What's the point of business anyway?

What’s the point of businesses? Maybe, job making? On the face of it, creating jobs – assuming half decent conditions and fair pay – is a good thing. How about ‘wealth’ creation? But, again, what is that for? A good life, wealth for oneself, one’s family and future generations maybe.

I think, through business, that we can earn a good living but also that businesses should help to create a better world and fairer society through their activities. Captains - usually male - of industry may bash their fists on their walnut inlaid board-room tables and fume that business is about making money and that only charities do good but I think it vital that businesses, as a hugely important part of our society, have a duty to contribute more to it.
 
When I founded my business, eight years ago, I never wanted to be one of those business owners who bluster and whine about red tape. Also, I definitely did not want to be one of those people who you regularly see moaning about any attempt to give workers, society or the environment a break. Other than the occasional phone-slamming fury at HMRC’s lack of assistance I think I’ve stuck pretty much to those principles. Another thing I try not to be is cynical. I want to be optimistic, trusting even. My friends think I’m an idealist.
 
Business is a profound force in the world. Businesses do create jobs and profits. Taxes on these profits – not those squirrelled away in private offshore tax havens – fund our hospitals, schools and public services. Owners gain wealth. This wealth is supposed to trickle down to benefit us all. ‘Trickle’ says it all. If it was a ‘cascade’ or a ‘gush-down’ we might feel less angry about corporate greed. Trickle down is defunct and morally bankrupt as a concept. Wealth ossifies at the top. Rich get richer, poor stay poor. Both sides of the political spectrum say they recognise this. The Conservatives say they want to build a fairer Britain that works for everyone. Labour talks about the many not the few.
 
A key question is: at what cost is that wealth made? We have seen countless scandals based on profiteering that is often criminal – financial mis-selling, horse meat in burgers, fake breast implants, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers, siphoning off pension funds. And huge damage done to people, the environment and animals in the name of profit and, by association, business. 

Attempts to address business behaviour are met with scepticism from one side and complaints of over regulatory bureaucracy on the other. Corporate and social responsibility is dismissed as ‘greenwash’. Even ‘purpose’ – that latest buzzword – can be viewed cynically without proper certification, governance and action.
 
So how might a business contribute more, whilst still doing the day job? I think that contributing more leads to doing the day job better, more productively and ultimately more profitably. Doing good is also good business.
 
Business could start by paying the real living wage. Costs will increase in the short-term but long-term stability and productivity can be increased. Businesses could improve work-place well-being. A happy, healthy workforce will be more productive. Businesses could offer flexible working – encouraging family friendly working patterns. They could spend more in their supply chains locally and socially rather than at the cheapest rate. They could minimise any gender pay gap. They could adopt a diversity confident approach to employment. National government could even incentivise these behaviours with tax breaks.

Business is a powerful force but pursuit of profit alone can be damaging. Examples of egregious executive behaviour abound. But so do instances of businesses doing better – Richer Sounds, John Lewis and Riverford have all shown what can be done with innovative ownership and pay structures; B&Q and Marks and Spencer with supply chains.
 
We cannot wait for the government - paralysed by Brexit and lobbied to death by corporate interests - to act. We need to take action and the power ourselves - our great businesses can go further. And this, in a way, is the true purpose of business: to give people the agency to create a better world.
 
We all want to get on: get a good job, feel like our life has meaning. Earn a good living and make the world a better place. Let’s put this into the heart of our businesses too.

Social enterprises for a strong economy and a fairer society

There are two problems at the heart of Britain’s economy: that of driving fair, sustainable growth and that of boosting productivity. The focus has been, for too long, on the latter. We need a shift to investing in, buying from and supporting social enterprises.

We need an economy where businesses create decent work and the where the dividends of growth and prosperity are more equally shared. Check out your history books at the pages on Russia and France: if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer we can head, ultimately, into violent revolution.

The proceeds of growth are, too often, not shared fairly and this leaves many workers dispirited. Too many businesses are focused on minimising their tax bill, rather than contributing a fair share to fund public services. The largest social enterprises and co-operatives in the UK pay more in tax than Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Ebay and Starbucks combined.

Our local economic policy is fixated on productivity. It is a thorny problem: it takes us five days to produce something that Germans do in four. The reasons for this are vexed and no-one seems to be able to put their finger on what might be the problem and how to solve it.

