why you're more, (and less), important to me than you may think you are

I try and see everyone as an equally important human being (an idea that started when I was a member of the Daily Bread worker co-operative, and which emerged as I learnt of the basis for it having a flat pay structure, regardless of people's skills, experience, age, qualifications, etc).

What qualifies you as a more important person?

You may be the chief exec of a national charity, but why does that make you more deserving of my time than some who's just been released from prison and is needing someone to support them with creating a new enterprise so they can avoid re-offending? You might argue that the hundreds of lives I can impact through working with the chief exec outweigh the needs of the individual ex-offender, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge the worth and value of anyone's life against another in this way.

This means that I try and treat everyone equitably - which includes how I allocate and prioritise time in my calendar, in managing projects and work (and with consideration for how this means I can continue to honour my unpaid caring responsibilities to several family members).

The consequence of nobody being unimportant

While this may sound magnanimous and to be credited, it does have consequences. 

Specifically, it can sometimes create longer lead times for my being able to offer dates and timescales for starting/completing projects. 

The last quarter of the financial year (January - March) is always extra busy for me, as programme managers realise that there's now only a few weeks to complete projects, ensure budgets are spent, and all the activity that they need to deliver by the end of the (financial) year is somehow physically able to be achieved. And for some of these people, I seem to be one of their favourite consultants to get to swing in and help out fix problems like these...

At the start of this particular (calendar) year, I found myself having to start to have to say 'no' to chief execs of charities, community outreach teams in national museums, and others who called to seek my support in delivering their projects that were due for completion by the end of March, as it was too short notice for me to be able to have space in my calendar when they needed me (in the following weeks).

A problem that's to be welcomed?

Now I recognise this as the lament that many of my fellow freelancers and small businesses wish they could similarly suffer: to have so much work on, that we're not able to take on anything new (so I should be happy, knowing that I can definitely pay the rent this month). But having to say no to requests today risks people not coming back to me in the future after they've found a new favourite consultant in my stead (which becomes bad for my paying rent in the future).

But I draw some solace in this tension from when I publicly 'came out' as sole unpaid sandwich carer - clients were more open to my working with them remotely rather than in person (which was their original project design); and some are even happy to delay project start dates while I may need to be away supporting family members with significant surgeries and the initial weeks of their recovery. 

So hopefully the same pattern may hold true in the future, and my having to say 'no' to some people today won't mean there's fewer calls in the future...

But is there a moral of this rambling..? 

I'm sharing this in hopes of assuring anyone that I've been saying no to, that it's not because I don't like you (see the opening of this post) - it's just there are certain times of the year that it's harder for me to add anything more to my calendar... And during these moments, please know that I'm very appreciative of your patience.

What makes your business 'good'?

In a recent group conversation with fellow freelancers, who are all part of the Freelancing For Good community, someone asked me:

"Are there any types of clients or work you would turn down on ethical grounds?"

In the moment, I said "no" - partly because my circumstances as the sole unpaid sandwich carer to several immediate family members means I have no recourse to support for myself, and so less capacity to take on work than my counterparts, so I need to try and take anything  I may be offered. But also because as I answered, I realised that I've never been in a position where I've been offered work that I'd had to seriously consider taking on ethical grounds.

This then prompted me to briefly widen the conversation as to what constitutes our respective businesses being 'good' or 'ethical', in order to work out just where the line was where I might start to say 'no' to types of work I'm asked to support:

- is it the type of work you do?

- is it the clients and customers you work with?

- is it your business model?

Your business model and form doesn't automatically make you 'good'

And this last prompt in particular may be more contentions than you think; for example, we generally hold co-ops and mutuals to be intrinsically 'good', but what if the product they offer may be seen as dubious to some (i.e. alcohol production, or support to sex workers)?

Perhaps we should look to 'badges' and accreditations? - but this too can throw up more complications. For example, Belu Water has won various public accolades from Social Enterprise UK, and yet it's market offer (botted water) is recognised as being one of the most environmentally damaging products in the marketplace.

What counts as being 'good'?

But I think there's also a wider challenge to setting the criteria for what counts as 'good'. Namely, to be 'ethical' means being socially acceptable, but what's socially acceptable changes over time (I'm of the generation which initially never knew or thought about the importance of recycling, or had any awareness that tuna was being fished in a way that killed dolphins - and yet within less than my lifetime I've seen significant changes on these, and other ethical/social issues).

