after 20 years, it's time to go to the toilet

My business is 20 years old.

20 years! Only about 10% of enterprises that start-up get this far. 

To put this in perspective - when I started out, smartphones didn't exist! (it would be another year before the first tweet was posted; 2 years before the first iPhone was released on the world; and 3 years before Dropbox was launched. The typical best internet speed was 1Mb compared to around 900Mb today - we had to rely on using sharpened bones to scratch messages onto stones, and then hope people picked those stones up when we threw them at them).

Now, it turns out that the material associated with this particular anniversary is porcelain - something that most of us here in Britain associated with toilets.

But for me to have gotten this far, porcelain actually seems an apt simile for me:

• it has a high elasticity - to be able to keep up with all the changes in the world over the last 2 decades, the range of work I do, and types of organisations I support across all sectors, means I've had to be able to easily keep stretching myself.
• it has considerable strength and hardness - I've pushed hard on some things over the years, often to personal and professional criticism and opposition. This includes: (successfully) challenging CIC legislation; publishing a book that exposes most of the claims that people make about 'imposter syndrome' to be unproven and/or not based in any factual evidences; shining a brighter light on the 500,000+ unpaid carers who are discriminated against by all the bodies that are supposed to be supporting them because they're the only type of carer who aren't recognised in law for the sole reason that we're also self-employed; and calling out the apparent unprofessional practices of some social investors, which are damaging the wider sector; to name but a few.  
• it's translucent - I've openly published details of how I'm creating (or not) impacts of different types each year; and also been honest in my blog posts about when and where I've gotten things wrong.  
• and it has a high resistance to shock - if you've followed my blog over the years, you'll know that since becoming self-employed, my family has been made homeless twice; my father (who lives at the other end of the country) has almost died twice; I've navigated a difficult divorce; been investigated for tax fraud by HMRC three times (and cleared every time); had 'unannounced police visits' late at night; and so on. So much so, that the few people who know just how much 'shock' I've had to respond to and work through over these last 2 decades, are all amazed that I'm not only still in business, but not needed to be admitted anywhere...

So I'm actually pretty chuffed to be associated with porcelain.

But I also didn't want to miss the opportunity to try and mark this milestone - so, linking back to the toilet analogy, I've decided to twin my office toilet with a school in Uganda via https://toilettwinning.org/

25% of all human beings today don't have somewhere safe, clean, and hygienic to go to the toilet. Not only does this create all sorts of associated 'bio-hazards', it strips fellow people of their dignity. And if schools don't have toilets, then kids will find ways not to go there for those reasons, and as a result, lose the chance for education and so lose the future that they could/should have had, including the opportunity to break generational poverty.

So the next time you're paying a visit to the loo this year, please think of me and what you might be able to do to similarly 'be more porcelain'; and maybe if you might also be able find a similar excuse to twin your toilet with someone else's. 

I'm lovin' it (but I'm not sure I should?)

"What's your motivation for doing this?" is a key question I ask new and emerging social enterprises and social entrepreneurs, in start-up programmes for them that I'm invited to support from time to time.

And while everyone always talks about impact in some way, there will always be some who reply that it's because as a social enterprise they can create more impact than a private business can. And for those people, I set a challenge, that (so far) no-one has ever been able to beat:

"Go and read up on McDonald's UK's impact - and then come back and tell me how you're not ashamed when you compare yourself to them as a private, for-profit, business."

In the 20 years of my setting this challenge, no-one has ever come back to me.

That's because McDonalds UK has done a pretty good job of:

• examining how they've designed their supply chain and invested in their suppliers; 
• thought about the behaviours of their customers and staff at a local level in how they can be the best 'corporate neighbour'; 
• as an employer, designed processes and systems which (amongst other things) mean they regularly win awards as one of the best large employers to work for, and also won the contract to train all of the changemaker volunteers at the last London Olympics (to the shock of all volunteering support and training bodies); 
• have a strong stance on animal welfare; 
• model a lot of good and best practice in how they're approaching how they manage their impact on the natural environment; 
• undertake national programmes to encourage childhood literacy; 
• are the biggest non-charitable supporter of community sports; 
• and the list goes on...

But they don't seem to use any of the above as part of their core marketing messages or reasons why we should eat with them (in contrast to the cause-relating-marketing messaging of most organisations in the social economy) - they're simply doing these things because they recognise that there's a strong business case for them to, other than what their customers seem to prioritise in their buying decisions.

But why am I sharing this here, now, if I've been apparently so enthralled by this fast food chain for so long?

