It's about social change, stupid.

The Social Enterprise Ambassador Programme is one of the Government's big ideas for getting us all to set up social enterprises.  I was never particularly enthusiastic about it - it had Whitehall written all over it - and there's something very old-school and British about it all.   And just imagine trying to manage all those egos.....

I've heard plenty of murmurs over the months about unhappiness amongst the Ambassadors as to the effectiveness of the Programme.  And, for a supposedly high-profile initiative, it's been remarkably low-key (at least up north and online - my two primary habitats).   Then last week it was confirmed that two of the Ambassadors have been removed from the Programme, for having the temerity to go and work for businesses that distribute profits.  I hear that there's a lot of unhappiness amongst the Ambassadors as to how it's been handled.    

You can kind of see the logic.  It's about social enterprises.  These two don't work for social enterprises (at least as defined by Government) any more.  So let's undertake a strategic review of the Programme and move them on.  

(And before anyone points it out - I was at the head of the queue having a go at Stephen Sears - one of the ex-Ambassadors -  for appearing to suggest that ECT  being bought by May Gurney wasn't an issue.  So I'm not pretending they haven't got a point.)

But it also seems a bit stupid.  It highlights the blind alley that we're going up if we think that a legal structure is going to change the world.  As I've suggested on a number of occasions before, I do my job because I want to change society.  Not because I have a belief that all business should be done within a "not-for-profit" structure.

I believe that the ownership issue is, in many cases, a distraction.  I am sick and tired of people telling me they're a social enterprise and expecting me to burst into applause.  I'm interested in the social change you create, far more than the structure you do that within.  In some cases, a particular ownership structure will help you to create more change.  In others it will have no impact at all.  In fact it might well get in the way. So let's not pretend that one structure is inherently better than another.

I hope this issue with the Ambassadors serves to stimulate debate about this thing we call social enterprise.  You probably know where I stand by now - I'm into social business.  Business which takes creating change as seriously as generating profit.  Some of those social businesses will have particular ownership structures which mean that profits don't get distributed.  Others won't.  But all will be united by a shared desire to change society for the better.  Now, more than ever, we need that kind of entrepreneurship, wherever you may find it.  

Comments

[John]

We have had this discussion before, the sooner public bodies and others realise that Social Enterprise isn't a governance structure, its an activity the better for the sector as a whole. I agree where the profits go ( if there is any)is almost imaterial what matters is the social change brought about by the business or the added benefits for the wider community that fall out of the work the business does.

[Mike Chitty]

Please wil someone show me a business that is not 'social'. Trade of any form is a social interaction. There are good businesses and bad businesses and sometimes it can be REALLY hard to tell the difference!

[Nick Temple]

I think it's fair to say that the programme is proving a learning experience for all concerned, and we've certainly not got everything right. Bringing a programme together of leaders who represent the full diversity of this world also brings together lots of the difference and challenges (and strong personalities) that lie therein. You know my take on structure vs. people, Rob, so I'd only say that this is consistent with how the programme was recruited: that only people running a social enterprise could become an ambassador (indeed, some really interesting people didn't make it through as a result). But even arriving at those decisions was one fraught with complexity and nuance.

My only frustration is that the good stuff coming out of the programme (previously unheard voices, influencing new audiences, some decent events + outcomes for the ambassadors (media training, networks, profile, contracts etc.)) has been lost in the more negative side of the reporting....

[Rob Greenland]

Thanks for the comments. I'd agree Nick - they are being consistent - but it's also fair to question what they're being consistent about. For me, the challenge is to always be open to learning and changing. I used to be 100% sold on the social ownership thing. Experience has taught me it's often a red herring. So I've changed. It concerns me that the Coalition are reported as saying that they don't plan to make any more changes to the Programme. How about implementing a change which means that more of the good news gets out? I think I'm pretty fair and I'll write about good news as well as bad - but I genuinely have heard very very little about the Ambassador Programme. I'm immersed in this field and I think I've been at one event where an Ambassador spoke with an Ambassador hat on. That suggests to me that there are things to change.

[David Floyd]

This seems bizarre although, imagining the months of wrangling that must have been involved in definitions at the start, understandable when considered in context.

I don't completely agree with Rob on the general irrelevance of structures - I think sometimes a particular governance structure can have a social value - but, having been around the social enterprise industry for over five years, and attended loads of relevant conferences, I'm still extremely confused as to what the government/SEC definition of a social enterprise actually is. As far as I know it's not specifically related to any particular structure.

On that basis, I fully agree with Rob that it would better for SEC and the government to promote social change through business rather than whatever it is they're promoting in terms of structure.

[Jim Brown]

I wish the social enterprise ambassadors were capable of joining in a sensible debate about the issue of social ownership- when was the last time you heard a social enterprise ambassador provide any critical analysis of social enterprise, or indeed step out of line with the OTS or SEC? OK, there is Tim Campbell saying that CICs need reforming - but has he got any idea what social ownership is? Some of the social enterprise ambassadors have done great things, and I think it is important to raise the profile of social enterprise. But ultimately the ambassadors are proving to be a distraction from the task of working out what social enterprise is. When I have a bit of spare time I will have a go at trying to persuade you to support social ownership again Rob. It really is essential to the definition of social enterprise.

[Nick Temple]

I think the idea of the ambassadors is to promote the idea of social enterprise (in its broadest sense) through examples to new audiences, rather than be more sector / internally-focused. As Jim says, to raise the profile and raise awareness. Their task is not to work out what it is, but to demonstrate examples to new audiences (young people, business, government departments, etc) in order to inspire and inform them. Getting bogged down in definition debates (as we all do!) or in-fighting with / critiquing the funder and project lead are unlikely to help inspire and inform as I think we all want.