And there's also the lesson that the brilliant TV show The Good Place highlighted: it suggested that in order to get into 'the good place' after you die, you needed to amass enough 'good points' during your time here on planet earth. But as our heroes came to learn, it had been centuries since anyone had been able to amass enough such points (and so 'the bad place' was creaking at the seams) - not because people were becoming more 'evil' but because of the curse of unintended consequences and the ever more complex supply chains that permeate our daily lives. For example, 200 years ago you could walk to visit your mother (plus points for family visit), and pick flowers as a gift on the way (more plus points). But today you'd drive (which involves mining of metals and fuels to create and power the car, often by people in precarious and dangerous working conditions = minus points), and buying flowers from a shop (again, grown and picked by people in other countries, necessitating CO2 production to fly them to said shop = even more negative points).

Even if it seems impossible, it's still important to try 

So if trying to live a good life is now so complex, and we can't help but compromise our ideals in trying to do good in how we run our businesses, should we even bother?

I think so, yes. Because for me it's the effort that's important - not what we do, but how we try and do it that defines us*; and this hopefully inspires and encourages others that although something may be hard, we should still try.

And we should also try and be kind to ourselves, on the occasions where we realise and have to accept that there is no 'ethical' choice to be had - we live in an imperfect world; but through our intentions and efforts we can try and shift this, even if only an infinitesimal amount. Because ultimately, it's when lots and lots of very small things get together to work in harmony, that the big things start to change and happen.

Does AI think my business is 'good'?

Finally, as this is my 20th year in business, you may have seen that I've been trying to look at things through this porcelain lens. Part of this has been writing 'Flushed!' as a retrospective of these first 2 decades from my own perspective, but I've also been asking AI what it thinks the main footprints of my business' activities to date have also been.

In keeping with the idea and questions of this post, I read what it thought through the question of "how good" has everything I've done so far actually been (after all, good intentions and commitments are important, but if you don't actually follow through on them...). What it returned was surprising and encouraging in equal measure - as I outline above, my core focus to 'doing good' has been about how I manage my business, not what I do, but AI highlighted:

"His portfolio includes socially challenging and “mission-driven” assignments — in-prison rehabilitation enterprise, incubation for homeless entrepreneurs, community-facing incubation or workspace models, etc. That shows not just business savvy, but a commitment to social justice and inclusion."

All of which leads me to conclude that your business is actually already doing more good that you might realise...!

* see my annual impact reports for examples of my efforts in this regard: 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1o7M70ttK7My-ieTuBRi-gGeR9VOUfYxl?usp=sharing 

too many badges for my own good?

Anyone who's seen the opening page of my impact report this year, will have been overwhelmed by the number of logos of bodies that I'm a signatory to/accredited by (and this doesn't include the even longer list of professional memberships I have!).

There's a story behind each one as to why I specifically made the effort to be able to show it off next to my name (in time, cost, and energy) - but none of which are to do with it helping me to win work (my feedback from clients is that they've never been interested in this type of thing when it comes to deciding who to commission to support them).

And I'm wondering if there's therefore a parallel here with the various accreditations, honours, and recognitions that I have in the form of the tins of 'alphabet soup' that I can arrange either side of my name - they've similarly never impacted on the work I've won, and if anything, most of the groups, communities, and people I work with find them a turn-off...

But I'm proud of these recognitions from different bodies as to how I conduct my business, and the impacts it creates (otherwise they wouldn't have accepted my applications to them), so don't want to completely hide them away... which leaves me wondering what the right balance is in shouting about them: both for the value of what they represented, and that they've endorsed me as being 'alright' by their standards.

If you're curious about any of these 'badges', etc, see below for the links to each: 

Organisation of Responsible Business

Charter for Inclusive Entrepreneurship

Prompt Payment Code

Good Business Charter

Fair Tax pledge

Armed Forces Covenant

Co-operativesUK

Social Value UK

Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE)

Voluntary Sector Studies Network (VSSN)

UK Society for Co-operative Studies

Locality

Better Business Network (BBN)

Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, manufactures, and commerce (RSA)

profiting from despair - the unfortunate truth about how social enterprises become successful?