We need a radical shift in the way we think about business and a move to a more socially enterprising economy. This is golden opportunity for the region to create productive, inclusive prosperity. Social enterprises not only create jobs and wealth, they do so more fairly and more innovatively than standard businesses and they also tackle social and environmental problems at the same time.

So, what are social enterprises? Simply put a social enterprise is a business with a good cause at its heart that dedicates its work and its profits towards achieving this good cause. My nine-year-old daughter described them as ‘businesses that help people’ which I thought pretty much nailed it. Nationally famous social enterprises include The Big Issue and Divine Chocolate. But did you know that there are social enterprise banks, book shops and bakeries? There are sport shops, florists, pharmaceutical companies and toilet paper makers. There are also gin, wine, whisky and beer producing social enterprises! Pretty much all sectors of the economy have a social enterprise in them somewhere. Although maybe not in the arms and tobacco industries.

Social enterprises can take many forms. They can be co-operatives, community businesses, trading charities, community interest companies or a myriad of other hybrid ethical structures. This can cause problems of definition but all are united by a common feature:  that of using business to tackle social or environmental problems.

Here in the South West we are blessed with some world leading social enterprises. We have The Eden Project and Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen Restaurant in Cornwall. The University of Plymouth was the world’s first accredited social enterprise university and Plymouth was the UK’s first ‘Social Enterprise City’ - a virtual brand that has led to over £6 million of investment into the city in the last three years. Livewell Southwest operates across large parts of Devon and is one of the largest health and social care social enterprises in the UK. Plymouth Energy Community, which raised over £3 million to put solar panels on schools and Plymouth’s Life Centre, has revolutionised the way we look at local energy generation, investment and community ownership.

Across Devon and Somerset there are well over a thousand social enterprises. Their combined turnover is £1.5 billion per year and they employ close to 33,000 people. That’s big - and small - business but, despite being a significant part of the economy that is better for all of us, it is still marginal in government policy making.

So back to why investing in social enterprise is an answer to solving the knotty problem of a fairer economy. Here are some killer facts. Social enterprises are more likely to innovate and are more profitable than standard businesses. Social enterprises are more likely to be led by women. They are starting up at a faster rate and are operating in the most disadvantaged parts of the region: where we most need businesses to work to create productive growth. Critically, social enterprises are also much more likely to pay more fairly: over three quarters of social enterprises report paying the living wage to their employees.

Social enterprise shows us that we can create a vision of a better world driven by business. And this is a pro-business and an unashamedly ‘for profit’ agenda. The more profit we make the more good things we can do with it.

It is social enterprises that are building the inclusive, prosperous, productive economy we need to rejuvenate our high streets, treat workers and pay women fairly and tackle deep rooted social and environmental issues.

Business can make us noble or be a tool for oppression and control. Increasing unfairness can lead to deep societal problems. We need to enhance and protect our environment whilst creating decent jobs. I think social enterprises can create solutions and offer an alternative, compelling vision. One based on business.

Now, THIS is business

This is SEWF. This is business. This is social enterprise.

As the train pulls away from the wonderful city of Edinburgh I’m still wearing my Social Enterprise World Forum (SEWF) conference pass round my neck. In the rush to make it to the station I’ve forgotten to remove it.

Edinburgh, city of enlightenment, of castles, miles royal and dancing. Of crags and tails and granite. Of festivals and fringes. Of rugby and politics and a seat of government. Of holy stones, elegance and palaces. Now Edinburgh is a global city of social enterprise. Alive with colour and diversity of fourteen hundred people from nearly fifty countries. We are called, we are absorbed, we are engaged and energized. Imbued with hope and reassured: we can build a better future.

I turn to my notebooks to being writing this article. I have taken pages and pages of notes. Motivational quotes, calls for action, wise words, policy insights and wild ideas gleaned from a dizzying array of vibrant speakers from all parts of the globe. Here are a few of my highlights in no particular order:

• “We need more AI and regulatory tech social enterprises and less chocolate” - Indy Johar of Dark Matter Labs challenging us to be audacious and create a raft of digital social enterprises.
• The 83 strong New Zealand/Aotearoa delegation standing and singing a song in the opening ceremony.
• “We will wash down the walls of oppression” - Mike Curtin of DC Central Kitchen.
• Bruktawit Tigabu of Whiz Kids in Ethiopia illustrating the deep societal issues of lack of literacy and domestic violence that her social enterprise is tackling.
• School children explaining social enterprises in the simplest forms: “businesses that help people.”
• Phillip Ullman, brilliantly odd, of the converted £880 million Cordant Group urging us to be whole, disintermediate and look for covenants not contracts.
• “[Social enterprises can create] a flourishing web of life - Clive Hirst of Social Enterprise Solutions.
• Audrey Tang, Taiwanese Digital Minister and self-confessed ‘conservative anarchist’ calling for radical transparency and more poetic job descriptions.
• “We must be business…and create the future before it gets done to us” - Lord Victor Adebowale.
• The wild, hairy, tattooed men of Clanadonia smashing drums and swirling bagpipes.
• “Scotland is a better country because of social enterprise” - John Swinney MSP and Deputy First Minister.

