Social enterprise is at its best when its focus is the people working for it. That, in my book, was the common theme at this year’s Enterprising Solutions awards. Amongst the award-winners and nominees - Divine Chocolate, who offer a fair deal for cocoa farmers whilst successfully building a business in such a highly competitive environment, also Women Like Us to the Camden Garden Centre are all about harnessing the skills of those outside the jobs market to deliver professional services.
At Aspire we believe that capturing the magic and innovation that these people-centred social enterprises have developed and finding ways in which to make it common place is critical to genuinely tackling social exclusion in our society – and this is at the heart of research we are undertaking and will launch next year.
8 years old now, Aspire supports a number of social enterprises offering job and training opportunities to people moving out of homelessness. Each of these ventures is both market-facing whilst also delivering on targets from government funders. Often these pressures pull you in two different directions – the equivalent of juggling plates whilst playing the piano. We haven’t got all the answers and have set on the journey to improve. But we’re not alone – any social enterprise from Fifteen to Streetshine or the Hoxton Apprentice is constantly wrestling with these twin pressures – managing a vulnerable workforce whilst keeping the paying customers satisfied.
Because many of our trainees place their trust in us to help them turn very bad starts in life into success stories we have to become masters of combining these twin arts. For funders to get most value from our work they need to be sure that we are focusing our energies on genuine innovation and not designing programmes that would be easily shaped from the hard won experience of others.
With a launch planned for early next year we hope to engage government and make the compelling case that investment in social enterprise saves the tax payers £ms from welfare benefits. But it is up to social innovators and entrepreneurs to work together in setting standards and raising the bar – we’d love to see our research stimulate a community of best practice with funders and government tracking our findings year on year.
Taking a wider view throws up some interesting dilemmas. Mainstream organisations from the NHS to the Post Office have a large number of employees who may be vulnerable to mental ill-health, housing or alcohol problems – many of the symptoms that can lead to homelessness. Social enterprises currently supporting vulnerable employee groups could be well placed to make a much larger impact by innovating and sharing best practice with mainstream employers – who in turn could help prevent many people arrive at our doors in the first place. Would either side be willing to buy or sell such intellectual property? Time to go back to those Enterprising Solution nominees to find out………
Hi Owen,
As a social entrepreneur, I find myself in the difficult position of being disillusioned with social enterprise.
Having set up and managed a well-regarded small social enterprise, I recently set up a private enterprise doing a similar thing, as an experiment of sorts. The private enterprise is much more efficient and viable than the social enterprise, and cost the taxpayer nothing to set up. What struck me most though, is that the social outcomes aren’t that different…. in both, I employed people who had been long-term unemployed and had very low skill levels - although in the social enterprise we employed more people and their jobs were all less secure as a result. In the private business, the environmental benefits are ten times greater than the social enterprise.
The juggling plates whilst playing the piano syndrome that you mention is one I know well. It was clear to me that at the social enterprise we were trying to run 4 different businesses (production, retail, training and volunteering/care) seamlessly and simultaneously, with an added time handicap of a voluntary management board and days of solidarity third-sector networking. At the private business, we do one thing, we do it well, there is no governance to speak of, only a little sales-related networking, but our customers receive an innovative service and we have made, if anything, more of a difference to our employees’ lives.
Most importantly, the private business will clearly be able to grow easily and quickly. The barriers to replication and expansion of social enterprise were overwhelming in my experience. I don’t know if full cost recovery and growth are problems for the relatively large and well-branded social enterprises such as Fifteen and the Hoxton Apprentice, but I find it hard to think of many local social enterprises that cover their costs and create surplus for growth.
It seems to me unfortunately that supporting ethical private business is the best way to save the taxpayers £ms.
I recognise that I’ve oversimplified the case, but it is important for the social enterprise sector that we set realistic standards of success, and that we recognise that many SMEs already focus on the people they work for them, some of whom are vulnerable. I agree with you intuitively that this is less likely to be the case with institutional employers and that there is scope for sharing best practice.
I argue above just as devil’s advocate: my next business will certainly be another social enterprise and I’ll be scanning these pages for ideas. I’ve just sold my private business because I didn’t enjoy working there - precisely because there was no networking or overt social purpose!