Well, they've recently published what I think may be the first impact report that takes a 50-year perspective (organisations usually only publish their impact reports based on the last year, or a specific funded project) -   

https://www.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/sites/uk/nfl/pdf/uploads/mcdonalds-at-50-social-and-economic-impact-report.pdf  

(They've also been quietly producing annual impact reports since 2016 on all aspects of their business model, and the impacts they're creating -

https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-purpose-and-impact/impact-strategy-and-reporting/performance-reports.html)

Which can't help me start to wonder - as well as setting a quite high bar on what impact and good it's possible to create within a trading model that isn't reliant on grant income or support (as many social enterprises are), is McDonalds now shaming the social economy further by how its approaching understanding its impact from such a 'whole life' perspective?

However, perhaps I should share a slight possible bias about my apparent extolling of the Golden Arches in this post - although I think there's better tasting burgers to be had elsewhere, and will always prioritise eating out in locally owned independent cafes and restaurants when I can, we do share the same landmark birthday. 

And as an unpaid carer who's also self-employed, it was in one of their restaurants that I chose to (belatedly) celebrate mine with them, by treating myself to their birthday 'cake'. 

CIC 2.0?

Nearly 20 years ago, the Community Interest Company (CIC) form was introduced to high acclaim and interest for the social economy sector.

Since then, it seems to have struggled to fulfil its potential, based on various datasets which has shown it to: 

• not actually offer any of the unique features it promises; 
• be more reliant on being able to access grants than charities are (despite the fact that nearly all find it highly challenging to be able to apply for/be awarded such funding in the amounts they're seeking); 
• be no more sustainable than private companies;
• and be the most secretive (and therefore least trustworthy) of all the legal form options (with an additional previous post about this here).

And my poking around different data sets in these ways as shared in my blog here, has led me to be invited to write features for both Pioneers Post, and Stir to Action in recent years.

But I've spotted something recently about CICs in the data about them that makes me wonder if we're about to see a change in how this part of the social economy acts.

One of the data sets I regularly look up are those published by the CIC Regulator (along with those published by the regulators of the other legal forms: Companies House, the Charity Commission, and the FCA). And recently, the CIC Regulator has started reporting on how many of the new CICs that are appearing each year aren't 'new', but are actually existing limited companies who have decided to convert to a CIC.

Over the last 2 years, 50% (yes, half!) of all CICs added to the register have come through this route of an existing private company converting to a CIC.

Frustratingly, it's not clear what the motivations are behind these companies wanting to make the shift to gain a legal status that doesn't offer them anything that they couldn't already have otherwise incorporated within their legal form more easily, and which isn't automatically helping them access any new grant funding opportunities.

But these new data points suggest something seismic may be starting to take place amongst the CIC community - without this rise in interest from already established private companies, the growth in CICs would be in single % figures each year (lower than private companies), rather than the current roughly 20% growth. This means that CICs as a whole are likely to be starting to be increasingly influenced by the practices and thinking of previously private companies - rather than the historic basis of wider local communities applying for this form. 

What this means for how CICs will start to be viewed by the wider sector and others remains to be seen, but with a growing number of CICs being registered that don't have their origin story in how this part of the social enterprise sector has worked for the last 20 years, must surely mean that if this trend continues, we may be seeing the start of CIC 2.0?

why volunteer as a small business owner?

Being self-employed or a small business is hard.

We're the ones responsible for making sure everything's being taken care of, to resolve all the issues as they arise, and to also make sure the coffee doesn't run out...

We spend more hours working than our salaried counterparts - so from a starting point of being more pressured and having less free time, how could we even consider adding volunteering to our calendars?

Well, various researches show that there are lots of reasons that motivate people to volunteer:

https://www.ncvo.org.uk/news-and-insights/news-index/time-well-spent-employer-supported-volunteering/what-are-the-main-motivations-for-getting-involved-in-esv/#/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319067855_What_drives_employees_to_participate_in_corporate_volunteering_programs/link/59fff5b4a6fdcca1f29ef9e6/download

For me, volunteering is something I do through my pro bono work. It's part of my CPD: the opportunity to get involved in projects and activities that I might otherwise not, and in doing so, push my skills and gain new knowledge.

And it's also part of my values: for example, as a member of the Federation of Small Businesses, I try and show solidarity and support and encourage fellow small businesses, through volunteering as a host of one of their networking forums. 

I have an idea that it we're not clear as to why we're doing something before we embark on it, then at best we won't get the most benefit from the experience, and at work - it will be a waste of time.

