How can government be confident that it has really supported genuine social enterprises without some form of certification and understanding of what it has bought? 

This logic has been mirrored by our experiences with the private sector in our 50in250 campaign.  Big companies are also looking for reassurance that what they are buying into is genuinely ‘doing what it says on the tin’.  This week Telereal Trillium has also made the commitment to buy from at least 5 certified social enterprises over the next few months.

Those innovative social enterprises already certified with the Mark are the early adopters at the cutting edge of social enterprise developments both internationally and in the UK (a world leader in the social enterprise field).  The European Commission, for instance, has prioritised the labelling of social enterprises that it supports.  That trend will continue to grow.

The government is over-counting social enterprises

Excerpt from Lucy’s latest blog (on Third Sector mag):
“My suspicion is that we should probably cut the numbers in half given (a) the original DTI mapping figure of 15,000 in 2005, (b) the growth of the sector and (c) the experiences we have had in registrations to the Mark. But I doubt we will ever really know. What we should be concentrating on is measuring the quality, impact and sustainability of social enterprises that we do know about and help new ones get the best possible start.”

Chris White MP gave a barnstorming address – not something you often associate with a back-bencher, but his words were inspiring and really set the global context that we now find ourselves in.  Crucially, he linked the Mark to the paradigm shift of the changing business world and demonstrated his strong support.

The dialogue between social enterprises was firmly one of business – I don’t think you would have seen that a couple of years ago nor would you have seen such numbers.  Questions ranged from issues of quality and price to top tips.  My top tip for corporates is to start small and develop the relationship – business relationships in my experience  are fundamentally about trust and ability to deliver what you say you will.

I have to say, being a supporter of the Occupy movement, I was slightly worried about how all this might go down – might we have been better going out to join the protesters?  I discussed this dilemma with some friends (who know nothing about what I do or about social enterprise) over the weekend .  Interestingly, they had been in London and talked to the protesters and their independent conclusion was that they had sympathy for the messages but where were the solutions?  I felt really proud to say that we were in the thick of it; helping to provide some solutions and the means to action them!

It was an inspirational and rewarding event, with some new definite supplier relationships underway. Thanks to all those supporting it including Sensevents, Cafe Sunlight, City of London Corporation. We look forward to meeting many more Mark holders and businesses around the country as the campaign grows.

For more information on the campaign see www.50in250.org.

Anyway, whoever she is, she hoped that I would be inspired by her.  Her main issue to paraphrase was the corporatisation of the world and the frustration of those that want to stand for something different – something better, more colourful , imaginative  and inspirational.   That hits the nail on the head for me.

Social enterprises are not part of the establishment, they are trying to make a difference to people’s lives or the environment in which they live.  What keeps me going, are those stories and the levelling effect that social enterprises have on those that they encounter on the way.  They are reconnecting with those people that feel marginalised, and helping them to take control of their lives for themselves.

This year has been a challenging one for Rise and the Social Enterprise Mark and we have certainly done our share of fighting our corner.  But let’s take the opportunity to celebrate our progress.  We have started as we mean to go on, with taking brave and bold decisions.  We now have more 450 certified social enterprises (Mark holders) throughout the UK.  Each of these organisations is doing its bit, but we now need to use this collective power to challenge the corporate sector.  We have something to say that challenges the silo mentality of the conventional model.  We need to ensure that these businesses work with us on our terms – it should not just be greenwash.  We offer them answers and we should put a value on this – at the least they should be buying from us, ideally in the long term they will be converting to the social enterprise model.

It’s an analogy I would draw when the circular debates start on the definition of the term social enterprise – it takes a lot of time and energy for no particular useful purpose.  I’m afraid that these types of discussions do not unify but serve a wider divisive purpose which marginalises and ensures that social enterprise will remain ‘an extra’ rather than having a ‘starring role’ in the future of the business world.

Pin dancers seem to have disproportionately loud and occasionally abusive voices and they marginalise the majority who choose not to engage in futility, rudeness and negativity but rather continue spending their time making a difference to others’ lives.   I know which one I would opt for any day.

There is a time for criticism, but I would always qualify that with the requirement to be constructive and explore ways forward.  I held a discussion at an academic conference last week about the Social Enterprise Mark and the vexatious issue of definition came up.  For me, these debates will carry on and we will listen and work with partners to try to address legitimate concerns – we have always said that the criteria are not set in stone.  I would also point out that we have consulted extensively in the development of the criteria over the years – but we can’t please everyone.  In addition, there will always be work that is underway, that we are not ready to talk about publicly; as I hinted at the conference, we are currently in discussions with trades unions and co-operative representatives.

