It has been interesting and somewhat disturbing to see the political parties jockeying for position over the localism agenda.
The Labour government has promoted the idea through the Department for Communities and Local Government, David Cameron recently gave a very supportive speech and, less unlikely, Nick Clegg has pitched his tent on the same field.
This is not so much about political debate as all sides recognising the zeitgeist moment.
Whilst we have much theoretical agreement about localism - the need to drive power further down and encourage communities and individuals to take responsibility for their destinies - practical problems abound on the ground, because empowerment implies power shifting and whilst the newly empowered welcome the opportunity, the concomitant is that some folk currently holding power will lose some of it.
Since power is closely bound up with resources, this is seen as a threat in some quarters.
The big question is how to effect the power shift.
This is, of course, the gap between strategy and local delivery.
communityNET provides a mechanism, or gearbox, to effect the change, but first we have to persuade the powers that currently be, to instal the gearbox!
Now we come to the tricky question of how and indeed why, folks who profit from the current system, should support the new system.
Firstly, enlightened folk know that change happens anyway and history tells us that those who stand in the way of change, eventually get knocked over by it.
And the longer change is held back, the bigger the reaction when it breaks.
The reality is that moribund power is increasingly exposed as failing and ludicrous.
In previous times and in current times in other places, the breaking of moribund power can get bloody. It doesn't really matter how we feel about this - the manner of the reaction will determine the manner of the revolution.
Let's be grateful we live in Britain in the 21st century. The game is sometimes dirty and devious and debate doesn't always decide the day, but with luck, no-one will die in the struggle.
And persuasion and pensions should ease the pain. There are always OBEs and the like too !
steve
Monday, 24 December 2007
Friday, 16 November 2007
When is a Social Enterprise not a Social Enterprise?
And does it matter?
We had an interesting discussion at our recent Social Enterprise Day event about the definition of social enterprise.
In general terms it doesn't really matter. We presented it as a continuum, with private business at one end and charity at the other, with social enterprise in the middle and the boundaries rather fuzzy. Of course, as with any model, it cannot reflect the full complexity and we are now thinking about adding a third dimension to show the public sector, which increasingly will position itself to take advantage of the strategic drive for more social enterprise and the resources which will follow.
In our view, this is all healthy, because the social enterprise sector can only benefit from the best folk from private business, the community and voluntary sector and the public sector, bringing their talents to bear.
Where the detail starts to matter is when we get to governance.
It is quite obvious that, in a modern society, an organisation set up to represent the interests of social enterprises and to promote the growth of the sector, will be controlled by social enterprises themselves. The alternative is the colonial option, where "those who know best", also known as "the powers that be", swan in with advice to putative and actual social enterprises then return home to the comfort of public sector security or private sector profit. If social enterprise wants advice from experts outside of the sector, it must have the choice. The default mechanism would be to first trade within the sector.
Let the medium be the message!
Back to governance and the continuum.
There are clear indicators of social enterprise to be found in constitutions and memoranda and articles of associations. Surely, the key question is: what happens to the profits?
This will separate the private from the social.
To differentiate the public sector and the community/voluntary sector from social enterprise, it is usual to look at the balance of grant and trading income. We have suggested 25% trading and moving towards more. Others go higher.
All this is detail, which needs sorting out transparently. None of it should suggest the superiority of one sector over another. Morally, we might argue that a pure charity, with volunteers and supported by philanthropy, is first in the queue for paradise. In practice this thought is muddied by the point that the biggest philanthropists at present are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet!
Back to the subject. Whilst we have some reasonable definitions of what a social enterprise is and is not, the fuzzy areas at the edge will always exist and we can cope with that on a case by case basis.
Since social enterprise is driven by the heart as well as the head, I reckon we will know one when we see it!
steve
We had an interesting discussion at our recent Social Enterprise Day event about the definition of social enterprise.
In general terms it doesn't really matter. We presented it as a continuum, with private business at one end and charity at the other, with social enterprise in the middle and the boundaries rather fuzzy. Of course, as with any model, it cannot reflect the full complexity and we are now thinking about adding a third dimension to show the public sector, which increasingly will position itself to take advantage of the strategic drive for more social enterprise and the resources which will follow.
In our view, this is all healthy, because the social enterprise sector can only benefit from the best folk from private business, the community and voluntary sector and the public sector, bringing their talents to bear.
Where the detail starts to matter is when we get to governance.