So if you're thinking about what you might be able to 'give back' through volunteering as a small business/business owner/freelancer/sole trader - it's ok to think about what you might want to get out of the experience, and then to seek out ways that best help you to achieve that.

How long can I keep it up for?

In January 2005 I officially became self-employed. I never meant to be (and still don't), but in seeking to try and make the most of it from every angle, I've committed to a range of ongoing practices - one of which is my annual impact report.

It began in 2006 with 2 throwaway lines on my then CV, and didn't even feature in my blog here until I'd done the 4th one of them!

But over the years, the framework I've created has expanded and evolved so that it's now looked to as a leading example of 'integrated impact reporting'; picked over by people in different countries around the world; and is now starting to increasingly raise questions about/highlight how the context for how I work is changing (and not just because of when I started this, the UN's Global Goals, and letters 'ESG' didn't exist!).

And this years' has already elicited feedback that likens its approach and structure to the professional revalidation that medical practitioners have to undergo every year to prove that they remain safe to care for patients (which I'm taking as a pretty hefty endorsement of it being an excellent way to evidence my CPD*).

However, one of the other early comments that's also come back has particularly struck me - "17 years of impact reporting - that's dedication!"  I've been sharing this 'warts and all' view of how I work, and what happens as a result of it, every year for 17 years.  

I'm not sure I know of any other organisation who's published so many such reports about themselves in this way, so I'm hoping there's someone out there who can 'prove me wrong' and help reassure me that I'm not the 'oldest tool in the bag' when it comes to publishing impact reports on their work?

* In this instance, the letters mean what most people usually associate with them, rather than what I do... 

  

will current trends in csr ultimately see charities and social causes losing out..?

Corporate Social Responsibility ("csr" - or also, 'not being a d!ck') has been around for as long as there have been businesses : it's the equivalent of what companies do against our giving to charity or volunteering for causes important to us personally.

It's also something that can be mired in suspicion, scepticism, acclaim, legislation, policy, and so on - although interestingly, recent research by the Institute of Business Ethics finds that our trust in businesses to 'act ethically' is at all time highs (despite high profile backlashes to do with tax, and workers treatment, by some global firms...).

But in the main, the csr initiatives that companies 'do' (either gifts in kind, sponsorship, corporate volunteering, and such like) are at the direction of the business itself that's doing the giving - in much the same way that we as individuals decide which charities we want to give money to, or which causes to volunteer with.

A few years ago, a company in America called Tom's Shoes refined this csr model into a key plank of its marketing strategy: 'buy one pair of our shoes, and we'll give another pair to someone in need of shoes who can't otherwise afford them' (aka 'Buy 1 Give 1' - B1G1). This model of csr offered a way that we as individuals could more easily assuage any concerns that we have personally that we should somehow be trying to do more to give to those in need, without having to actually give anything, or make any effort beyond our usual consumer purchases (some might say, a very effective way that the private marketplace has made it easier to be philanthropic painlessly).

Subsequently, this model of B1G1 has been adopted by lots of other companies and platforms, even though studies suggest that this model of philanthropy may ultimately actually do more harm than good.

But Tom's shoes has now revisited it's csr model in a way that makes me think that we may be starting to see a sea-change in the face of csr (and possibly to the detriment of the charities and causes we want to try and support) - the company is now offering customers the choice over what the value of that other pair of shoes that are being gifted should be used for: either giving a pair away as before, or contributing to a choice of social causes that the customer can pick.

Now, this model of customers choosing the recipient of a company's philanthropy isn't entirely new: the Co-operative Group, and Tesco stores invite shoppers to vote for which local charity should receive a financial gift from their trading (albeit as part of a wider csr programme).

But it marks the first time I'm aware of, a company changing the way it does csr because of what it's customers are telling it - in effect, it's co-producing it's csr with its customers, being increasingly led by our personal interests, whims, and fashions.

And is that a good thing? Well, it fits with classical marketing strategy of responding to/being led by customers, but if more and more companies start to follow this lead (as they did with the B1G1 model), then we start to risk some causes and issues 'losing out' because they're not as visible or popular as others, but are nonetheless equally important.

Csr plays a distinct role in the wider fabric of community and voluntary support, but supplements what we choose to do as individuals. If we as individuals start to direct the businesses we buy from as to the causes we want them to support, then we're likely to give less to those causes ourselves: after all, that cause or group will still be getting something from our purchase price, right? 

But it's unlikely that any private business's csr will ever equal what we collectively give individually, so this crowdsourced approach to csr may ultimately start to see more of us giving less to charity, and spending more as consumers...