All these moments scintillate, coalesce, fly apart and collide. I find at Preston, nearly 200 miles from Edinburgh I am still wearing the conference pass.

I’m left with another idea inspired by Indy Johar: that business can make us noble or be a tool for oppression and control.

This, then is SEWF. This is business. This is social enterprise.

Don't start a social enterprise if you just want grants

I’ve been having a little social enterprise wobble recently. I’ve met a lot of people thinking of setting up social enterprises because they wanted to get grants for their work. Then I read a depressing article where a business said they converted to be a social enterprise because: ‘we couldn’t make any money’. Argh, hold head in hands and sob.

I started to think: is this the elephant or sacred cow or third rail (insert suitable metaphor - I like Trojan sea cow) in the social enterprise room. I feared for the future of social enterprise - are we really just a group of pseudo-philanthropic organizations? Can we really change the face, body, heart and soul of commerce?

We like to talk about social enterprises being ‘businesses’. That is, they trade: they sell something to someone. One question I ask all start-up folks I meet is to write down: “I sell x to y” and fill in the blanks. I sometimes feel a flutter of disappointment by the responses. Often there is a dearth of clarity about the market for products and services. I suspect this is probably true for standard businesses starting up too. However, on the positive side, this is always something to work through with social entrepreneurs and, in working it through, you can arrive at some innovative and unusual places.

Then there’s also the old 1% gambit: “the total market for widgets is a gazillion pounds. If I can get 1% of that market it means returns of a, b, c.” Well, if I had 1% of the cash of the one percent gambitters I would probably…not be a rich man. Note that ‘gazillion’ is an indefinite or fictitious number. A suitable term, then, for a fictitious market.

This does get to a gritty issue at the heart of social enterprise - if tackling pressing social and environmental issues was easily tradeable surely someone would have done it by now. That leads you down some tricky paths - making money out of poverty, profiting from others misfortune, etc.

In earlier, rosy-tinted, pre peak of inflated expectation days, people said that social enterprise goes where the private sector doesn’t or that social enterprises operate in areas of ‘market failure’. I always thought, and still think these ideas are red herrings. We shouldn’t be scared to take on the private sector and I’m not even sure what ‘market failure’ is - no one is yet to explain this to me clearly. Answers on an e-card please.

I would advise not to start on the premise that you need a grant to make your business work. Start from a point of knowing there is a clear market for your product or service and that someone in that market will pay for it. Sure grants can be good sources of investment and many standard private sector organizations also get grants - maybe that is another elephant in an albeit more lucrative room - but see them exactly as that: a source of investment; not something to rely on.

Another common difficulty is thinking of an idea and having a vague notion that somehow the state will subsidise or pay for it. In an age of austerity (whatever Philip Hammond might say) that’s a dangerous path for any social entrepreneur.

So don’t start a social enterprise if all you want to do is get a grant. Start a social enterprise because you want to be a business that sells something to achieve a good cause.

New politics, a new hope

Is Brexit the rebellion of the voiceless?

No this is not another Star Wars themed blog!

Yesterday evening I attended the Nexit: What next for Plymouth and the South West event organised by RIO and the RSA at Devonport Guildhall. Around 200 people showed up - a sign of increasing politicization maybe and great to see so many engaged people. The waiting list was nearly as long as the attendance list apparently.

So a big turnout. And big ideas were discussed. There were initial ‘provocations’ from Molly Scott-Cato, Green MEP for the South West; George Cowcher, Director of Devon Chamber of Commerce, John Harris, a Guardian political journalist with a penchant for anything non-Westminster and two young people - Joe and Tom from Our Way Tech.

Molly asked for a second referendum, proportional representation and a need to reclaim our country. Citizen’s juries and a ‘progressive alliance’ of Greens, Lib-Dems and Labour were also mooted.