It is quite obvious that, in a modern society, an organisation set up to represent the interests of social enterprises and to promote the growth of the sector, will be controlled by social enterprises themselves. The alternative is the colonial option, where "those who know best", also known as "the powers that be", swan in with advice to putative and actual social enterprises then return home to the comfort of public sector security or private sector profit. If social enterprise wants advice from experts outside of the sector, it must have the choice. The default mechanism would be to first trade within the sector.
Let the medium be the message!
Back to governance and the continuum.
There are clear indicators of social enterprise to be found in constitutions and memoranda and articles of associations. Surely, the key question is: what happens to the profits?
This will separate the private from the social.
To differentiate the public sector and the community/voluntary sector from social enterprise, it is usual to look at the balance of grant and trading income. We have suggested 25% trading and moving towards more. Others go higher.
All this is detail, which needs sorting out transparently. None of it should suggest the superiority of one sector over another. Morally, we might argue that a pure charity, with volunteers and supported by philanthropy, is first in the queue for paradise. In practice this thought is muddied by the point that the biggest philanthropists at present are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet!
Back to the subject. Whilst we have some reasonable definitions of what a social enterprise is and is not, the fuzzy areas at the edge will always exist and we can cope with that on a case by case basis.
Since social enterprise is driven by the heart as well as the head, I reckon we will know one when we see it!
steve
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
A Vision for Social Enterprise Durham
The trouble with visions, of course, is that they can turn out to be delusions.
That sobering thought must not stop the visioning - nothing new happens without the vision to kick it off.
And if the vision gets reshaped in the iteration, that's ok too, as long as we have some new ideas to knock around.
The other thing is to make sure the agreed vision gets put into a project fairly sharpish, while the vision is still fresh and relevant. The third leg of the stool is the essential process which underpins it all. When these elements are in balance, with vision giving lift, project forward momentum and process gravity, then you have a viable project.
Endless visioning with no project and process driven services are the bane of progress and all too common. That's why Du set out to fill the gap between strategy and local delivery.
Back to Social Enterprise Durham, which has been mooted as an organisation for over a year, without ever finding the vision or energy to progress into a project.
We saw the opportunity to help create a vibrant organisation, owned by social enterprises in County Durham, to promote the sector, advocate for its members at top tables, provide and broker support and training and roll out social and community enterprise centres in the towns of Durham, so that local folk wanting to do something positive with their lives and/or for their communities, have somewhere friendly and helpful to go.
To make that vision a reality, we are proposing a Community Interest Company, limited by shares, with voting shares available to Durham social enterprises and non-voting equity shares available to investors including those public bodies with an interest in developing the sector.
We reckon that this model is much more business orientated than the alternatives and that it will help keep us focused on trading and away from grant dependency.
And one of the main beneficiaries of the profits will be a social venture capital fund that can invest in social enterprises and be sustainable itself.
These ideas will be presented on Social Enterprise Day, November 15th, when Social Enterprise Durham will be launched.
steve
That sobering thought must not stop the visioning - nothing new happens without the vision to kick it off.
And if the vision gets reshaped in the iteration, that's ok too, as long as we have some new ideas to knock around.
The other thing is to make sure the agreed vision gets put into a project fairly sharpish, while the vision is still fresh and relevant. The third leg of the stool is the essential process which underpins it all. When these elements are in balance, with vision giving lift, project forward momentum and process gravity, then you have a viable project.
Endless visioning with no project and process driven services are the bane of progress and all too common. That's why Du set out to fill the gap between strategy and local delivery.
Back to Social Enterprise Durham, which has been mooted as an organisation for over a year, without ever finding the vision or energy to progress into a project.
We saw the opportunity to help create a vibrant organisation, owned by social enterprises in County Durham, to promote the sector, advocate for its members at top tables, provide and broker support and training and roll out social and community enterprise centres in the towns of Durham, so that local folk wanting to do something positive with their lives and/or for their communities, have somewhere friendly and helpful to go.
To make that vision a reality, we are proposing a Community Interest Company, limited by shares, with voting shares available to Durham social enterprises and non-voting equity shares available to investors including those public bodies with an interest in developing the sector.
We reckon that this model is much more business orientated than the alternatives and that it will help keep us focused on trading and away from grant dependency.
And one of the main beneficiaries of the profits will be a social venture capital fund that can invest in social enterprises and be sustainable itself.