There's a common narrative that social enterprises step-in where private businesses can't or won't, and when public services are lacking, to plug gaps in order to ensure people have access to support and activities that they need - something that has been re-iterated in every government national policy document for/about the sector since their first one in 2001.

And ongoing surveys by the likes of Social Enterprise UK into the sector show how it appears to be more resilient and diverse than its counterparts in the private sector.

But...

I've come across a few studies and research reports recently which make me wonder if we should be having a discussion about the ethical implications of this, rather than keep congratulating ourselves each time the updated State of the Sector report is released?

And also, if we should be re-visiting our expectations and understanding about the factors that help drive the growth and successes of social enterprises? 

- A research paper about social enterprises in France found that they prospered more when the wider economy was suffering, and tended to simply 'get by' when the country's economy was performing well (in contrast to private businesses, who grew when the economy grew, and struggled when the economy struggled): https://emes.net/publications/conference-papers/9th-emes-selected-conference-papers/ownership-structure-over-the-business-cycle-evidence-from-france/ 

This trend would also seem to be evident here in the UK, based on data reported by the ongoing VCSE Barometer study, which shows that charities seem to have an opposite hiring trend to private businesses: when private businesses slow the rate at which they're investing in growing their staff, charities are increasing their recruitment, and vice versa:

Could this suggest that social enterprises are a bit like spider plants (also sometimes referred to as the entrepreneur in plant form): if you tend to it too much, it'll wilt. It tends to prosper best when faced with harsher circumstances (less water, less light, etc) than most plants need in order to survive. 

And this is potentially a key understanding - we know our economies go through rounds of repeating recessions and boom periods, as part of natural cycles that will always happen (despite what politicians might like to otherwise hope and believe).

And we know that just as booms tend to create more opportunities for people, recessions tend to see jobs being lost, firms being wound up, etc.

We therefore need to recognise the important role of social enterprises in helping to 'prop things up' in those times of recession (a period when the data seems to suggest that they perform at their best), to help mitigate the negative impacts of the downturn in the wider economy; and crucially to provide a hope and assurance that things will keep going and remain open for people.

But what is it about such harsher trading environments that force private businesses to struggle, but enable social enterprise to thrive?

 

- Also, Social Enterprise UK's State of the Sector mapping raises some potentially important questions that may merit exploring further, through an ethical lens?

* while social enterprises are more likely to have women, BAME, and people with disabilities in leadership roles than private businesses, those that do are usually smaller and generate less income than those that don't.

* those social enterprises that are based in areas of higher deprivation are more likely to be profitable than those that aren't. And as most social enterprises' main customer is usually the general public, this surely prompts a question about how far should social enterprises go in ensuring that they're financially sustainable by generating a profit, but how much should that profit be, if it seems to be increasing where their customers are in greater need of support?

* and social enterprises seem to be less present in sectors and services relating to supporting employment, housing, and social care - areas where there's widespread agreement about there being the most need. 

As with (mostly) all of my blog posts like these, this isn't intended as a bashing of the sector, or the bodies that support and advocate for it - but a reflection on what various sets of data are potentially highlighting. 

That's because I've an idea that we need to get better at looking at numbers like these, if we're to properly understand how to best make sure that we're enabling social enterprises to realise their full potential for all of us - and surely we can only design support that we can be sure works for the benefit of everyone, if we keep asking questions like these?

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... 

  

could legal company forms help protect my mental wellbeing?

The date of my publishing this post on my blog (Oct 10th) marks World Mental Health day - a time when there are floods of other posts, tweets, emails, etc being circulated, so I don't expect that this will catch too many people's attention, but I've always stated that this blog is in part my 'thinking aloud space' - and this post relates to me 'thinking aloud' about an aspect of my mental wellbeing, and how I try and best manage it.

Firstly - as background to to the title of this post, I've always said that I prefer being a sole trader instead of incorporating myself as a limited company (as conventional wisdom would suggest I should). 

This isn't just because I try and be unconventional, but also in remaining a sole trader, I have to pay more tax on my income and earnings that a company director or salaried employee would (and I think that paying tax is actually a good idea). It also means that technically, I've unlimited personal liability - I can't easily "wash my hands" of a problematic contract by simply dissolving a company (in whose name the contract etc, would be, meaning that nothing of the fall out would legally stick to me). As such, it forces me to try and take greater care in how I approach my work and also hopefully sends a message to those I work with that in seeking to establish trust and rapport with them, I'm willing to make myself very vulnerable personally. This element of personal risk is something I also try and further manage through my professional insurance policies, and how I seek to structure and maintain relationships with each person and organisation I find myself working with.