Most importantly, engaging in the public domain about these debates means we are in danger of losing the plot and turning off potential converts to social enterprise in general.  The aim of the Mark was never to provide a ‘catch all’ or an exclusive club, but to enable the sector to come together, to promote itself more effectively to the outside world, in a way that is simple and uncomplicated.  By using a consistent message with a unique selling proposition, the term social enterprise can be understood by many more people. Already, there are almost 450 Mark holders integrating the Mark into their marketing strategies and in turn reaching thousands of their own stakeholders – all learning what’s different about social enterprise.

Anyone who has constructive suggestions about further criteria development, wanting to work in a co-operative and collaborative way, please get in touch: media@socialenterprisemark.org.uk

Over the past decade or so social enterprises have been encouraged to build their businesses in order to deliver government policy, through public sector procurement and other ways.  Government strategies focused on this and the sector largely followed on.  In fact, the sector was encouraged to take ownership under the last government, and sometimes it became difficult to distinguish government policy from our own growth and sustainability strategies  - probably further exacerbated by the funding streams available centrally and regionally.

I’m not saying that all of this was bad, but it made us complacent.  I remember at the time, my friend Nigel Kershaw from the Big Issue saying, ‘What about social enterprises which operate in the open market?  Where are they in these discussions and policies?’   He pointed out that the Big Issue was borne out of a recession and had learned lessons about how to survive.

In these times of austerity, we still seem to be clinging to the same hopes that we had about turning towards government for answers.

These hopes are likely to be dashed.

We need to think much more independently of government; to promote the benefits of buying from a social enterprise; to be much more forthright and clear in our efforts  to achieve this.

In discussions with Social Enterprise Mark holders, there is a sense of frustration that much publicised support from both government and the wider private sector is just rhetoric.

We need to start to hold them to account in the ways that they too do business.  Supply chains must be challenged.  If business and government really believe in social enterprise, why aren’t they buying from them more widely? I’m not just talking about the delivery of public services – what about catering, events management, HR advice, marketing – the list is endless.

Social enterprises, of course, struggle with the procurement processes of both government and business – which often favour the big ‘standardised’ product.  But as a colleague pointed out, although it might be more complicated for the buyer, the rewards are greater AND benefits  society and the environment (… trading for people and planet).  Buying from social enterprises has the benefits of using resources efficiently to add value to the product or service and in addition, provides an alternative model for CSR.  The Social Enterprise Mark guarantees this;  therefore making  a compelling case to buy from Social Enterprise Mark holders.

Just check out the directory of Mark holders – they are a comprehensive and ready source of genuine social enterprises that can prove it!

Useful links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-enterprise-network/2011/jun/27/corporate-social-responsibility-and-social-enterprises-live-discussion?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.socialenterpriselive.com/your-blogs/item/why-csr-why-now

What do these all mean and do the terms have any meaning to anyone outside the sector, or even within it?

Do they count for anything or are they just applied by the business on a self promotional basis? For instance, A4E describe themselves as a ‘social purpose business’ despite much publicity about the high proportion of profits that end up lining the pockets of individual shareholders.

Many people argue that what we call ourselves doesn’t matter, it is only the social/environmental impact that counts rather than how we get there.  Of course impact is extremely important.  But without looking at what motivates that business and the genuineness of that motivation, you risk only looking at the finished dish and its impact on the waistline, whilst ignoring the ingredients and the recipe.  The way that we do business has to be an important part of the impact equation – and we know that consumers care about it.

Who cares about profits if the service is delivering?

This question ignores the fundamental principle that consumers are increasingly questioning the ethics of the way that service is being delivered, look at the food business – the growth of Fairtrade and other ethical Marks.

Why should it be that ‘shareholder profit margins’ are the overriding consideration in the delivery of a public sector contract to help people get into jobs? Why isn’t the public asking this question?  Looking at the response to the banking crisis, I think they are beginning to.

I know that not all businesses behave in this way, but it is only by being clear about what we stand for that we can hope to benefit from our unique selling point – social enterprises are genuinely trading for people and planet and the profit that we make is for public good.  The Social Enterprise Mark is the way to prove it and for the term social enterprise to mean something.

In a recent Senscot bulletin, Laurence DeMarco talks about the need for an ‘asset lock’ to ensure that a social enterprise is genuine – we agree.  We require that all Mark holders have an ‘asset dissolution clause’ which ensures that on wind-up, assets cannot be redistributed for shareholder gain – this is checked annually.  Over and above this we also require an ‘asset redistribution clause’ which limits the amount that shareholders can take from the business on an annual basis.

The Social Enterprise Mark is singing a constant and consistent tune in standing by its position and I know many people world-wide agree.