George gave a precise talk about business issues post Brexit. He said a majority of businesses wanted to remain in the EU and that there was still no real vision for what leaving looked like. In the South West we are particularly vulnerable to potential export problems caused by Brexit as 60% of our exports go to Europe. The main point that resonated with me was his direct question to business: “Exactly what ‘red tape’ do you want to change?” There is a lot of bluster about EU regulation but no-one can seemingly put their finger on what they want to remove.

Joe gave an eloquent and heartfelt speech (written on the back of a napkin in an impressive five minutes) expressing his fears about right-wing populism and invoking the spectre of fascism. Tom produced one of the quotes of the night: “A window has been broken - but that is good for people who fix windows.” I was left a bit bemused.

John Harris then gave an excellent talk on his approach, Brexit and the deep cynicism about politics. He said that a leave vote was just as valid as a remain vote and that we need to understand why Brexit happened. He called the Brexit vote a ‘rebellion of the voiceless’. In a telling moment he asked if anyone in the room had voted leave and only one or two people raised their hands.

We then had discussions in table groups. I was honoured to be asked to lead one of these. Our topics ranged widely over education, housing, environment, representation, inequality, economics and more.

We decided to develop our own new political party - the ‘Greater Britain Party’ - taking back the language of ‘great’ and ‘Britain’ from the far right with a new progressive manifesto:

1. Talk about politics in schools and everywhere

2. Proportional representation

3. Lower the voting age to 16

4. Sort housing and jobs

5. Improve environmental protection.

Ok, so some work needed on the detail but it was fun, lively, inclusive, honest and had real conviction.

What I found particularly refreshing was the ability to talk about politics in a community, non-party political setting. It felt natural and engaging. Yes, most people were in broad agreement but judging from responses there was a mix of Greens, Lib-Dems and Labour (new and old) and possibly some Conservatives too.

I think the event could have been improved with a ‘Leave’ key-note speaker and maybe we needed more dissent in the room around the opportunities presented by Brexit. A criticism could be that it was a large number of ‘Remainers’ talking to themselves.

John Harris wrapped things up with a call to arms - to find innovative solutions - one being found in Plymouth’s burgeoning social enterprise movement. His most powerful argument was his last. He said: “Dark forces are at work in the country - any attempt to overturn the referendum result through legal or other means could further disenfranchise the ‘voiceless’ turning them to more extreme politics.”

We must not let that happen.

Marginal gains in governance

Here at Iridescent towers - currently disappearing into the Plymouth mist and storm Imogen - we’ve been delivering the Pop Ideas funding and business planning advice scheme on behalf of Plymouth City Council, in partnership with Zebra Collective, for well over a year now.
 
This successful project has now seen over £1.5 million brought in to 69 community groups across the city. This represents a return on the City Council’s investment so far of 25 to 1!
 
In our last blog on Pop Ideas we talked about the reasons for organizations not getting funding. Another point that is becoming apparent is that well governed groups are more likely to succeed.
 
That’s obvious right? Well yes, but it seems to us that getting governance right can be a challenge. In the light of the Kids Company fiasco and the accompanying government report, governance is high on the agenda. That report focusses on when governance goes wrong. And we only really hear about governance when it goes wrong because that’s the sensation that makes the news.
 
However, we think that good governance shouldn’t be difficult or scary or dry. It is about common sense, judgement and proportionality. It should be the bedrock that enables your business to thrive.
 
What is governance?
 
I like this definition from Good Governance in Australia: “Good governance is about the processes for making and implementing decisions. It’s not about making ‘correct’ decisions, but about the best possible process for making those decisions.”
 
This older definition from Chris Cornforth, still stands the test of time: “[Governance] is the systems and processes concerned with ensuring the overall direction, effectiveness, supervision and accountability of an organization.”
 
What happens when governance goes right?
 
Why bother with governance? It’s all policy, red tape and dull isn’t it? Well there appears to be evidence that getting it right can help. There is some research about the link between good governance and growth of organizations. These studies tend to look at private sector businesses rather than those in the social economy (there’s a gap in the market there) but the concept is similar.
 
In 2014 a report in the august publication ‘Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance’ (Cambridge University Press) stated that: “There now exists ‘empirical proof’…that good corporate governance is important to companies and does add value and make a difference”.
 
An Association of British Insurers report in August 2013 found that good corporate governance adds value: “Good corporate governance enhances…a company’s long-term sustainable performance: it is critical to…economic growth.”
 