But it's world mental health day, so I'm taking this opportunity to revisit the above position about my not being incorporated to review it from a new perspective - my mental wellbeing.

As a sole trader, parent, carer, etc etc (we all have multiple identities - some of which are more secret than others...), I'm very conscious of trying to best manage my own health and wellbeing, including my mental health. And this list of roles I hold each brings its own tensions, stresses, anxieties, etc that aren't always easy to 'turn off' - but I've always sought to harness what some might see as negative or harmful emotional states that arise from them, to generate responses that help motivate and keep me moving forwards.  

Now, from time to time, I try and take stock of how I'm doing in managing the above - always with a view to trying to see if there might be ways to change a practice or habit that could help  further mitigate or reduce a recognised stressor in/on myself.

And it's the idea of company forms that I'm currently trying to consider to this end - a limited company exists as a 'person' separate to me. It's therefore that person, not me, who would sign contracts, agree terms and conditions, etc - so in the event of the worst coming to pass in my delivering a piece of work (the client decides to sue me), then I could give notice of dissolving the company, and not be concerned about the spectre of potential personal bankruptcy.

However... that's something of a 'nuclear option': I'd only be able to use this fall back position once, because if so 'activated' in that worst case scenario, then all my other business activities linked and associated to and through the company would also cease to be.  And if I then recontacted everyone in my current/original guise of being a sole trader, it would look like I was trying to duck responsibilities, be unethical, and generally exhibit the sort of behaviours that as a society, we decry when we see some larger corporates doing...

And then there's the question of how I'd mitigate the risk that having such a legally distanced structured from the people I'm working with might mean in terms of my becoming complacent in my relationships with them - one of the main reasons I'm currently maintaining my status as a sole trader.

 

So, on balance, I'm not sure that having identified this option I can actually adopt it - in theory it would offer me an assurance against the 'worst case scenario', and so help reduce a stressor and anxiety. But in practice if I ever needed to enact it, it would mean that I'd have to shut all my work down and not be able to easily restart working in the way I am now - in much the same way that if I were sued as a sole trader (and my insurance providers felt I'd not acted with sufficient degree of professional conduct with the upset client in order to cover the claim), I'd not be able to easily restart working in the way I am now. 

'Killing' a company that I owned could also impact on my personal credit rating (in the same way that getting personally sued might also) - so that consideration also balances itself out.

  

But it's an interesting perspective on the question that every sole trader and freelancer faces at some point - of whether to incorporate themselves as a limited company; but from a very different starting point. A perspective that seems timely with it being world mental health day.

However, as will all of my 'thinking aloud' posts that I make here in this blog, I'd be interested and keen to hear what holes people might be able to pick in my above 'workings out', and if there's anything that I've missed in thinking this through?  

why are the new wave of start-ups being called the purpose-led ones, when they aren't?

I'm not sure if it's because of the types of circles I usually find myself moving in, or the bias of how stories are reported in the media, or because there really is a general sense of it, but it seems that we're in a period when most new start-ups are being referred to having 'purpose' (and more so than existing/previous waves of start-ups)?

If this is really true, then I'm wondering where are all these new businesses who apparently are motivated by their values and wanting to create impact actually are: 

- the most commonly googled questions by entrepreneurs and people starting up their business include NOTHING about purpose, impact, values, etc (see https://www.hitachicapital.co.uk/business-finance/invoice-finance/invoice-finance-blog/the-most-common-questions-startup-owners-ask-google/)

- and the most frequent search by type of business offer being started is for clothing. And whilst I agree that there are some needed and 'proper' things happening in this industry (labour behind the label, for example), this is an industry that's also strongly associated with a plethora of negative impacts (the cost of 'fast fashion', etc)

So, based on the data from the biggest search engine in the world, these new waves of 'purpose-led start-ups' maybe aren't as prevalent as is being otherwise suggested to us.

