be pertinent for them to find out what we have learned before embarking on such a project as we have firmly moved away from being just a ‘label’ and definitional identifier.

Following the Social Value Act, social value and impact demonstration became a focus for us all – how are social enterprises really making a difference? The Social Enterprise Mark therefore changed its approach to assessment to bring in a more demanding process, which helps social enterprises to articulate this more effectively.

Social Enterprise Gold Mark consultation 2018 summaryThe launch of our Social Enterprise Gold Mark (the Mark of social enterprise excellence), has been very successful with a number of markets, in particular the university sector. However, our latest stakeholder consultation has shown that there is much more of an appetite for new accreditation options that sit between the Social Enterprise Mark and the Social Enterprise Gold Mark, i.e. higher levels of scrutiny of what it means to be a ‘good’ social enterprise. We will therefore be moving in this direction, as well as making a few minor tweaks to the Social Enterprise Gold Mark criteria and assessment process.

We are also currently working on a bespoke product for Supported Businesses, in partnership with the Supported Business sector and DWP, which we hope to launch later in the year.

We have come a long way over the 10 years, and I put a lot of this down to the need to respond to customer need and to adjust the business to become more financially sustainable.  We cannot stand still and try to be all things to all people – focus is key.

Protestors

Community owned change – we need to talk about anarchism

By Ed Whitelaw, Head of Enterprise & Regeneration at Real Ideas Organisation

Ed WhitelawWe need to talk about anarchism. Once you get past the often mis-leading, negative, bomb-chucking stereotypes of the proceeding centuries, many of the ideas contained within the, by definition, very broad church of anarchist thought are quite sensible. Indeed, in many cases emphasizing balance and moderation. They also have the potential to provide at least part of the answer to society’s infinitely complex growing list of challenges, from political disenfranchisement to growing inequalities, aging populations, environmental degradation and shrinking public services.

Be it by necessity and by design, anarchic ideas, and practice, are increasingly evident all around us. While the wider anarchist “movement” intermittently flares up, burning hot and fast, but ultimately short-lived like a virus in the popular mind – in moments such as Occupya more sustained, transformative genera of anarchism is growing, more like mycelium through the forest of society day-by-day.

These aren’t quick, but they are steady and cumulative steps, and coming from both directions – from activists and government alike – politics and politicians know this is needed. From localism, devolution and cooperative councils to the increasing prevalence of self-managing, self-organising, agile, matrix managed businesses and civic organisations. Running all the way from subsidiary in European Union, right the way through to energetic indy-towns such as Frome and Buckfastleigh. Though where this is often most evident is in the ever-growing UK-wide movement of enterprise driven social action: social enterprises, b-corps, community business, coops and just good businesses – a restless growing wave the anarchopreneurs balancing economic independence with social value, personal liberty with collective solidarity. This is beyond the politics of the Left or the Right, it is the politics community leadership – taking action and accepting social, and economic, responsibility.

South West England provides further examples. The Transition Towns movement grew out of Totnes, and just 20 minutes down the road, the “Plymouth Model”, the UK’s first Social Enterprise City where hundreds of socially enterprising organisations, with an enabling local government partner and a welcoming business community are driving everything from regeneration to education, from healthcare to clean energy and even the creative and digital industries. Towns like Watchet, where a group of local people, the Onion Collective (predominantly women) have painted an effective picture of what “taking back control” should actually look like. Igniting a range of locally owned community businesses following all-too-common market failures, resulting in the loss of local industry.  Projects include a visitors’ centre, a new green space community park and regular summer street markets, even reimagining the East Quay waterfront as a new space for studios, restaurants, galleries and visitor accommodation.

This community owned – anarchic – action is increasingly seeping into the mainstream. From the recent incorporation of the South West Mutual, part of a national network of the soon-to-be people powered regional banks, to the Big Lottery’s own endowment trust – Power to Change – that is tirelessly working (in both Plymouth and Watchet) to create locally owned, community accountable businesses and services up and down England. And then, Carne Ross’s story of his remarkable journey from diplomate to anarchist – The Accidental Anarchist – lands slap-bang in the middle of your BBC viewing – now something is really up?

Britain today is alive with constructive anarchism, anarchic ideas and substantial real action.

We need to talk about anarchism. We need to talk about community owned change. Take Proudhon for instance, one of the leading anarcho-theoreticians, sometime described as the “connoisseur of paradox” (or other words, he understood the need for balanced view!), who first adopted the word anarchist to describe himself and along with Godwin is often credited with “creating” anarchism. His position here could be summarised in three parts:

  1. Participation – far from being the absence of governance, he saw anarchism as the mass participation in government: limiting but with necessary layers of government, built from the people or the workshop up. Initially, and primarily, this came about via economic more than political means, growing networks of social and economic administration – “the cure for social ills cannot be found on political level and must be sought in the economic roots of society”.
  2. Local ownership – his most famed pronouncement – “property is theft” wasn’t a statement against the ownership of private property, only against the disproportionate ownership of large scale capital and assets by private interest, and/or indeed the state, what he termed the “cumulative proprietors”. With an emphasis on democratic and social value, he welcomed private ownership and saw economic liberation as fundamental to wider political freedom – “political right requires to be buttressed by economic right”. In a Smithian way he was an advocate of genuine free trade, as an effective regulating structure for society and recognised that, to a larger extent, communities are often remarkably good at managing themselves. Proudhonism, often cited as the philosophical bedrock of anarcho-syndicalism, envisaged a society organized around cooperating local businesses-like enterprising organisations, working units of society (social enterprises, coops and community business, even SMEs?), inter-trading and federating as needed on the larger scale.
  3. Reform –  flying the face of the anarchist caricature, Proudhon rejected revolution, favouring reform over time through education, fiscal policy, credit reform and new forms of social corporate ownership – he even tried to set up a mutual, Peoples’ Bank. At the heart of this was a good honest grasp of human nature, a Hayekian recognition of complexity, the value and need for personal liberty and individualism, well balanced with the important need for, and indeed facilitated by, community collective good.

We need to talk about anarchism. We need to move that anarchist debate beyond a quirk of the 19th century; beyond the flash of passion, courage, but ultimate tragedy of the Spanish Civil War; and beyond the unhelpful black bloc stereotypes. We need to move it to where it belongs – in our daily lives. Anarchism is more than a fringe political movement of the shadows, it is something that is happening and as C. S. Scott suggests with his “anarchist squint” it’s a way of looking, thinking and behaving. If we look at the world through the anarchist lens, we see it all around us and with many encouraging results.

While anarchism has often been good at defining what it is against, it is less clear when it comes to practical application and what it is for. Community enterprises are finding new, real ways for more people, often at the furthest fringes, to participate in society economically and therefore, also democratically. They are creating more meaningful forms of ownership, putting the means of production not in private or state hands, but in the hands of local people, and they are changing the way society works. Reforming healthcare, learning, social care, energy production, housing, pubs, venues, the creative industries, business services, finance and even banking – now government too? Isn’t this what Proudhon was talking about? We need to talk about anarchism.

 


Originally posted on Real Ideas Organisation blog on 19th July 2018

Alder and Alder branding guide

Harness the power of your brand

Jonathan AlderBy Jonathan Alder, founder and Co-Director of Alder and Alder

Your brand is a powerful communication tool that has the potential to differentiate you from competitors, and make you interesting and relevant to your audience. If you can harness the power of your brand it will give you the opportunity to influence what people think and how they behave. It will give you the power to change things.

And there is a need to change things. Existing models are struggling to adapt to the new demands that business and society is placing upon them. Change is all around us, and undoubtedly brings challenges, but it also brings opportunities. It brings the opportunity to do something different. Something new. Something better.

Social enterprises have the opportunity to be the change and bring the solution. But to win a new audience you have to explain why you are the solution.

As a social enterprise your brand is a particularly powerful tool. At the heart of each organisation is a ‘purpose’ – the reason they exist. This is the foundation of every brand. In commercial businesses ‘purpose’ can get lost, because the focus is often on making money, rather than making a difference. This is where the opportunity for social enterprise emerges. As a social enterprise it’s ALL about making a difference, and that’s attractive, not just to your stakeholders, but to the wider community.

Brand building can seem a daunting prospect, but breaking the process down into stages can make it much easier to manage. I’ve identified three stages that provide a practical approach to harnessing the power of your brand.

  1. The first stage is Brand Definition. Social enterprises need to clearly articulate the advantages their model can offer to each stakeholder group they engage with, when compared to the existing solutions available. For organisations that are selling a service or product to customers, differentiating a social enterprise approach from the commercial model of competitors can be even more important, as the trend for values-driven purchasing continues.
  2. Brand Design, the second stage, is focused on the tools an organisation will need in order to communicate with stakeholders. Engaging, persuasive, powerful communication is fundamental to influencing how your audience behaves, especially when you are offering something new or different. The quality of your visual communication will help you to compete more effectively against, what some stakeholders might consider, more ‘professional’ commercial competitors.
  3. The final step is to bring your brand to life. I call this stage Brand Delivery. Society is looking for change, but they don’t necessarily know where to find it. If you have an alternative solution you need to take it to your stakeholders and present it as a viable option, not some kind of worthy compromise. You will need to find an effective and efficient way to deliver your message, whether that is in print, in person or online.

The business sector – and society at large – is experiencing change and uncertainty. People are frustrated and looking for alternative solutions. This is the opportunity for social enterprise to move from a niche model to the mainstream. But to achieve that transition social enterprises need to communicate clearly. It’s time to harness the power of your brand, and build one that helps you to define, design and deliver your message.

If you would like to learn more about how to harness the power of your brand, I’ve written a guide to branding for social enterprises, Time For Change.

Alder and Alder branding guide for social enterprises

Changemaker Hub

Celebrating social enterprise success…one year after hitting the ‘gold mark’

Wray IrwinBy Wray Irwin, Head of University Centre of Employability and Engagement at The University of Northampton

Last year, the University of Northampton joined a growing list of universities and organisations committed to solving social or environmental problems, after gaining the Social Enterprise Gold Mark.

I wanted to take this opportunity to celebrate one year of social enterprise successes with a recap of the University’s ‘Changemaker’ work since then.

The breadth and depth of the University of Northampton’s commitment to delivering social impact through and, as a result of its Changemaker student experience, has been singled out as the defining component of its Gold Mark recognition. Delivering social impact through Changemaking enables every student and member of staff to pursue their passion and address social inequality and environmental issues in a way that ‘transforms lives and inspires change’.

The range of ventures developed always impresses and inspires me, the approaches taken are impactful and are driven by individuals who are able to reframe the problems to create innovative solutions. Everyday examples emerge of the great work undertaken at the University confronting everything from homelessness to human trafficking, food poverty to raising educational attainment but the one thing they all have in common is the belief of students and staff that something must be done and it’s up to them to do it.

The examples outlined below are by no means the limit of what is being achieved but are highlighted to give a flavour of why the University has retained its Gold Mark accreditation.

June 2017

Eyespeak is a web-based TV channel created by second year International Tourism Management & Events Management student Hulda Adao, aimed at tackling online abuse and bullying on social media.

Her channel has grown its audience and Hulda is now delivering workshops for secondary schools to highlight the social issues related to cyber security such as bullying, LGBT, mental health, and relationships. She has so far delivered 16 workshops to more than 300 young people., with interest growing from schools and community groups.

Hulda now works with the University’s ASPIRE Schools’ Engagement team to deliver these workshops in schools across Northampton.

This is a social enterprise for the digital age.

Lara Hamer, a third year International Relations and Politics student, started supporting refugee communities by fundraising for volunteers who were helping at refugee camps.

Northamptonshire has the fourth largest community of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK so, following the ‘Cities of Sanctuary’ programme, Lara created a ‘University of Sanctuary’.

Lara, who hails from Croatia, is passionate about building a culture of hospitality and acceptance across the University of Northampton for asylum seekers and refugees.

Lara personifies the spirit of Changemaker, spotting that something in the world outside the lecture theatre needs addressing and then working to sort that problem.

October 2017   

Sukhwinder Singh, Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the University, has lead a team of 30 who are supporting and counselling refugee children from war torn South Sudan who travelled to Uganda seeking asylum.

Sukhwinder has Changemaker in his DNA, so it was no surprise he was named Global Changemaker of the Year at the University’s annual awards last year.

February 2018

Our latest ‘Big Bang’ event, held in collaboration with the OfS funded National Collaborative Outreach Programme, saw nearly 4000 nine to 19 year olds converge at Silverstone Race Circuit, for a day of hands on experience of science, medicine, engineering and sports commentary, as a way to explore all manner of career avenues.

TV personalities Dr Emily Grossman and Simon Watt came along to present shows and more than companies including Nissan, Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd. joined them for a day of fun and discovery…and made a lot of noise!

The aim of the Big Bang is to inspire young people to love science and maths by showing them they can be fun and have real benefit on their future careers.

April 2018

We beat 140 other education providers from around the world and scooped a coveted Innovation Award at the annual AshokaU Awards. This was in recognition of our institutional to embed social innovation and changemaking into every programme of study.

The award celebrates the brightest new approaches to teaching and we won for our ‘Changemaker Outcomes for Graduate Success’ (CGOS) Toolkit a downloadable guide developed by the University to help teaching staff provide students with important life and work skills and not just academic knowledge.

We are working with town and county partners to help make Northamptonshire more ‘dementia friendly’ raising awareness of and support for the needs of people with a diagnosis of dementia and their families and carers.

The University’s Changemaker Challenge Fund has supported a range of projects that support this work. This culminated in the launch of our first ever Dementia Friendly Organisation award. The award which recognises and celebrates excellence in supporting people living with a dementia diagnosis was awarded to the local theatre Royal & Derngate scoop who deliver dementia friendly film screenings in the Errol Flynn cinema. They are using the prize to employ an intern from the University who will help them develop the de film screenings, whilst enhancing the intern’s skills and learning.

May 2018

Not content with founding one successful school where vulnerable women and girls in Malawi are trained in conversational English and receive work experience, third year International Development student Emma Leering went on to create another ‘United Amayi’ school.

Emma spent 12 months as a primary school teacher in Malawi teaching in a rural primary school, when she first came up with the idea of supporting the village women to learn English. Through the experience she recognised that supporting the children to have the best possible life chances was only one small part of the way she could help the people of Malawi. Her commitment has ensured the growth and development of United Amayi to support more young people.

June 2018

We held our first SocialxChange late last year, hosting staff and students from the University of Warsaw who looked at ways to tackle prejudice. Students returned their home university with projects to develop to help deal with race inequality.

So worthwhile was the opportunity, the xChange has now been extended and we have just finished a second event with Ryerson University, Toronto with more planned for 2018-19, opening opportunities for our students to experience inequality from a global perspective and to do something about it back home.

Whilst these examples are early stage developments their potential social impact will begin to emerge over the coming years, and we will be supporting all of these to ensure their full potential is reach. As the University prepares to take up residence at its new Waterside Campus the potential to grow our social innovation work and impact will increase.

In November 2018 we will be celebrating the next batch of emerging social entrepreneurs at our Changemaker Awards Dinner; demonstrating that at the University of Northampton, social impact through Changemaking is at the core of everything we do.


Originally posted on the University of Northampton blog on 29th June 2018

Lucy Findlay

An inequality crisis – how do we spread the wealth?

The audience at our recent annual conference were universally shocked to hear from our keynote speaker Erinch Sahan (of the World Fair Trade Organization), that just 8 wealthy individuals now own the same wealth as the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people. In 2010, 388 billionaires owned as much as the poorest half of the world’s population, in 2012 this had gone down to 159, and by 2015 just 62 billionaires! He also highlighted that extreme inequality leads to political and economic instability, shortened lives (for rich and poor) and a rise in crime and corruption. 8 wealthy individuals now own the same wealth as the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people

In the face of all this evidence of the effects of the increasing intensity of inequality, why are we not doing more? There doesn’t appear to be any great sense of urgency from the powers that be and yet this is a fundamental world changer. Put this alongside the urgent issue of climate change (which exacerbates these figures) and we have a recipe for disaster for world peace and prosperity.

Whose job is it to take action on this? With current world-wide alliances being undermined on a daily basis it is hard to see who has the power or will to lead. Political parties are also often too short-term in their outlook. I would also be naive not to recognise powerful vested interests too.

There does at least seem to be wide scale awareness of the problem (with ¾ of people thinking that the gap between rich and poor is too great), if not the full extent of it, and this prompted us to question how we can all up our game to take action as part of our conference discussion.

Everyone seems to know there is a problem, but how do we go about tackling it? Especially when we are fighting against very powerful corporate forces who want to maintain the ‘shareholder wealth’ model of business…

A potential solution that emerged from the conference was the idea of true partnership and collaboration between big business and public/third sector to bring about positive social change.

Louise van Rhyn speaking at Spreading the Wealth conference 2018Louise van Rhyn from Partners for Possibility in South Africa spoke about their innovative programme, which demonstrates how reciprocal learning partnerships between business and community can be a powerful force for change. The key for me in this example, however, was the recognition was that it was a two-way process – i.e. that the leaders were actually learning too and didn’t have all the answers. The personal development journey stories were truly inspirational.

This got me thinking about how we can engage with more businesses to promote alternative business models, and encourage them to adopt these models to create significant social value. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past.

I was recently listening to a critique of the way that business schools ‘teach’ business. It is very one dimensional and tends to focus on wealth creation for shareholders, which is self-perpetuating. The World Inequality Report 2018 stated that ‘economic inequality is largely driven by the unequal ownership of capital’. In this model, the wages are driven down as a means to create greater wealth further up the ladder with fewer and fewer companies in control as efficiency becomes the main driver. In my view, we need to go back to the models of business ownership that value the wealth creators (i.e. the workers), including social enterprise, community businesses, co-operatives etc.

I am encouraged and proud of the work of our university Mark holders in this area.  They are firmly of the belief that the education they provide is about creating social added value, and in many ways challenging the status quo of typical business school approaches, by highlighting different ways of doing business, as well as trying to tackle some of the challenges that inequality presents in their local communities.

I was very pleased to see a recent report published by the University of Winchester (which holds the Social Enterprise Gold Mark), showing that the university contributes over £266 million a year to the regional business community. Our network of social enterprise universities also want to do more work in framing what a ‘good’ university looks like.

Our friend Phil Hope (who facilitated several sessions at the conference) also raised a few interesting questions following the event, one of which was how can we help more organisations convert to a model of business that is not all about maximising shareholder profit and power, in a stock market that will punish them if they do? This is where I think the BCorp model has most value. Erinch also highlighted examples of producers being represented at Board level, as well as the El Puente model in Germany, which gives equal stake to founders, customers, producers and employees.

Impact of the PfP programme on business leadersPerhaps the true partnership/co-learning approach taken by Partners for Possibility could be a way forward in engaging with more big businesses? Louise explained how it was the impact that the programme has on business leaders that was most exciting, as they become actively engaged in addressing pressing social challenges to build their nation.

There are no easy solutions to the problems caused by growing levels of inequality, but I am buoyed by the fact that the graduates that I talk to certainly seem to be engaged with the social change agenda and how business can be a force for good. Much research enforces this view, e.g. a recent HBSC global survey found that one in four young entrepreneurs (aged under 35) said they were more motivated by social impact than by moneymaking (compared to just one in 10 of those aged over 55). The increasing interest that women are taking in business is also encouraging, as Heidi Fisher highlighted in her session at the conference, referring to the fact that women tend to be motivated by more than just the financial bottom line.

Although I have highlighted some potential solutions and some positives, we really do need to think about how we can make our message clearer and more attractive. Too few people know about the fact that business can be about more than what’s shown on Dragon’s Den or The Apprentice. In the short to medium term we need better alliances rather than fighting with each other over nuance. You may think that is a weird thing for the leader of an accreditation body to come out with (?!), but we need to recognise our differences and work together for the common good.


If you are interested in finding out more about our accreditation services, please contact Rachel Fell or call 0345 504 6536.

Socent and gender equality_Heidi Fisher blog

Social enterprise and gender equality

Heidi FisherBy Heidi Fisher, Director of Make an Impact CIC

OK folks, let’s start off with something we could all benefit from doing a little more of – something I call ‘Positive Propositioning’… Take the name of this blog: Gender ‘Equality’. Not ‘Inequality’.

That’s simply because I’m of the mindset that if you focus on the positive aspect of change, you get more of it.

Also, I want to make it clear that this isn’t a feminist rant, far from it – in fact, it’s a bird’s eye observation on what is and what could, and arguably should be.

OK, now I’ve got that off my chest, let me share a couple of stats with you…

  • In global companies, 15% of women hold board positions
  • 4% chair boards
  • And 20% of boards have 3 or more women on them

And when you consider more female board directors give:

  • 16% higher Return on Sales
  • 26% higher Return on Invested Capital
  • Fewer governance-related controversies

…It’s certainly good for us to explore ways in which we can help businesses encourage more women into higher positions. And one of the ways I see this happening is by…

Encouraging MORE women to become Social Entrepreneurs in the first place.

