Regular readers know I often bang on about enviROI of projects.
Well, now there's another one in the mix:
Chance for social enterprise to be more enterprising
I wish them well.
But I can see it being a lot trickier than enviROI which, despite allowing for the option of a person to be content with losing money for an environmental benefit, still is pretty grounded in numbers plus and minus.
I don't envy trying to put a figure that means much on many possibly socially beneficial projects.
Showing posts with label SOCIAL ENTERPRISE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOCIAL ENTERPRISE. Show all posts
Friday, January 09, 2009
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Do good. But don't spend it all at once
Gordon Brown's social enterprise vision
They do sound nice, don't they?
So I am relieved at the notes of caution being voiced, though concerned that they are being voiced up to a person for whom vision has not proven a strong suit to date, and who is not noted for his talent for listening, or indeed grasp of realities. But he does seem to know a good soundbite when he hears one.
As one who has been involved with, for sure benefitted but also suffered from 'commitments' to social enterprise, I wish more reflected the notion that 'the result is a reasonable salary and a sense that they are making a difference'. To which I might add 'delivering a healthy ROI to all involved'.
If customers don't like the product/service, and hence buy/into it, then sadly all these enterprises will become is money pits sucking funding from elsewhere. Or they will go bust.
Peter Jones' comments, rather colourfully expressed at the beginning ('do gooders' can rather set an unfortunate tone, and frankly passion for doing good can be a potent part... of the mix. See later) but more considered on reading later on, get closer to it.
Any twerp can have an idea. I know, I have. Lob in a bit of money you can, if relevant, protect the IP.
But none of this is much use if you don't flog it on. And keep on doing so.
And here is where I see a stonking great gap between stated aims, useful support and actuality. Government doesn't understand sales.
I have lost count of the number of Third Sector funds, forums, quangos and whoever, with natty offices and staffed to the gunnels, who are out there to invite you to submit, assess your plan and slip you the readies. Business Links, Chambers, Trusts, you name it. Awash with cash, seemingly concerned with the bottom line, but almost all designed to launch a box-ticking scheme, often with a pot of EU/taxpayer money, and then... get you to 'sign off' quicker than you can say 'match-funding'. And often the funding pot is pretty bare of actual serious dosh to dole out once the empires, especially often overlapping ones, have taken their cut first. It's like being bought an F-16, helped to take off and then bang, the guys in the back seat eject as 'their job is done'. You either crash and burn or get addicted to in-flight refuelling just to stay airborne.
Some do delve into the P&Ls and all the rest, but as it's an enterprise you are usually dealing in the future, with forecast guesstimates at best. And visionary thinkers are not usually too great at the numbers. So they will say what is required to be heard, and if it's at all social enough will get the launch money. As to what happens down the road...? Case closed. The caravan will have moved on.
Why can there not be more emphasis on matchmaking talents, bringing together the ones with ideas and assisting them by the introduction of a sensible complement (for every Trevor Baylis there has to be a Peter Jones whose introduction to each other will benefit both...the project... and the country), with more funding going into forging those business relationships such that a team is created to ensure that both the social and the enterprise aspects can be delivered, with returns, quickly and... sustainably. Once in profit, everyone can be happy, left to it, and support can move on to new, good works.
Or, the whole thing can be driven by targets and PR opps...
Gaurdian - Social Innovation Camp: finalists announced
They do sound nice, don't they?
So I am relieved at the notes of caution being voiced, though concerned that they are being voiced up to a person for whom vision has not proven a strong suit to date, and who is not noted for his talent for listening, or indeed grasp of realities. But he does seem to know a good soundbite when he hears one.
As one who has been involved with, for sure benefitted but also suffered from 'commitments' to social enterprise, I wish more reflected the notion that 'the result is a reasonable salary and a sense that they are making a difference'. To which I might add 'delivering a healthy ROI to all involved'.
If customers don't like the product/service, and hence buy/into it, then sadly all these enterprises will become is money pits sucking funding from elsewhere. Or they will go bust.
Peter Jones' comments, rather colourfully expressed at the beginning ('do gooders' can rather set an unfortunate tone, and frankly passion for doing good can be a potent part... of the mix. See later) but more considered on reading later on, get closer to it.
Any twerp can have an idea. I know, I have. Lob in a bit of money you can, if relevant, protect the IP.
But none of this is much use if you don't flog it on. And keep on doing so.
And here is where I see a stonking great gap between stated aims, useful support and actuality. Government doesn't understand sales.