Or maybe they're simply not using google to do the research they need to launch their new ventures like the rest of us do?

the dilemma of reverting to my pre-pandemic business model of digital by default

In 2018 I made a deliberate choice to try and move to a 'digital by default' model for how I delivered all my work - which meant that when the lockdowns that defined 2020 came, I had something of a head start (which may be why so many bodies sought my support in helping them move all their delivery models to a similar on-line format).

And there were several reasons for this choice I made several years ago:

1. 
   it helped my desire to try to better manage / reduce my environmental impact, by reducing the amount of travel I needed to do (and although I've always prioritised public transport where possible for business travel, even trains and buses create pollution of sorts).
2. it meant I could increase my productivity by not having to factor in travel time to/from clients (and not needing to find ways to cover that time - after all, I'm not salaried), meaning that I'd be able to offer better 'value for money' to clients.
3. reducing the need for travel means I can be at home more, which means I can do more to support my family around their circumstances and needs.

All of which seemed eminently sensible when I committed to trying to work this way, but then the pandemic was upon us, and things have shifted, which now leaves me in a dilemma.

As part of their recovering their lives (and sanity) from the disruption and upheaval that Covid has wrought, most people seem to be desperate to meet in person again (almost to the point of fetishing the need to meet and undertake activities IRL).

But my business model that developed to deliver virtually seems to be working very well in a digital format:

• most people have found that they prefer to engage with learning and workshops I deliver on line, to the point that they don't want to go back to an in person physical classroom model when given the option;
• every Board and senior management team I've supported with facilitated planning of various types over 2020 and early 2021 are now committed to using an on-line format in the future, having experienced how well it can work for them with me;
• and in the year before the lockdowns, 3/4 of all my client activity was delivered virtually (a figure that was up over 20% on the previous year). 

But the lockdowns have also exposed that more people than we might have hoped are still struggling with on-line access through no fault of their own... (see here)

Some my dilemma - do I remain true to my values and the commitments I made in my business model 3 years ago and continue avoiding doing things IRL wherever I can, or do throw my lot in with others and be part of helping them recover what they feel they've lost by agreeing to start to spend more time away from home and family, and need to increase my charges to cover travel costs and time?

Answers on a postcard / or over a pint in the pub (but only if we've going to be near one together at the same time).

to everyone who forgot to turn up to their meetings with me last year - can I have my £4,500 back, please?

We all know the feeling of frustration of having arranged to meet with someone, only for them to not turn up when agreed; and after waiting the polite 5-10 minutes before calling them, only learn that they'd forgotten.

At the best of times, this can make us feel like they don't think we have any importance or value (or else they'd have remembered we were in their diary), but as a sole trader, it also represents a painful loss of cash as well - because I'm not salaried.

Unlike others in paid employment, who have a guaranteed income each month - against which they decide how to best allocate their time to justify receiving it; I have a fixed amount of time each month - against which I have to maximise my opportunities to generate an income. 
So if you're not a client of mine and I offer to share some of my time with you, then that's me saying that I think who you are and what you're trying to achieve is more important than my earning cash to help pay the rent, or keep the fridge stocked up.

But it goes beyond that - because it's not just the need to generate an income that's the sole determinate of how I use my time, but the importance of being with my girlfriend, and kids. And beyond that, having opportunity to hang out with parents, siblings, friends - and indulge in personal interests (reading, whiskey, walking, classic movies, galleries and museums, gardening,...).

So when you say 'sorry, I forgot' - that's akin to your saying to me "You've chosen to sacrifice a lot to spend this time with me, but I don't think your ability to retain a home, spend time with family, or any of the other things that enrich our lives, are worth bothering to even recognise."

But I'll never say that to you. 

I'll never say it because I try and live by a set of values that inform who I am, how I think about things, how I approach my work, and how I try and build relationships with different groups of people.

So instead, because of the value of 'grace', I'll politely and demurely brush it off and offer to reschedule with you.

These values are something that I've always tried to keep front and centre in my day to day life, and part of the way I do this is through my annual impact report, the measures in which reflect these values.

And over the last year, I've been thinking about how to capture this value of 'grace'... It seems that the easiest way might be to measure the number of times the above scenario has played out over the year.

And to subsequently help me understand the true extent of what this value of 'grace' costs me (and how it can be recognised by other people), I've monetised it in the same way I have my pro bono activity.

The first reading on this new indicator is a bit of a shock: £4,560.