Oh Heidi, but you would say that, you’re ALL ABOUT Social Enterprise. Yes, you’re right, but hear me out.

(Ready for some more stats? Here they come!)

  • 41% of UK’s social enterprises are led by women
  • Globally 38% are led by women
  • Women are 3x more likely to start social enterprises than men
  • Twice as many women run social enterprises than traditional businesses
  • Women equate to 46% of ‘traditional’ business workforce but 66% of social enterprise workforce

In comparison to the stats on traditional businesses, isn’t that absolutely, mind-bogglingly staggering?

And the thing is, having worked many, many years in the Social Enterprise sector, I’ve got to say, there’s a non-proven, but arguably rational, biological reason why there’s such a disparity between the two industries, and that is… Women tend to lead with their hearts, and men with their heads.

Women, driven by factors such as community, impact, connections and innovation are often social entrepreneurs without even realising it… If I had a £1 for every time a lady has told me their business idea and I’ve replied, “you’ve got a social enterprise there!” I mean…well, you know the rest.

But don’t get me wrong, if you’re a female reading this and you’re even slightly offended by that, please, let me assure you, this is, in fact, one of the reasons why it’s IMPERATIVE we have more female leaders in our world; not to dominate men, but to accompany, complement and work alongside them….As equals.

Instead of looking at this as a stereotype, let’s look at this as a celebration of traits and talents. If we had more Social Entrepreneurs in the world, heck, if EVERY business had a social element, think how much good would be given back to people and our world.

Social Enterprise isn’t a soft option, it’s actually, the only option.

So, in the push for equality within all areas of business, how about this as a lasting thought… If we’ve already recognised there’s a disparity and a need to change it, we should look at tackling it from the root, which naturally stems from education.

Let’s do what we can to educate our daughters (and sons!) about the importance of Social Entrepreneurship, self-actualisation and a love for doing good, but not only that, let’s also educated them on the importance of self-belief and inspire them to have just as much confidence as men to go out there and smash it.

If we help them grow up believing they have the power to make impact irrespective of their gender, just think what societal, environmental and health advancements can be achieved.

As you can tell, I am extremely passionate about this for reasons some of you will know and some of you won’t; that’s not the point here, what is the point is that we acknowledge with grace and respond with action.

If you have any thoughts on the above, I really hope you share them, after all, that’s what this is all about…


Originally posted on Linked In on 14th June 2018

Robot

How can we make our social enterprises fit for the future?

Blogging, Vlogging and Flogging

A couple of talks on change have recently got me thinking.  We live in such uncertain times at the moment, and it often feels like the rule book has been thrown out of the window. As Bill Gates said, “There will be more change in the next 15 years than there has been in the last 50 years.”

This rate of change can make life seem chaotic, hard to focus and sometimes downright scary (especially for oldies like me!)

One thing we do know is that, as businesses, we need to evolve to respond to these changes, to anticipate what the changes might be (as far as we can) and to be flexible in order to compete.

These are some of the thoughts that have struck me (in no particular order):

    • People have a lower attention span. There is so much information to take in that ‘out of the ordinary’ novelties catch the eye.  We are in the Instagram Generation.  People don’t want to read things, they want to scan and wait for things to catch their eye.  What makes your business different and eye catching?  Can you make marketing collateral more visual?  Can you film something rather than writing it? For example, I have recently published my first Vlog:

  • Technological change is taking us into the realms of science fiction. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, Virtual Reality are all with us and will increasingly change the way that we work; robots will do the more menial tasks and even some of the skilled tasks (where for instance, value judgements and human biases are a disadvantage).  We need to think about what skills will be needed for the future and equip ourselves to become Digital Leaders and support others to change and adapt their roles.  However, the flip side of this is that we still need to focus on the customer’s experience and not get carried away with huge digital solutions (witness the chaos that TSB has experienced this week as customers are locked out of their accounts).  The answer to this is to change incrementally and test as you go.
  • Social media appsBusiness models have also changed – we have seen the rise of platforms such as Uber, Air B&B, Google, Facebook etc. Much has been made of their different style of business – e.g. being client driven, employee self-organisation, flexibility and innovation.  I have no doubt that the old order of hierarchy in business and life is breaking down to allow much more personal freedom.  But at what cost?  Is this window dressing?  It seems to me that, underneath it all, the financial bottom line still remains the key driver. Social enterprises are authentic though and we really need to shout about how we are making a true social difference, our ethics and values (for example, through accreditations such as the Social Enterprise Mark!)

Change is also invigorating as it encourages us to think differently. Prompted by attending a Cosmic Digital Leadership programme (see video below for more details), we are currently thinking through all of this at Social Enterprise Mark CIC and it’s certainly opened us up to a whole set of new ideas.  We don’t have all the answers just yet, but we do know that staying still isn’t an option.


Heidi Fisher

Five essential factors for financial success with your social enterprise

By Heidi Fisher, Director of Make an Impact CIC

It’s easy to assume because there’s purpose, profit will swiftly follow, but you and I both know that only works if you work it.

As a Consultant to Social Entrepreneurs for over 20 years, I’ve built a robust understanding of the key factors that lead to financial success, and, for your convenience and relief, I’m going to share them right here.

Take note change maker, implementing these is not only smart; it’s your key to survival.

1) Manage your cash flow

CashCash is everything. You can be profitable, but if you have no money in the bank then you won’t exist for long.

Here are some practical steps you can take to manage and improve your cash flow position.

  • Take deposits for work if at all possible.
  • Clearly state your payment terms and chase customers if they haven’t paid by the due date.
  • Send out a reminder email before the due date and then phone them if it’s still unpaid.
  • Emails can be ignored. If you don’t like chasing for payments then hire someone for an hour or two to do this for you. It also avoids you having to have difficult conversations with clients.

2) Keep overheads low

Stephen Fear, aka the Phonebox Millionaire, says this is one of the reasons he’s been successful, as he doesn’t spend a lot on on-going overheads.  He’s right because so often people think they need to get premises straight away before they’ve even generated any income. Reality is, you probably don’t need it and you won’t have the income to pay for it either!  Think about what is essential for your social enterprise and what you can do without.

Another point to mention is the importance of paying your suppliers on time. Big or small, they’re a business too and are likely to be experiencing the same challenges as you. Keep it honest. Keep it fair, and that way everyone can benefit.

3) Pricing- Don’t undervalue your activities/products/services

Decide from the start whether you want to be budget, mid range or premium, but appreciate and be OK with the connotations attached to each.

Budget = could be perceived as providing low quality and attract customers that aren’t loyal and are only concerned about where they can get the cheapest item. Having a low price also makes it very difficult to increase prices in the future, and you could remain at breakeven or worse loss making just to keep this competitive edge. That aside, budget doesn’t always mean ‘cheap’ in the damaging sense of the word. As long as your service/product’s quality is aligned with price expectations, you can find ways of adding value that impresses the low-level customer, whilst not breaking your bank, i.e. customer service.

Mid-Range = safe. A good share of the market are what we call ‘floating voters’, which means they will happily straddle between price and quality often opting for the product or service that catches their attention the most (good marketing, product placement etc.) A potential drawback of this would be a lack of identity. Mid-range pricing can make you appear unsure of where your true USP sits, which, for a social consumer is key, for they often buy for the ‘why’.

Premium = Risky. Premium pricing requires thorough understanding of your market – you must be confident what you’re offering is what they need/want and are willing to pay the privilege for. Where higher prices mean reduced pressure in mass sales, it always requires consistent market research and development, plus strong relationships with your consumer. Loyalty is everything here, as is good, effective marketing.

My advice is to focus on determining YOUR value factors and being very realistic over what they’re worth. If you conclude it’s slightly on the lower end of the pricing scale, so what, it’s fantastic you’ve identified this. Spend time crafting your message and communicate it effectively so you can make a surplus and do more of your good work.

4) Trade if possible 

TradingIf you’ve received a grant to help pursue your societal purpose, you’ll know all too well the limitations that come with this, not least the restrictions on what you spend the money on.

Opting for a model that includes trading will ultimately give you so much more freedom, plus it doesn’t come with the reporting, monitoring or evaluation pressures from funders wanting to know where every penny’s being spent.

Being able to generate surpluses rather than just recovering the costs of delivering a project is also a massive advantage.

On a more subjective level, including trading within your business model shows that you’re focussed on your triple bottom line – something that will work in your favour should you wish to grow.

5) Diversify your income sources 

Don’t get married, play the field! OK, so figuratively speaking, when it comes to your income stream, this is a very smart move, as depending on just one source of income is risky and unpredictable.

Some of the most successful Social Enterprises I’ve worked with have at least 3 or 4 income streams working within their business.

This can be achieved through offering a mix of products/services, or looking for ways to include your offering alongside a project/initiative/programme that compliments it.

Whether that’s a training programme, an online course, a license arrangement, membership, or even offering your expertise on a Consultancy basis, you want to minimise your risk of failure by securing income streams in different places.

 


So, there you have it. I’m under no illusion a lot of this won’t be new to you, but oftentimes the most successful strategies are the ones that are simple and timeless.

A little known figure called Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result” – if you’re looking to secure financial success within your Social Enterprise, try one, two, three or even better all five of these strategies – I guarantee you they will work if you work them.

Lucy Findlay

Vlog – Lucy comments on the gender pay gap

Forget ‘value for money’; how about ‘social value for money’

Are we heading for ‘Hard Times’?

Today’s political and economic climate reminds me of an episode in Charles Dickens’ novel ‘Hard Times’.  At the beginning of the novel, Mr Gradgrind says ‘Now, what I want is facts’ in his school. He endorses an approach to education that prizes the logical, analytical, mathematical and statistical over common sense, creativity and emotion. Famously he asks a pupil who works in the circus to define a horse, an animal that she works with on a day to day basis. She can’t explain this factually and so invites his wrath. Another child gives a complete zoological explanation despite a much lower level of expertise in horses. This novel highlights the weakness of the utilitarian approach.

Higher education policy seems to be following this number crunching, pseudo analytical approach, which has been applied to schools over last few decades. Teresa May announced a review of post-18 education in February. The emphasis is now on value for money – but how can this be calculated?! There is some discussion that looks at which jobs students end up in, but how do you put a value on these – do we just revert to saying everyone should be aiming for the highest paid jobs? Do we want a nation of merchant bankers, city workers, accountants and lawyers? What happens to society, the creative industries and the public sector amongst others in this scenario?

Professor Nick PetfordGetting the right jobs is not only about a degree, it’s about lots of other contributory factors. This argument has been further elaborated on in the Guardian recently, in an article in which Professor Nick Petford, Vice Chancellor of the University of Northampton, argues that there will be a disincentive to train nurses, midwives and police officers if post-graduation earnings are used in such a crude statistical way.

I have also seen suggestions that value for money might be calculated by how many student facilities a university has, or academic services? Or maybe it should be the cheapest beer in the Union and the most nightclubs in the nearby town?? No doubt some arbitrary formula will end up being concocted so we can all see which university ranks top and then this will be trumpeted loud by those universities that achieve the top marks.

The main problem for the ‘Hard Times’ fact-based approach is that we are dealing with human beings who have emotions and experiences. People may say that they are using pure facts to make a decision, but this ignores all the outside factors that make an experience enjoyable and feel worthwhile. It also flies in the face of existing research which shows that the new generations of students and professionals measure success by more than just financial reward.

Using my own personal experience as a case study, I worked as a researcher in my university after my degree, because I was interested in the subject (certainly not the pay). It wasn’t until my next job as a policy officer that I found the niche of social enterprise and community based regeneration (several years later). There was not necessarily a neat trajectory between getting my degree and a well-paid job, but both my degrees led me to challenge my thinking and helped to develop my personal value set.

The utilitarian approach also forgets that being at university is not just about the individual.  There is the experience of being part of the university community, as well as the fact that universities sit within communities themselves, adding value and richness to many more lives than just those studying. This goes beyond the pure number crunching of Value for Money to create Social Value for Money. We, in partnership with others in the university and social enterprise sectors, are making this point to the new Office for Students – where we argue for a more embedded approach, which looks at the development of a Social Value for Money Framework that engages directly with students.

We have been working with HEFCE and our Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark universities to bring out some of the wider essence of what it means to be a good socially enterprising university, caring not only about its students and staff, but also playing a crucial role in developing the links with the local community. The University of Salford for instance has a great reputation for enabling access to students locally who have been brought up in Local Authority Care.

Social Enterprise Gold Mark

The Social Enterprise Gold Mark in particular helps to highlight and bring together social enterprise characteristics and Social Value for Money. There is also a new report that has just been launched by HEFCE and Flourish CIC, which highlights and evaluates the work that has already been done by universities to develop social entrepreneurs amongst students, staff and the local population.

So where does this leave us? Louisa Gradgrind ended up having a mental breakdown as a result of her schooling in ‘Hard Times’.  We must not forget that we are dealing with people at the end of the day. Statistics should be used with caution and we must not lose the nuances of what it means to go to university. It is not a simple equation of good degree + ‘good’ university = well paid career.

I hope we are not heading for a breakdown – I am naturally a positive person, so I don’t think so, but we need to be careful about what behaviours are engendered by crude targets and statistics and we have ideas about how this can be countered – watch this space!

Leading the way or minding the gap?

Lucy Findlay shortlisted for Venus AwardsInternational Women’s Day was on 8th March.  Reading my social media feed that day, it seemed to have much more prominence than in previous years. I think it was probably a combination of factors, including the many shocking stories in the press such as the #metoo campaign, the gender pay gap figures that show there is still such a huge disparity between men and women, and 100 years of votes for (some) women.  Personally, and more positively, I have also recently been selected as a finalist in the Venus Women’s Business Awards.

I was also asked to carry out an interview for Ethical Hour as part of the IWD celebrations, followed by an interview live on camera about the pay gap. It certainly got me thinking about how women fare in social enterprise/ethical business in general. Are we leading the way or do we still have some gaps to fill?

Unlike the mainstream business world, statistics show that social enterprises are more likely to be run by women than SMEs (41% according to the 2017 State of Social Enterprise Report) and we know from previous research done in the early days of the Social Enterprise Mark that women are also more likely to be consciously ethical consumers.

Equal gender representation and seniority in social enterprise however, does still mirror the corporate world in sectors where traditionally women have been less prominent.  For instance, I notice events about IT, transport, housing/property and finance still tend to be male dominated (including the speakers, but with some notable exceptions). However, I have been encouraged to see more changes over my many years in the sector, with more women running very large social enterprises, such as universities and in healthcare delivery. Although we do not yet see mirrored equality in other sectors, I hope we are on an upward trajectory as more women develop the confidence to not only start social enterprises but to continue to run them as they get larger. This also requires recruitment processes to take women seriously.

The interviews made me reflect beyond pay and representation to my own experiences as the leader of a ‘politically charged’ social enterprise. As part of my job, I have been required to develop blogs and other social media presence. Like many women, I have often found this to be intimidating and needlessly confrontational, especially at the beginning. I have also been in many meetings where I have been ignored, patronised or accused of being emotional (women are emotional or aggressive whilst men are passionate and assertive!) More worryingly, I have been subjected to some behaviours which would be considered unprofessional, and I was told by more than one male social enterprise leader that our business would never last and be gone in a few years. So much for supporting each other and mutuality!

I’m very proud of where we are at as a social enterprise 8 years down the line; we now have a presence in 11 countries and lead the way in meaningful social enterprise accreditation internationally. The sector as a whole has made some good progress, but needs to really reflect its values of mutuality and respect for all.  We all want to make the world a better place and I have great hope for the future – keep up the good work!

Alternative models of business – time for a change?

John McDonnell at Labour Party Alternative Models of Ownership conference

John McDonnell speaking at Alternative Models of Ownership conference

Last weekend the Labour Party held a conference, where it launched a report highlighting Alternative Ownership Models. It criticised the prevailing model of public service delivery and highlighted some of the failures of the corporate sector.  It also challenged the old idea that renationalisation means bringing services back inside the public sector itself.

I too have written on many occasions about important lessons that big business could learn from alternative business models, e.g. social enterprises, particularly with regard to delivering public sector services. As we continue to see high profile private sector/corporate service delivery debacles, which put shareholder interests before people and communities; Carillion, Virgin Care, G4S to name just a few recent examples (not mentioning the banking sector!), I can’t help thinking that we should surely have reached a turning point by now?

There is another way, which offers a credible alternative to this corporate approach; social enterprise offers a flexible business approach to tackling key social issues, without the over-riding pressure to make profits for shareholders and investors. Frustratingly though, the response usually seems to be ‘how can we get social enterprises to scale up to meet the needs of commissioners and become more like corporates?’ By focusing purely on growth, the risk is that services become routinely standardised and therefore lack the flexibility to tailor services to the needs of the public. How many times have you been stuck on the end of a phone to a call centre only to speak to someone who has a standard response and can’t understand your individual issue and provide a satisfactory solution?

Social enterprises can offer a more flexible tailored approach that actually focusses on local need rather than ‘efficiency savings’ aimed at providing dividends and bonuses for shareholders, directors and investors.

Thankfully, consumers seem to be cottoning on quicker than the powers that be; the recent 2017 Ethical Consumer Markets Report showed that almost ¼ of respondents reported buying goods/services specifically because of a company’s ethical reputation, a 28% increase on the previous year. Hopefully this trend will force the hand of the public and corporate sector – to compete and survive, they will need to prove they are creating a positive impact on society and the world around us.

Although it may be considered naïve to think that we may see a day when social enterprise becomes the business model of choice, I would like to think that at the very least we may see an era where big businesses take inspiration from the example set by social enterprise, to consider public value as a key criterion when making decisions, rather than the other way around. I’ve lost count of the times when we have been required to listen to corporates tell us how to do things.  It would also be great to see more attention being paid to the motivations of the business rather than just putting a good bid together that over promises and under delivers.

Key lessons can be learned, much of it concerning change in the corporate mentality – profit is of course important for survival, but this shouldn’t come at the expense of everything else. There needs to be an end to ‘lip service’ and meaningless CSR claims, replaced by a system that looks realistically at the promises made by bidders and their track record (e.g. what is it at the expense of…. customers, beneficiaries, patients, students?).

Corporations need to view society and the environment as truly active stakeholders and therefore should consider public interests as a high priority when designing and delivering services.

 


Adapted from a guest blog written for Your Public Value, published on 9th February 2018

Lucy Findlay at launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in 2010

Another year older, another year wiser?

As we celebrate the 8th anniversary of the launch of the Social Enterprise Mark, I am proud of our progress, and how we have remained true to our original aim of identifying and certifying genuine social enterprises, and more latterly emphasising the upholding of standards to support this aim.

Since 2010, Social Enterprise Mark CIC (and formerly RISE, the umbrella body that supported social enterprises in the south west of England), has acted as an arbiter of robust social enterprise standards, working to ensure the social enterprise business model remains ethical, credible and commercial, through independent accreditation.

It would perhaps have been easier at times not to have ‘stuck to our guns’, but we have learnt many valuable lessons along the way. Plus, I do pride myself on the fact that my USP is not following the crowd! We have continually adapted our products to the changing marketplace, responding to customer’s needs, market opportunities and changes to the economy.

Launch of the Social Enterprise Gold Mark at House of Commons in 2014

Launch of the Social Enterprise Gold Mark at Houses of Commons in 2014

For example, we developed and launched the Social Enterprise Gold Mark in 2014, as the first (and only) standard of social enterprise excellence. This was in response to people questioning how you can identify excellence and good practice in social enterprise. The Gold Mark is not just an accreditation; it scores businesses in different areas of governance, ethical business practice, financial transparency, and social and environmental impact, and also provides an action plan going forwards to ensure continual development.

As we continue to see high profile private sector/corporate service delivery debacles putting shareholder interests before people and communities, e.g. Carillion, Virgin Care, G4S, Capita etc etc (not to mention the banking sector!), I can’t help thinking that we should surely be at a turning point by now?

The debate nationally still seems to be – ‘how can we get social enterprises to scale up to meet the needs of commissioners?’ Surely this is the wrong question. Bigger and bigger often leads to standardisation, mediocrity and a lack of flexibility to the local circumstances.  Plus, there is another way and it does not have to copy the corporate world! Social enterprise offers a flexible, credible, business approach to the problems and issues that society has, without hands tied behind its back with pressure from shareholders and investors. Maybe one day the penny will drop?

It does appear to be dropping with consumers; the 2017 Ethical Consumer Markets Report showed that almost ¼ of respondents reported buying goods/services specifically because of a company’s ethical reputation, a 28% increase on the previous year. The tide is turning and hopefully the public and corporate sector will sit up and take note and we will see a new paradigm where businesses can’t just tick a box anymore – they actually have to prove that they are making a positive impact on society and the world around us. Maybe then we will welcome an age where social enterprise is lauded as the true business model of choice, proving that it is not just a ‘lip service’ CSR department.

In anticipation of this, we believe it is crucial to get ourselves prepared with clear standards, which differentiate and protect the integrity of genuine social enterprises, and to help consumers identify businesses that are committed to truly trading for the good of people and planet.