I hear you about the good news, Rob: I'll see what we can do there. There should be some evaluative material from the first year, for example, which may be worth a look, and is pretty balanced from what I've seen. As I say, the partners are well aware they haven't got everything right, and there has been a lot of learning and evolving as the programme has gone.

But I also have to say that you (eg. the sector) are not really the audience being aimed at. In a sense, it's good that you haven't been at events where they have spoken, because you're already "converted" to the cause. It's Tokunbo Ajasa-Oluwa speaking to Teach First teachers, Ken Orchard on Working Lunch, Kresse Wesling on BBC or at Women in Business, Nigel Kershaw in Director magazine, Sophi Tranchell working with DCSF on curriculum materials and so on, that are important. Reaching new audiences via media and events and education. And that's what we need to do more of in the coming months.

And I'll try and write more about what is going on, so the sector can see that it is getting value from the programme, and that the programme itself is listening / being responsive.

[Rob Greenland]

It's a good point Nick - I'm not the target audience for the Ambassadors.

I don't want to be pedantic - but I don't think it's accurate to say that they're promoting social enterprise in its broadest sense. If that was the case, then they'd probably have stuck with the two ambassadors who now don't work for social enterprises in the "narrow sense" that the Government sticks to.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with constructively criticising the funder and project lead. I'm not alone in not being a massive fan of the Coalition - and I would argue that this is another example of them being out of step and too close to the Government. Why do I get so many comments on my blog? Because this kind of debate isn't taking place in the places where it should be taking place. The spectacularly unimaginative line-up for Voice 09 doesn't suggest that things are going to change.

On definition arguments - yes, I get bored too. But maybe the reason we keep coming back to this is that the lionising of one type of social business (the socially owned ones) just keeps winding many of us up who don't share the political attachment to "not-for-profit". I talk about social business because I want us to be comfortable with plurality - and accept that some social businesses will retain profits and some will share them out. Some will have open democratic structures and some won't. I accept that things start to get a bit fuzzy once you blur the ownership issue. But I think we need to learn to live with that.

[Nick Temple]

Yeah - you may have a point on the broadest sense...I meant (when I wrote above) that the programme was intended to be about promotion by case study, and that these were diverse examples: the structures of Fifteen, CafeDirect, Divine Chocolate, Sunlight, P3Capital, Hackney Commmunity Transport, Livity etc are all very different. But they did accord to the 'rules' as set in the interview process. You'll know of old that SSE has a broader view of this world, but this programme was set up (under the terms laid out by OTS) for a particular defined purpose.

I also didn't mean to suggest that there was nothing wrong with constructively criticising the funder and project lead (or indeed, the delivery partners!): fire away! More that there was little point the ambassadors themselves getting hugely involved in critiquing SEC / OTS, having signed up to the programme's aims / terms. Again, the risk of focusing on internal (and ongoing) debates in the sector is substantial, as we can see from this string of comments. Ultimately, that's not what this programme should be focused on, IMHO.

The wider points I largely agree with, on plurality, fuzziness and blurring. With you on those. I just want the Ambassadors to not be tied up by inward-looking debates (howver much we need to have them more generally), but get on with influencing, raising awareness, inspiring, and promoting some great examples and role models to new audiences.

[David Floyd]

"I talk about social business because I want us to be comfortable with plurality - and accept that some social businesses will retain profits and some will share them out. Some will have open democratic structures and some won't. I accept that things start to get a bit fuzzy once you blur the ownership issue. But I think we need to learn to live with that."

I agree with that as long as it doesn't dismiss social ownership.

I think that, for example, the energy sector would benefit from the entry of provider that said, as its mission statement, 'we aim to make sure everyone in society is able to heat their home'.

I wouldn't have any ideological objection to that provider being a nominally 'for profit' company but I think it would be unlikely that it was.

[Rob Greenland]

Thanks David. Yes, I don't want to give the impression that I'm discounting social ownership. I think in the right circumstances social ownership can make a massive difference. It can have all sorts of benefits, in the right circumstances - empowerment, generation of trust, goodwill, more income staying where it should, greater ability to make decisions which favour social outcomes over short-term financial reward. But my point is that in other circumstances it can make no difference at all. My issue with the Government-endorsed race for social enterprise is that social ownership is seen as shorthand for "good guys". It's not necessarily true - and I think our understanding of business is now mature enough to cope with slightly more nuanced arguments.

I'll write more soon about how we can try to cope with the point that Nick picks up on - the fact that it becomes more fuzzy once you take the social ownership out of the equation. Proof that you do what you say you do has to be the way forward. My new year's resolution is to set myself some proper social objectives. I'll then - this is the plan at least - report on progress towards achieving them publicly via this blog. That will hopefully make me better at achieving more social impact - and will help to make my point that a social business is one that takes achieving social goals as seriously as making money. I can honestly say I take both seriously - but how do you know I'm not just making it up? So my plan is to tell you. It won't be full blown social accounts (I'd die of boredom first) - but hopefully some kind of mutual review - you keep an eye on how I'm doing - and I'll do the same for you.

[Todd]

Nothing to add except, Amen Brother!

[Nick Temple]

Sounds interesting Rob. We're also doing a fair bit of work on how credibility + legitimacy (and, frankly, trust) can be built by social entrepreneurs. Which is not to do away with / dismiss social ownership at all, just to acknowledge that it's horses for courses in this world....