The financial value of the time I've lost because people acted in a way that suggested: "You've chosen to sacrifice a lot to spend this time with me, but I don't think your ability to retain a home, spend time with family, or any of the other things that enrich our lives, are worth bothering to even recognise.", is in excess of £4,000.

Averaged out over the year, that's getting on for £100 a week - for comparison, that's akin to the cost of taking my family out for a meal together; the cost of renewing one of my professional memberships; or the cost of a basic portable hearing loop (for when I'm working with people who experience deafness).

And it's more than half of what I gave in pro bono support over the same period.

So the next time you ask or agree to meet with me, or someone else who's not salaried, please try and make the effort to check your diary or let us know if you know you're going to be running late...

Why I think Ed Mayo got it right (but mostly wrong) about co-ops and charities

Ed Mayo blogged recently about how he saw charities and co-ops being able to learn more from each other than is traditionally thought (after all: charities are based on philanthropic gifts and a desire to help out other people, whereas co-ops are based on an ethos of mutual self-help through economic trading).

And I was interested in what he had to say because I've also often thought that many other movements and sectors are more aligned to co-ops than might appear at first glance (for example - trade unions; but more on that later...).

But as much as I like Ed (after all, he did buy me a round of whiskey after I called him out at a conference he was chairing!), I can't help but feel he only scratched the surface - and I think that co-ops and charities are much more aligned with each other in more fundamental ways that he argued in his piece.

Ed pointed to 3 areas that related to how many charities are seeking to encourage more open memberships and participatory governance (both principle tenants of co-ops), and exploring 'social investment'. But these could equally apply to many other types of organisations within the wider and broader social enterprise movement.

Sorry Ed, but I have an idea that co-ops and charities are much more closely related, and at fundamental levels:

Firstly, lets look in general terms, starting with the values that define co-ops - 

• self-help, self-responsibility - internal to co-ops and their members, these are both things that charities would agree that they try to encourage and nurture within the people they support
• democracy - as Ed highlights in his blog, participatory governance is something that's a growing trend amongst charities
• equality and equity - are both enshrined in charity law to ensure that charities support people and communities in a transparent and fair way, regardless of circumstance
• solidarity - it's extremely rate to find a charity that isn't working collaboratively with other charities, or part of bodies such as the ncvo (the charities' counterpart to CooperativesUK)

And going on from that, lets then look at the principles through which co-ops enact these values - 

• voluntary and open membership - charities offer support without any condition of a person being a member, in much the same way as many co-ops
• democratic member control - membership charities have AGMs and other governance functions that mean their Trustees remain accountable to the members
• member economic participation - OK, so you got me on this one. This is pretty much co-ops only (although I do know of lots of co-ops where members aren't engaged economically with what their co-op does...)
• autonomy and independence - just like co-ops, charities are required by law to be free from any undue control or influence over them by means of corporate membership or private ownership
• education, training, and information - just as co-ops need to ensure their members are supported to be able to fully discharge their responsibilities of being such, so charities also need to be offering the same 
• Concern for community - a principle of co-ops, this is a mandatory expectation on charities through the public benefit reporting requirements that they're subject to

But the correlations don't stop there:

1. There are examples of recognised co-ops also being registered charities (for example the Co-op College)
2. The development and support needs of co-ops and charities are often the same 
3. Co-ops and charities are both recognised as being pillars of the wider social enterprise/Third/social sector (as typified by the mapping undertaken by the likes of Social Enterprise UK, and ncvo grouping them together)
4. In manifesting and managing their values and principles, some co-ops have created separate charities
5. Just as charities can trade, many co-ops can also access and be awarded grant funding 

So - charities and co-ops are closer bed-fellows that some might care to admit. And that means that when we think about who we should look to for inspiration and models of practice to learn from, each shouldn't automatically dismiss the other.

And to end where I began - co-ops and unions are closer than many might think in many ways, and this is being recognised and furthered through memorandums of understanding being created between some of the federal bodies of each sector. So might we see similar agreements and commitments starting to appear between the bodies that represent, support, and advocate for charities and co-ops in the future..?  

why I go quiet on social media in times of pandemic

Unless you've been a contestant in a Big Brother House, everyone in the world is currently united in fear about the Corona-virus and Covid-19.