That is why, as we embark on our 9th year as the social enterprise accreditation authority, I am confident that we are moving in the right direction and that the big times are still to come!

It’s time to put social value at the core of our public services

Former ACEVO Chief Executive Asheem Singh hit the nail on the head in his recent piece in the Guardian about the collapse of Carillion. I have written many times on the risks posed by the relentless focus on price above all other considerations when awarding public sector contracts (e.g. Cutting out a more effective way of doing business?)

This is not the first such story we have heard of big corporates failing in their delivery of public services; in fact they seem quite commonplace nowadays. So when will the Government recognise the increasing need to prioritise organisations that create added social value above and beyond the core service being commissioned?

Social enterprises, at their core, are committed to using income and profits in maximising social outcomes above that of individual profit motivations, creating real and lasting benefits for society. By embracing these alternative business models, the Government can move away from the short termism that has blighted public sector commissioning in recent years, and move towards a future where social value sits at the heart of our public services. It may not be the cheapest option on the face of it, but it could lead to significant savings in the long term.

Some of the work is already done…. the legislation already exists to require public bodies to consider the wider economic, social and environmental impact of the services they commission. It is a case of the Government putting their money where their mouth is, by doing more to ensure that the Social Value Act is fully implemented across our public services and widening its potential application to other areas of public expenditure.

As Asheem points out, social enterprises should take the Carillion debacle as a ‘platform for action’. It is a prime opportunity for us, as a sector, to demand changes and present social enterprise as a solution that can ensure public interests are put first and foremost in service delivery.

A new year’s resolution that you can stick to

I am sure many of you have recently set new resolutions for the year ahead, be they personal goals (e.g. eating healthier or exercising more) or a commitment to make changes on a wider scale (e.g. using less plastic, getting involved in volunteering). However, how many of us actually stick to our resolutions for the whole year (and beyond)??

Perhaps then we should focus more on long term permanent changes to our behaviour, rather than short term ‘fads’ that we are likely to give up on at some point. Given that 2017 saw continued growth in sales of ethical products (up for the 14th year in a row), this gives me hope that perhaps more people will start to focus on their consumption habits and consider the impact of these on the wider world. An easy start would be pledging your commitment to supporting a growing movement of businesses serious about creating positive change.

We launched our Beyond the Badge campaign last year, to help consumers and organisations do good business, by looking out for credible independent labels as proof that a business is living up to its claims, therefore enabling them to make more informed choices.

Beyond the Badge campaign partnersTeaming up with a diverse group of fellow standard-setting bodies that share common values and principles in our approach to accreditation, we aimed to engage consumers with independent standards/labels and educate them on how these can help them to identify businesses that are serious about doing good.

We were excited to recently welcome Investors in People, the standard for people management, as a campaign partner, and would be keen to hear from other organisations interested in getting involved.

Despite the reported increase in ethical consumerism, we are conscious that there is still work to be done in promoting this message on a wider scale, to encourage everyone (both consumers and businesses) to consider the impact of their purchase decisions. This is why we are continuing the campaign into 2018 and I encourage you all to ‘Go Beyond the Badge’ this year, and look out for credible independent labels that actually mean something.

Independent third-party standards play an important role in providing an external endorsement of claims made by businesses – that is, they help consumers know that they can trust a business is committed to doing good. This year, it is one of our own resolutions to push this message into the mainstream, and encourage consumers and businesses across different sectors to use such standards and labels to be sure they are buying from a company they can trust.

I invite you all to commit to a New Year’s resolution you can stick to – you can start by signing the campaign pledge (below) and spreading the word to your contacts.

Beyond the Badge pledge

You can add formatting using markdown syntax - read more

Share this with your friends:

     


*We will add you to our supporters mailing list, which we send regular updates to about our network of accredited social enterprises and our accreditation services. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the email.

 

Profiteering from the NHS – have we reached a new low?

Back in 2014, I predicted that we would, in the future, question the values that are used to make public spending decisions.  However, we now seem to have reached a new low.

Following an unsuccessful bid for a children’s services contract in Surrey, Virgin Care had threatened legal action.  This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of pounds (if not a few million) being taken out of the local cash-strapped NHS, which could have been used to help diagnose and treat people of all ages, in order to settle the dispute out of court.

Virgin Care has the power of a big corporation and a team of lawyers behind its every move.  Most tenderers could not, and would not, sue the NHS if they failed in a bid.  However, when the internal values of the business are first and foremost commerciality, the logical step is to challenge if you can.  I also wonder if this tactic will make other Commissioners think twice about turning down a Virgin Care bid?

With more than 400 contracts, Virgin Care has a growing track record in the health and social care world, but at what price?  They might make a big deal about how they will improve services and treat staff well, but someone has to suffer with profit maximisation being squeezed from the tight NHS budget.  The cuts in front-line staff ultimately lead to a poorer service for patients, who have no choice in the matter.

At least in this case the winners of the bid were two social enterprises and an NHS Trust, which will not be focused on creating profits for shareholders.  Surely it would make sense for this to become a more explicit criterion for commissioners to judge a contract?  Not only is it better value for money, but the values of the service are aligned to NHS delivery.

My Christmas message, and wish for 2018, is that public spending decisions need to become more values based!

Conquering misconceptions around social enterprise

We were interested to see a social enterprise pitching on Dragon’s Den recently. It’s always good to see alternative forms of business profiled in the mainstream media. However, it was disappointing to hear Peter Jones dismissing the entrepreneur by saying she was confused as to whether her venture was a business or a social enterprise…. this is a continual challenge for the sector; the misconception that social enterprises aren’t real businesses.

The first rule of social enterprise is that financial sustainability is of utmost importance, as without this, a business will not be able to achieve their social objectives. We don’t agree however that there is a choice to be made between operating a business or a social enterprise; the choice is what you do with the profits a business makes… this is essentially what defines a social enterprise.

It seems the sector is struggling to shake off the notion of a charity type model, reliant on grant funding and donations, even though recent figures show that almost ¼ of UK social enterprises earn more than 75% of their income from trading*. Although some progress has been made in bringing social enterprise to the mainstream, it seems we still have a way to go in achieving complete recognition and understanding of the business model as a credible alternative to capitalist structures.

So, how can we address the misconceptions that surround social enterprise?

The independent accreditation provided by the Social Enterprise Mark and Social Enterprise Gold Mark offer a solution by providing a credible standard, backed up by sector agreed criteria as to what constitutes a social enterprise. Organisations are externally assessed on application and on an annual basis, to ensure they are truly operating as a social enterprise, with the core motivation of using profits and income to create benefits for society and the environment. These Marks provide a visual sign that a business is trading for people and planet; trading being the operative word.

The key is credibility; to be taken seriously by consumers and businesses, social enterprises need to demonstrate they ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to operating as a credible organisation that is committed to creating real social change. The Beyond the Badge campaign aims to raise the profile of independent labels and how they can help consumers (and businesses for that matter) to easily identify businesses that are proven to be doing good.

We clearly still have a journey ahead of us on the path to widespread awareness and understanding, but, by enabling organisations to demonstrate they have a sustainable business model, with the potential to create real social impact, we are doing our bit towards conquering these common misconceptions.

 


* State of Social Enterprise report

Social Enterprise Gold Mark

Beyond certification – the Mark of a better business

Following the news in the summer that Sainsbury’s are replacing the established and trusted FAIRTRADE Mark with their own in-house certification scheme, there seems to be a general trend in this direction by big producers. Multinational giants Mondelez International (which owns Cadbury), Unilever, and Barry Callebaut (world’s biggest producer of chocolate and cocoa products) have all confirmed they are now using their own ethical standards, eschewing independent third party labels.

This is a worrying development. How do we know how rigorous standards are really being applied and assessed if they are not subjecting themselves to third party scrutiny? Multinationals and corporates make huge shareholder profits, and not to submit themselves to third party scrutiny seems to further reduce the accountability of their operations. As I wrote in my blog about the Sainsbury’s story back in July, we are concerned that this could also lead to erosion of consumer trust in any labelling schemes, which should ultimately exist to engender this trust, not damage it.

Social Enterprise Mark CIC has recognised that standards should not just provide openness and transparency, they should also challenge the business to become even better at what it does. This is why we now collect social value information on an ongoing basis, alongside developing the far more demanding Social Enterprise Gold Mark, which goes into much more depth around ethical practice in every area of the business, from procurement and sourcing to employee relations and governance.

The Social Enterprise Gold Mark was developed to provide a quality benchmark for social enterprises that can demonstrate excellence in key business areas, such as governance, business ethics, and social/environmental impact. As well as providing proof of a commitment to business excellence, it also acts as a business development tool – successful applicants receive an individually tailored action plan for continuous improvement, in line with Social Enterprise Gold Mark guidelines of best practice. Therefore, it is very much an ongoing development process, not just covering a snapshot in time at the point of assessment.

Given the high-profile scandals that have hit big brands such as Mondalez (formerly Kraft), which came under fire in 2011, when they closed a UK chocolate production factory following their takeover of Cadbury, there is a need for more businesses to submit to the scrutiny of external assessment with regards to their business practices and how they make and distribute their profits, and how they treat their workers.

At the time of the Cadbury takeover, Mondalez made assurances that production would remain in the UK and that the Somerdale factory would remain open. However, less than a week later an announcement was made that the factory would in fact be closed, at the cost of thousands of jobs.

In order to prove applicants’ businesses are excelling as genuinely socially responsible organisations, the assessment for the Gold Mark digs deeper to examine key aspects of the operations of a business. This includes looking at how they govern the organisation, employee engagement and terms of employment, as well as how income is used to create social and environmental impact.

Maybe this is the future of certification…. A visible and trusted identifier of those doing better business, in every aspect of their operations.

Providing credible standards for social enterprise

Lucy Findlay blog for the Regulator of Community Interest Companies


Upholding the standard for social enterprise

For more than 7 years, Social Enterprise Mark CIC (and formerly RISE, the umbrella body that supported social enterprises in the south west of England) has acted as an arbiter of robust social enterprise standards. Since our inception back in 2010, we have endeavoured to ensure the social enterprise business model remains ethical, credible and commercial, through independent accreditation. As well as providing a single recognisable ‘identifier’ for genuine social enterprises, which are externally assessed against sector-agreed criteria, we work to promote the capabilities of social enterprises as a credible alternative to more ‘mainstream’ business models.

We provide two accreditation ‘marks’, which assess applicants against robust qualification criteria to provide an independent guarantee of their commitment to creating benefits for people and planet, through the trade of goods and services.

The Social Enterprise Mark is the only internationally available social enterprise accreditation, enabling credible social enterprises to prove they put the interests of people and planet before shareholder gain. The Mark acts as an independent, externally assessed guarantee that a business is operating as a true social enterprise, with the central aim of using income/profits to maximise social benefit, which takes precedent over generating dividends for owners/shareholders.

The Social Enterprise Gold Mark is a unique enhanced accreditation for social enterprises wishing to demonstrate their excellence, assessing three essential areas of business operations:

  • Governance – stakeholder representation in strategy and operation
  • Business ethics – complaints handling, diversity, equality, pay, workplace issues and social auditing
  • Social impact and financial transparency – how income and profits are used to create added social and environmental impact

The accreditation focuses on measuring what makes a social enterprise excellent, and how they can continue to improve their impact. Successful applicants receive an individually tailored action plan for continuous improvement, in line with guidelines of best practice.

Community Interest Companies – the perfect fit for social enterprise

CIC RegulatorAlthough there is no single legal structure for social enterprise, the Community Interest Company (CIC) model was specifically designed with social enterprises in mind. It aimed to bridge the gap between standard commercial businesses and charities, recognising that some businesses wanted to provide some benefit to the community through their commercial activities but without the regulation and restrictions which come with being a registered charity.

CICs automatically meet most of the criteria covered by the Social Enterprise Mark. Over ¼ of our network of accredited social enterprises are registered as CICs and we certainly view the CIC model as a favourable one in terms of assessing eligibility for accreditation.

Broadening horizons – looking to the future

As a recognised and established social enterprise accreditation authority, we are increasingly broadening our horizons, both in terms of engaging with new markets and in expanding our offer internationally.

Over the last year, we have become increasingly engaged with the Higher Education sector, with several HEIs showing an interest in proving their commitment to using profits to create benefits for people and planet. This is an encouraging development, as it symbolises a commitment to creating social change, for which such institutions have a huge potential scope to achieve, given their size.

There are now 8 HEIs which hold Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark accreditation, with Plymouth College of Art, The University of Northampton, and The University of Winchester recently being awarded the Social Enterprise Gold Mark at our conference in June.

We have also seen a growing interest in social enterprise at an international level, and strive to be the global champion for credible standards for social enterprise. Following the approval of UAE based C3 as the first international Social Enterprise Mark holder in April 2015, there are now 6 organisations outside the UK that have been awarded the Social Enterprise Mark, including FLOCERT (the global certification body for the Fairtrade Mark) and the Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (the network of Fairtrade certified producers in the Asia Pacific region).

Lucy Findlay in TaiwanAs well as welcoming applications from social enterprises across the world, we offer international consultancy services, to advise global counterparts looking to set up equivalent social enterprise accreditation schemes within their own countries. For example, in March 2016, we were approached by the British Council and invited to China to advise on the development of a Chinese social enterprise accreditation system, and in 2015 I was invited by the Taiwanese government to speak about the Social Enterprise Mark at the International Social Enterprise Conference.

So, in summary, we have bold ambitions to continue to develop our position as the global champion of credible standards for social enterprise!

 


This blog was originally posted on the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies blog on Friday 8th September 2017.

Can ‘fairly traded’ really replace ‘Fairtrade’?

As the authority responsible for implementing the robust standards and independent accreditation processes of the Social Enterprise Mark and Social Enterprise Gold Mark, we were very sad to hear of the decision by Sainsbury’s to apply their own “fairly-traded” scheme to Red Label tea in place of the widely trusted FAIRTRADE Mark.

Much as Sainsbury’s is loved and trusted by its customers, this move risks opening the door to less reputable businesses creating their own in-house schemes. We are very concerned that this will lead to a proliferation of unsubstantiated social and environmental claims that will confuse consumers and ultimately erode their trust in all such schemes, far beyond the sectors in which Fairtrade operates. The extent of these concerns is apparent in the response to the petition on Change.Org on this topic which quickly attracted over 5,000 signatures.

As a labelling company ourselves, we know that considerable investment, expertise and commitment is required to develop and process robust standards. We are concerned that by Sainsbury’s controlling the certification of its own products, it will ‘water down’ the regulations to suit its own agenda.

There is likely to be confusion amongst consumers, who have come to recognise the FAIRTRADE Mark as independent proof that a product has met international Fairtrade standards. This trust has been built up over 2 decades.

For our part, we verify the claims of genuine social enterprises, by providing a trusted independent label to assure stakeholders that they meet common standards. The assessment process helps them to benchmark performance against the norms and encourages them to work towards best practice. The key to credible accreditation/certification is an external assessment process, which should be conducted by an independent third party. Only with a completely impartial and transparent process is it meaningful.

We therefore fail to understand why Sainsbury’s would choose not to support such a process in respect of its own products that meet Fairtrade standards, rather than upholding the principles of transparency and consistency that the FAIRTRADE Mark provides. This is, I am sure, a sentiment which is echoed by our network of Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark holders, and the wider social enterprise sector.

We offer our full support to Fairtrade, which itself inspired our own Mark, and stand by the importance of independent, credible, transparent authentic labels that consumers know they can trust.

Profiteering from the sick and dying…chapter 2

Another bonanza for the shareholders?

This blog follows on from a previous blog on this subject, published in 2014

My family and I have recently been subject to the vagaries of NHS system and the bewildering world of social care.  Like so many families when a loved one falls seriously ill, you take a dive into a parallel universe that you might have thought about, but suddenly get thrust into for real.  It starts with shock and confusion and pretty soon moves on to frustration at trying to find your way round a system that is supposed to put the patient first, but often fails due to being overstretched and managed by too many ‘cooks’.  I am aware, however, that in many ways we are in some ways more fortunate (if that’s the right word) than others in this situation – the illness is cancer, not dementia.  The NHS goes into full swing for us and we don’t have the added stress of to try to work out which care agency to use, how much it’s going to cost and how to pay for it.

The Conservative Manifesto suggests that in the future more social care will have to be paid for privately, if necessary by remortgaging any property without a financial cap.  I understand that there are pressures on the system, but what will the real cost be and who will be the winners if this policy is enacted?  It probably doesn’t take a detective to work it out, but one thing’s for sure, with an aging population there will certainly be profits to make.  The likelihood is that the private care sector will ramp up to fill the gap with little or no protection on costs from the government, along with equity release companies who will charge interest for the privilege of staying at home.  You only have to look over the Atlantic to see the impact that such private companies have on the lives of people who should be concentrating on caring for their loved one, rather than being stressed out about deciding which care/health company is good or bad, whether the insurance will cover it, and if not how to pay for it (possibly selling/remortgaging their house).

It is a shame that more creative and equitable solutions are not being considered in the future of social care as well as how to fund it – they do exist!  There is always a rush to look for a private solution, with the same old business models, which put their shareholders first.  The Manifesto talks about encouraging Public Sector Mutuals, but the current Government has made no real effort to encourage the formation of social enterprises that could reinvest profits back into the system as well as behaving more ethically.  The local community could even have a stake in such companies!  What is clear though is that if we are talking about delivery outside the state, then there is a need for regulation and a guarantee that people can have confidence that shareholder financial gain is not the underlying goal – profiteering from the sick and dying is inexcusable, morally questionable and one of the key reasons that the NHS was set up in the first place.

Have we forgotten to ask how we can BE and DO better?

By Caroline Bartle, Managing Director of 3 Spirit UK

I started to write this blog at the start of the year. Normally this is a time most people take stock and ask how can we BE and DO better?  However, within our social care sector, this reappraisal is not new, but rather ongoing, and insidious.  We are constantly being asked, how we can DO better. For many services this has resulted in cutting back, and prioritising profitability.

However, what is the impact of this?  Is there a hidden cost of dwindling social care funding, creating highly competitive, low cost, low value services? Has this disproportionate focus on the turning a profit  taken us away from more ethical aspects of our work, as we forget to ask how can we BE better? Surely the test of how we can ‘BE’ better as a social care service lies within the ‘social impact’ that we have, not in the profit that we accrue.

About twenty years ago after a relatively short career in social work I became a proprietor of a social care business at the age of 27, and when I look back over the last two decades I see the factor which drove me to business was the freedom to BE the person that I wanted to be. Because of this, I get immense pleasure from my work, and my collaborations. I spend time working with the individuals that I chose, and I have the opportunities to learn about, and develop what I determine as critical, interesting and applicable. I am motivated, engaged and free to be innovative. My values are at the heart of my business, sometimes at the expense of profit.  Over the years my values have evolved. As a young entrepreneur, I was always interested in creating and sharing, however now I am more concerned about how these collaborations impact on our communities, collectively and positively.

Despite being a ‘for profit’ organisation, we shared our resources, widely and openly (with no material gain), and attempted to reach out to individuals and organisations through our work. Whilst we have had many supporters, we have also been met with some alarming responses: individuals proactively unfollowed us, and actively excluded us. It was disappointing and deeply demotivating. There appears to be a lack of trust in our sector: driven possibly by competitive, anti-collective forces.   Consider though what the possibilities might be for our sector if we are able to foster trust, and build alliances beyond the competitive limitations of market forces. What if we all shared common goals, the communities that we serve? What if there was a less of a ‘me’ mentality and more of an ‘us’?

The growth of a market was stimulated, in part with the introduction of the Community Care Act, and has relied on competitive forces, creating best value. However, how effectively does this model work now, in this current climate?

In 2012 the government introduced the Public Services (Social Value) Act in an attempt to get commissioners to consider the social impact of their buying power. However, this only applies to high value contracts. So what of all the other services, or individuals, purchasing services in their community? Whilst these services are regulated by the CQC, many are driven by profit, and may not always be making their decisions in the interests of ALL of their stakeholders.  If we are to really make a ‘shared society’ work, should we not ‘expect’ that social enterprises are afforded preferential treatment at a local buyer level? In 2015 there was a review of the implementation of the Social Value Act, suggesting that the Act be extended to contracts below the public spend threshold. It is my view this could be extended further than suggested.

In the healthcare market we have already seen many services become social enterprises. Health has long had an expectation that it should service all stakeholders, as since the introduction of the NHS, it has been free at the point of delivery.

However, that is not the case for social care: the expectation remains that many providers maintain a ‘for profit’ status. Many business minded individuals identify opportunities in a growth market, particularly in the community, where there is a growing need to support individuals with more complex levels of care. The question is – how sustainable is this in the current market? Does the social enterprise model work better in this climate, and if so – should commissioners consider this as part of their market shaping strategy as part of a long term goal for smaller, as well as large organisations? Could this be applied across all types of services, particularly training services like us, whom should be embodying an example, as advocates of ‘best practice’.

