The School for Social Entrepreneurs

Thursday round-up: 2gether, 2 winners, 2-pennorth

Quick round-up; am in Belfast tomorrow at SSEI so won't be an end-of-the-week trawl.

- Enjoyed my one day at 2gether08; mixed feedback, but then that's what you get with a mixed crowd, I guess...and a mixed line-up; networking was great, even if the social media-meets-social good crowd is a realtively small and incestuous one. Do check out the site for video of the sessions and speakers: there was a lot there....include myself and Cliff from UnLtd now in full technicolour video apparently....

- At the event last night, they announced the New Statesman New Media Award winners. Check out the list here, including two SSE Fellow-led/involved organisations, Patient Opinion and School of Everything. Congratulations to Paul Hodgkin and Andy Gibson (and the rest of Everything), as well as all the other nominees, which included SSE Fellow Nathalie McDermott for the excellent SavvyChavvy

- Am not avoiding talking about this, but easier to check out previous posts, or my comments on Rob's blog for my two-pence worth of views....

- Doing very nicely by doing good: the Economist's take on microfinance making macro profits

- Room to Read founder John Wood featured in the Sunday Times; interesting feature on an amazing organisation

- Lots on social enterprises in the health sphere and pensions....check it out on Third Sector et al. You'll be glad to know you can TUPE yourself over. For nurse-led stuff, you'd do well to check out Entreprenurses (and their recent 5-part podcast), the fount of all knowledge and expertise on the subject

- Finally, self-referential link news: this blog got picked up by New Start (who also have a decent article on 'accidental social entrepreneurs') and, halcyon days indeed, Social Enterprise Coalition's Media Monitor....

Is mission drift better for your bottom line?

One of SSE's strengths over the past decade or more has been its adherence to both a central mission (supporting and developing social entrepreneurs in order to etc etc) and a central product (long-term action learning, practitioner-led, and peer-networked programmes, involving a variety of different interventions). This has given the organisation clarity of focus, and a well-refined, improved and robust product offering: a proven methodology that is replicating around the UK (am just back from Penzance!).

But the flipside to that clarity and focus is that it can affect flexibility, the ability to change with the times and, to an extent, the ability to seize a varied range of opportunities. This isn't totally the case with SSE, as our work has, if anything, become more and more relevant over time....and the programme appeals to a wide range of audiences. Nevertheless, I have been frustrated recently looking at other organisations who, seemingly, go for anything vaguely in this sector....decisions that are clearly powered by pound signs, not purpose.

When doing Myers-Briggs or Belbin-type team analysis, a key person is the 'values holder'...the person(s) who is principled and helps keep an organisation focused on its mission. The person who will discuss and debate with those who are pushing for a more diversified / entrepreneurial route. Ideally, those debates end up at a healthy central position between the two. But there are a few organisations for whom the values holders seem to have (literally) left the building. Or whose lack of clarity about their product / specialism is actually beneficial because it means they can shape themselves (or a work programme) to fit any tender, application or proposal. And this is, arguably, particularly the case in the social enterprise / entrepreneurship world where the primacy of the financial and social missions is less evident.

I'm not normally a fan of management tools and frameworks, but I am a fan of the old mission-money matrix. The one below comes from Fieldstone Alliance's Tools You Can Use:

I particularly like the imagery here....obviously the ideal is everything falls in the 'star' category, but the reality is often activities dotted in all three (heart, star, cash) categories. If you're doing anything that loses you money and has nothing to do with your mission, then please stop now, as the sign suggests.

What's important in using this simple tool to evaluate business development choices is to have clarity of mission first and, ideally, clarity about how you're measuring that impact. Otherwise, financial sustainability can naturally become the pre-eminent force, and you end up with organisations sustaining themselves in order to....well... sustain, rather than in order to achieve the social impact / mission that prompted their establishment.

Of course, this is a balance, as I've discussed before. And money remains of utmost importance.......but importance as a means to achieving social change, not in and of itself. And, ultimately, drifting off mission will have medium-to-long term effects: staff leaving, internal disputes, diminution of credibility in any one field/area, reputational damage from competition at all costs and so forth. Drifting starts with rapid movement and a swirl of activity....but soon forms into a frozen, stationary mass.

Is there a left-right divide in social enterprise?

The rumbling debate about ECT and its takeover and its CIC status (or lack of, now its recycling arm is privately-owned) has continued over on the Society Guardian's Joe Public blog, with Patrick Butler asking "Does it matter if a social enterprise is bought up by a big corporate?". It's a fair question, and a pretty decent summary of what the ECT Recycling takeover looks like from an 'outsider' point of view.

