The principle aim of the Community Interest Company (CIC) was as an easy identifier for social enterprises, but this seems not to have happened in the way people hoped – perhaps because as a legal form CICs offer no features that are inherently unique (i.e. protected asset locks and principle purposes can be entrenched in other legal forms).
But we now have the shiny new Social Enterprise Mark, which will hopefully have a better chance of being the easy identifier as it’s based on recognising defining characteristics of social enterprise in whatever legal form or structured they are enshrined.
BUT... will this Mark spark a new market for ‘marks’? The Soil Association and FairTrade Foundation were both pioneers in certifying organic and fairly traded goods, but other organisations offering organic and fair trade certifications have since emerged...
So perhaps we should be more open to the other ‘marks’ that are available to social enterprises to seek (the Social Firms Star for instance), and welcome others’ attempts to introduce other standards (there’s moves for a worker co-op mark, and Scotland did look at having its own mark as well) and explore how they might best complement each other.
Ultimately though, the Social Enterprise Mark shouldn’t be a holy grail, but one of a number of tools that we should approach and consider its appropriateness to us in the context of our enterprises’ own needs and marketplaces. Some will take the mark and use it to great commercial advantage I’m sure, while for others it simply won’t be relevant...
Sorry Adrian, part of that seems like utter nonsense to me. The Social Enterprise Mark includes several things which are completely unrelated to Social Enterprise, like requiring common ownership rather than mutual ownership. Only one of its six front-page bullet points is about the business's work towards social aims and that's "can you demonstrate" rather than how well it does it.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, SEM agreements include restrictions on the autonomy and independence of any business that accepts its award, working against a key cooperative principle.
CICs have been a net loss, too. As you note correctly, there's nothing very distinctive and confused business link workers now use "Social Enterprise" and "CIC" interchangably, which is a problem for the 20% of the population who are members of co-operatives, most of which use other company types.
There is the red hand worker co-op mark, but almost no-one checks or challenges it. We now have http://www.workercode.coop/ and we should start to link them. That's an argument I will make again during Cooperatives Fortnight 19 June-3 July.
But screw marks! The mark isn't the key point - it's the review and validation. This is a problem with the Organic and FairTrade marks: the Soil Association urges buyers to contact Trading Standards about bogus mark users, but with no way to check against the list of approved marks holders, how would any buyer know? Unless the trader's doing something obviously odd, it's not a reasonable request.
What we need are easy-to-check, consistent and relevant validation schemes. Would you back a campaign for such schemes for social enterprise?
Sorry Adrian, part of that seems like utter nonsense to me. The Social Enterprise Mark includes several things which are completely unrelated to Social Enterprise, like requiring common ownership rather than mutual ownership. Only one of its six front-page bullet points is about the business's work towards social aims and that's "can you demonstrate" rather than how well it does it.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, SEM agreements include restrictions on the autonomy and independence of any business that accepts its award, working against a key cooperative principle.
CICs have been a net loss, too. As you note correctly, there's nothing very distinctive and confused business link workers now use "Social Enterprise" and "CIC" interchangably, which is a problem for the 20% of the population who are members of co-operatives, most of which use other company types.
There is the red hand worker co-op mark, but almost no-one checks or challenges it. We now have http://www.workercode.coop/ and we should start to link them. That's an argument I will make again during Cooperatives Fortnight 19 June-3 July.
But screw marks! The mark isn't the key point - it's the review and validation. This is a problem with the Organic and FairTrade marks: the Soil Association urges buyers to contact Trading Standards about bogus mark users, but with no way to check against the list of approved marks holders, how would any buyer know? Unless the trader's doing something obviously odd, it's not a reasonable request.
What we need are easy-to-check, consistent and relevant validation schemes. Would you back a campaign for such schemes for social enterprise?
"easy identifier" = low barrier to entry =meaningless, ultimately. This mark does not conform to any international standard framework like ISO, not does it require continuous improvement. it's impact will be like asking for an environmental policy in a PQQ, easy to manufacture over a weekend, and does not demonstrate any real commitment or action. It'll do as a screening function for public sector bodies who are too busy to check properly. Wait for Sodhexo to get its Mark, along with IIP.
ReplyDeleteMost quality system have multiple agendas. Firstly, there is usually a concern to broaden the market for what the mark stands for. In as much as the mark may raise the profile of social enteprise generally, I'm in favour.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the second agenda is the take control (and ownership) of the criteria by which that phenomenon is known. On this level, I agree with MJR that the mark privileges the trustee-beneficiary model of social enterprise at the expense of mutuality or other jointly-owned forms of cooperative.
As Adrian comments, there is often a poliferation of 'marks' in differnet markets to counter the dominance of a single mark. Social enterprise, if it continues to grow, will be no different.
So, overall I have mixed feelings. If this mark further marginalised 'socialised' businesses (i.e. those that have a genuinely radical orientation that effectively redistributes power and wealth) it will split the movement. On meeting Lucy Finlay recently (CEO of the SEM) I have a sense that their minds are still open to revision of the criteria.
Time will tell.
Best wishes
Rory