These ideas will be presented on Social Enterprise Day, November 15th, when Social Enterprise Durham will be launched.
steve
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Markets - Social, Environmental and Economic
The triple bottom line is a great selling point for social enterprise.
The social and environmental value generated is what attracts so many people to the sector, both from the public sector, where they often feel constrained by a risk averse culture and from the private sector, where folk often feel used as a commodity to generate money. Even if they get well rewarded financially, many people from both sectors see the limits to material rewards, especially in a world where poverty still exists alongside obscene wealth, not to mention a world that is consuming finite resources at an unsustainable rate.
The corporate world has adopted the triple bottom line too.
The cynical might suggest that this is mostly about marketing.
Certainly, private and public companies have a primary duty to shareholders.
And most shareholders want the best financial return balanced against the risk of losing their stake.
Social and environmental value in this context are a long way behind economic value and mostly only considered inasmuch as they contribute to the primary bottom line.
Recognising this reality and aware that the survival of the planet is becoming critical, governments and others have created artificial markets, where environmental values are monetised.
This is the world of carbon trading. It may be spurious, it may even be cynically exploited by the rich and powerful, but it is an attempt to change behaviours in a way that does not depend on people acting morally, but recognises that most of the world is currently amoral and acts in a rather narrowly defined, self interested way.
Social reformers are missing a trick by focusing on the consciences and moral values of people. That is generally coped with by charity and legislation that mostly focus on ameliorating the symptoms of injustice.
If charities start talking about the causes, the Charity Commission jumps on them for being "political" and if parties, even governments get serious about causes, they are accused of being "socialist" or even worse!
One answer is to create monetised social markets.
This is much easier to do than the creation of monetised environmental markets.
The effects of social dislocation are clear for all to see and a lot of work has already been done on identifying the financial costs, whether in policing, social work, health - mental and physical, prison or other budgets.
The key to the creation of the monetised social market place is whole life costing versus early intervention.
A clear example is a child who has been born with disadvantage. Depending on the nature of the disadvantage and the resilience of the child, the support available and so on, the disadvantaged child has a greater than average chance of entering the criminal justice and mental health system. The costs of early intervention, timely intervention and opportunities for intervention at every stage will almost invariably be less than costs of not intervening.
This is not new, of course. It is the rationale for schemes like Sure Start.
However, the monetised social values are not usually made specific and therefore a financial market is not created for social or private enterprise to enter. This leaves the scheme in the hands of the public sector, either through direct delivery or procurement mechanisms.
The potential for a monetised social market place is exciting, but not without pitfalls. For example, if the invest to save rationale really works, then jobs in the sectors dealing with the casualties of social injustice will decline.
This is where a new level of sophistication will be required - the linking of the social markets with the environmental markets. Fewer jobs is generally seen as a bad thing in an economic context. But if the necessary work is shared around, then a reduction in economic activity can have a positive environmental and social value.
And having more time to reflect and enjoy the simple things in life will surely generate spiritual value. I am not sure we want to monetise that though!
steve
The social and environmental value generated is what attracts so many people to the sector, both from the public sector, where they often feel constrained by a risk averse culture and from the private sector, where folk often feel used as a commodity to generate money. Even if they get well rewarded financially, many people from both sectors see the limits to material rewards, especially in a world where poverty still exists alongside obscene wealth, not to mention a world that is consuming finite resources at an unsustainable rate.
The corporate world has adopted the triple bottom line too.
The cynical might suggest that this is mostly about marketing.
Certainly, private and public companies have a primary duty to shareholders.
And most shareholders want the best financial return balanced against the risk of losing their stake.
Social and environmental value in this context are a long way behind economic value and mostly only considered inasmuch as they contribute to the primary bottom line.
Recognising this reality and aware that the survival of the planet is becoming critical, governments and others have created artificial markets, where environmental values are monetised.
This is the world of carbon trading. It may be spurious, it may even be cynically exploited by the rich and powerful, but it is an attempt to change behaviours in a way that does not depend on people acting morally, but recognises that most of the world is currently amoral and acts in a rather narrowly defined, self interested way.
Social reformers are missing a trick by focusing on the consciences and moral values of people. That is generally coped with by charity and legislation that mostly focus on ameliorating the symptoms of injustice.
If charities start talking about the causes, the Charity Commission jumps on them for being "political" and if parties, even governments get serious about causes, they are accused of being "socialist" or even worse!
One answer is to create monetised social markets.