What's been interesting has been the comments that have followed from 'insiders' such as Craig Deardern-Phillips, Jim Brown and others (I'm SocEnt on there, btw). Beyond the calls for clarity on the detail of the situation, which I echo, it's been interesting to see how have been categorised (in some cases by themselves) as on the left or right of social enterprise. In summary, this seems to mean those who are concerned with community governance / ownership / democratic accountability are on the "left", while those who are (more) comfortable with influencing, partnering and being absorbed by the mainstream are on the "right". In the case of ECT, as this illuminating post by Rod Schwartz highlights, this means it could be viewed either as a cause for jubilation or concern

As Rod (somewhat provocatively!) writes: "Readers of our blog will know that we normally applaud when successful social entrepreneurs sell out"....before going on to state that ECT maybe didn't get as good a price as it could have: "Price is not everything but we cannot help but feel (and did ourselves believe) that ECTR would have been worth more. I do not know if this went to auction or not." Well, it would be nice to think that ECT was looking for a strategic partner to scale up, and that that is how this all came about. But the reality, which Rod hints at in his talk of ECT's bankers "not being very supportive" is that this was more of a short-term solution to an imminent problem. ECT already had a relationship with May Gurney, so to that degree the partnerships were being thought about. But this wasn't a planned auction.

This shareholder vs. stakeholder terrain is too simplistic to divide into left and right, though. Neither stance is easily applied to a political party currently....and social enterprise has always been viewed as being on that centre ground (third way territory) where economic progress meets social justice. What it might instead demonstrate are the different segments along a spectrum from voluntary and charitable through to for-profit. As we go along the spectrum (and as legal structures and investment streams / returns change), different people get more uncomfortable and draw a (personal) line. And people start on that spectrum at different ends (oh, hold on, maybe it is left and right ;0). This is why people like Rod and Nigel Kershaw have berated the CIC for not allowing large enough investment to scale up social enterprise-type organisations, whilst the 'other camp' have pointed to the CIC's lack of rigour around democratic and transparent ownership, and accountability to the community. Or, as one commenter puts it on the Joe Public post:

"I see the immersion of any not-for-private-profit social enterprise into the 'for profit' sector as a surrender to the very set of practices and values which cause ingrained poverty and exclusion in the first place"

Where do we stand? Well, SSE has never backed a "legal structure" as the solution, and believe that all sorts of different organisations (charities, social enterprises, for-profits) can have positive social impact. Our belief is that it is up to the social entrepreneur to choose the 'right' structure for them given their proposed activities, mission, financing, governance and so on. The vast majority choose a non-profit structure (regd. charity / co. ltd by guarantee / CIC etc), but some that have had the greatest social impact have had a for-profit structure. What is definitely needed is a push for all organisations in this field to measure their social impact and communicate and report transparently to their consumers / customers / beneficiaries / community / stakeholders / funders.........regardless of their structure.

A final point is that the ECT story should raise the debate about the fetishisation of scale, and the best (most sustainable and most consistent) routes to achieving that. If it's wanted / right / needed. Because there will be more organisations coming along the ECT route over the coming years.

Heavyweight week

Been quite a week here at SSE. Both London programmes are sharing a joint study session today: John Bird's voice is echoing through the courtyard into our office as I write. And this morning Colin Crooks of Green-Works was the expert witness. Colin's a great guy: he's built such an impressive organisation over the last eight years, and he had some interesting things to say over lunch about franchising (a topic we share!), about diversification, about boards and board management, and about growing office recycling in the years to come. And that was just lunch, so I'm assuming the session with the students was enlightening and informative.

Another thing Colin mentioned over lunch was their new(er) work overseas. In particular, they're doing some extraordinary work in Sierra Leone, where they are basically kitting out a whole town through re-using furniture from the UK: a library, a hospital and 37 schools. Humbling stuff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday we helped facilitate a day for the Social Enterprise Ambassadors which also had some big players in attendance: not only the ambassadors themselves, but also 25 high-ranking civil servants from across different government departments, two ministers (Ed Milband and Phil Hope) and Gus O'Donnell, head of the civil service (as someone said to me, he's taking time out from running the country). So quite a powerful and intimidating group to work with....but it went well. The programme has taken a while to bed down and to get going (though announced last June, the appointments/launch took place in October-time), and everyone's committed to making the most of the next two years.