I have lost count of the number of Third Sector funds, forums, quangos and whoever, with natty offices and staffed to the gunnels, who are out there to invite you to submit, assess your plan and slip you the readies. Business Links, Chambers, Trusts, you name it. Awash with cash, seemingly concerned with the bottom line, but almost all designed to launch a box-ticking scheme, often with a pot of EU/taxpayer money, and then... get you to 'sign off' quicker than you can say 'match-funding'. And often the funding pot is pretty bare of actual serious dosh to dole out once the empires, especially often overlapping ones, have taken their cut first. It's like being bought an F-16, helped to take off and then bang, the guys in the back seat eject as 'their job is done'. You either crash and burn or get addicted to in-flight refuelling just to stay airborne.
Some do delve into the P&Ls and all the rest, but as it's an enterprise you are usually dealing in the future, with forecast guesstimates at best. And visionary thinkers are not usually too great at the numbers. So they will say what is required to be heard, and if it's at all social enough will get the launch money. As to what happens down the road...? Case closed. The caravan will have moved on.
Why can there not be more emphasis on matchmaking talents, bringing together the ones with ideas and assisting them by the introduction of a sensible complement (for every Trevor Baylis there has to be a Peter Jones whose introduction to each other will benefit both...the project... and the country), with more funding going into forging those business relationships such that a team is created to ensure that both the social and the enterprise aspects can be delivered, with returns, quickly and... sustainably. Once in profit, everyone can be happy, left to it, and support can move on to new, good works.
Or, the whole thing can be driven by targets and PR opps...
Gaurdian - Social Innovation Camp: finalists announced
Monday, April 14, 2008
CATEGORY - Social Enterprise
Another day, another category. This one seems ripe for my new evolving sub-sections archive plan:
ARTICLES
Times - Make a profit by doing good - Fair start, though I'd say the definitions of what SE is are still erring more on the charity/NGO end of the curve
GRANTS
INFORMATION
'SUPPLIERS'
From the Times piece. Many links don't work, so Google for now.
acf.org.uk
businesslink.gov.uk
cdfa.org.uk
j4bcommunity.co.uk
socialenterprise.org.uk
triodos.co.uk
unltd.org.uk
Check the labels below for other links
ARTICLES
Times - Make a profit by doing good - Fair start, though I'd say the definitions of what SE is are still erring more on the charity/NGO end of the curve
GRANTS
INFORMATION
'SUPPLIERS'
From the Times piece. Many links don't work, so Google for now.
acf.org.uk
businesslink.gov.uk
cdfa.org.uk
j4bcommunity.co.uk
socialenterprise.org.uk
triodos.co.uk
unltd.org.uk
Check the labels below for other links
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Glimmers of sense, if not hope
Crunch time for social enterprises
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Damage Limitation
A rich seam on Breakfast News this morning.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Friday, June 01, 2007
You are what you read?
I was having my morning trawl through the onlines, when this caught my eye.I simply note that, with all that is going on in the world, a cross-section of Guardian Unlimited readers gave the top four slots to footy, and the fifth to a fashion show.
At least it was ethical.
Bless.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Beam me up.
It has been... another... long day.
So I was in an odd mood when a student asked me to fill out some questions on Social Enterprise.
While there are many good examples I have come across, there are still way too many who know how to play the game and are supported by a system too lazy and inept to make the effort to really get the money where it will do the most good.
Here are the questions, along with my, often rather flip but still honest, answers:
WHY THE NEED FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
1. Why do you feel there has been such a dramatic increase in the number of social enterprises over recent years?
We’ve pretty much messed the place up, so for our kids’ sake some feel it’s worth trying to get it back on track. Others see it as a nice comfy little earner, or nice on the resume.
2. Why do you feel the work carried out by social enterprises is so vital to the UK?
Because the more traditional bodies, such as government, have, are and will make a total fist of it as those in charge and those joining public service are no longer doing so with the primary aim of serving the public.
3. Do you think social enterprises are the best way forward to meet the social needs of the UK population – please state why?
Possibly. Yes because most efforts succeed mainly by being what people need and want, and hence get supported by those they are there trying to help. No if, and by my experience, when some simply see it as a way to pursue agendas more motivated by personal gain rather than any real social improvement.
4. How successful do you feel social enterprises have been in solving the social problems of local communities or society in general?
Some... a lot. Most.... Not so hot. Many simply add whole new layers of cost and interference into already crowded and under-funded areas.
5. Do you think the public and private sectors fail to fully address and satisfy the social needs of the UK and why?
(if yes, proceed to question 10, if no proceed to question 11)
Yes. Public by seeking to meet targets and career agendas rather than needs. Private by being way too short-term and looking only at the bottom line.