In the UK we've been seeing swift, sweeping actions and measures announced by the government - but in light of the unprecedented nature of what we're now (hopefully) living through, information about how our businesses, livelihoods, and homes can be protected in light of most trading and employment of all types suddenly ceasing (with no indication of when they may return), is scant.

Scant information in times of panic means that we worry and panic more - that's why we see explosions of fake news, contradictory guidance, confusing stories and such like. And our brave new world of social media that we've all been building over the last decade or so means it's scarily easy for all of us to be posting, re-posting, and sharing others' posts like spam-bots. that only exponentially makes the situation worse for all of us and our mental well-being and health.

Which brings me to the title of this post - some of you reading this will now I'm usually relatively prolific across multiple social media channels on an ongoing basis. But I also try and live in a way that's 'authentic' (modelling behaviours in myself that I think are important for us all) - and that means that rather than accidentally 'fanning the flames of social (media) panic', I'm watching what's being posted and shared more than I'm posting myself; and I'm only posting or re-posting content where I think it will offer immediate, tangible, and direct assurance and benefit to groups with whom I closely identify and work with:

- fellow freelancers and the self-employed (all 5 million of us!)

- people who live in rented homes (equivalent to roughly 13 million households)

- co-operatives, social enterprises, and charities 

- micro and local businesses 

As to when I'll resume 'normal service on social media' (insofar as I have a 'normal service') - I'm currently looking to start to ramp back up my traditional provocations, encouragements, and randomness in line with how we as a society start to feel we're coming to terms with this 'new normal'... 

having your accounts audited doesn't prove they're correct - so why do we keep thinking it does?

Lets get one thing clear from the start here - there are a lot of accountants who will be upset with me for writing this.

But at the same time, there are hopefully a lot of groups and businesses who'll now start to save a lot of money and stress after reading it...

There's a commonly held belief that I want to correct with this post - namely that an awful lot of people (including commissioners, grant making bodies, government officials, and the like) all think that if you have your accounts audited it proves that they're accurate.

It doesn't.

The process of auditing is simply someone giving an opinion that the way you've approached adding up your receipts and invoices (based on what you choose to reveal to them) is sound. 

An audit does not guarantee that the accounts are fully correct, or that you're a sound business proposition - and if you don't believe me, just go back and read what it says on the certificate that you pay an auditor to give you (the below extracts are from the auditors certification to the 2019 accounts for Arrandco Business Services):

• "Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement...  Reasonable assurance...is not a guarantee that an audit...will always detect a material misstatement when it exists."

• "We do not accept or assume responsibility to any party... to any body, for our work, for this report, or the opinions we have formed"

So if the audit process doesn't guarantee it will spot mistakes in your accounts, and if there is subsequently found to be an issue that the auditor missed, then the auditor isn't responsible for that - so what do we pay for..?

And to add to this question on the validity of the audit process, let's also remind ourselves of a few recent 'audit failures' - 

Patissie Valleirie - when asked why the auditors to this high street retail chain didn't spot the £40m fraud that spanned several years, their auditors said they don't look for fraud as part of their audit process... 

Carillion - not just one, but two firms of auditors missed the signs of a greater than £1bn hole in the accounts of this national construction firm that was a one-time darling of government commissioners, as well as ongoing signs of insolvent trading...

Kids Company - the flagship charity that suddenly seemed to run out of cash in 2015, was having serious concerns raised about apparent financial reporting and management irregularities to its Trustees as far back as 2002, yet still had accounts signed off every year...

RSM Tenon - one of the leading accountancy and audit firms found that it wasn't even getting its own accounts right after they were signed off...

the Charity Commission - last year openly said that about half of the accounts filed with it aren't being properly examined or checked by the auditors who are being paid to do so, which calls into question how far we can trust the accounts of any charity in general...

So - back to my opening question: if the process of auditing accounts doesn't guarantee that they're correct, and the auditor has no responsibility if its subsequently found that they didn't do their job properly:

(1) why do we pay for our accounts to be audited?

(2) and in light of the above quick example from across different sectors, why do we still keep asking for accounts to be audited as proof of assurance that the organisation is trading legally and is not insolvent?

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... 

A question of grace and bad debt...

I've recently published my 13th annual social impact report on myself - and as with previous years, continued to 'evolve' the framework by adding further indicators (specifically, in relation to how far I'm adopting working practices that reduce environmental impact). 

