Raspbery Pi - the future of computing
4 May 2012
John Tate introduces the new big thing in the world of computing.
The charity sector must take the lead in defining what we mean by social enterprise, urges Su Sayer.
One of the first things the newly-elected coalition government declared on taking office was its ambition to “create the largest and most vibrant social enterprise sector in the world” as part of its NHS reforms. As encouraging as this was, many questioned whether the government was clear about the difference between NHS foundation trusts and social enterprises.
If politicians are sometimes unclear about what a social enterprise is, the general public is even more so, as the research carried out for Charity Finance by YouGov clearly shows. Say “social enterprise” and some think of huge international brands like Fairtrade, while others think exclusively of small, local organisations. Some argue the definition only applies to not-for-profit businesses, while others would include the FTSE 100-listed Body Shop because of its social campaigning aims. Many don’t recognise the term at all.
Does this matter? Yes, because our experience is that many people would be more likely to support social enterprises if they understood exactly what they were, and what they aimed to do.
United Response runs a number of small social enterprises, such as our Krumbs café in York and our UR Sorted mail order business in Manchester. Both enterprises share the same simple mission – to give local disabled people the opportunity to build the confidence and skills to move into mainstream employment – and both have been enthusiastically supported by local businesses and consumers.
I believe that the charity sector and government need to define social enterprise in a similarly clear way. Social Enterprise UK’s definition of a social enterprise is “a business that trades for a social or environmental purpose”. I would go further and argue that businesses that don’t have that aim as a primary goal should not be classed as a social enterprise. Private businesses whose first and foremost objective is profit should not be able to define themselves as social enterprises.
A social enterprise should also be clear about who its intended beneficiaries are and how it aims to benefit them, in the same way that charities are legally required to have clear charitable objectives. Where possible, those beneficiaries should have a powerful voice in the way that the social enterprise is managed, ensuring it adapts to meet their changing needs or situation.
There are some who argue that narrowing any definition to exclude businesses which make profits for shareholders is to ignore the social value that such businesses can deliver. I don’t believe that this is true in the 21st century. Increasingly, consumers expect businesses to behave responsibly, and it is in their own interests to demonstrate the social value they provide. However, classing such businesses as social enterprises makes the term too broad for the general public to understand and risks devaluing it.
In difficult times, many people would like to spend what money they have in a way which will help vulnerable groups, rather than add to the wallets of the wealthier. Unfortunately, lack of transparency and consistency in terminology makes it very difficult for them to know how to go about it.
‘True’ social enterprises could play a major role in sustaining communities through hard times. We have all seen the growing numbers of closed commercial premises in towns up and down the country. Social enterprises may be able to fill these spaces with new initiatives, such as communityfocused cafés or shops which do not need to make a commercial level of profit to simply be sustainable.
This is not an argument for a lower level of service – far from it. On the contrary, in order to succeed a social enterprise must focus on the enterprise as well as the social part of what they do, for without a proven market demand and a decent level of service that meets that demand, even the best-intentioned consumers will stay away.
With these ingredients in place, our experience shows that the general public will support social enterprise. They just need a simpler definition of what that means, and the charity sector must lead the way in providing this definition.
Su Sayer is chief executive of United Response
4 May 2012
John Tate introduces the new big thing in the world of computing.
4 May 2012
Would you hand your PC desktop background over to advertisers if it was fundraising for a good cause?...
26 Apr 2012
Inspired by a debate between Joe Saxton and an employee of the Gambling Commission, David Philpott devises...
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
17 May 2012
Men may have ruled the political panel, but women packed the punches from the audience in the Civil Society...
14 May 2012
It’s two years since Britain voted in the previously unlikely coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Edward Finch
partner
Buzzacott LLP
24 Feb 2012
There are a number of good points made above but I think the analysis misses the point. "True" social enterprise does not need to be "supported" by the public - the public will choose to buy from it. In the real world though "true" social enterprise, with no subsidy or appeal to good nature rather than pure rational purchasing logic, is rare. Social enterprise operates as a business but brings the excluded into markets, or creates markets for the excluded, this usually needs a push from the public purse or philanthropy.
By "true" social enterprise I assume Su means a business that delivers the same business performance as an "anti-social" or "unsocial" enterprise but with asset locks and/ or primacy of mission. What is needed for social enterprise to thrive is a combination of factors including but not limited to: investment capital and/ or subsidy from funders who value social outcomes as well as financial returns; marketing to consumers and for B2B markets (as for Fairtrade, Organic etc) to switch to social enterprise products; and favourable commissioning and procurement environments in the public sector.
The charity sector can clearly provide some but not all of these and its input, but not leadership, is desirable but not necessary. It is more helpful to think of social enterprise as an activity that can be undertaken by a wide variety of organisations and individuals, both charitable and private sector.
Primacy of social outcomes and some degree of asset lock in constitutions are solid and reassuring guarantors of sincerity (and probably essential when claiming to be "a social enterprise" - in the same way a KitKat may now claim to be a Fairtrade product but Nestle is not a Fairtrade company, whilst Divine is a Fairtrade company delivering Fairtrade products.)
A clearer definition can, in my view, only be limiting.
[Reply]