Others are a little more sceptical: The ‘Business Case for Corporate Governance’ (again Cambridge University Press) states that it is “Inconclusive that there is a direct link,” however; it points out that, at the very least: “Sensible corporate governance activities may prevent the destruction of value.”  We would sagely argue that it’s important to stop the ‘destruction of value’! Even the government report into Kids Company says that it did good stuff. Sadly that value appears to have been 'destroyed' by poor governance.
 
So what have we seen in Plymouth?
 
Our experience is that groups with good basic foundations in place; those with policies and procedures appropriate to their work, size and complexity can prosper. These organizations win more tenders, gain more grants and gather more supporters. However, a caveat, the reverse may also be true: again look at Kids Company; on the face of it they were phenomenally successful at fund-raising.
 
We have all seen examples where governance may not be outright terrible but it can be flaky. Of course the problem is that governance is not sexy. But the academic evidence and our own experience seems to suggest that good governance can help you. In times of austerity, cuts and competition for funding any edge you can find will help.
 
It’s like David Brailsford’s theory of marginal gains in cycling that led to oodles of gold medals. Increase one, two, three percent in each area and it all adds up to significant improvement. This takes leadership, vision, drive and time. But broken down into manageable chunks it is achievable.
 
We’ll leave you with a question: What can you do each week to marginally improve your governance?

What Star Wars can tell us about Social Enterprise

If you asked me to name my favourite films, my gut instinct is to say Star Wars (episodes four, five and six that is, although one, two and three aren’t as bad as all that, apart from Jar-Jar). What's this got to do with social enterprise I hear you ask - well just cool your Hoth-resistant moon boots and stick with me. 

With the new Star Wars film just around the corner I'm watching the trailers with awe and excitement. I feel a bit like the seven year old who saw the first film in a small, dingy cinema in Cornwall in the 1970s.

So to social enterprise. The nature of the battle of the Rebellion versus the mighty Galactic Empire got me thinking about the parallel with social enterprise and standard business. I know all big firms aren’t really hideous Vader-esque clichés but, hey, I’m having a bit of fun here.

On one side you have the fragmented Rebel Alliance - a rag-tag fugitive fleet (er - I’m mixing my science-fantasy metaphors, that's Battlestar Galactica) being pursued across the known universe (isn’t that from Dune?) founded on some mystical mumbo jumbo. This is like the social enterprise community. No one can really define it (I'm sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can't do that). It is slippery; a loose federation of coops, CICs, charities, registered societies and other exotic, hybrid special purpose vehicles cobbled together to form a movement. The politics are complex and sometimes unity seems a far horizon. 

Compare this to the Empire; a vast, malevolent machine with a clear governance structure directed from the top. Its minions are motivated by fear and greed. For the Rebellion (read social enterprise) power is diffused and the motley collective struggles against the Empire which is dominated by one man, the Emperor Palpatine. I should like to inspect his declarations of interest for swanky lunches paid for by Trade Federation corporate lobbyists.

And it always seems to be a man. Look at the Empire, can you find one female role model? Are any Stormtroopers secretly clone women? Despite some movement on this, FTSE100 companies are still dominated by men. Unlike social enterprise where there are large numbers of women leaders. The recentSEUK State of the Sector report points to 40% being led by women. This needs to get well above 50% of course. The Republic had strong female role models. Is Sophie Tranchell the Princess Leia of social enterprise? Is June O'Sullivan our Mon Mothma? Claire Dove our Amidala?

Let's look at the capital assets of the empire. Huge star destroyers, even more massive super-star destroyers. Then mightiest of all, the Death Star itself, which can destroy a planet (much like a massive oil spill or endless carbon emissions). Maybe, if Grand Moff Tarkin, of foul stench fame, had hired Futureclean - a social enterprise - to wash the seemingly limitless squadrons of TIE fighters, the packs of AT-ATs and the swarms of speeder bikes - he would be still be alive. All that stuff was beautifully maintained, sleek and impeccably clean wasn’t it? Just hold that image and think of a well-resourced corporate business that can seemingly throw money at all the equipment and gear it needs.

Compare this to the Alliance with its rusting speeders, bolted together X and Y Wings and its used, dirty tech. This is social enterprise: under-capitalized, lacking assets, begging and borrowing although sticking to good principles of reducing, reusing and recycling.

Then there is research, development, marketing and training. The Empire invests enormously in the Imperial Naval Academy, in clone armies, in new ways to crush and terrorize the opposition. They can even obliterate planets: “Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.”