So, what are your driving values as a proprietor? To make a profit or make a difference? Whilst on the face of it, it may be a little more complex than that, determining the overriding priorities will help to properly focus priorities on outcomes. As an education provider in social care, we aim to buck the trend, and embody this change.

Social enterprise  is a more comfortable fit for us: synergy with stakeholder expectations and our activities. Through raising awareness, we aim to provide better insights into the experience and needs of the individuals we support in the social care sector.  From a business perspective, it seems to make sense, as it is through trading that we may have a bigger impact in society.

The rise of ethical consumerism: considering the impact of purchase decisions

Although it is heartening to see that consumers are increasingly looking at sustainability and ethical issues in their purchasing decisions, as evidenced by a recent international study by Unilever, I do worry about whether they are actually able to make an informed decision.  The proliferation of ‘greenwashing’ does mask and make buying decisions more confusing.

Greenwashing is the corporate practice of using clever PR and marketing claims to mislead customers into thinking a company and its products are ethical/sustainable/environmentally friendly etc. Sadly, the rise in consumer interest in sustainability and ethics seems to be marked by the rise of this tactic by big corporate brands.

This is a smoke screen for their anti-social behaviour, as has been evidenced time and again in the hypocrisy of the banking world.  I will never forget, on the passing of the Public Services (Social Value) Act, being lectured about what to do to add social value by a big name High Street bank, whose Chief Executive the week before had been apologising for yet another expose leading to huge fines by the regulator.

Another very high profile example is the Volkswagen ‘Dieselgate’ emissions scandal in 2015, where the organisation admitted fitting cars with software designed to give false readings in emissions tests. This served as a public reminder of the need to be vigilant for misleading messages – if a multinational giant that was once considered a leader in sustainability was deliberately deceiving customers, then it poses the question – who else is up to this dodgy practice??

Unfortunately, greenwashing isn’t always easy to spot, especially where there is an existing high level of consumer trust within a brand. Even where there isn’t trust, many consumers take claims at face value and do not question other behaviours of that company – people have short memories! There are so many ethical labels and claims used by brands to entice customers to buy their products, so where to start for consumers when it comes to knowing who they can trust?

This is the focus of our latest campaign – Beyond the Badge – which aims to help consumers identify genuine labels and claims, and therefore make more informed choices, rather than taking things at face value.  For instance if a product claims to be ‘fairtrade’ – did you realise that it is only certified as such if it displays the FairTrade Mark?

We are pleased to have the support of several high-profile partners, including Soil Association Certification and Ethical Consumer, to engage with a wider consumer audience across multiple sectors.

In our research , I was interested to come across the UL Environment ‘Seven sins of greenwashing’, which identifies seven of the most common greenwashing tactics used by big brands. Interestingly, these include ‘the sin of no proof’ – where a claim is not substantiated with any reliable proof – and ‘the sin of worshipping false labels’ – where the impression is given of a third-party endorsement, where no such thing exists.

To me, these seem particularly relevant to the markets in which we operate, as from its inception, social enterprise has been plagued with vagueness and moving the goal posts.  The advent of social impact reporting and social investment have not helped this cause as they do not support the uniqueness of the social enterprise business model – essentially that by putting people and planet before shareholder profit the business is focused on the social/environmental need that it aims to address.  It may be hard to prove – but the social outcomes are central, not a by-product.  Hence the Social Enterprise Mark – a way of assessing and identifying genuine social enterprises that have a proven commitment to trading for the benefit of people and planet.

We want to encourage everyone to consider the potential impact of their purchase decisions, and to think about whether brands that they support are actually living up to their ethical and sustainability claims. I invite you to get involved, by pledging your support to the campaign and spreading the word amongst your own networks, by joining our Thunderclap campaign, which will send an automated social media post out from your account to create a buzz of conversation about the campaign.

Fairtrade: A Mark of inspiration

The impending Fairtrade Fortnight (27th February – 12th March) led me to reminisce that the Fairtrade movement inspired the roots of our own accreditation system, back in the late 2000’s. Fairtrade is a global movement to secure fair prices, working conditions and terms of trade for farmers, producers and workers across the world. By guaranteeing a minimum price and a premium payment, which producers invest into their businesses and communities, Fairtrade gives people in developing countries the opportunity to improve their lives and plan for their future.

Fairtrade Fortnight is an annual campaign to increase public awareness of Fairtrade certified products, organised by the Fairtrade Foundation, an independent non-profit organisation that licenses use of the Fairtrade Mark on products in the UK. This year marks 20 years since the inaugural Fairtrade Fortnight campaign was launched in Scotland on 12th February 1997.

The credibility of the Fairtrade system is upheld by FLOCERT, which is coincidentally a Social Enterprise Mark holder. FLOCERT is responsible for independently certifying Fairtrade products and awarding the internationally recognised Fairtrade Mark; an independent certification that you see on a product that meets the international Fairtrade standards. This label shows that the product has been certified to offer a better deal to the farmers and workers involved. The Mark helps consumers to easily identify products that have met the required standards.

The Social Enterprise Mark was borne out of a similar need – to address the lack of robustness behind the term ‘social enterprise’ and the lack of a way to market social enterprise products and services. Social Enterprise Mark accreditation provides reassurance for customers and stakeholders that there is credibility behind claiming to be a social enterprise. Our two accreditation Marks – the Social Enterprise Mark and Social Enterprise Gold Mark – protect the integrity of genuine social enterprises and enable them to stand out from the crowd, as an externally assessed, independent guarantee of their primary commitment to using income and profits to create benefits for people and planet.

In very simple terms, the Social Enterprise Mark is the social enterprise equivalent of the Fairtrade Mark, providing a clear definition of what constitutes a social enterprise, and an instantly recognisable ‘stamp of approval’ to show that a business has been independently assessed and meets sector-agreed criteria to justifiably call itself a social enterprise.

With the Fairtrade Mark now well into its third decade, working with over 1,200 certified organisations worldwide, it is perhaps no surprise that 9/10 people now recognise and understand the label. Although, I am sure that maintaining and raising public and consumer awareness remains a key objective, hence the annual Fairtrade Fortnight campaign.

It has always been my wish that the Social Enterprise Mark will not only become as recognisable as the Fairtrade Mark, but that it will also stand for business that is striving to be really good at what it does, i.e. trading for people and planet. There are many challenges to this, as there are to any accreditation/labelling scheme, but it remains a key priority.

To this end, we are excited to be putting the finishing touches to a new campaign targeted directly at consumers, where we will be working in collaboration with several high profile partners. We hope that by working in partnership with other companies that share similar challenges of public perception and awareness that we can amplify our collective voice, to reach a wider audience across multiple sectors and demographics. We are planning to launch the campaign over the next few weeks and this will run into our conference in June, when we will consider the impact it has had in generating awareness and recognition.

Watch this space – more details to follow soon!

Lucy Findlay at launch of the Social Enterprise Mark in 2010

Celebrating 7 years of upholding the standard for social enterprise

On the  7th anniversary of the launch of the Social Enterprise Mark, I am reminded of how far we have come as a sector in that time, but also of how far we have to go in being truly recognised as competitive, sustainable businesses in the mainstream business world.

sem-homepage-buttonSince our inception back in 2010, Social Enterprise Mark CIC has endeavoured to ensure the social enterprise business model remains ethical, credible and commercial, through independent accreditation. As well as providing a single recognisable ‘identifier’ for genuine social enterprises, which are externally assessed against sector-agreed criteria, we work to promote the capabilities of social enterprises as a credible alternative to more traditional business models.

This is not easy by any means, especially when it comes to spreading the message to the public and consumers. However, there is clearly a shift change occurring in consumer attitudes towards the sustainability of brands and organisation, as seen in a recent study by consumer goods giant Unilever, which found more than a third of consumers now choose to buy from brands they believe are doing social or environmental good.

We are currently planning a new campaign, which will aim to encourage consumers to consider how they can be sure of the ethical/sustainable credentials of the organisations they buy from. By working with several high profile partners, we hope to spread the message to a much wider audience and to start a global conversation about how consumers can be sure brands are ‘walking the walk’ and not just ‘talking the talk’ when it comes to sustainability and their social purpose.

Another constant challenge is influencing government policy and embedding social enterprise within their mindset. I was interested to see PM Teresa May allude (albeit briefly) to her vision for an inclusive business strategy in the foreword of the government’s Green Paper on the Industrial Strategy: Building our Industrial Strategy. Although there was no direct reference to her recent Shared Society speech, the PM declared that the government wants to “move beyond short-term thinking to focus on the big decisions that will deliver long-term, sustainable success”.

As I wrote back in November in a post looking at the pressures faced by the public sector, tight financial constraints have been resulting in a rather short-term focus, where the bottom line has become of overriding importance, over and above what may be best for society in the long term. Social enterprises are rooted in their stakeholders and communities, and are therefore well placed to respond to the biggest issues facing society. They are set up to address a particular social issue or objective and this remains their driving, primary purpose for the long term – of course profitability is also important for the business to remain sustainable, but profits are used to serve the needs of social stakeholders and feeds back into their social objective.

As we begin our 8th year as the social enterprise accreditation authority, I am confident that we are moving in the right direction to achieving these goals, and look forward to what the next 8 years will bring.

Is the Shared Society all ‘Motherhood and Apple Pie’?

Theresa May’s recent announcement of a ‘Shared Society’, after all the fuss about the Big Society when it was launched, has been greeted with a healthy degree of scepticism, but it is worth having a look at the finer detail and trains of thought that lie within the speech.  Much of it is ‘motherhood and apple pie’, but there are some key themes that chime with me, as she was talking directly about social enterprises (albeit in a limited context of social finance).

Firstly, she highlights the limits of the cult of the individual and how social enterprises help to break this down.  For me, this is a fundamental point about social enterprises.

Social enterprises aspire to be more than a single founder or entrepreneur, however charismatic and publicity hungry such individuals can be in driving the business forward. The most effective social enterprises are rooted in their stakeholders and communities. Conventional business may also be bigger than the individual who runs or sets them up, but social enterprises are set up to address a particular social issue or objective and this remains their driving, primary purpose for the long term; profitability remains important, but it serves the needs of social stakeholders above that of the whims of individual shareholders and their personal profit motivations.

Alongside this the PM also talked about how social enterprises (as well as charities) are not only dependent on the people involved, but also the trust which they engender in the way they work.  The Charity Commission and new Fundraising Regulator are working to help the government with this.  However this does not address the trust placed in social enterprises.  This is where the Social Enterprise Mark comes in – we externally assess social enterprise credentials as well as commitment to providing additional social value. The Mark acts as an independent guarantee that an organisation is trading for the primary benefit of people and the planet.

Lastly, social enterprises also often provide goods and services that address the needs of a whole community, not just the poorest, although they may have programmes that are targeted at or support those in the most need.  The fact that they are run as businesses (and as I touch upon above, must therefore be profitable) allows a cross- subsidy model and does not require grant funding, which tends to be more specifically targeted at the most marginalised.  Therefore you can legitimately argue that the social enterprise business model can help ‘the just about managing’.

Steve Hawkins, Pluss CEO

Social justice – more than just a pipedream?

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

PlussPluss has over 45 years experience of working with some of the most disadvantaged people in society. However, the fact is that today, we are working with many less severely disadvantaged people than we have done in the past.

This is absolutely not because the need has gone away, but as a result of the reduction in funding for these services, which has historically been provided locally.

The upcoming Building Better Opportunities contracts will provide a new range of support but these are not focussed in the way that, for example, local authority learning disability services have been in the past.  And whilst we welcome the focus of the Work and Health programme, it is clear that the programme is for people with a shorter-term into-work prognosis.

At the top level then, this situation is unfortunately at odds with the objective of increasing social justice in the short-term. Increasing social justice should be about addressing disadvantage, reducing inequality and widening opportunities for all people.

In terms of real life issues facing the people that we work with today, the nature of the economy in 2016 (typified by underemployment, zero hours contracts, minimum wage jobs) and the stresses on public services mean vulnerable people’s lives are often more fragile than they have ever been.

When talking about people who are disabled, it is always good to take a step back to reflect on who they actually are. They are not some “distant” group of people – the reality is that they are all of us. The fact is that well over 85% of people with disabilities have acquired them through the course of their lives as a result of illness or injury.

By definition, people with disabilities span the social and economic spectrums. As it stands, the help available from DWP contracted provision is primarily aimed just above the bottom of the demographic – ie. entry-level jobs. This leaves huge gaps at either end of the spectrum where people are not supported – an issue which has to be addressed.

The obvious fact is that this huge degree of diversity means that a one-size approach is never going to work. Halving the disability employment gap requires us to have an amalgam of support services ranging from pre-work, into work and effective retention strategies. All need to be delivered against the specific needs of the individual if lasting change is to be achieved.

Very often one of the major barriers which we see with those people who are more marginalised is the view that work is unattainable. This is often as a result of that message having been drummed into them over a lifetime by medical professionals, schools etc. This has to change, with recognition that employment is a health outcome being vitally important.

We know that at the macro level the labour market and people’s needs will change over time. Therefore it is critical that we have a range of integrated services which embeds local expertise so that it can flex to deliver what is needed on the ground now and for the changing needs of tomorrow.

So what does this mean for commissioning?

Quality, highly effective services are required to deliver lasting results and value for money for the exchequer. We must avoid the race to the bottom in commissioning to ensure that inexpensive just doesn’t end up being cheap.

  • We must retain a focus on in-work support to avoid churn and implement new retention strategies to avoid the bath tap analogy – as fast as we’re filling the labour market vacancies, it’s emptying out twice as quickly. This must take into account the numbers of people falling out of the work from professional, technical and managerial positions who have long careers behind them and who will choose not to access Jobcentre plus.
  • We need to find ways to support people who cannot access DWP provision to re-enter the labour market. It is vital that government finds ways of incentivising local authorities to retain employment services for people in receipt of adult social care who are unlikely to gain access in large numbers to the Work and Health Programme.
  • We need to bring on board others (such as NHS Confederation, CCGs, GP’s etc.) to support our efforts to make work a genuine and valuable health outcome for health stakeholders.
  • We need to build a presumption of employability in the eyes of commissioners for those unlikely to be accommodated by the Work  and Health Programme.

As well as increasing social justice for people because it’s the right thing to do, there is also a very clear economic argument. 

Landman Economics modelled the economic impact of a sustained increase in the rate of employment amongst disabled people between 2105 and 2030. They found that a rise of just five percentage points would lead to

  • An increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £23 billion
  • A gain of £6 billion to the Exchequer

For Pluss, the argument for a return to the principles of “invest to save” in order to support effective local provision that operates alongside the DWP Work and Health Programme would seem clear.

As a sector, we need appropriate levels of funding to be available so that quality services are provided, thus ensuring that achieving social justice is more than just a pipe dream.

Promoting true professionalism as a social enterprise

By Simon Ayers, CEO of TrustMark

trustmarkAs TrustMark nears a close on its 10th Anniversary year, we nostalgically look back on how we got to this point. This year we’ve been campaigning heavily to promote reputable tradespeople, and shone light into the daily activities of our ten TrustMark Ambassadors, all of whom excel in customer service, trading practices and standards of workmanship.

Our ambassadors have been involved in a range of activities this year to promote reputable traders. They started off by being featured in our anniversary report which you can download here. This looks at their business practices, ethos and how they stay true to their customers. We’re proud to work with them to change the industry stereotype and instil confidence in customers that by looking for the right indicators you can find truly professional tradespeople.

trustmark-infographicFirms have come a long way from the commonly branded ‘cowboy’ brush that they are still tarnished with. This year alone, we’ve seen a huge drive to change this unfair image. We released an infographic at the start of this year with some keys statistics on how much UK tradespeople contribute to the economy, which unveiled some astonishing figures. The repair, maintenance and improvement sector alone is worth £2.7 billion every year, so the work carried out by tradespeople has a huge impact on the UK economy.

We’re proud to call ourselves a Social Enterprise Mark Holder. We’ve held the Mark for five years already, so we understand how much value it adds to a business such as ours. As a not-for-profit social enterprise, we put the interests of our Registered Firms and their customers at the heart of our business, and having a symbol that recognises this is important as consumers know that we aren’t focused on purely commercial gains.

Naturally, we aim to stay competitive, but in a way that benefits society and the construction industry. To us, the Mark shows businesses we have their best interests at heart, and we’re not just another scheme trying to make money. Social Enterprise Mark CIC are committed to ensuring the social enterprise business model remains ethical, credible and commercial through accreditation.

SE_BRAND_APPROVED_RGBAll organisations awarded the Social Enterprise Mark accreditation have one key quality in common: their main aim is to use income and profits to benefit society, rather than individuals such as business owners or shareholders. As the only social enterprise accreditation that is internationally available, we see it as a distinctive sign of quality and reassurance to consumers. It is also re-assessed on an annual basis, to ensure businesses are maintaining a fair approach and keep consumer interests at the core of activity.

As a social enterprise, we don’t have a big marketing budget to play around with, so for TrustMark as an organisation we focus on spreading the word organically and adding value to our firms and their customers in any way we can in order to grow and stay competitive. Being a Social Enterprise Mark holder sends a message to firms that we are a professional organisation, and we feel that such affiliations attract the right sort of firms to become TrustMark registered. It’s important in this day and age to give a platform for quality, expert people to sell themselves with the recognition they deserve.

Within our big drive this year to promote professionals in the industry and add credibility to their businesses, we’ve set about a number of initiatives, to expand on the work with our Ambassadors and offer easier ways of staying professional to all of our Registered Firms.

One of the ways we looked to do this way by launching a new feedback system earlier this year to add value to traders on the TrustMark website. We see online reviews as a real sign of quality, and is obviously a great way for these firms to prove their worth to new customers who might not be familiar with their standards of workmanship. We try to encourage our firms to request reviews from all customers, even those that might have had some hiccups along the way. Reviews are often criticised for their inability to distinguish between real and fake, but with this new system in place, we are going the extra mile to ensure reviews are genuine. All customers leaving a review will have their review moderated by Referenceline to ensure they are genuine customers, and are not denied the right to leave a review by the firm.

We’re now looking to 2017 and how we can continue to add value to our Registered Firms so that they can pass this on to their customers. We’ll soon be launching a National Trading Standards Approval scheme – so this is something to look forward to seeing in the New Year!

Post truth and post authenticity?

I write this on a day when Donald Trump has been announced as President Elect of the USA.  There are many questions being asked and much soul searching for answers to them. Amongst others – are we in a post truth era or an era that wants to kick over the traces of corporate and institutional power that have bypassed them? One thing is for sure, it has been very difficult to see the truth from the myths and the authenticity of the message.

A lack of transparency and clarity from leaders and commentators regarding the business model has also been a feature of social enterprise too for as long as I can remember.  This has served a purpose; to pump-up the sector in terms of size and diversity without asking too many questions.  It has also served a small number of well-connected social enterprises that know and can milk the system, which has led to the development of opaque business models that have benefited from the patronage of government and support programmes, e.g. Social Impact Bonds and the advent of Social Investment.

se_brand_approved_rgbIt was partly for this reason that we set up the Social Enterprise Mark as a project 9 years ago, and 3 years later as a business in its own right.  We now have the longest pedigree and experience of social enterprise accreditation in the world and are indeed seen as leaders, with international academics and experts looking to us for our expertise in this field, e.g. British Council in China. Social enterprises outside the UK have also decided that they wish to accredit directly through our process, e.g. Fairtrade Labelling Organisation (FLOCERT). This proves that there is an appetite for being seen as different and being able to prove it credibly.

trustmark-logoWe can draw an analogy to TrustMark, a Social Enterprise Mark Holder, which evolved in response to concerns in the building sector. It is a government-endorsed accreditation scheme for trades in and around the home, providing reassurances that businesses must regularly stand up to scrutiny to.

Social Enterprise Mark CIC had an original mandate from our sector to provide a similar service in the UK, verifying businesses who are genuine social enterprises.

We have learned, from the experiences of Fair Trade, of the importance of having a status that could confer genuineness and authenticity.  At the time many different models were banded about, e.g. self-certification, CSR marks, membership bodies etc.  We were clear that certifying authenticity can only be achieved through independence (the certification panel) and with transparency (application of the criteria consistently). This is why we operate as an independent CIC and not a membership body.  Membership bodies depend upon and exist to promote the interests of their paying members, and through their sector – a potential conflict of interest.

We take our customers and accreditation very seriously and have built the value added to ensure that our accreditation does not stand still and is really clear to the outside world – for example, developing social value declarations to help demonstrate the commitment that all social enterprises should have to making a positive difference for people and planet, as well as the Social Enterprise Gold Mark as an indicator of business excellence.

The term “accreditation” may be used to distinguish a system of certification that actually seeks evidence in confirmation of an organisations credentials. The Social Enterprise Mark has always done this and we are challenge-stampcurrently working with international sustainability standards, established by ISEAL, to help align our Marks with best practice models of accreditation. Whenever you see the term “certified”, ISEAL encourage people to “challenge the label”; to consider a few critical questions that help determine what that certification is really worth.