In some ways, the ambassadors programme reminds me a bit of SSE, in that a group of entrepreneurs are, by their nature, not always the easiest group to lead and facilitate....and the group dynamics can take a while to settle (the old forming-storming-norming-performing stuff), particularly when the group doesn't meet very often, and it's difficult for all to attend each time. So still a bit of forming and storming yesterday (from some) and more norming (from others). And hopefully performing over the coming months. :0)

Ended the day at the Edge Upstarts Awards. Congratulations to all the winners (who will no doubt appear on the website soon) who included Lily Lapenna of MyBnk, Carmel McConnell of Magic Breakfast, and Forth Sector. And now we're off to address our sleep deprivation.............

A sad way to start the week

I was full of optimism coming to the office this morning: a beautiful sunny day, after a great, relaxing weekend, and a relatively light schedule this week to plough through work. So I came in early and trawled through the blogs, and ran across this post from Rod Schwartz:

A Tribute to Sarah Dodds

[NB: UPDATE: there is now a site set up to post tributes here and a memorial fund to donate to online]

Apparently, Sarah, who was UnLtd Ventures Director until very recently (she was set to move on to pastures new), was involved in a cycle accident last week. Sadly she died this weekend. I didn't know Sarah as well as Rod or some others, but she started work at UnLtd around the time I joined SSE, so our paths have crossed a lot over the past few years. As Rod details in his post, she was an exuberant, larger-than-life presence with a healthy irreverence; combined with a sharp brain, this led to plenty of interesting (and entertaining) conversations at events and conferences. It is always shocking to lose someone of a young age with so much ahead of them; so am a bit stunned by that this morning.

SSE's thoughts are with her family, friends and colleagues.

Thursday round-up: Sunlight, shares, scale, SROI

Quick round-up, as there seems to be lots coming in and lots of interest:

- Peter Holbrook has written a blog post about David Cameron launching the Tory green paper at Sunlight Development Trust, and has some interesting initial thoughts from a practitioner's point of view on its recommendations; more reaction on Bubb's blog (who's on rare form of late), here, and here.

- Paul Miller of School of Everything has written an interesting post about why their organisation is a company limited by shares and how they balance the need for start-up investment (in a silicon valley web2.0 type way) with a social mission at their heart....

- Fall-out from the ECT news continues; apparently the recycling arm is keeping its CIC structure, despite (or as well as?) being taken over by a private sector operator....will be interesting to see how that turns out. In the meantime, here's a piece in New Start about it all; as I mentioned previously, this can be seen as a positive as much as a negative, but I do think that the issue of scale is at the heart of it all

- On which subject (scale), some food for thought: The Fetishization of Scaling Up (Small is beautiful versus Big is essential....and local+local+local = global...) and a magazine/event called De-Growth

- The SROI-UK conference has spawned a network: SROI-UK is chaired by the evaluation legend Jeremy Nicholls, who we'll be doing some work with in mid-June

- DEFRA announced a big £4.6 million deal for the various third sector waste and recycling networks who have come together to form a new organisation, REconomy. Huge kudos to (former SSE Director of Learning) Matthew Thomson for masterminding the deal: word on the street is that the celebrations were substantial.....but well-deserved.

- Interesting article by Matthew Taylor of the RSA on the (independence of the) third sector and the need for accountability and transparency

- How to set up a refugee community organisation; consult this guide?

- And a brief final thought: Word of mouth is not created, it is co-created

Two big stories: ECT takeover + Tory Green paper

BREAKING NEWS. Oh yes. Two big stories, both with a 'green' slant.

The first is that the Tories have just released their green paper on what they would do to/with/for the third sector if they were in government.Launched at Sunlight Development Trust, It's the first salvo in what is intended to be a constructive and consultative dialogue between the party and the sector. I've only just downloaded it and am yet to digest (95 pages over lunch was beyond me), but our friends at Third Sector online have helpfully done so and come up with the 20 headline pledges.

Of particular relevance to this world:

"•    Creating a network of social enterprise zones to provide incentives for social investment in deprived communities

•    Setting up a Social Investment Bank as a wholesaler of 'patient capital' to a wide range of social investment institutions

•    Creating a powerful 'Office for Civil Society' at the heart of government to fight for the interests of charities, social enterprises, co-operatives and community groups"

Looks interesting, pretty well-thought through and pretty sector-friendly, even if a fair bit of it has been announced one way or another in the past. The OCS replacing the OTS would seem to indicate that NCVO's advocacy of 'civil society' as a concept has fallen on receptive ears. More soon after several tube commute reads.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second big story is that ECT Group, widely viewed and lauded as one of the leading social enterprises in the movement (and certainly one of the largest) has had the recycling part of its business taken over by May Gurney, a private firm. Their press release includes the following:

"ECT Recycling - part of the ECT Group with 1,100 employees - has been acquired by May Gurney, one of the UK’s most successful maintenance and support services companies and listed on the London stock market (AIM).