Many social enterprises lack marketing and training budgets and often struggle to invest in new services and products to grow but they are strong on innovation as the State of the Sector reports. The Rebel Alliance had to innovate and be clever to survive - finding hidden weaknesses, moving their secret bases, using cunning tricks to get past guards on forest moons. 

However, it is not all as gloomy as a Dagobah swamp. The rebels have key allies strung across the galaxy. They - and social enterprises - are motivated by values. They may have a small workforce (compared to the colossal Stormtrooper/corporate army) but they have an untapped pool of supporters. Many worlds and peoples will rise to support them, even lowly Ewoks. The lack of marketing, lobbying and corporate power in the Alliance and social enterprise is offset by the passionate tales that are handed down and heart-warming stories of the few taking on the mighty. And that mystical mumbo jumbo may well end up being quite useful after all.
​
We all know who wins in the end, right?

Ten myths of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship

1. Social enterprises are not-for-profit

WRONG!

'Not for profit' is a tricky phrase. Most social enterprises we see are ‘for profit’ but they dedicate their profits to achieving a good cause. Many social enterprises can also pay dividends from profits to investors and shareholders although this is usually restricted so that a majority of profit is dedicated to social causes.

2. Social enterprises can't pay salaries

WRONG!

Social enterprises can pay salaries and bonuses. A social enterprise that turns over tens of millions of pounds would be justified in paying their CEO a salary commensurate with running such a business. Directors of social enterprises - depending on the legal structure chosen - can also receive remuneration.

3. Social entrepreneurs can’t run a real business

WRONG!

Many social entrepreneurs come from successful business backgrounds. Social entrepreneurs are just like other entrepreneurs - some will succeed, some will change track and some businesses will fail. Most social entrepreneurs we meet are acutely aware of the need for their business to succeed so they can tackle the social issue that they are passionate about.

4. Social enterprises are just small businesses

WRONG!

There are many examples of large social enterprise businesses. Examples include large healthcare providers, big leisure trusts and universities. These are usually multi-million pound businesses with thousands of employees that have chosen social enterprise as their business model.

5. Social enterprises rely on grants

WRONG!

The whole point of being a social enterprise is that you trade to achieve a good cause. This means selling goods, services and products. Many social enterprises do access grants to help with start-up or with certain projects. Our advice is that a social enterprise should aim to use a grant as an investment with a view to developing an income generating idea once the grant runs out.

6. Social enterprises are automatically more sustainable

WRONG!

Social enterprises will only succeed if they can sell their services and products to customers. Many charities have survived for decades by relying on grants. That said, being dependent on grants can be challenging and developing successful, socially enterprising income streams can improve sustainability. Social enterprise should not be seen as a panacea - you need a strong business model, excellent market insight and an ability to deliver what customers want and need. Much like a ‘standard’ business really.

7. Social enterprises are more likely to fail

WRONG!

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that social enterprises are more resilient than their ‘standard’ private sector counterparts. We can speculate on the reasons for this including diverse income streams, social purpose and tenacity of social entrepreneurs. Recent research into longevity of the top 100 PLCs and top 100 social enterprises showed that, over the last 30 years, 41% of social enterprises have survived compared to 33% of PLCs.

8. Social enterprises are not scalable

WRONG!

Social enterprises are no different to ‘standard’ businesses in this regard. If you have a great product or service, a great team, the ambition, the drive, resolve and a clear plan for scaling there is no reason why you cannot significantly scale your business.

9. Social entrepreneurs are only concerned about social impact

WRONG!

Whilst most social entrepreneurs we meet are motivated by social or environmental issues they also understand that their business needs to be profitable to enable them to achieve their good cause goals. Focussing only on social impact without paying regard to finances, marketing, customers and all the standard business issues is a surefire path to trouble.

10. Social enterprises only operate in health and social care

WRONG!

Social enterprises operate in many sections of the economy. There are social enterprises in banking and finance, media, creative industries, business services, agriculture, tourism, fashion, education, entertainment, energy, heritage, housing, sports and more. Pretty much any business could be a social enterprise (maybe not selling cigarettes?).

All the fun of the festival

Last week was Plymouth's fifth annual Social Enterprise Festival. Held, appropriately, during Global Entrepreneurship Week, it saw over 300 people attend nine different events on social enterprise themes. My highlights were as follows.