In striving for the best practice in accreditation, we have been and will continue to consult Mark Holders (and the wider sector). Our aim is to continue to provide a certification process that offers genuinely credible accreditation, one that social enterprises can take pride in and learn to improve from the world over.

Cutting out a more effective way of doing business?

Public sector commissioners are coming under unprecedented financial and political pressure to make huge savings, particularly in the health service.  Unfortunately, this type of pressure only leads to short-termism rather than more strategic, long term decision making.  The tight timetable for the submission of STPs (Sustainability and Transformation Plans) by government also added to these pressures.

The reality on the ground is hard and is leading to irreversible outcomes.  We have recently seen the closure of award-winning Social Enterprise Gold Mark Holder SEQOL, who had proved that they were adding great social value to their community as well as joining up health and social care (all the things that a great social enterprise can help to do).  The services that SEQOL provided will now be brought back into the NHS and Swindon Borough Council.

We have also seen the effects on other social enterprises that were set up as former ‘spin outs’ from the NHS, for example Sirona in Bath and North East Somerset has recently lost its contract to Virgin Care.

A short-term solution?

It would seem that the bottom line has become of overriding importance, over and above what’s good for patient care and a joined up health and social care service.  Those leading the STPs are looking for big savings – this often leads to ignoring the fine grain, and instead opting for the ‘big’ providers that appear to provide a more cost effective service on the face of it. Social enterprises (even those that spun out) are not big in NHS terms, they are just flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things when you are dealing with one of the biggest employers in the world undergoing a serious financial crisis.

Unlike the NHS, all businesses also need to balance their annual books.   The irony is that the NHS can carry a deficit and still operate and deliver on services that are loss making, as they are ultimately backed by the government.  Handing back financially unviable contracts therefore may be an easier short term option.  This approach is of course unsustainable, as even the NHS cannot sustain a deficit in the longer term and will require government intervention or the collapse of parts of the service (unless we all start paying directly for it).

The other option of contracting with a big corporate can also be seen as superficially attractive, as big savings are presented at the bidding stage.  Savings are made, but at what cost?  The profits for shareholders have to come from somewhere.  They can only come through reducing the service and/or people delivering it (e.g. when SERCO ran Cornwall’s Out of Hours GP service).

Is there another way?

So is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater?  I think so.  It is too late after the act.

Medical examinationThe health and social care services are delivered by people for people.  Social enterprise offers a way to help those who delivered the service a chance to have a say and input their expertise and in some cases actually own it (where there is employee ownership).  It also offers the chance for patients input too.

I am not arguing for a bad service to be continued, but people will not stay if they do not feel valued.  We are seeing this currently with the shortage of staff and low morale in the NHS.

The added social value that the business can bring to its community, by joining things up that might not be healthcare related, is also lost.  For instance, SEQOL had a policy of employing people who had been through their supported employment programme.  It also provided savings that were not directly contract related, through prevention and partnership working.  These things are harder to measure and all came from the spirit of innovation and ‘thinking outside the box’.

It is therefore even more vital for us as social enterprises to try to articulate all of this to commissioners at a difficult financial time.  Social enterprises can provide part of the answer to the holy grail of outcomes based commissioning, but it requires a more long term, strategic, joined up approach and commissioners with ‘bottle’ who are prepared to take some risks despite the huge pressures to jump to the short term financial goals.

We have recently developed a set of new resources to support Commissioners in developing and embedding an outcomes based approach to commissioning public services. Please get in touch for more information.

Disability Confident

Yes we can – how the NHS can lead the Disability Confident movement

By Social Enterprise Mark holder Pluss

If you haven’t seen it yet, you will soon. And when you do, it’ll blow you away.


It’s the ‘Superhumans’ trailer for Channel 4’s coverage of the 2016 Paralympics that comes hard on the heels of this summer’s Rio Olympic Games. Set to the Sammy Davis Jr. track ‘Yes I Can’ being stunningly performed by a band of disabled musicians, the three-minute film features world-class athletes as well as a rock climber with one arm and a rally driver who steers cars with his feet. It also shows people carrying out everyday tasks – a woman without arms efficiently changes her child’s nappy; another writes notes during a phone call while gripping her pen with her toes. Cut to a gloomy room where a careers officer is telling a young man with a disability, ‘No you can’t’. His message is swamped by a kaleidoscope of people who’ve been featured in the trailer who take it in turn to chorus ‘Yes I can’.

The message is a simple one – see the person; recognise ability; help it flourish because that way everyone benefits.

Within the NHS, it’s easy to think of disability in terms of us and them. In fact, one in three people have some form of disability or limiting condition. The reality is that disability is a part of everyone’s life whether this means friends, family or colleagues, and any of us can become disabled at any time. Disability is everyone’s business.

The Government recognised this recently when, as part of its Disability Confident campaign, it made a commitment to halve the UK’s disability employment gap. That’s the difference between the percentage of people with disabilities who are in work and that of the working age population as a whole. That difference is currently around 33%. To achieve this ambition – in other words to close the gap – will mean one million additional people with a disability or a health condition in work.

Pretty much everyone agrees that this would be a good thing – for the individuals themselves, for employers, for all of us. For NHS Trusts in particular, it makes sound business sense, not least because the NHS Confederation reports a huge problem in recruiting – especially to the 60% of its lower tier jobs. Trusts need talented and resourceful staff, but how best to bring them on board?

There’s a mountain of evidence that workers with a disability are at least, if not more, productive and reliable than their non-disabled colleagues. From Pluss’ experience, disabled employees also bring to work those can-do attributes that they’ve needed to develop in their everyday lives. And having a workforce that is representative of the people being supported by NHS Trusts can only help inspire recovering patients, and help Trusts better understand and respond to their patient base.

For this to happen, Trusts need to think creatively about recruitment if they are to tap into this pool of talent. Employment rates amongst people with a disability or health condition (that’s one in three of us, remember) are low because stubborn preconceptions stop us seeing beyond the disability; and because inflexible recruitment procedures can prevent that pool of people from showing Trusts how they could shine if they were given the chance.
There are some simple steps that Trusts can take to develop a more inclusive approach to recruitment, one that is flexible enough to include some innovative routes into employment for people with a range of disabilities and health conditions. Traditional recruitment procedures such as panel interviews and group sessions are one of the biggest barriers for people with complex disabilities. Working interviews or time limited work trials offer a far better opportunity to judge whether a person has the skills and capabilities to do a job really well. Job carving, with the help of an organisation like Pluss, can ensure a job fits a person’s unique set of skills. Longer term recruitment techniques including traineeships and internships such as Project SEARCH help people grow steadily into outstanding employees.

A yes we can willingness to make small adjustments in work pays dividends too. The changes a Trust might need to make to support dedicated disabled employees are frequently tiny and, almost always, those changes are worth the investment. The NHS is the most iconic health brand in the world. As an institution, it is uniquely placed to see the whole remarkable person, to recognise not what people can’t do but what they can. Showing innovation in how it recruits its workforce can put an NHS Trust where it should be – at the forefront of the Disability Confident movement, and be good for business too.

PlussIf your Trust isn’t sure about the best place to start, or how to build on the steps you’ve already taken, the Disability Confident campaign offers some really good ideas to raise awareness and challenge perceptions. And you can always talk to Pluss. We love hearing from employers and we’re always happy to help.

www.pluss.org.uk

 

How social enterprise can facilitate innovation in health and social care

I was recently interested to hear about an innovative new movement focused on collaboration between practitioners, businesses, and communities, to improve and support health and social care services.

WHISWorld Health Innovation Summit (WHIS) is a platform for everyone in the community to come together and share knowledge to deliver solutions for the benefit of all. There is no denying that our health and care services are under increasing pressure…. to cope with the demand, we need innovative solutions. WHIS believe that collaboration is key here and they propose that, by bringing patients, clinicians, managers, voluntary sector, education and businesses together, we can improve the future of health and care services for all of us.

WHIS was brought to our attention by Steve Turner of Mark holder Care Right Now CIC, who is working to bring WHIS to the South West. As Steve explains, “This is a forum for healthcare unlike anything else I’ve ever experienced. It really involves patients and the public, across the world and shows the benefits of seeing healthcare as a social movement.”

I agree with Steve – WHIS is an exciting development, as it highlights on a global scale the opportunities available for innovation in health and social care. We have long recognised that the social enterprise business model offers many opportunities for delivering significant improvements in health and care services. By having a certain amount of freedom from the bureaucracy of the NHS, ‘spin-out’ social enterprises can deliver innovative services, which focus on meeting the needs of patients and communities, as well as the wider health and wellbeing economy.

IC24For example, Social Enterprise Gold Mark holder Integrated Care 24 (IC24) places an emphasis on new product and service innovation for an improved patient experience and reduced demand on other services. ‘mylittleone’ is a unique example of how they have utilised technology to meet patient needs; to promote bonding between mother and baby when a child is placed in neonatal care. A camera is placed above the infant’s cot with video streaming to a tablet that the mother can have wherever she is, which reduces stress and anxiety for them both.

JTH nursesThis is just one example. Over ¼ of our network of Social Enterprise Mark holders operate in the health and social care sector, providing a wide range of essential services, including urgent and out of hours healthcare, general practices, community healthcare, and family services and social care.

We are therefore always keen to support new ways of working in this sector, and we welcome WHIS as an arena for encouraging innovation through collaboration, both within the sector and across other business sectors.

With a growing and diverse network of providers in the sector gaining Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark accreditation, we are keen to encourage Mark holders to collaborate and share their knowledge and experiences, in the pursuit of continually improving the services offered. This is why we are working with a number of Mark holders to set up a specific health and care network, which will be facilitated and run by the organisations themselves, supported and promoted by Social Enterprise Mark CIC.

For some time now, I have been increasingly aware that social enterprise can offer a platform to enable health and care providers to deliver more for patients/service users, whilst strengthening their business and increasing social value. This viewpoint has recently been endorsed by a report from the South West Academic Health Science Network (SW AHSN), which highlighted the potential for charities and social enterprises to play an important role in future models of health and care. Indeed, SW AHSN has recently partnered with social investment organisation Resonance to launch a £5million fund to support social sector organisations to develop innovative, person-centred health and care solutions.

With local authorities and commissioners now being encouraged and incentivised to consider bids on the social value they will create, rather than on pure cost, this presents an opportunity for social enterprises to stand out as proven creators of social value. Following The Public Services (Social Value) Act coming into force in 2013, health, social care and public services providers have been under increasing pressure to prove that they are creating social value. By becoming an accredited social enterprise with the Social Enterprise Mark/Gold Mark, health and care providers can prove they operate with the central aim of using income and profits to maximise their positive social impact.

It is encouraging to see the momentum the WHIS movement has gained already, and we are excited to be in discussions with Steve Turner at Care Right Now CIC about supporting the proposed WHIS Cornwall network.

To find out more about WHIS visit: http://www.worldhealthinnovationsummit.com/.

Health in our community and how we can work together

By Gareth Presch, Founder of World Health Innovation Summit

We now have the tools and the will to inspire, innovate and share knowledge to support our health services. World Health Innovation Summit provides that space for innovation and knowledge exchange to take place so all sectors of society benefit.

Problem: Our health services are under immense pressure with demand rising. Staff morale, recruitment, retention, patient safety and overall pressures are seeing the current health services stretched to breaking point.

Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 12.14.18

Solution: World Health Innovation Summit (WHIS) provides an innovative and unique global opportunity to bring people together. WHIS is about inspiring, innovating and sharing knowledge to improve and support healthcare services. It’s a platform for everyone in the community to come together and share their knowledge so we all benefit. Every sector is touched by health, and WHIS allows us all to contribute in a constructive manner and deliver solutions that benefit us all and most importantly while doing so it creates huge economic opportunities.

Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 12.14.47

Unique and Innovative – Previously we only had patients and clinicians discuss how we solve or improve our health problems. However, health touches everyone and every sector and WHIS provides the platform for all sectors to get involved (Patients, Clinicians, Voluntary Sector, Education and Businesses) so everyone benefits.

Our #WHISCumbria16 summit, which was held in the City of Carlisle, attracted over 300 people and we had a staggering 23.7 million twitter impressions around the World (#WHISCumbria16). This exposure and promotion for the City and region was unprecedented. The value to the City over the 2 days was estimated at £40,000 and we estimate that economically WHIS has brought in excess of £100,000 over the last few months through our various activities.

Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 12.14.57

To put the WHIS reach into context, we have had enquiries now from over 10 different locations around the World, proposing to host a WHIS summit. WHIS has reached over 100 countries and continues to grow. We’ve just signed a partnership with a top digital health influencer, Salus Digital, that gives us the opportunity to share our vision with key stakeholders in the digital sector.

The WHIS model is a community led initiative that supports existing health care provision while looking at prevention (WHISKids, WHISatwork etc).

An example of the local impact – A father of two disabled children attended WHISCumbria and. based on the knowledge exchanged, he set up a peer support group for other fathers of disabled children. This has a direct impact on alleviating pressure on the local health economy. It means those fathers don’t have to go to their GP’s for support, and also has a significant impact on their quality of life, which in turn results in improvements to the family’s well-being.

From a global perspective, a similar support group was established on the back of WHIS Cumbria – Global Villages for Mental Health – a twitter account set up to support people with mental health problems.

These are just two examples that are innovative and were born as a direct result of the WHIS Cumbria event.

Audience – 80% of our Twitter following are health professionals and decision makers. It’s very evident by the speakers we attracted to WHIS Cumbria that key stakeholders support our ethos and work.

With increasing population growth expected over the next 30 years, it is imperative that we look at how we communicate with the wider public on a local, national and international level around health. Education and knowledge exchange will play an important role as our current health services are stretched. The World Health Innovation Summit platform for knowledge exchange and preventative programmes will play a key role in how public engagement and support of our health services develop around the World.

For example, in six months we’ve seen WHISKids grow from a pilot project to being in 8 schools, with 10 more schools interested. These programmes look to support children with health & wellness and we use a mental health app, the My Way Code, as part of the programme. Results have been significant, with children reporting that it is fun and interesting while also educational.

13450276_1566042923692631_3965843858200540694_n-1

The World Health Innovation Summit is a social enterprise and set up to support communities in a unique way. Our profits after costs go back to local communities. Income generated from our activities will be re-invested into local projects.

The WHIS model is aligned to social good and therefore businesses aligning themselves via partnerships with WHIS will see a return (CSR), based on supporting a health initiative that improves health and social care not just locally and nationally but also internationally.

We are unique and innovative in that nobody has ever done anything along these lines before.

To draw a comparison, we can look at Websummit (technology based summit), who saw growth from 400-42,000 in 5 years. WHIS, by comparison, focuses on health and social care as well as technology, so we expect growth to be similar or in excess of this.

WHIS
Communities are supporting our activities and now we are seeking to partner with companies and agencies with the same values that are aligned to improving our community’s health care while sharing knowledge.

*If you have an idea that can help our health services or community contact us on info@worldhealthinnovationsummit.com


 

This post originally appeared on the WHIS blog on 15th July 2016: http://www.worldhealthinnovationsummit.com/blog/2016/07/15/health-in-our-community-and-how-we-can-work-together-gareth-presch/

 

Services/products you wouldn’t expect to be delivered by social enterprises

During my 15 odd years working in the social enterprise sector, I have been asked countless times to explain what a social enterprise is. Like many others in the sector I am sure, I tend to wheel out the same well-known examples, such as Big Issue and Age UK, to illustrate the concept of social enterprise. Using these ‘mainstream’ big name examples does help to get people’s heads around the idea of social enterprise, although I often think of the many organisations operating across the country (and internationally for that matter), that fit the bill but do not have the label. That is, they want to make a profit but commit to reinvesting this to create benefits for people and the planet. These businesses operate in almost every industry, and I am sure many people would be surprised at the wide range of products and services delivered by social enterprises.

Using examples from our network of Social Enterprise Mark and Gold Mark accredited organisations, I have listed below a handful of the products and services that you probably didn’t realise were delivered by social enterprises.

 


Bed-iconAccommodation and conference facilities

It’s a service that we all use at some point, either in a personal or professional capacity, but many would not readily consider that hotels and conference venues would offer much in terms of creating social value.

The WesleyHowever, take the Wesley Hotel for example – the only hotel to have been awarded the Social Enterprise Mark and the first ethical hotel in the UK. The Wesley is committed to sustainable operations and social responsibility, which underpins everything they do, from procurement to waste management, and from water usage to employment practices.

A distinct example of how they create social value is the Hilda Porter Bursary Fund, which provides funding for marginalised students and young people in the UK and developing world, who do not have the means to study at higher education level.

 


Dollar-iconBanking and finance

With the negative press frequently associated with the banking and finance sector, it may be surprising to learn that there are a growing number of ethical banks and financiers, including Charity Bank – a bank entirely owned by charitable foundations, trusts and social purpose organisations.

Charity-BankCharity Bank was founded to support charities with loans that they couldn’t find elsewhere and to show people how their savings could be invested ethically and in ways that would make them happy. Their community of borrowers, savers, shareholders and staff are all working towards one goal – helping to create lasting social change in communities. Loans are provided to organisations to further their social missions, and borrowers are assessed on both immediate benefits for their beneficiaries, and longer term benefits for the borrower themselves.

 


Degree-iconHigher Education

Higher Education is not the first thing that pops into most people’s minds when they think of social enterprises, especially given the modern cost of studying for a degree. However, we have noticed a growing in interest social enterprise from the Higher Education sector, and there are now 5 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which have been awarded the Social Enterprise Mark or Social Enterprise Gold Mark in recognition of their commitment to creating positive social and economic change:

More than ever before, HEIs are placing civic engagement, social and environmental justice, and sustainable economic development at the heart of their strategic plans and student experience, and each of the above institutions have demonstrated a commitment to these values, putting sustainable and ethical business practices at the heart of their strategic direction.

 


Browser-iconIT and digital services

Again, these services may not immediately spring to mind when thinking of services provided by social enterprises, but there are organisations in the IT industry that place an emphasis on operating ethically and creating social impact.

CosmicCosmic is one such example; an ethical digital agency specialising in website development, IT training courses, business consultancy, tech support, digital marketing and search engine optimisation. They were the very first organisation to be awarded the Social Enterprise Mark back in 2010, and have a key objective of improving digital inclusion – providing IT support for people and organisations who need it the most.

They are continually involved in a range of projects which achieve meaningful impact for individuals and organisations across the South West and use their own resources to develop and deliver project work benefiting thousands of people.

 


Pen-iconOffice supplies

It’s not just services that are delivered by social enterprises – there are many retail businesses that operate in competitive commercial markets, whilst maintaining a commitment to social and/or environmental objectives.

Supply ShackAn interesting example of a non-conventional social enterprise is Supply Shack – a group of sub-divisions selling office supplies, furniture, promotional gifts, signs, as well as design and print services.

They have a strong social mission; their primary objective is to drive social change. They achieve this through their unique ‘giving back to the community model’, whereby they offer an extensive range of products and services at competitive rates, the majority of profits from which are reinvested into the community with a focus on making a difference to people’s lives. Each year their customers vote for the community projects and charities that Supply Shack will support. They also engage with charities and apprenticeship schemes to offer employment opportunities for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

 


This is just a handful of examples, you can find many more in our online directory of accredited social enterprises. I urge you to look out for the Social Enterprise Mark and Gold Mark badges as a sign of social enterprise credibility – all organisations that we accredit are guaranteed to be operating with the primary motivation of creating benefits for people and the planet.

New Look Marks

Steve Hawkins, Pluss CEO

Mind the gap…

…The step change needed to halve the disability employment gap

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

First the good news, then the maths.

The good news is the government’s unequivocal commitment to halving the disability employment gap.

Now the maths.

The disability employment gap currently stands at around 43 percentage points. To halve the gap means moving around 1.2 million more disabled people in work. In the last five years, the number of disabled people in work has risen by just 23,000. Halving the gap also means keeping people in work. According to the ONS, over 400,000 disabled people each year lose their job and fall into unemployment or inactivity. One in six of those who become disabled while in work lose their employment during the first year after becoming disabled.

What’s more, the challenge is increasing. The ONS predicts that by 2020, over a third of the workforce will be over fifty, and more than half of the over-50s workforce will have a disability or impairment. Like all really effective aspirational statements, the government’s pledge sets an almost unachievable goal. Almost, but not quite. It raises the bar. It demands that we think differently, that we make some brave choices.

Like President Kennedy’s pledge in 1961 that Americans would land on the Moon by the end of the decade, the idea of halving the disability employment gap is do-able because, perhaps naively, we can imagine a world in which it is possible. Many people believed that a Moon landing was possible, but not all of them understood the level of commitment, resilience and willingness to innovate that was needed to realise the goal in 1969. I believe we can, if we choose, get a million more people with disabilities into work and, importantly, keep most of them there – but not without an almost unimaginable level of commitment, resilience and willingness to innovate on the part of government and the partners it chooses to work with.

