why cowbells, 3-year olds, and punching bags are a better way to create social enterprise policy

"We need to get more experimental with creating national policy" - is the encouraging takeaway I took from my recently being part of the global Social Enterprise World Forum Policy Forum event.

Showcasing a range of insights and experiences from around the world, the Forum offered a rare opportunity for people within all parts of the wider social enterprise ecosystem (from start-up social entrepreneurs, to global policy managers in the UN), who wouldn't normally be able to meet each other to question, challenge, encourage, and inspire in ways that don't usually happen.

It was also far from what some might have expected in terms of how research was shared, ideas provoked, and people engaged, as the title of this blog post suggests!

Listening to the debates; reflecting with others in the speed networking slots; (and yes, for those of you who know me, I was also doing lots in the chats of each session I joined); it struck me that a lot of policy we've seen in the UK over the last 20-30 may actually not have been that great for the impacts they've created.

Sharing stories through the conversations made me realise/re-enforced my ideas that:

- the reason we have an apparent glut of social investment that most lenders are struggling to 'get out', is because it was a government policy agenda that said it would be a 'magic bullet' that the sector needed (but with little research or evidence to substantiate this)?

- it was also government policy that gave us the Community Interest Company (CIC), at a time when it admitted that the wider sector had no stated need or appetite for any new legal forms. It also created them in a way that simply 're-badged' various existing company features as something 'new and unique'. Perhaps this the is reason why CICs seem to have always struggled to have more longevity than regular private businesses, and are usually more reliant on grants than charities are?

- and those early policy agendas also drove the impetus for social enterprises to be delivering public sector contracts: yet the researches that have been published in subsequent years point to most social enterprises not using this as a mainstay of how they trade, and for those that do, they often do so at a trading loss?

But despite this, having had separate policies as we have, has meant the profile and awareness of the concept of social enterprise is higher than it might have otherwise been.

However... I was also reminded as I traded stories with others in the Forum, that most of the research about the specific needs of social enterprises shows that they have more in common with private businesses than not - and in the very early days of the explosion of interest and activity around social enterprise (at the turn of the millennium), it was 'regular' business support bodies and services, and the policies that informed them, that sought to integrate the majority of support for this 'new' sector.

There was subsequently a 'parting', but now, 20-ish years on, I'm starting to see some signs that there's thought and interest in exploring how they might be re-integrated (through the likes of Growth Hubs, Shared Prosperity Fund programmes, etc). 

And perhaps this emerging possible refocussing of policy is coming about because we've now had sufficient time to understand the impact of these early policies? As one of the key speakers suggested, "it can take at least 5-10 years to understand the impact and effects of a policy, so we need to treat them as more experimental". In those early days of social enterprise, there was scant data to base policies on, in comparison to what we now know and understand - so maybe policy makers need to start being braver in resetting the paradigms that they're working with? 

However, creating such a shift will take time and effort - and for those making the policies, represents a scaring foraying into new unknowns.

Maybe the best way we can be part of bringing this change about, was an idea shared that social enterprises might best create influence amongst policy makers by 'stealth': offering and asking to engage in staff secondment schemes, so that those informing the design of future infrastructure get first-hand experience of the realities of how it would be likely to be actually experienced by those it's intended to benefit. This may not be the usual 'showy' way that we're encouraged to try and lobby and advocate (with huge petitions, and PR stunts), but reminds us that everyone in the wider (eco)systems are ultimately human beings, and we can best get things done by engaging and building relationships with each other as such.

For more reflections on the Forum, see - https://sewfonline.com/empowering-rural-communities-and-youth-sewf-policy-forum-highlights/