This is much easier to do than the creation of monetised environmental markets.
The effects of social dislocation are clear for all to see and a lot of work has already been done on identifying the financial costs, whether in policing, social work, health - mental and physical, prison or other budgets.
The key to the creation of the monetised social market place is whole life costing versus early intervention.
A clear example is a child who has been born with disadvantage. Depending on the nature of the disadvantage and the resilience of the child, the support available and so on, the disadvantaged child has a greater than average chance of entering the criminal justice and mental health system. The costs of early intervention, timely intervention and opportunities for intervention at every stage will almost invariably be less than costs of not intervening.
This is not new, of course. It is the rationale for schemes like Sure Start.
However, the monetised social values are not usually made specific and therefore a financial market is not created for social or private enterprise to enter. This leaves the scheme in the hands of the public sector, either through direct delivery or procurement mechanisms.
The potential for a monetised social market place is exciting, but not without pitfalls. For example, if the invest to save rationale really works, then jobs in the sectors dealing with the casualties of social injustice will decline.
This is where a new level of sophistication will be required - the linking of the social markets with the environmental markets. Fewer jobs is generally seen as a bad thing in an economic context. But if the necessary work is shared around, then a reduction in economic activity can have a positive environmental and social value.
And having more time to reflect and enjoy the simple things in life will surely generate spiritual value. I am not sure we want to monetise that though!
steve
Monday, 13 August 2007
Social Value and the Triple Bottom Line
In 1994, John Elkington coined the term Triple Bottom Line which is an agenda that focuses not just on the economic value that business brings but also on the environmental and social value that it can add – or destroy. In 1998 John expanded and articulated his views in his book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Although many companies find the economic and environmental issues relatively easy to understand and address it is the social value element that appears to be difficult to manage.
This is where I believe that Du can add real value because founders Cameron Gordon and Steve Day understand that most of the time it's the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.
Du’s Service Design takes ideas and turns them into strategic outcomes by working not just with those supplying the product/service but by involving the end-users. This process helps identify any end-user concerns and can also help to highlight issues that may not have surfaced in the initial planning stage.
Although Du’s service design process can be used my almost any type of business perhaps it is in the Community, Voluntary and Public Sector where Du’s approach can add value. People, in general, are more likely to support and use a service in which they have a stake. Everyone has an opinion from who should be the next England football coach to how often the local bus should run. It is when services are just imposed on them that people feel undervalued and this can lead to suspicion about hidden public service agendas, etc.
So, Du’s service design process may be a good thing for the end-users but what about those within the business who would traditionally be doing the work; should they feel threatened? I don’t think so because by bringing in Du they will have more time to focus on their strategic planning roles. The learning that Du will bring from working with the client and the local communities will be of benefit to both sides. The client will be able to incorporate perhaps unforeseen concerns and issues into its strategy and individuals within the community will gain some ownership of the new service.
If people own something they are more likely to look after it, e.g. if children plant a school garden it appears that they are less likely to vandalise it.
It is often the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.
Pauline Short
Du Marketing Associate
Although many companies find the economic and environmental issues relatively easy to understand and address it is the social value element that appears to be difficult to manage.
This is where I believe that Du can add real value because founders Cameron Gordon and Steve Day understand that most of the time it's the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.
Du’s Service Design takes ideas and turns them into strategic outcomes by working not just with those supplying the product/service but by involving the end-users. This process helps identify any end-user concerns and can also help to highlight issues that may not have surfaced in the initial planning stage.
Although Du’s service design process can be used my almost any type of business perhaps it is in the Community, Voluntary and Public Sector where Du’s approach can add value. People, in general, are more likely to support and use a service in which they have a stake. Everyone has an opinion from who should be the next England football coach to how often the local bus should run. It is when services are just imposed on them that people feel undervalued and this can lead to suspicion about hidden public service agendas, etc.
So, Du’s service design process may be a good thing for the end-users but what about those within the business who would traditionally be doing the work; should they feel threatened? I don’t think so because by bringing in Du they will have more time to focus on their strategic planning roles. The learning that Du will bring from working with the client and the local communities will be of benefit to both sides. The client will be able to incorporate perhaps unforeseen concerns and issues into its strategy and individuals within the community will gain some ownership of the new service.
If people own something they are more likely to look after it, e.g. if children plant a school garden it appears that they are less likely to vandalise it.
It is often the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.