As the flagship initiative to deliver the government’s pledge, the challenge for the Work and Health Programme is that, for a majority of its customers, `any job` won’t be good enough, and for many a job start will, at most, represent only half of the journey. We’ll need to have primes in place who understand the critical nature of specialists in delivering outcomes on the programme, who can build and contract manage a team of specialists with local credentials and partnerships that are integrated with local health systems, in particular mental health, to support the journey back to work.

At £130 million a year, the Work and Health Programme will have around 20% of the combined resources of Work Programme and Work Choice, and will help upwards of perhaps 10,000 people a year to enter the workplace. It will set an important tone. But to reduce the disability employment gap by any significant measure will require a step change across half a dozen complementary areas of work.

  • First, government should explore ways of developing a robust retention service that meets the needs of both employers and disabled employees in a much more proactive way than the Fit for Work Service and Access to Work provision is currently able to do.
  • Second, we should ensure that the strategic and commissioning weight of LEPs, City Deals and Growth Plans are used in a co-ordinated way to maximise the opportunities of disabled people to enter local labour markets.
  • Third, I endorse the calls of a number of organisations for Government to explore the potential for ‘disability leave’ as a way of more constructively managing the fluctuating conditions of some employees. 40% of all employed disabled people say that modified hours have enabled them to stay in work; 36% of those out of work say that modified hours could have helped them retain their job.
  • Fourth, we need to find ways to support people who cannot access DWP provision to re-enter the labour market. Providing employment support is not a statutory requirement for local authorities or CCGs The four DWP mental health and employment pilots about to commence are welcome, but they take place against a background of dwindling funding for locally commissioned supported employment programmes, making it vital that government finds ways of incentivising local authorities to retain employment services for people in receipt of adult social care who are unlikely to gain access in large numbers to a capped Work and Health Programme.
  • Fifth, a significant percentage of disabled people falling out of the workforce are from professional, technical and managerial positions with acquired disabilities and health conditions who have long careers behind them and who will choose not to access JCP. Government and other stakeholders should urgently explore the potential for an intervention designed to support this cohort of people to rapidly re-enter the workforce.
  • Sixth, we need to get to grips with the transitions agenda, finding ways to help talented young people with learning disabilities and hidden impairments onto apprenticeship routes and supported internship programmes as part of a national unified drive to ensure that every young person with a disability who wants to transition into work can do so.

Finally, we need a step change in the way employers are engaged and supported to be part of the solution. We need to build on the Disability Confident initiative – from a promising PR campaign driven by committed providers and seventy active employers into a national movement which is identifiably driving the agenda, holding to account and championing innovation across each part of the plan.

Achieving remarkable things isn’t easy. We shouldn’t pretend this is a quick fix, or that more and more can magically be achieved with fewer and fewer resources. But a challenge has been set. Now we need some brave decisions that will move us from a visionary slogan to a detailed roadmap.

Please click here to read Pluss’ full submission to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into halving the disability employment gap.

 


PlussSquare_400x400Pluss is an accredited social enterprise with the Social Enterprise Mark. This means that Pluss has proved it is genuine against independently-assessed criteria for social enterprise. The Social Enterprise Mark provides assurance that profits are used to help disabled people gain opportunities to work, acting as a guarantee that Pluss is trading for people and planet.

Cash cows and money milking

The public and press have short memories. Today and over the last few weeks there has been flurry of scandal and comment about corporate greed. Even the right wing press are shouting about how BHS has been asset stripped, leaving a huge pensions hole. From offshore accounts and tax evasion, to BP paying a huge bonus to their CEO (despite huge losses being made by the company), the prevailing behaviour seems to be keep milking as much shareholder profit out, pay very little tax and forget thinking or caring about the consequences and who it affects.

A magnifying glass is held up to this sort of behaviour whilst it’s top of the news agenda, but it soon goes back to business as usual. There is no consistency in reporting either. One day there will be exposure of corporate greed in delivery of public services and the next day that company will be telling the business pages what a great job it does in valuing its employees and customers – maybe the figurehead head becomes another government ‘business czar’ – and getting CSR awards to boot?!

It doesn’t have to be like this though. If social enterprise was seen as a viable alternative, not just a niche, do-gooding, market failure option then perhaps we would get somewhere! Instead we forever seem to be hidebound by the current business orthodoxy of business schools the world over; ‘business is there to make money for its shareholders’.

This is why we get into problems with arguments about lack of investment too. The orthodoxy is that it’s hard to expand unless you can attract equity providers. However, as a famous local business person told me, ‘this is the equivalent of selling the family silver’. It means that you are at the behest of the equity stakeholders and even if they own a small proportion they are likely to influence in a purely commercial direction as their role is one of primarily making money. The wider social value of the business comes second.

What we need is a radically different business model that is seen as mainstream, not marginal. I don’t think that this is Corporate Social Responsibility. Rather it’s about truly putting people first. The old co-operatives of the last century were the centre of their community, because they were owned by the people that lived there. They were first and foremost about serving the locality, not making a fast buck and running.

There are those out there that share this ideal and business model that are not just niche; they are a substantial part of the economy. Universities, colleges, theatres, arts groups, membership bodies, sports clubs, unions – they all have a strong social mission but operate in many cases as businesses. They are our allies and we should be working together more closely to present a vision of what we want business to look like, not what business dictates to us.

Our conference in June, entitled ‘Standing up to Scrutiny’ will look in more detail at how we can work together to promote social enterprise as a credible and sustainable business model for the future. We will discuss the importance of accreditation and standards systems, and how these can help social enterprises to measure, demonstrate, and report on their social impact. Please click here for more information and to book your ticket.

Conference_speakers

Global champion of standards for social enterprise

Influencing the international destiny of social enterprise

By Richard Cobbett, Assessment and Compliance Manager

British CouncilLast month I had the great privilege of visiting Beijing, China, where I had been invited by the British Council to talk about the development of the Social Enterprise Mark certification process.

As well as the Council, I met with several key academics, including Professors Yuan Ruijun, Zhang Yanlong, Meng Zhao and Zhiyong Chen, from the Universities of Peking and Renmin and Ruixue Zhang from the China Philanthropy Research Institute (CPRI). As a group, they are striving to establish a clear definition for social enterprise in China, with a view to then developing their own infrastructure for certification. Through this they aim to encourage the development of social enterprise and influence the conditions in which it can flourish.

The term “place of contrasts” is somewhat of a travel cliché but could certainly be applied to my short time experiencing Beijing, and also visiting other locations in China as a tourist. I wonder though, do indigenous populations recognise this about the countries they live in or simply accept everything as part of a greater whole? As I was to discover, this provided a metaphor for the social business landscape in China, as they continue to explore questions of social enterprise differentiation.

On my arrival, I had a short time to recharge, although jetlag was yet to seriously take hold. Over the next few days though, this and the inevitable language barriers found me more than once recalling Bill Murray and the film “Lost in Translation”, which suddenly took on a whole new level of meaning for me!

Richard in ChinaI initially met with Hou Peng and Jack Yu from the British Council, along with Ruixue Zhang (CPRI) for an early dinner as part of a general welcome. I was to find that mealtimes always raised a few polite smiles as people observed me honing my chopstick skills but I like to think that by the end my stay I had got quite proficient at it!

The following day I met with the University Professors and CPRI representatives, who have done extensive research into different systems of social business certification from across the world. I talked about the development of the Mark, the rationale behind the criteria and workings of our assessment process.

We drilled down into these matters in detail, provoking lively debate amongst the group concerning how far the Mark could be applied in China, and the potential barriers and challenges posed. It was a fairly intensive interaction – quite a baptism of fire for me and one that certainly kept me engaged as the jet lag slowly kicked in! I made it through the day, stubbornly refusing the offer of a knife and fork at lunchtime (and not going as hungry as I did the previous day)!

The following day I contributed to a workshop lead by my Chinese colleagues involving delegates from across China – people either supporting, running or working in social businesses. The workshop provided a forum for people to discuss social business certification and the relevance of this for China. It was a long and fascinating day, placing several of the questions raised during my first day within the real life contexts of organisations who see themselves as prospective social enterprises. Those in attendance included business entrepreneurs, organisations we might label “social firms”, charitable and community businesses, as well as ones that would more immediately conform to our stricter definition of social enterprise. There was also an agency present who were administering a regional pilot certification initiative and an organisation that had achieved it. This follows very similar criteria to that of the Mark and both organisations spoke positively about the process: the value they perceive in differentiation but also in how it has encouraged them to think more carefully about their purpose, how they work, and the social value they are creating.

Richard in China_workshopAs the mix of delegates suggests, those who might describe themselves as a “social enterprise” in China include all manner of businesses laying claim to social purpose through what they do and/or how they operate. This and other challenges for certification that revealed themselves across the day included familiar ones. Views ranged from those who are suspicious of the need for standardisation if they can simply show their social value; to those who see it as a means of improvement, by clearly aligning themselves with certain core principles and gaining recognition for these credentials. More uniquely to China perhaps, their varied terrain also includes distinct local economic and cultural differences, which pose other difficulties for standardisation.

The potential cost and benefits of delivering robust certification understandably lay at the heart of many questions and this revealed similarities to what our MD Lucy Findlay, found when she visited Taiwan last year. At the moment, there are a mixed bag of interests and all want to know how certification may lead to social investment or legislative advantages. But throughout the day, it was interesting for me to observe how many of the questions being posed were ones echoing our own experience of developing the Mark. As discussions unfolded though, I found myself quite deliberately taking a back seat. This wasn’t me succumbing to jet-lag or the audial acrobatics of simultaneous translation! It was satisfying to see answers to different concerns or objections being identified from within the room, instead of there being a reliance on so-called “experts” to provide these. Whilst it was inspiring to see how we may be helping to influence the destiny of social enterprise in China, to see people on different sides of the debate contributing so keenly and taking such ownership was much more so.

Questions around our profit distribution criterion possibly generated the most interest. I have to admit to being a little bit surprised when one delegate suggested that it went against human nature and the desire to achieve personal profit. But it was a reminder that China has come a long way in developing capitalist sensibilities. The obvious answer perhaps was “it depends on how you measure your sense of profit”, but it serves as a recognition that social business comes in various forms. As I said at the outset: China is a nation of contrasts and their social business landscape is made up of different interests. In this they are no different to anywhere else. There is room in the world for any business seeking to make a positive social difference, and they are all to be commended for it where they do.

Richard in China_workshop2In my closing address, I recognised this point and attempted to answer the question – why differentiate social enterprise? I explained how several years ago in the UK we asked the same question, and the Mark was born. We did this because the social enterprise sector believed itself to be a distinct form of social business that is committed to maximising social outcomes through how profits are invested towards these. Of two businesses delivering exactly the same service and same standards, the one committed to investing income/profits in social outputs will always exceed the potential for social impact, compared to the other that exists to generate profits for shareholders. Maybe this is an oversimplification but it helps crystallise why differentiating social enterprise from other forms of social business is relevant. And certification or accreditation should ultimately provide a means through which genuine social enterprises show how they willingly hold themselves up to scrutiny against this differentiator.

I finally reflected on how accreditation essentially represents a form of regulation – a dirty word for many, but in considering this I asked people to cast their minds back several years ago. To recall a rapacious sector, one resistant to regulation in the belief that it placed a burden on their capabilities, restricting their potential for success and any associated benefits for the economy and wider society. The results of this arrogance, of being above and beyond scrutiny are well known. I suggested that social enterprise is meant to be better than this and that accreditation should actually be seen as a natural element of helping build trust through ensuring and proving this. More than this, subscribing to achieve and maintain standards, to be held account to them, is actually a means through which people and organisations can build their capability – not have it restricted. Certification is therefore a form of enablement.

China PandaI thoroughly enjoyed my time meeting with a vanguard of social enterprise in China and learned much from them while I was there. My time in the country was not over at this point as an army of clay soldiers, the delight of pandas at play and a hike across a great wall awaited me (amongst other magnificent sites, along with some dubiously informed menu choices!). But that, as they say, is another story… My memories are of a country of great and beautiful contrasts and an experience I will fondly recall. I would like to thank Hou Peng of the British Council in China for his organisation and expert facilitation of my visit.

How the Social Enterprise Mark can benefit Higher Education Institutions

By Cara Aitchison, Vice Chancellor of University of St Mark & St John

Our students and graduates are increasingly reporting that they seek employment and lifestyles that enable them to contribute to the social, cultural and environmental well-being of their communities, society and the world around them, rather than simply thinking of their degree as a route to a highly paid career. This presents an opportunity for university leaders who chose to put ethics, civic engagement, social and environmental justice and sustainable economic development at the heart of their strategic plans and student experience.

By being accredited with the Social Enterprise Mark, universities can better demonstrate their sustainable and ethical business credentials to the next generation of applicants. We can show our students how we apply in practice the values and knowledge that we teach and how they too can be part of a social enterprise culture.

We are all under increasing pressure to expand and diversify our income streams, and to demonstrate our positive benefit to the students, communities and stakeholders we serve. The social enterprise business model provides opportunities for HEIs to transform the way we are perceived by stakeholders and can enable us to position ourselves as ‘businesses’ driven by social objectives.

MARJON-LOGO-CMYKThe University of St Mark & St John was awarded the Social Enterprise Mark in 2015, signalling our commitment to social enterprise and demonstrating the social value that we create as a university.

As the number one university in the UK for social mobility, we are proud to be recognised for our commitment to helping local communities and the broader south west peninsula to thrive and prosper. The Social Enterprise Mark helps us to communicate this commitment to students, potential applicants, partners and the wider business community and sets us apart as a values-based, socially conscious university.

As we enter a new era in Higher Education, where the Teaching Excellence Framework and other policy developments emphasise graduate earnings, we need ways to demonstrate our parallel commitment to social enterprise principles, and the Social Enterprise Mark offers one such mechanism.

There is currently a potential discount for GuildHE members that commit to apply for the Social Enterprise Mark before the end of August 2016, and I would recommend doing so. My colleague, Professor Brendon Noble, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research, Innovation and International who took forward our application for the Social Enterprise Mark, can also talk to you about our experience and the benefits.

You can get in touch with Social Enterprise Mark CIC with any questions, or to express your interest in applying – 0345 504 6536 or via email.


 

Originally posted on the GuildHE blog on 22nd April 2016

Why talking about ‘what is a social enterprise?’ is still important

By Gareth Hart, Co-founder of Iridescent Ideas

“So you’re a social enterprise, eh? What does that mean then?” How many times have you been asked that question? How many times have you answered it but still aren’t convinced that they questioner has ‘got it’ or believes it?

The debate about the definition of social enterprise may well seem jaded and old news to those of us within the social enterprise community but it seems that a large proportion of the general public didn’t even realise there had been a debate going on. So, the aforementioned question comes up time and time again. If we want to establish new audiences for social enterprise and push the concept into a wider public consciousness it is vitally important to maintain a public dialogue about ‘what is a social enterprise’.

No one really seems to question you in the same way if your business is a charity or Fairtrade or eco-friendly. There is an automatic assumption these are ‘good’ things. People know what these terms mean. They come with a nice badge, logo or number that tells the public they’ve been checked out and do indeed do what they say on the tin. If only there was a similar thing available to social enterprises…

SE_Business_Identifier_RGBEnter the Social Enterprise Mark. The Mark is the social enterprise equivalent of the Fairtrade logo or the Charity Commission number. The Social Enterprise Mark provides:

  • A clear definition of what constitutes a social enterprise
  • An instantly recognisable ‘stamp of approval’ to show that your business has been independently assessed and meets criteria to justifiably call itself a social enterprise
  • A national community of like-minded ethical businesses for social enterprises to engage with
  • A range of other benefits around marketing and support

There is growing interest in the Social Enterprise Mark, particularly among large organisations like universities. Plymouth University was the first social enterprise university and has held the Mark since 2012. Many of the large health spin-outs also hold the Mark. These organisations provide services to huge numbers of people and have strong roles in public life in their respective towns, cities and areas. I would like to see more large healthcare providers really engage with the public around understanding that they are receiving great services from a local social enterprise. The Mark could help them do this.

As the social enterprise sector, and public awareness of it, continues to grow, so I hope that the Social Enterprise Mark will continue to flow into public consciousness and eventually become as recognisable as the Fairtrade logo. The Mark will evolve, I am sure, and we need an ongoing dialogue about what it means to be a social enterprise both within and outside the sector.

With the introduction of the Social Value Act in 2013 there is a requirement for social value and impact to be given more weight within commissioning of services. Consumers are looking to purchase ethical goods and for businesses to behave better. Surely then, the time is right for the Social Enterprise Mark to become a stamp of social value so that commissioners and customers alike will recognise social enterprises and be able to make more informed choices about the goods and services they buy and use.

I believe that social enterprises are better for the economy and for society. We need to articulate more clear what ‘better’ looks like of course. Social enterprises create wealth and jobs and also deliver environmental and social value. The Mark can be the guarantee that proves this.


 

Originally published on Iridescent Ideas blog, 2nd September 2015

Helping to create winning or better social enterprises?

I recently stumbled upon an American blog which talks about whether competitions are good for social enterprises.  They are indeed all the rage – from social enterprise ‘Dragon’s Den’ style pitches, to ‘Social Enterprise of the Year’ awards.  However, are they really what social enterprise is about, and do they really tell us about whether that business is genuinely applying good practice?

Objections to competitions could include:

  • They offer a ‘flash in the pan’ snapshot view that doesn’t represent the long hard graft that goes into making a social enterprise work
  • What about those who don’t win – is it too much about winners and losers? Does it leave a bad taste for those that don’t win?
  • Is collaboration better than competing?

Cup-champion-iconFor me, competitions represent a snapshot in time and do have their place – for example, we are currently running the Making a Mark competition to celebrate the vast and diverse social benefits created by Social Enterprise Mark holders.

However, what competitions do not do is to tell you much about the social enterprise beyond the moment they were judged, or indeed the openness and transparency of competition process. It’s up to whoever the judges are on the day.

Accreditation however offers something quite different. The Social Enterprise Mark for example, is both a tool of business differentiation, and a tool to demonstrate that those who have it have proved how they are making society a better place.  There are no losers if you make the accreditation standard consistent and transparent, and our independent Certification Panel ensures this. The Mark provides a guarantee year on year, for both customers and partners, due to the annual reassessment process. Our Social Enterprise Gold Mark goes further, to prove that the best attributes of social enterprise are being applied across the business, and further developed and improved upon over time.

Therefore, we are not just talking about a single snapshot in time, but rather a social enterprise that can prove its social and enterprise attributes on an ongoing basis.

There is more ‘greenwash’ going on than ever before, as businesses realise the benefits of playing the social value and sustainability game. Which is precisely why we, as social enterprises, need to stand up to scrutiny and be open and transparent about what our motivations really are.  This is where Social Enterprise Mark accreditation can provide the solution!

verifying social value with the Social Enterprise MarkThe Mark provides an independent guarantee that an organisation has been through a robust assessment process, and is proven to be trading for people and planet. This is the crucial differentiator, and distinguishes social enterprises’ core motivation for being in business, which sets them apart from standard business models, where the key motivation is often to maximise profits for shareholders.

‘Standing up to Scrutiny’ is the theme of our conference this year, and the event will focus on why it’s important to prove what we are and how we are doing it. We will consider the importance of accreditation and standards systems, and how these can help social enterprises to measure, demonstrate, and report on their social impact, therefore enabling them to stand out from the crowd.

Conference speakersWe are pleased to be welcoming a panel of speakers from accreditation and standards setting authorities across a range of sectors, which should provide interesting and diverse perspectives on the importance of such systems.

The conference is being kindly hosted by Social Enterprise Gold Mark holder University of Salford at MediaCityUK on 8th and 9th June 2016. Earlybird tickets are available to book online from just £50 + VAT.

Conference_speakers

 

Measuring Social Impact – The Difference of Social Enterprise

Part 2

By Richard Cobbett, Assessment and Compliance Manager

Last month, I started to consider how social enterprises should be distinguishing themselves when compared to other business models looking to validate ethical business credentials, through how they measure and report on their social impact (including environmental). To recap, there are three broad ways through which a business may report on its social impact:

  1. its social inputs (the activities and resources invested in, the services provided, which should at least imply social purposes);
  2. its social outputs (the extent of said activities and investment e.g. numbers of services provided, numbers of people helped, the level of social investment beyond operational cost requirements);
  3. its social outcomes (the positive results arising from activities e.g. measures showing how people have benefitted, and the perceived value of the services provided – financial and qualitative).

Measuring impact

The commitment to maximise social outputs using income and profits – at least in equal measure to the proportion of profit that may eventually be paid to shareholders and owners – is what ultimately distinguishes social enterprise from other ethical business models. I therefore posed that, in differentiating their outputs, social enterprises should be considering how the level of the investment towards purely social interests, compares with the annual profits it generates year on year. Ideally speaking, this form of analysis should form part of the social impact reporting of any social enterprise.