The framework I've developed is overall designed to reflect my values, but I'm wondering how far I should include additional indicators relating to 'grace', and more specifically, 'forgiveness'...

You see, businesses of all types will, at some point, face the prospect of having to deal with bad debt - a customer or client that either refuses to pay, or whose venture has become insolvent. In such circumstances, conventional wisdom decrees that we (as the people the debt is owed to) enact recovery processes: debt collection agencies, applications for court orders, striking them off our Christmas card lists, and such like. 

But sometimes, the people we've worked to support and now can't make good on the payments we've agreed, haven't made a conscious or deliberate choice to run their businesses into the ground, or to happily walk away from their dreams and ambitions with little care for the consequences. They're just as, if not more, upset than we are that circumstances have played out as they have and are simply trying to minimise the fall out (albeit that usually means by 'doing an ostrich' and hoping it all goes away by itself...).

In such instances, grace would seem to require that we at least consider the option of forgiving them their debt - not as a 'carry on and mess up other businesses' type approach, but rather as a measured and reflective conversation about how working relationships have been bruised, and helping all involved understand the cost that such a forgiveness of debt will entail (but the benefits it could also offer in the longer-term to all concerned as well). 

As a sole trader, my experiences of exercising grace in this way is 'quite painful' as I've no larger company or wider team of colleagues to help soften the hit of not now receiving the income I'd anticipated. I also need to work at least doubly hard to find additional work to replace the earnings I've lost and budgeted to receive, (earnings that help sustain my family, home, and other commitments).

So the question I'm grappling with is - when I exercise grace in this way, should I record and report it, as I do with other workings out of this value (such as the extent to which I currently report on the pro bono support I've given to various people and groups).

Would such open reporting simply encourage a culture of clients 'crying off' when they see that I'd be willing to forgive them their debt, or would it mean we can all start to have more grown-up and mature adult conversations about money, and the way in which we recognise and have responsibility for others through ensuring that we pay them what we owe?

what I did in 2018 that got me noticed (in trouble?) the most...

It's that time of the year when a lot of people are starting to share their retrospectives of the last 12 months - greatest hits type profiles of their biggest 'wins', most exciting adventure, and such like.

And it struck me that although I'm now entering my 14th year of being self-employed, I've never actually done one on myself. So, in the spirit of the season, and in keeping with the adage of "try everything once apart from morriss dancing* and incest", here goes:

As this is my first one, I thought I'd try and start with something relatively straightforward and simple - what did I write/post about over the year that caught people's interest and imagination the most?

As some may know, I don't place much stock in social media analytics, so don't have fancy dashboards that track my activity across all my social media channels (and there's rather a lot of it!). So what I've done in the 'keep in simple and quick/easy to start' philosophy is to use the dashboards that are built into my blog site, and on twitter, to try and spot which post on each got the most impressions (people coming across it and reading it), as this seems to me to be the 'right' count for the sake of consistency and continuity? 

But enough already, you cry! What's the result - what did I post about this year that got the most people talking, thinking, and otherwise pausing for a brief moment because it chimed with what they're thinking about or trying to work on more (cue drum roll...):

On my blog - it was my post reflecting on my latest social impact report on myself, and how I'm now aligning it to the UN's Global Development Goals:

https://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-social-impact-reports-sometimes.html

On twitter - it was celebrating my being named as the most innovative in the UK in developing new csr models: 

https://twitter.com/AdrianAshton2/status/1032656981620867078/photo/1 

At first glance, this might seem a bit narcissistic (something it's been suggested I am in the past by Liam Black), but I'd like to think there's something more encouraging to be taken from this - because to me, what ties both of these posts together is something about being a responsible business: not just in a 'tick box', "we'll help raise some money for a local charity" kind of way, but something deeper about how people are wanting businesses to keep stepping up to the mark and do the right thing by everyone (not just their owners).

This idea also fits with recent national surveys highlighting that public trust in businesses is at an all-time high, while it's at an all-time low in charities, and I'd rather not go into how people are feeling about the government...

So, 2018 - the year that businesses not only heard the rallying call to be the leaders and supporters of society and local communities that we the people are needing, but have also started to try and figure out how they best answer it..?

* sadly I recently came across a photo my mum took of me as a young child dressed in morris dancing attire, but I'm determined to never do a 'luke skywalker'...