The week kicked off with a wonderful and animated talk by Rubies in the Rubble founder, Jenny Dawson. Jenny's passion and practicality struck me. She just got on with it and learned as she went. There was clearly deep strategy and clever thinking involved but also the sense of bootstrapping - so common to social entrepreneurs - was strong. If there's a lesson around the perceived need for endless business planning and analysis versus learning by doing this was it.

We at Iridescent Ideas delivered a masterclass on measuring social impact alongside Sara Burgess, CIC Regulator. The need to start some kind of social impact measurements, even if bespoke and limited in scope, was a key theme. The sooner you start, the sooner you learn how to do it better and the sooner you'll get great information on your impact.

Wednesday saw the flagship event, the Social Enterprise City Summit, hosted by Plymouth City Council. There was a variety of speakers including a great rabble rousing speech by Peter Holbrook, CEO of Social Enterprise UK. We also heard from some of the investees of the Council's Social Enterprise Investment Fund. A common theme was the need to remember social impact along with talk of the economic benefits of social enterprise. The looming general and council election was an ever present context. The ideas in the Social Economy Alliance's great manifesto also need to come to the fore over the next few months. Now is our chance to shape the social, economic and political landscape. Now is when we need to be clear about the world we want to see over the next five years.

The Next Big Things, an exhibition of newer social enterprises at Thinqtanq, was a fascinating insight into the needs of new entrepreneurs. Many are looking for start-up investment and also beginning to clarify their business and social ideas.

Finally Friday saw an insightful talk by Jessica Smith of Poached Creative - known for their excellent work on the Buy Social campaign - on marketing for social enterprises. This was full of practical and strategic advice.

The week showed me that we all - large and small, new and established - need to sharpen up our understanding of our markets, our ability to sell our products and services and to build strong brands to survive and thrive. We also need to get back to first principles on why we exist, the social causes we tackle and the impact we are having. Finally, the need to talk to politicians and campaign for change was brought into sharp focus. 

In defence of social enterprise

I read Iqbal Wahhab's article on the supposed death of social enterprise the other day. A piece that demands a response.

Firstly, to declare an interest, I am a director of several social enterprises and also involved in a local social enterprise network, so, clearly, I'm a flag-bearer for the idea. As I've argued many times, I think that businesses that create economic, environmental and social returns are better for the UK. 

Wahhab talks of there being no 'credible explanation' and no 'agreed definition' of the term social enterprise. Well there is clearly a credible explanation and as close as you can get to agreement on a definition. Two of the leading organizations in this debate - Social Enterprise Mark and Social Enterprise UK - have a virtually identical set of criteria to define a social enterprise. They can be found here and here. Spot the tiny difference. The Labour party is even proposing to legally define social enterprise if it wins power in 2015. Good luck with that.

Wahhab goes on to describe a failed social enterprise restaurant as if to highlight the flaws inherent in the concept of social enterprise itself. I find this a bizarre claim. Do we say that all private sector models are flawed because one business goes bust through selling a poor product or service? That is the nature of the market and social enterprises compete like any other business. I'm not sure we should decry an entire business sector because some firms make a loss or don't make huge profits. Many sectors work on tight margins.

To the 'social entrepreneur' Wahhab calls a boardroom beast: I say challenge him; ask for his socially entrepreneurial credentials. Just look at what happened when the Advertising Standards Authority investigated A4E for claiming they were a 'social purpose' organization.

Wahhab's final point, to claim that somehow social enterprises are not 'real' businesses is unnecessarily provocative. To argue that real businesses - I assume he means 'standard' private-profit making firms - can tackle society's problems lacks credibility. Are those the same real businesses that have driven the world to the brink of ecological disaster, that have screwed workers, that evade and avoid tax, that miss-sell time and time and time again?
So let us be pro-real-business. Be pro-business that achieves economic, social and environmental 'dividends'. Pro-business that treats staff fairly. Pro-business that creates wealth, prosperity and jobs for all; not a tiny minority. Pro-business that rewards success appropriately. Pro-business that makes a profit, makes it ethically and honestly and does something profoundly decent with that profit to help make the world a better place. You are more likely to find that those 'real' businesses will be social enterprises.

Don't get me wrong, there are brilliant private businesses that go further than greenwash and bolt-on CSR. However, I just do not believe that there are enough of these businesses that will 'own society's problems and fix them'.

The last five years has surely shown us that we need a new way of looking at business and how it can resolve the world's issues and yes, business can be a driving force for achieving positive change and doing great things to advance humanity.

Social Enterprise Festival November 2014

It’s that time of year again: the clocks go back, trick or treaters roam the streets, bonfire smoke gets in your eyes, and, oh yes, it’s time for Plymouth’s annual Social Enterprise Festival.