6. Do you believe the public and/or private sectors have the capabilities to fully accommodate for the social needs? – please provide details
Public... no. Not any more. The systems have been corrupted by the process being more important than the product... or service. Private... possibly. But it needs a real shift in bottom line mindsets that impact personal career developments in that sector.
METHODS OF FUNDRAISING
7. How does this organisation compete for sources of income considering the competitiveness within the social economy is increasing?
Badly! It’s not what you are, but who you know. And how well you let box tickers tick the boxes and sign off the readies rather than any real attempt at creating viable social ROIs.
8. What is the main source of income the organisation receives?
Advertising
9. Is there a procedure in place in the event of a lack of funding?
Dig deeper into personal bank account.
10. Do you feel there has been a significant change in the amount of support or funding provided by the public and corporations?
Yes, There seems to be a lot more about, but they still seem to keep most of it to themselves first building empires and armies of bean-counters before any gets doled out where it does the most good. And do corporations fund anything that is not their mate’s wife’s hairdresser’s favourite charity to look good at CSR report time in the annual AGM? Or what makes them more profit?
EXTERNAL CHALLENGES
11. What are the main challenges faced by the organisation from both a short term and long term aspect?
Competition from those funded by government and quangos to unfairly compete on what should not be a commercial basis. Intellectual property raiding by private sector.
12. Are there any strategic plans in place to reduce or eliminate the impact these challenges could potentially have on the organisation?
Yes. If you can’t get them to join you, beat them and hope they rain on some other person’s parade. Win the public, and you win. There’s always the vote. For now.
So I was in an odd mood when a student asked me to fill out some questions on Social Enterprise.
While there are many good examples I have come across, there are still way too many who know how to play the game and are supported by a system too lazy and inept to make the effort to really get the money where it will do the most good.
Here are the questions, along with my, often rather flip but still honest, answers:
WHY THE NEED FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
1. Why do you feel there has been such a dramatic increase in the number of social enterprises over recent years?
We’ve pretty much messed the place up, so for our kids’ sake some feel it’s worth trying to get it back on track. Others see it as a nice comfy little earner, or nice on the resume.
2. Why do you feel the work carried out by social enterprises is so vital to the UK?
Because the more traditional bodies, such as government, have, are and will make a total fist of it as those in charge and those joining public service are no longer doing so with the primary aim of serving the public.
3. Do you think social enterprises are the best way forward to meet the social needs of the UK population – please state why?
Possibly. Yes because most efforts succeed mainly by being what people need and want, and hence get supported by those they are there trying to help. No if, and by my experience, when some simply see it as a way to pursue agendas more motivated by personal gain rather than any real social improvement.
4. How successful do you feel social enterprises have been in solving the social problems of local communities or society in general?
Some... a lot. Most.... Not so hot. Many simply add whole new layers of cost and interference into already crowded and under-funded areas.
5. Do you think the public and private sectors fail to fully address and satisfy the social needs of the UK and why?
(if yes, proceed to question 10, if no proceed to question 11)
Yes. Public by seeking to meet targets and career agendas rather than needs. Private by being way too short-term and looking only at the bottom line.
6. Do you believe the public and/or private sectors have the capabilities to fully accommodate for the social needs? – please provide details
Public... no. Not any more. The systems have been corrupted by the process being more important than the product... or service. Private... possibly. But it needs a real shift in bottom line mindsets that impact personal career developments in that sector.
METHODS OF FUNDRAISING
7. How does this organisation compete for sources of income considering the competitiveness within the social economy is increasing?
Badly! It’s not what you are, but who you know. And how well you let box tickers tick the boxes and sign off the readies rather than any real attempt at creating viable social ROIs.
8. What is the main source of income the organisation receives?
Advertising
9. Is there a procedure in place in the event of a lack of funding?
Dig deeper into personal bank account.
10. Do you feel there has been a significant change in the amount of support or funding provided by the public and corporations?
Yes, There seems to be a lot more about, but they still seem to keep most of it to themselves first building empires and armies of bean-counters before any gets doled out where it does the most good. And do corporations fund anything that is not their mate’s wife’s hairdresser’s favourite charity to look good at CSR report time in the annual AGM? Or what makes them more profit?
EXTERNAL CHALLENGES
11. What are the main challenges faced by the organisation from both a short term and long term aspect?
Competition from those funded by government and quangos to unfairly compete on what should not be a commercial basis. Intellectual property raiding by private sector.
12. Are there any strategic plans in place to reduce or eliminate the impact these challenges could potentially have on the organisation?
Yes. If you can’t get them to join you, beat them and hope they rain on some other person’s parade. Win the public, and you win. There’s always the vote. For now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)