Pauline Short
Du Marketing Associate
Friday, 10 August 2007
There's no need for any comment on this one
From BBC Wiltshire today:
"A pensioner has been told she must stop tending a public flower bed unless she agrees to wear a fluorescent jacket, put up warning signs and use a lookout.
June Turnbull, 79, of Urchfront near Devizes, has nurtured the blooms on the plot for eight years.
But now she is being told to obey health and safety rules after being spotted by a county council official.
Mrs Turnbull said: "They can send me to jail if they like - I just want to be left alone to do it."
Cameron
"A pensioner has been told she must stop tending a public flower bed unless she agrees to wear a fluorescent jacket, put up warning signs and use a lookout.
June Turnbull, 79, of Urchfront near Devizes, has nurtured the blooms on the plot for eight years.
But now she is being told to obey health and safety rules after being spotted by a county council official.
Mrs Turnbull said: "They can send me to jail if they like - I just want to be left alone to do it."
Cameron
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
RES, GVA, GNH and other TLAs
The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) for North East England has, unsurprisingly, a strong emphasis on economic growth.
As with any government strategy, things have to be measured, and since it is much simpler to measure what can be counted, Gross Value Added (GVA), has been selected as the main indicator of progress in the region.
Underlying this main driver of the RES is an assumption that economic growth is a good thing per se.
Yet, elsewhere in the RES Action Plan, we find a reference to One Planet Living, though very little action is proposed to achieve it.
One Planet Living is a concept for environmental sustainability, that suggests that current European rates of consumption require three planets. Our choice then is to colonise two more planets or radically reduce our consumption on this one. In the USA, five planets are required and countries like China, currently at one planet level, are driving towards unsustainability.
In this context, GVA only perpetuates the problem. We need to reduce economic activity in a managed way, if we are to play our part in ensuring a future for our children and grandchildren.
The Unique Selling Point (USP) of our region is that we are not as hooked on conspicuous consumption as our overheated compatriots in the South East. We can use our relative economic backwardness as a positive and start to develop more sustainable indicators like Social Value Added (SVA) and Environmental Value Added (EVA).
Perhaps the best three letter acronym (TLA) is Gross National Happiness (GNH), an indicator devised in Bhutan, which proposes four pillars: equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and establishment of good governance. The measure has room for improvement in its translation from Bhutan to Britain.
Wellbeing studies consistently show that whilst poverty has an adverse effect on happiness, increased wealth has no impact after a certain point. Happiness or contentment are most likely to be achieved when people have the sense that they have some control over their lives - and this is much, much more than adding economic value. Working together to find ways to live sustainably and leave something for future generations has the potential to give us the best TLA of all - PoM (Peace of Mind).
steve
As with any government strategy, things have to be measured, and since it is much simpler to measure what can be counted, Gross Value Added (GVA), has been selected as the main indicator of progress in the region.
Underlying this main driver of the RES is an assumption that economic growth is a good thing per se.
Yet, elsewhere in the RES Action Plan, we find a reference to One Planet Living, though very little action is proposed to achieve it.
One Planet Living is a concept for environmental sustainability, that suggests that current European rates of consumption require three planets. Our choice then is to colonise two more planets or radically reduce our consumption on this one. In the USA, five planets are required and countries like China, currently at one planet level, are driving towards unsustainability.
In this context, GVA only perpetuates the problem. We need to reduce economic activity in a managed way, if we are to play our part in ensuring a future for our children and grandchildren.
The Unique Selling Point (USP) of our region is that we are not as hooked on conspicuous consumption as our overheated compatriots in the South East. We can use our relative economic backwardness as a positive and start to develop more sustainable indicators like Social Value Added (SVA) and Environmental Value Added (EVA).
Perhaps the best three letter acronym (TLA) is Gross National Happiness (GNH), an indicator devised in Bhutan, which proposes four pillars: equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and establishment of good governance. The measure has room for improvement in its translation from Bhutan to Britain.
Wellbeing studies consistently show that whilst poverty has an adverse effect on happiness, increased wealth has no impact after a certain point. Happiness or contentment are most likely to be achieved when people have the sense that they have some control over their lives - and this is much, much more than adding economic value. Working together to find ways to live sustainably and leave something for future generations has the potential to give us the best TLA of all - PoM (Peace of Mind).
steve
Saturday, 4 August 2007
Welcome . . .
These are the personal thoughts and musings of Du Directors, Associates and Friends on just about anything
enjoy.
enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