This year festivities run from 17^th to 21^st November and are held, as usual, during Global Entrepreneurship Week. The festival is hosted by Plymouth Social Enterprise Network and we are thrilled to be part of something happening all over the world where people will be celebrating the passion and inspiration behind business.

Our take on this is that we need to go a step further than ‘business as usual’. We want to see how we can harness the best of entrepreneurial thinking to tackle the world’s - and Plymouth’s - social, economic and environmental problems.

The week itself is packed full of thought-provoking and practical activities. We have secured some of the nation’s top social entrepreneurs to share their stories with us. People like Jenny Dawson of food business Rubies in the Rubble; Cecilia Crossley of children’s clothes firm From Babies with Love and Jess Smith from the ethical PR company Poached Creative. There are practical sessions on marketing and proving social impact. We will celebrate the rising stars of the social enterprise world in Plymouth. The CEO of Social Enterprise UK - Peter Holbrook - will talk to us about how the social economy is set to transform public policy. There will even be a ‘liveblog’ at Rumpus Cosy café on Derry’s Cross. This will all be served with a hearty dose of social enterprise beer, bread and chocolate.

The festival is made even more special by the fact that Plymouth is the world’s first and finest Social Enterprise City. We want to celebrate this and also to explore what’s next. We want to see how social enterprises can be more influential in the economy of our city and how they can solve the big issues of today. Let’s not forget that social enterprise in Plymouth is already big business - PSEN members have a combined turnover of half-a-billion pounds and employ 7,000 people.

This is also the last festival before the next round of political elections in May 2015. If you want to influence the people who will be shaping economic and social policy for the next five years please come along and share your opinions.

Information about all the events can be found at www.socentcity.com.

Refine/define: Why talking about what is a social enterprise is still important

“So you’re a social enterprise, eh? What does that mean then?” How many times have you been asked that question? How many times have you answered it but still aren’t convinced that they questioner has ‘got it’ or believes it?

The debate about the definition of social enterprise may well seem jaded and old news to those of us within the social enterprise community but it seems that a large proportion of the general public didn’t even realize there had been a debate going on. So the aforementioned question comes up time and time again. If we want to establish new audiences for social enterprise and push the concept into a wider public consciousness it is vitally important to maintain a public dialogue about ‘what is a social enterprise’.

No one really seems to question you in the same way if your business is a charity or Fairtrade or eco-friendly. There is an automatic assumption these are ‘good’ things. People know what these terms mean. They come with a nice badge, logo or number that tells the public they’ve been checked out and do indeed do what they say on the tin. If only there was a similar thing available to social enterprises…

Enter the Social Enterprise Mark. The Mark is the social enterprise equivalent of the Fairtrade logo or the Charity Commission number. The Social Enterprise Mark provides:

*A clear definition of what constitutes a social enterprise
*An instantly recognisable ‘stamp of approval’ to show that your business has been independently assessed and meets criteria to justifiably call itself a social enterprise
*A national community of like-minded ethical businesses for social enterprises to engage with
*A range of other benefits around marketing and support.

There is growing interest in the Social Enterprise Mark, particularly among large organisations like universities.Plymouth University is the first social enterprise university and has held the Mark since 2012. Another university is set to join. Many of the large health spin-outs also hold the Mark. These organizations provide services to huge numbers of people and have strong roles in public life in their respective towns, cities and areas. I would like to see more large healthcare providers really engage with the public around understanding that they are receiving great services from a local social enterprise. The Mark could help them do this.

As the social enterprise sector, and public awareness of it, continues to grow, so I hope that the Social Enterprise Mark will continue to flow into public consciousness and eventually become as recognizable as the Fairtrade logo. The Mark will evolve, I am sure, and we need an ongoing dialogue about what it means to be a social enterprise both within and outside the sector.

With the introduction of the Social Value Act in 2013 there is a requirement for social value and impact to be given more weight within commissioning of services. Consumers are looking to purchase ethical goods and for businesses to behave better. Surely then, the time is right for the Social Enterprise Mark to become a stamp of social value so that commissioners and customers alike will recognize social enterprises and be able to make more informed choices about the goods and services they buy and use.

I believe that social enterprises are better for the economy and for society. We need to articulate more clear what 'better' looks like of course. Social enterprises create wealth and jobs and also deliver environmental and social value. The Mark can be the guarantee that proves this.