First and foremost, it’s ‘business as usual’ at ECT Recycling - the current strong management team will remain in place, led by Stephen Sears, and the focus will remain on delivering service quality for its customers and its customers’ customers – members of the public.

For some time, ECT Recycling had been exploring ways to secure its future and to build upon its successful business formula in delivering municipal waste services to local authorities.

Stephen Sears, who has led the development of ECT since 1980 said: “ECT has been looking for a partner for our recycling and waste management business with a good reputation in the local authority market place and with the commercial muscle to help us to secure bigger contracts. This will allow us to deliver our social and environmental objectives as well as the financial results that are essential to continued success." 

Which leaves the ECT Group back to its original core business: the CT of community transport, having sold its various other businesses (railways, health care etc.). A few questions fall out of this, of course. Not least that ECT Recycling was a CIC, so is this the first CIC to be taken over? (and how does that work re. asset lock etc.?) Is this a strategic move separating out the two businesses, or in response to more fundamental problems? And if ECT generally needed to find a bigger partner (with "more commercial muscle") to secure bigger contracts, what does that mean for procurement/commissioning for all the other third sector / social enterprises out there? (many of whom are significantly smaller).

New Start magazine rang me this morning to comment, and I kept it largely generic (because I don't know enough about ECT's business / governance etc; see q's above) but did say that we shouldn't overreact as a sector or movement. More of this will happen over the coming years, hopefully in both directions, as mainstream business is influenced as well as threatened by ethical and mission-led competitors.

Friday round-up: Coca-Cola, Clay, Causes

Another week passes, and for your Bank Holiday reading, we present... the Friday round-up:

- Some good recent posts from some of the Social Enterprise Ambassadors: Matt Stevenson-Dodd, Daniel Heery and Chris Allwood; all well worth a read

- I've banged on a lot about the need for blogs to be authentic and honest; Stephen Bubb's blog, whilst he divides opinion, continues to deliver on both fronts: entertaining, name-drop-tastic, frank posts that feel like a conversation: how many ACEVO members will follow his lead, I wonder?

- This is a useful intro on using Social Media for Social Change

- And, as a nice foil to that, here's a piece about how Facebook Causes don't tackle root causes: or how social media is only useful if it impacts in the real offline world....

- Clay Shirky video that discusses where we find the time to watch TV, blog and the like.... [hat tip Beth]

- Interesting article on developments in Chinese philanthropy of late (post-earthquake)

-  Edge Upstarts Awards are happening on June 18th at Lindley Hall (near Pimlico); keynote speaker is Ed Balls....and the Enterprising Solutions Awards are also open for nominations / entries (till July 1st). Don't be put off by our CEO Alastair being a judge for both!

- The 9 myths of fundraising diversification is quite interesting: for those who need to do it (in these times of credit crunches and the like) to ensure no over-reliance in any one area; it's been a key part of SSE's strategy over the last few years, and this is good on stuff to consider before you start

- Simon Berry, CEO of the mighty Ruralnet, has been pushing an idea about using Coca-Cola's distribution system to help send out rehydration tablets in the developing world; support the campaign by joining the Facebook group or viewing the website here

Have a great weekend.....

Concept and practice: Charlie Leadbeater and Peter Holbrook

I'm never at my finest on Mondays, but today was a really stimulating and interesting one which revolved around two very different individuals: one more conceptual, and one very practical. [apologies for length of post]

First up was Charlie Leadbeater at the Hub for breakfast (two coffees necessary before I could form sentences, needless to say), talking about the ideas and issues which inform and underly his book, We-Think. Leadbeater has been an innovator and ideas pioneer for many years (in 1997, for example, he wrote 'The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur' at the same time as the SSE was being founded). We-Think is about the rise of mass, creative collaboration, and how this is changing society, employment, and traditional systems.

Some interesting tidbits I took from his talk this morning were the five themes in the book:

- the move from marginal to mainstream can happen much more quickly these days
- creativity is a social and collaborative process
- the world is cloud / swamp-like; organisations are box-like....
- a different approach to ownership and control is emerging (sharing animates the economy....)
- these are old systems re-emerging in new incarnations (peer-to-peer, the commons etc.)