In calculating social impact, there is a distinct element that some social enterprises are keen to capture when considering the above: how can they calculate the cost of the social value they have created – the effective financial value of the benefits conferred to their social stakeholders (as opposed to shareholders)?

Social Return on Investment (SROI) and other forms of social auditing provide solutions for this but can be quite demanding and resource intensive, particularly for organisations with restricted resources. Is this methodology the only valid approach though?

We are beginning to see other methods of conveying social value being employed by Social Enterprise Mark holders, within the social impact statements they provide on initial application, and at each annual renewal of their Mark status. The types of example that are emerging are:

  • Mark Holders with contracts to provide a set number of social outputs/outcomes, who are paid up to a maximum but who choose to deliver more for their stakeholders;
  • Mark Holders with service level agreements or being paid for a defined level of service, who enhance the outputs and the experience of stakeholders in ways that are not required or expected;
  • Investing in free or volunteer services that otherwise represent chargeable income streams;
  • Investing in employee posts (temporary or otherwise) that do not support income generation services;
  • Making donations to external good causes (e.g. Charities, community groups) or investing in other community resources.

The above examples are by no means necessarily restricted to social enterprise – after all, pro-bono services and donations to good causes are common amongst all types of business. However, calculating the value of such activities and investments, then comparing it to profit distributed to owners or shareholders, can ultimately help distinguish the added value of social enterprise.

Clearly, this does not likely represent the whole financial value that a social enterprise may have created, which may be less tangible and reveal itself in various indirect and long-reaching ways. It therefore does not provide a detailed analysis of the return on investment; but it does offer a more straightforward way of at least beginning to illustrate the more immediate social value of investment.

When qualifying such costs, care must be taken in distinguishing investment that provides for a level of efficiency and quality that is the obligation of any good business in the services it provides. These are costs that its customers and stakeholders can reasonably expect for the price being paid for it. Once again, when assessing this a key consideration is motivation:

  • Was the investment one that was recognisably more altruistic than not?
  • Was the investment integral to an existing service or product line, more representative of good business practice, reinforcing the quality of delivery in ways that could be reasonably expected of any business?

Or, to put it another way, was the motivation primarily about serving a social objective or primarily about doing good business?

Ideally speaking, social enterprises should be equally committed to both: employing good business practices and using profits (or income that could feasibly be retained as profits) to maximise their social impact.

The line between investing in good business practice for commercial benefits compared to investments in actions purely designed to enhance social outcomes can become subjective and arguable. But what it most important is that social enterprises continually reflect upon what they are doing, ask different questions about how they have invested resourced in supporting social objectives and serving their communities of interest. This then informs how they report upon their performance to their stakeholders. As far as possible, a good social enterprise should strive to be transparent and accountable with the evidence it can provide in support of its claims. Ultimately, their stakeholders can then make informed judgements and responses to the social impact – including its value – that has been created.


To support Social Enterprise Mark holders to measure, demonstrate and communicate the social impact of their activities and operations, we have recently created guidance for creating social impact statements. Visit our Making a Mark webpage to see a variety of examples of social impact from our Social Enterprise Mark holders, covering a diverse range of business sectors.

Measuring Social Impact – the difference of social enterprise

Part 1

By Richard Cobbett, Assessment and Compliance Manager

“Social enterprise”, “Social business”, “Social Entrepreneurism”, “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR). How many people must be left scratching their heads when trying to determine the difference between these labels?

The fact that such business models can all measure and report on their ethical business outputs in similar ways explains much of this confusion. Their social impact (including environmental) may vary according to their resources, their sector of interest and other factors influencing their delivery capacity. But if they are all about the same ends, why is there a need for so many labels?

The Social Enterprise Mark evolved as a means of helping genuine social enterprises stand out from the crowd, driven by the desire of the sector to distinguish their distinct motivation for being in business – trading to serve social purposes. This is the crucial differentiator: what is the central motivation behind the business – why does it exist?

A social enterprise is not necessarily a guarantee of greater social impact – as I note above, the scales of output may vary according to circumstances unrelated to business motivations. An international corporation reporting CSR credentials may be able to point to greater levels of investment and positive social output than a small social enterprise providing a crucial service in a rural community.

But how does this investment compare with their overall profit generation? How far was the investment motivated by other interests, such as maintaining a positive public profile that helps them retain and expand their markets, thereby continuing to maximise shareholder profits? How far does such CSR related investment suffer when profits fall, compared to the bonuses and dividends paid to top executives and shareholders?

What distinguishes a social enterprise is it’s commitment to continually maximising social outputs with the income they generate through trading, at least in equal proportion to the objective of serving owner or shareholder interests. This specifically requires a commitment to investing at least 50% of annual profits in social purposes. Just as significantly, it also includes a consideration of how income that might otherwise be accumulated as profit (which could then feed personal shareholder gain) is used to support the fulfilment of social objectives throughout the business year.

There may be instances where social enterprises endeavour to minimise annual profits, to reduce corporation tax and thereby maximise the ongoing investment in their social purposes. In these instances, justifying how resources have been used to fulfil social objectives and achieve social impact becomes even more important. If a typical indicator of business success is bottom line profitability, when a social enterprise fails to report a profit, analysing and reporting on social impact represents an alternative rationale for demonstrating business strength and sustainability.

Broadly speaking, there are three ways in which a business may be able to report on how it has strived to fulfil its social objectives:

  • its social inputs
  • its social outputs
  • its social outcomes

However, the question remains: how can a social enterprise distinguish itself when reporting on its social impact when compared to other business models and their ethical commitments?

Following the logic of earlier points, this must necessarily take into account the application of income and profit towards social purposes; this may also include the cost of investments that might otherwise have represented income generation potential (e.g. people’s time given up freely to provide services). Once a social enterprise begins to consider its activities along these lines, it may consider how the level of the investment towards purely social interests compares with the annual profits it generates year on year.

Social Return on Investment (SROI) and other forms of social auditing provide formal methodologies that businesses can employ in reviewing and calculating the social value they have generated. Such approaches can be quite complex and demanding though and may have limited relevance or value to a business, particular smaller organisations or those with restricted resources. However, whilst these systems provide for greater transparency and external validation of an organisations achievements, there are simpler ways in which organisations can provide illustrations of the social value they contribute. We are beginning to see interesting examples of this emerging from our Social Enterprise Mark Holders, within the social impact statements they are asked to provide when first applying and at each annual renewal of their Mark status.

Next month, in part two of this article, we will consider some general illustrations that help exemplify alternative ways of how social enterprises can reflect upon the social value of their investment in fulfilling their social purpose.


 

Please click here to read part 2 of Richard’s blog

How Good Are We At Doing ‘Good’?

By Kate Pierpoint, Deputy Chief Executive of Manor House Development Trust

mhdtAs we continue to face social and economic challenges, the need for value for money and maximised social impact continues to increase. The Social Value Act of 2012 has seen an acceleration of this trend. More recently, the demand for both financial and social return is reflected in the Government’s backing of Social Impact Bonds and injection of £20m a year (Autumn Statement 2015). As a result, public sector commissioners increasingly want to know how much value their investment creates and social reporting figures help them to decide where to put their money.

When you market your organisation as one that is making positive impact, you open yourself up to extra scrutiny. Expectations are high and those looking at your impact will often compare your results to other organisations as a way to see ‘how good you are at doing good’. Figures can often be skewed and this contest to demonstrate the greatest impact creates the need for larger and larger numbers and more and more sensational stories in order to stand out- especially so in an economic climate with heightened competition for funding and customers.

So even if we are good at achieving positive impact, social impact figures are not necessarily going to reflect that or get us noticed.

Tools like Social Return on Investment (designed by New Economics Foundation) have been designed to measure the efficiency of projects to generate impact. The ratio of £:£ tells you exactly how good your projects are at doing good. But even this data doesn’t tell us about the needs of those you are supporting; it can’t capture the value of change to an individual; and it doesn’t explain why your work is important and why other people should care about it. Figures don’t tell the full story; you have to look beyond the data.

The ‘so what?’ statement

What I am getting at is the ‘so what’ statement. Context is everything in social impact measurement. Whatever type of organisation you work for, it’s really important to tell a story that others can get behind; whether they are customers, investors, partners or your staff. For this reason, you have to really know who your audience is and what matters to them.

Tell the story

“We realise a lot of social enterprises don’t have the means to do full social impact reporting. They just need to clearly articulate what they’re doing”
Venturesome in The Guardian, 2012, ‘The growing importance of social impact reporting’

Audiences don’t have 30 seconds to be interrupted, but they always have 30 minutes to hear a great story”
Sweetman, J., ‘The importance of social impact’

 

What we did

For 2 years, Manor House Development Trust has invested a great deal of time and money improving its impact measurement processes. As a ‘community development’ organisation, we found it difficult to articulate the impact we were having, in a way all of our stakeholders could understand. The concept of ‘Community’ means many different things to different people. It could be any size, any location (it doesn’t even need a location) and each of us probably belongs to many different ‘communities’. The word ‘Development’ in the context of community is also very difficult to describe, even though no one could deny its importance.

And this is what we were faced with as an organisation. How do we succinctly describe what it is we are trying to do, whilst also explaining these complex concepts? How do we tell the story, without it becoming a novel?

“We realised that even though we describe ourselves as a community development organisation,we don’t actually do community development”
Simon Donovan, Manor House Development Trust

The answer came from speaking to people, lots of people, about what changes we have brought about for them and why that was important; whether they were funders, service-users, staff or partners. And gradually, we began to use their language- piecing it all together. Key themes, priorities and commonalities emerged, which would then form the 5 Business Objectives of our new Business Plan.
hex-points

What this has allowed us to do is to tell a narrative that speaks to many different types of stakeholders. It follows through the journey explaining how a project (however small) contributes to a wider context and can create a legacy for the future. The narrative has also steered the branding of the organisation, where the language of our stakeholders is embedded in the Business Plan and all communications that flow from it. Crucially, the narrative provides a framework whereby all future impact can be captured and reported effectively. In other words, we know what our impact is before our projects even start.

So in answer to the question: How good are we at doing ‘good’?
In my view, we are only as good as the story we tell. 


Originally published on http://www.mhdt.org.uk/our-impact/blog-november/ 27th November 2015

 

Steve Hawkins, Pluss CEO

One Million Journeys

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

So now we know that a new Work and Health Programme will replace the two current DWP employment programmes when they end in 2017.

Just a month after the Work & Pensions Committee recommended that DWP should ‘maintain, and ideally expand, a separate employment programme for disabled people’, the Government has instead announced that a single Work and Health Programme will be commissioned to support into work people with health conditions and disabilities, and job-seekers who have been unemployed for two years.

The government is clear that it wants to halve the disability employment gap. In other words, it wants to see a million more disabled people moving into work. We know now that this new programme will be one of the main vehicles tasked with achieving that goal.

Of course, by focusing on the disability employment gap, the government is acknowledging the reality of a distinct set of labour market disadvantages faced by people with complex support needs. It is asking the new programme not to hit and hope, but to identify these disadvantages and to fix them.

The challenge for DWP is now to commission the new programme in a way that ensures disability specialists are at the heart of delivery, not pushed to the edges, and to align the programme’s commercial drivers with the goal of securing sustained jobs and careers for people needing highly specialised support.

The challenge to the primes who will lead the new programme is to recognise early on that this isn’t Work Programme 2.0. This is a specialist programme, but one with the potential to be delivered on a much bigger scale than existing specialist provision. It is clear that there was a strong argument for retaining a separate specialist programme, but at least the emphasis of the new programme is right.

Gone is the flawed logic of having a ‘universal’ programme which was expected to cater for everybody. As the results showed, the mechanics of the Work Programme forced most providers into a standardised one size fits all model that focused on those closest to the labour market. By contrast, the message now is that the new programme is to be aimed by design at people with disabilities, with health conditions, with chaotic lifestyles and with multiple barriers to work. In truth, this is a quiet revolution. It’s one that we shouldn’t underestimate. And it’s one that is re-enforced by the decision to provide £115m for the Joint Work & Health Unit, including £40m for a health and work innovation fund to pilot new ways to join up health and employment systems.

The arguments put forward for a separate specialist programme had a clear logic. They were based on the understanding that helping someone who needs highly specialised support to gain a job and build a career is a wholly distinct profession to the carrot and stick business of prompting work-ready jobseekers to submit multiple CVs. This insight remains vital.

It’s why those primes with the financial muscle to lead bids for the new programme will need to ensure that resources intended to support work with the most vulnerable customers do reach the front line. And it’s why those primes will also need to put specialists at the heart of the process to craft and develop what will be a radically new programme.

That’s because those partnerships that do go on to make money from welfare to work services in the future will be the ones not simply bent on crashing cohorts into the first jobs they spy. Instead they will have sufficient expertise threaded through their supply chains, connected to supporting health and welfare systems, to support the right person into the right (often modified) job and then a career with employers who themselves are partners in the process.

As the new programme starts to takes shape, it will be important for everyone involved in the process to recognise the reality that there are one million individuals, at home, in college, outside the doctor’s consulting room or the therapist’s office, waiting to make one million separate journeys into work.

For now, we at Pluss await with interest details of the scale, design and commissioning of a programme that will need to provide the specialist support that each of those million journeys into work will require.

Going global with social enterprise accreditation

Following on from my post in September, looking at how the Social Enterprise Mark differs from other accreditation/certification schemes, it occurred to me that a key differentiator for us is the international aspect.

The Social Enterprise Mark is the only internationally available social enterprise accreditation, enabling credible social enterprises to prove that they are making a difference.

Following the approval of Middle-East based C3 as the first international Mark Holder in April, we are delighted to have recently awarded our second international Social Enterprise Mark to FLOCERT, the global certification body for Fairtrade labelled products.

Print
FLOCERT is dedicated to strengthening the development of fair international trade, and since 2003 has supported the phenomenal growth of Fairtrade, a movement that’s had a positive impact on millions of smallholder farmers and workers in developing countries.

People_Rudiger_FLOCERTRüdiger Meyer, CEO of FLOCERT said:

“Based on its deep roots in the Fairtrade network, FLOCERT has always regarded itself as a ‘social business‘, which is not focused on making profit. Instead, we aim at covering our cost and providing the resources needed to continuously improve the services and systems for the benefit of our customers, representing 1.5 million farmers and workers, as well as traders and multi-national brands.

Applying for Social Enterprise Mark accreditation was therefore a natural step for us. We found the accreditation process very smooth and the co-operation with the people at the Social Enterprise Mark CIC highly inspiring. With this accreditation we can now show that we truly are a “Social Enterprise” and that we fulfil the expectation of our customers to make an impact in our drive to advance fairness in global trade and to advance farmers and workers in developing countries.”

From our experience of assessing and accrediting these organisations, we have now developed a tried and tested international assessment process that can be applied anywhere in the world.

“We are happy to receive applications from organisations based in countries outside the UK, and now have an internationally applicable assessment process. Although it is inherently more complicated for international applications, I was very impressed with how efficient FLOCERT were with responding to our questions and information/evidence requests. From our perspective it made assessing and approving their application a very straightforward process” says our Assessment and Compliance Manager Richard Cobbett.

As we are unable to perform the usual verification actions involved in assessing eligibility for the Social Enterprise Mark, the standard application process cannot be employed.  Please click here for more information about requirements for international applicants.

An interesting comment that jumped out at me from our recent stakeholder survey was that we need to be “the global centre of social enterprise”. It then occurred to me that we could better promote the international aspect of our work, not just by attracting more international applicants, but by championing the global standard for social enterprise through consultancy for international counterparts.

3V1A9801As featured in my last blog post, I recently travelled to Taiwan to speak at the International Social Enterprise Conference, where I shared our experience of setting up a social enterprise accreditation scheme. We also did some consultancy work this year for Fund Our Future in Russia, and developed a manual with guidelines for setting up an equivalent accreditation scheme for social enterprises in Russia.

We welcome the opportunity to work with counterparts around the world looking to develop country-specific social enterprise accreditation schemes – please click here for for more information on our international consultancy service.

I am delighted to welcome FLOCERT as our second international Social Enterprise Mark holder and we look forward to welcoming many more international applicants in the future.

Steve Hawkins, Pluss CEO

Pluss CEO responds to the recently published Work & Pensions Committee report on the Work Programme

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

The Parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee have just published their report on the Work Programme after interviewing a series of expert witnesses and taking a mountain of evidence. Their report is clear-sighted, far-reaching, and unanimous.

The report makes clear that a mainstream, one size fits all Work Programme is not working well for people who need more intensive help. That’s why, as the Committee observes, nearly 70% of participants are completing  two years on the Work Programme without finding sustained employment. Condemning so many people with disabilities to live out two whole years of their lives on the Work Programme does no-one any favours, least of all the Exchequer.

But the central point is this – if the Government is serious about halving the disability employment gap, it must retain and significantly expand a specialist employment programme separate to the mainstream Work Programme. What’s more, the Committee are adamant that this specialist programme should be delivered exclusively by specialist disability organisations with the expertise to support disabled people.

Why? Because Work Choice, the current specialist programme, offers a clearly different kind of provision but is too small to make a big enough difference. For reasons of cost, the Government may be tempted to consolidate mainstream and specialist disability employment support into a single new programme. If the Government elects to go with a single programme, there are some stark challenges to avoid vanquishing all meaningful expertise from the sector.

Service fees intended to support work with the most vulnerable customers must not be gobbled up by hungry primes or heavily top-sliced as a tax on supply chains; they must reach specialist providers in full. As an integral part of the bidding process, primes must be forced to explain what the challenges are to each customer cohort across each CPA and how specialists will be used to meet these challenges. The commissioning process must include active dialogue with bidders to drill down into their levels of expertise and localised resources.

Under these circumstances, a single programme could deliver at least some of the benefits of a separate specialist approach. But let’s be clear, this is not the optimum solution, it’s a second best. The Work and Pensions Committee report goes further and says that a single programme would be a grave mistake.

For myself, I am certain that, over five years of costs and benefits, Government would gain considerably if they follow the unambiguous advice of the cross-party Committee.

Of course, the people who have most to gain are the one million people with a disability who will need to be supported into sustainable work if the disability employment gap is to be halved. These are the individuals who need the right support to find the right job first time, and the Work and Pensions Committee have now set out clearly for all of us the best way for this to be achieved.

 


PlussSquare_400x400Pluss is a certified social enterprise with the Social Enterprise Mark. This means that Pluss has proved it is genuine against independently-assessed criteria for social enterprise. The Social Enterprise Mark provides assurance that profits are used to help disabled people gain opportunities to work, acting as a guarantee that Pluss is trading for people and planet.

Good Money Week 18th – 24th October

By Isabelle De Grave, Charity Bank

 (originally posted on Charity Bank blog on 1st October 2015)

The most important week for the Good Money campaign is fast approaching. Here’s what it’s all about.

Good Money WeekGood Money Week, 18th – 24th October 2015, is an opportunity to ensure those you trust with your money are looking after it well and using it in ways that benefit society and protect the environment.

What’s the big deal?

“It makes no sense to invest in companies that undermine our future.”

Desmond Tutu’s take on the logic of investment without concern for our future wellbeing is hard to beat and even harder to contest. As it is, the money we invest, or deposit with a bank, isn’t always invested in ways that are good for people, communities and the environment. Look closely, and you’ll find that money flows to some pretty unsavoury destinations, the arms trade, fossil fuels, gambling to name a few.

So we nod in agreement with Archbishop Tutu and dream of a better world. Or, better still, we look for ways to build one. . .

What is Good Money Week all about?

Good Money Week is about discovering new ways to make money work the way we want it to, whether we want to save ethically, invest for social impact or spend our money in ways that won’t leave the planet worse off than we found it.

As the Good Money campaign puts it, “We’re facing big challenges in the UK and across the globe: extreme weather, social inequality, scarce resources and a rapidly growing population… The amount of money channeled into solving these problems – in the form of investment into projects or more responsible companies – helps ensure they won’t get worse and that our quality of life, and that of our children and grandchildren, will be protected.”

So here’s to fossil-free ISAs, ethical equity and savings that work for good! If Good Money is something you want to learn more about and support, pop along to some events during Good Money Week.

How you can get involved

  • Follow the money saved with an ethical bank. In support of Good Money Week, we’re following the money saved in Charity Bank’s ethical accounts to the charities and social enterprises they help support. You can sign up here.
  • Email or write to your MP and ask them to support Good Money Week.
  • Attend a Good Money Week event or organise your own.
  • Read up on the issues and find ‘good money’ options for your finances. Some useful sites include The Good Money Week website, Good With Money, Pioneers Post and the Charity Bank blog.
  • Tell friends, family, your community group, customers, the media and anyone else about Good Money Week using the Good Money toolkit (currently being updated with new resources for 2015).

As the Good Money Week campaign reminds us, ‘Money makes the world go round’ but ‘Good Money’ makes it go the right way.