He also posed two key questions about this movement: How do you make money from it? (the financial q) and Can we be trusted with this stuff? (the political q). The discussion was interesting, particularly for me around how to make best use of a distinctive piece of intellectual property (don't keep it in a darkened room...think counter-intuitively), about  the importance of relationships (could we see SSE through a lens of creating relationships that motivate, support, trade and inspire?) and the three principles of (self) governance in this area, which again seemed very much related to what we do:

- the need for these connected networked communities to have leadership that leads by values/purpose and tends to come from within that community
- the community needs motivation to contribute and left options to decide why and how they will do so
- peer-to-peer becomes much more important for accountability, review, resources, credibility and so on

Much food for thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was then straight off, via a swift clear-up of my desk (we've moved around in the office), to visit Sunlight Development Trust in Gillingham. Peter Holbrook, who founded the trust (the building was an old Sunlight laundry factory that they got the funding to renovate), is a social enterprise ambassador, and it's been a pleasure to meet and work with him on that programme.

Sunlight is an inspiring place, and is growing really fast: a network of cafes is stretching through the Medway Towns in Kent, and, most recently, they won the contract to provide all the catering in the new Medway Council building: so there is a social enterprise serving up all the lunches, coffees etc in the heart of the local authority. The original Gillingham site is also piloting a range of other initiatives, including a music studio, a radio station, parenting workshops, community gardening and so on.....

It's hugely impressive and a good kick up the arse for those who become occasionally jaded and cynical (this is my arse I'm kicking) about what these types of organisation can achieve. Whilst Peter and I agree that it is about the people, leadership, quality of service, transparency of operation etc that brings success, the CIC model clearly has brought Sunlight benefits; with freer governance, but also the badging / recognition that it brings.

Peter himself is one of those genuinely inspiring blokes; not only because of his energy and enthusiasm, but also because he is fired up and passionate about Sunlight being the best it can be, and about making a difference in what is a hard, tough business. It is a professional outfit, but also remains passionate and personal(ised)...which is a great achievement. Though he made me feel like he'd done more that morning than I had done in the past two weeks, I left inspired: take the concepts and thoughts, and start to deliver.

Charlie Leadbeater referred to a headteacher friend of his who labelled himself a 'pragmatopian', in that he had kept his utopian ideal of the power of education, but had had to do inspite of (and weaving through) the national curriculum, Keystages, league tables etc. It's a horrible neologism, but I think Peter is one too: pragmatic and entrepreneurial, but with values written through everything he does.

Thursday round-up...Blakebrough, Baroness and blogs

Ok, so what with the pressures of Shine, a swathe of documents to write, and two new programmes starting, things have been a little busy. Also been covering some ground of late: Liverpool, Nottingham, Leeds and so on....all good stuff. Particularly enjoyed the board meeting at EMSSE: great to see the progress the organisation has made under Fergus Brazel, with much assistance from the board; and also enjoyed delivering my measuring social impact session with the cultural social entrepreneurs in Liverpool. What a great bunch they are, and look forward to seeing their progress over the coming months.

Anyway, here's a long overdue round-up:

- Adele Blakebrough, CEO of CAN, is stepping aside to spend more time with her family (whilst retaining an involvement in their Breakthough investment fund). CAN and SSE started at a similar juncture around 10 or 11 years ago, and have worked together on direct delivery of support, on the founding of UnLtd and, more recently, on promoting the policy agenda for social entrepreneurs. Adele is a unique, engaging and inspiring presence in the sector, and that energy and passion will be sorely missed. She'll be welcome as an expert witness here anytime ;0)

- At the recent Good Deals conference, a couple of things stood out for me: the first was the social enterprise ambassadors launching their first campaign, called More For Your Money, about the added value the movement brings; the second was a typically rabble-rousing effort by (ambassador) Nigel Kershaw about the need for incentives to attract investment (interestingly mentioning that 3 of the 1706 CICs have received inward investment of this type)

- OTS is investing about £350,000 on developing a standard for measuring SROI; it's a thorny, complex area, but if (even limited) consensus can be achieved, the benefits could be substantial....watch and wait.

- At a recent ACEVO conference, Baroness Glenys Thornton (formerly chair of Social Enterprise Coalition), mentioned her beginnings in this world, which is relevant to us / our founder:

"I was very fortunate when I was a young woman to work for one of the 20th century's social entrepreneurs - Michael Young. He's a person who gave birth to many of the great ideas we take for granted today, like the Open University and the School for Social Entrepreneurs. The thing he taught me was that you mustn't be afraid of coming up with ideas and testing it to see if it works. He was always prepared for ideas not to work."

From what I know from those who worked with him, that certainly rings true.

- And on that note of ideas not working, here's a cheery little piece called the Six Signs of NonProfit Decline., which includes both the obvious ("1. Loss of all or a significant portion of support from a key funding source") and the less obvious ("3. Sudden and dramatic expansion of services"). Interesting to note, and put alongside your organisation, or those in your sector....

- And finally, for those who missed my session at Shine (where were you?), here's my How and Why to blog set of slides....feel free to use (with credit!):

| View | Upload your own