*This article originally appeared on the Charity Bank blog on 1st October 2015: http://charitybank.org/news/good-money-week-is-approaching-dont-let-it-pass-you-by

International Social Enterprise Conference Taiwan 2015

Diary from a whistle-stop tour to Taiwan

During September, I was invited by the Taiwanese government to speak at 2 conferences over 2 days in 2 cities – the capital Taipei and another big city in the centre of the island – Taichung.

It was a bit of a whistle stop tour, but ably enhanced by a steep emersion into Taiwanese life from my guide and translator Tracy Chee, who in fact turns out to be Malaysian, with cousins who run the Wet Wok in Plymouth, so small world indeed!

I was pretty tired the first day I arrived, having just flown back to the UK from a holiday cycling in Southern Albania and then straight out to Taiwan the next day. The cultural contrast was immediate – high rise, manic urban activity (Taiwan) vs an agrarian laid back mountain village lifestyle (Albania). However, I was to find that there were some similarities.  The other side of the island features many mountainous areas where the economy struggles and the locals suffer from poor access to education and jobs.  Social enterprises are providing a vital opportunity to gain employment and an income for these people.

Taichung was the first destination.  My hotel room suggested (I was on the 19th floor) that we might be going to a high rise block  of a city full of skyscrapers.  However, I was pleasantly surprised when we arrived at the venue which turned out to be an old wooden winery which has been converted to a conference venue within Taichung Cultural & Creative Industries Park. 

Lucy Findlay with organisers of International Social Enterprise Conference Taiwan 2015There was a large audience comprising a mixture of social enterprises, students and those interested in social enterprise.  For the morning session I was pleased to meet  Anthony Wong who works in policy for a Hong Kong based social infrastructure organisation, he was talking about social impact measurement.

Lucy Findlay speaking at International Social Enterprise Conference Taiwan 2015My main talk was in the afternoon, for which I had been asked to focus on social impact as well.  I tested the waters to find out who was actually running a social enterprise.  A few people put their hands up but it seemed that the audience was mainly at very early stages in their journey.  I therefore concentrated on talking about how social enterprises can show that they are making a difference right from the beginning.

Art4SpaceI used our Social Enterprise Mark holders as practical examples. I gave them some concrete case studies from Art4Space, who have run a brilliant project called ‘Birds Fly to Africa’ where British school children have designed mosaics that have been constructed and sent out to African schools alongside building new classrooms.

Co-WheelsI also talked about some more technical demonstrations of social and environmental impact, where the Car Club Co-wheels has worked with other car clubs to show the environmental and social difference that they have made collectively.

JTHLastly I talked about Social Enterprise Gold Mark holder John Taylor Hospice and its excellent social impact story. They have looked at all aspects of their work and categorised their impact in a very logical way, e.g. overall impact such as doubling the amount of care that they give as a social enterprise and local impact, volunteering impact etc.  There was interest in these case studies as well as interest in the concept of labelling.

After the conference, we then went on to visit a local project that helped disabled adults learn how to exploit and hone their artistic skills in order to generate an income for their families.  The work was really outstanding.  I wanted to buy a picture but it wouldn’t fit in my suitcase. We then travelled by high speed train to Taipei – a very efficient journey and so much faster than going by car.  I think our train operators could take some lessons in this respect!

The next day I still hadn’t adjusted to Taiwanese time and ended up over-sleeping.  Luckily the room maid came and woke me up 20 minutes before I was due to meet the driver.  I went with Tracy, my guide, over to the Taipei New Horizon which is part of another regeneration area.  We had a look around the old buildings, which were arts, exhibition and café space, again very well and sympathetically restored.  I loved some of the art work that was on show and nearly ended up in the Chinese Painting Conference which was running alongside in the centre rather than the Social Enterprise one!

Lucy Findlay on panel at International Social Enterprise Conference Taiwan 2015Lucy Findlay speaking at International Social Enterprise Conference TaiwanLucy Findlay speaking on panel at International Social Enterprise Conference Taiwan 2015

 

 

 

 

I had the benefit of talking to my co-presenters and moderator before the session over lunch.  I learned more about the difficulties encountered with supporting immigrant brides from other parts of SE Asia as well as the challenges of the less developed areas of the island.

My speech itself went down well and we were joined by the Minister with Portfolio Professor Joyce Yen Feng who actually teaches social enterprise in a Taipei University – so she was very well briefed. A number of her students were in the audience too, so maybe her arrival triggered the high turnout?  Time was limited for discussions but there again was a lot of interest in how the Mark operated and I learned that there is a proposed similar scheme in China.

All too soon it was time to say goodbye to my new friends.  I have to say I was very impressed with their commitment and the government’s commitment to social enterprise.  The gap that I identified is the real in depth business support for social enterprises to grow.  We have seen a decline of this in the UK and this continues to be a problem for new starts, and I detected a bit of confusion about where to start. At one stage I got asked to define social enterprise vs social economy!  It is very confusing for those starting out – social impact, social value, social business, social innovation etc etc!!

Before I got my flight home, Tracy kindly took me to view Taipei 101 – this used to be the world’s tallest building.  It was amazing and although we didn’t have a chance to go up it the shopping centre full of top designer stores challenged the senses.  I will definitely be returning to Taiwan, but not to go designer clothes shopping!

Many thanks to the Taiwan government for inviting me.

What makes Social Enterprise Mark certification different?

There is often confusion between the various ‘badges’, ‘identifiers’ and ‘certifications’ available to organisations looking to prove their social and ethical credentials, and we are often met with questions about the relationship between the Social Enterprise Mark and other certification schemes.

Following the official UK launch event of B Corps last night, which I attended, we thought this may be an appropriate time to distinguish how the Social Enterprise Mark is different from other schemes. Of course, it is testament to the strength of the social enterprise movement that there are a number of options available to those looking to accredit their social enterprise credentials, but it may be useful to clarify the differences between these options.

The Social Enterprise Mark CIC is the ONLY UK and international certification authority that independently guarantees that a business operates as a social enterprise, with the central aim of using income and profits to maximise their positive social and/or environmental impact, which takes precedent over more standard business models, which are typically driven by a requirements to maximise personal profits for owners and shareholders.

Applicants must meet the qualification criteria (summarised below) in order to be awarded the Social Enterprise Mark, and are re-assessed each year to ensure they continue to meet the criteria. The Social Enterprise Mark is not a membership scheme – it is a certification, subject to an independent Certification Panel.

Summary of qualification criteria:

  • have social or environmental aims
  • have own constitution and governance
  • earn at least 50% income from trading (or pledge to achieve this within 18 months)
  • spend at least 50% profits fulfilling social or environmental aims
  • distribute residual assets to social or environmental aims, if dissolved
  • demonstrate social value

Approval is not automatic; not everyone who applies for the Social Enterprise Mark is successful, but we will always give advice on required changes. Approximately 30% of organisations applying or expressing an interest in doing so are assessed as ineligible, from the point of initial enquiry, through their application and our assessment, up to the point of scrutiny by the Certification Panel. We review Mark Holders continuing eligibility on an annual basis and whenever an organisation is found to no longer be meeting our criteria, their Mark Holder status is removed.

To help illustrate the key differences between the Social Enterprise Mark and other certification/accreditation schemes, we have produced a useful comparison, which sets out the differences between the Mark and the newly launched B Corp certification.

 

Looking at social impact in particular, we have recently strengthened our assessment of how applicants and renewing Mark Holders demonstrate that social/environmental objectives are achieved. We now require a minimum of three ‘social impact statements’, which illustrate how they are striving to meet their social and environmental objectives. This is to ensure Mark Holders are reflecting upon their social/environmental impact and at the very least can articulate what they are doing year on year to make a difference.

The Social Enterprise Mark is not just an internal assessment for social enterprises to evaluate their social impact; it provides proof that they have been assessed against sector-agreed criteria, and have been guaranteed as a genuine social enterprise.

Subject to meeting the criteria, organisations can become a certified social enterprise and verify their credentials from just £350+VAT per year. The annual licence fee is based on the organisation’s annual income, ranging from £350+VAT to £4,500+VAT.

To find out if you qualify for the Social Enterprise Mark, use our handy criteria checklist. If you are eligible, why not start the application process today to guarantee your social enterprise credentials with the Social Enterprise Mark.

Social Enterprise

If The Government Are Serious About Halving The Disability Employment Gap…

By Steve Hawkins, CEO of Pluss

Credit to the Government for being so clear. They want to halve the disability employment gap. That’s the difference between the percentage of people with disabilities who are in work and that of the working age population as a whole.

Pretty much everyone agrees this would be a good thing – for the individuals themselves, for employers, for taxpayers, for all of us. Research by the Social Market Foundation indicates that achieving the goal would boost the economy by £13 billion.

But the ambition won’t be achieved by wishing for it. True, the imaginative Disability Confident campaign has captured headlines and made inroads. And much good work is being done to build the ‘presumption of employability’ for people with disabilities, although this remains a work in progress on both sides of the interviewer’s desk.

But these are only complementary activities. I believe that over the next decade our ability to reduce the disability employment gap will be largely dependent on a single factor. It’s this. What help will people get to make the journey? In other words, what will the programme that is required to do most of the heavy lifting look like?

It’s critical to recognise that helping into work someone with a learning disability or autism, or someone with profound and enduring mental ill-health or with multiple and complex support needs, is an entirely different industry to helping roomfuls of jobseekers close to the labour market to get a job.

At its heart, this question is about the challenge facing some people that ‘any job’ isn’t good enough. The greater the level or complexity of the disability or health need, the more precise the fit of the person, the job role, the support and the employer must be.

It isn’t that people with complex support needs can`t work – our experience at Pluss is that they make some of the most outstanding employees for the companies we support. But it’s important to recognise that, as we move along a spectrum of support needs from simple to complex, the pool of potentially suitable jobs and work settings steadily shrinks. At the same time, the need increases for a thorough technical understanding of how an individual’s support needs impact on both the navigation of labour market and the capacity to work well in a job.

A successful intervention therefore requires not just ‘any job’ but exactly the right job with the right employer in the right place with the right help both leading up to a job start and in-work.

As we have seen on the Work Programme, getting it wrong for this group of customers means that all too often the negative perceptions of employers (that people with disabilities can’t work, that they’re not as productive, that reasonable adjustments might be too much hassle) can get reinforced.

This need for an increasingly exact fit between person and job is why the Universal Job Match process is routinely unsuccessful, for example, for someone with autism or with severe and enduring mental ill-health. In our world, it’s rarely the case that an approximate job match is good enough.

I think this approach begins to explain some of the differences in programme performance. 52% of Work Choice starts between the 1st April 2014 and 30th September 2014 obtained a job outcome by 31st March 2015. In contrast, only 12% of ESA new claimants  and  only 5% of ‘ex-IB’ ESA participants on Work Programme get a job outcome after being on the programme for 2 years.

The procurement and commercial arrangements for Work Programme have exacerbated this challenge of working with ESA customers. The commercial drivers of the programme and the scale of contracts have ensured that specialist primes have been excluded from the programme. The use of non-specialists as primes, many of whom are also non-providers, has led to a one size fits all approach that works for some but clearly not for all.

Differential pricing was designed to be the tool to persuade the market to invest in support and expertise for those people whose disabilities placed them furthest from the market place. The market, left to its own devices, has failed this test.

It’s important to say that the Work Programme works well for a large number of people. It has established its credibility as a programme that is effective for those jobseekers without complex support needs for who a wide range of jobs and workplace settings are potentially suitable.

That’s what the replacement mainstream employment programme must be allowed to focus on.

But the greater or more complex a customer’s disabilities, the less effective will be a high volume programme delivered by primes that are driven by the commercial model to a one-size-fits-all approach and that have no in-depth disability specialism.

I believe the evident strengths of the current specialist Work Choice programme, and the comparably poor ESA performance data for the Work Programme, provide a strong evidence base to support the need for a specialist programme, commissioned in a way that ensures the inclusion of experts.

That is why a specialist disability employment programme led by specialist primes must be the cornerstone of the Government’s strategy.

When we know if that’s the plan, we’ll know how serious the Government is about halving the disability gap.

 


Pluss is a certified social enterprise with the Social Enterprise Mark. This means that Pluss has proved it is genuine against independently-assessed criteria for social enterprise. The Social Enterprise Mark provides assurance that profits are used to help disabled people  gain opportunities to work, acting as a guarantee that Pluss is trading for people and planet.

Act like Amazon or save the Amazon?

By Isabelle De Grave, Charity Bank

We can choose to buy from, work for, and even set up companies that have a sense of purpose beyond profit. But how do we spot them?

In the digital age, the demand for information, often just a click or a ‘google’ away, is immense. At the same time public interest in the inner-workings of organisations, their ethics, standards and practices, is growing.

As a business, it’s not enough to simply say you’re ethical; you need to be able to prove it. Today there are a number of ways to do this, and companies are beginning to take notice.

The view from inside an ethical bank

From my vantage point, inside an ethical bank that lends its savers’ money to charities and social enterprises, I can see the potential for ethical business to grow. Charity Bank’s strong community – people who really care about where their money ends up – fuels my optimism, as do recent events…

The exposure of Amazon’s treatment of its employees, pushing people to their physical and mental limits in the name of production and profit, instantly provoked public outrage. It also sparked action, a petition on change.org to make Amazon UK pay their workers the Living Wage, along with the publication of an Amazon-free shopping guide.

Disenchantment with corporates

It must be sinking in. We care about how companies treat people, what sort of activities they’re invested in and how they affect the environment.

Anyone attuned to the current tone of Twitter and the blogosphere will recognise the growing public interest in the way businesses operate. The feeling towards companies which pay little or no attention to purpose and values is pure disenchantment, neatly captured by Dom Jackman, founder of Escape The City, in his blog “Dear Corporates: A quarter of a million of your workforce are escaping…”

The ball is in our court.

We can choose to buy from, work for, and even set up companies that have a sense of purpose beyond profit. But how do we spot them?

Here are some steps that Charity Bank has taken to point people towards its ethical credentials and a few other ways of identifying ‘good’ businesses. These are all credible signs that an organisation cares about its employees, society and the environment. Whether you’re someone who wants to check that a business is ‘walking the ethical talk’ or you’re a business owner, I’d recommend looking out for them.

  1. SE_Business_Identifier_RGBThe Social Enterprise Mark. If you invest at least 50% of your profits in a social mission, you may qualify for the Social Enterprise Mark. We became the first bank in the UK to earn the Mark making Charity Bank an independently certified social enterprise. See if you can apply.
  2. Living Wage accreditation. Companies that pay all employees the Living Wage can seek an independent certification and become an accredited Living Wage employer. We did this back in 2014.
  3. The B Corporation certificate. A growing number of businesses, including Charity Bank, are showing that they take their impacts on their employees, society and the environment seriously by applying to become a B Corporation, which provides an independent certification of ethical business.
  4. Measuring and sharing social and environmental impacts. This is something that’s core to our business of lending to charities and social enterprises. We share information about our loans on our website so that savers can see the impact their savings are having. See our approach here. There’s no standard approach to accounting for impact on society and the environment but there are some useful resources and initiatives. The Common Good Balance Sheet is worth a look.
  5. Using finance for good. If you’re a small business or a charity looking to put money away in a savings account, you could consider opening a savings account with Charity Bank, as a way of earning a fair return and boosting your organisation’s social impact by supporting the work of charities and social enterprises. And if you’re an individual looking to save with an ethical bank, this all helps to show you’re in the right place. You can check out our savings accounts here.

There are a few ethical banking options out there for businesses, charities and individuals. The space is maturing slowly but surely. As well as Charity Bank, there’s Triodos Bank, Ecology Building Society, Charities Aid Foundation and Unity Trust Bank.You can find ethical and mainstream banks ranked in the Good Shopping Guide’s ethical league tables and more on ethical finance and movements in a blog by Patrick Crawford, Charity Bank’s chief executive here.

As the Amazon storm calms, perhaps it’s time to reflect on our own power to redefine success in business. With the tools to raise standards of purpose, transparency and accountability at our fingertips, now is an exciting time.

*This article originally appeared on the Charity Bank blog: http://charitybank.org/news/act-like-amazon-or-save-the-amazon-the-ball-is-in-our-court

 


25% discount on Charity Bank loans for Mark Holders

IMG_2290To celebrate becoming the first UK bank to be awarded the Social Enterprise Mark, Charity Bank has announced a partnership with Social Enterprise Mark CIC to offer Mark Holders a 25% reduction on their standard loan arrangement fee.

Please click here for full information

Important information

  • Quote CBL/SEM to claim your 25% discount. Charity Bank’s standard arrangement fee is usually 1% of the agreed loan but may be individually negotiated
  • The offer is available to all Social Enterprise Mark holders, which have not borrowed or submitted a formal enquiry or loan application about a Charity Bank loan in the past twelve months
  • All loan applications are subject to approval by Charity Bank and applications must be submitted by 31st May 2016.
To find out more about Charity Bank, visit: http://charitybank.org/charity-loans  or follow @charitybank

Hooked on government support…

…from one dependency to another

You can’t have failed to notice the high profile fall of Kid’s Company over the last few months.  It reminded me of some of the dangers that can lie in reliance on government contracts for the delivery of public services, which has been repeated as a mantra for the social enterprise sector for nearly 20 years.  This of course is not the only issue for Kid’s Company, but one that I focus on here.

Many forget that, historically, social enterprise has its roots (along with the charity sector) in delivering where the conventional market has failed.  However, unlike charity, it uses a business model that creates enough revenue to either:

  1. deliver very low profit margins to reinvest because the social value/impact is included in their business delivery model which would otherwise increase profits; or
  2. deliver high margins in one activity that supports the cross subsidy of another less profitable social activity, freeing the company to deliver its social mission without the interference of others.

This provides a very flexible model that is really focused on social need. It is often more resilient too because it tends to have a number of revenue generation sources.

The government’s (and others’) wider promotion of opening up public service delivery, and the more recent emphasis on social investment as a means to deliver public services, whilst providing potential profit for investors, have realigned  and shifted the focus of social enterprise policy.  In fact, in my view, the term “social enterprise” was coined in the early 2000’s in many ways as a result of the opportunities that the spin out of public services presented to new and existing social enterprises.

It is perhaps not surprising that the government became so interested in social enterprise, given the drive to look at alternative delivery models.   I remember the Labour Government’s social enterprise strategy was pretty much solely focused on this aspect.  A number of us at the time, including the likes of Nigel Kershaw from The Big Issue, questioned why the government weren’t interested in supporting social enterprise to succeed in the open market as well.

It is only when I speak to social enterprise practitioners and commentators outside England that I realise how focused and obsessed the whole sector has become with government contracts.  We are constantly urged to ‘influence commissioners’ and ‘prove social value/impact’.  We hang on the words of government and the civil service to predict our futures.   But to what end?  To replace one dependency with another?

If we look back, the track record of successive governments have not been good in this area.  It is about to get a whole lot worse.  Commissioner loyalties are fragile and fickle especially in the light of more austerity.

Our collective memory seems to have been removed from us.  We need to spread our risks, focus on how we become less dependent on government and get back to the reason we exist in the first place – to deliver a social/environmental solution through an ethical business approach.

SE_Business_Identifier_RGBThe Social Enterprise Mark certification can help to prove your social credentials, as it encourages our Markholders to reflect on their social mission, value, and their independence, in order to differentiate and promote themselves, in order to achieve a sustainability that best serves the people they are in business for.  Government contracts do count as trading income, but  an overdependence on one source of income that is subject to the vagaries of political pressure never makes good business sense.

Profiteering from the sick and dying

Lucy’s latest blog explores profiteering from delivery of NHS contracts. This blog was first published on the 2degrees network.

At the beginning of the summer there was an announcement that Staffordshire Clinical Commissioning Group plan to contract out their cancer and end of life care to the tune of £1.2bn. By my estimation, given the profit margins of at least 10%, this is at least £120m profit taken out of care services, for shareholders (and could be as much as £240m). I suspect there will be a lot of interest from the private sector as an opportunity to get into this potentially lucrative market.

Almost in tandem with this announcement there was a Daily Mail article which reported survey results showing most people do not care who delivers NHS services as long as it’s free. On the face of this, it is discouraging news for social enterprises. However, if you were to turn this around, given the latest health and care scandals, I’m sure that trust would be the number one priority. Social enterprises with their local knowledge, approachability and transparency are very well placed to engender this. They are not some faceless corporate just after a fast buck, because their number one reason for being set up is to deliver that service to fit their social mission.

I am really encouraged that the Labour Party is now talking about ring-fencing a number of public sector contracts for social enterprise delivery, although this does miss the point that there is an inherent difference in the way that a social enterprise delivers – because of its primary social motivation. I am due to meet with Chi Onwurah and I will be making this point. At least there is recognition that social enterprises do offer a good alternative.

My prediction is that in years to come, we will all be questioning the values (or lack of them) that were used to make public spending decisions.

There must be wider recognition that social enterprises not only often take a lower profit margin, but they are also reinvesting and devising a service that is aimed at the people they serve – a win-win! Just looking at the price and not what’s going on behind the scenes is not good enough. We need commissioners and politicians to understand this fundamental point.