missing the mark? what the latest research about social enterprises suggests about those who support them.

At the end of each year, most people get excited about what's behind the next door of their advent calendar, or the prospect of up to 4 weeks to indulge in unlimited mince pies.

Not me.

I look forward to the bi-annual state of the (social enterprise) sector research, that's published by Social Enterprise UK which is also released at this time of year.

(But I do also love mince pies...)

And that's because I'm always interested in what data tells us about what's really being experienced within the sector by those doing it, rather than the rhetoric of policy makers, infrastructure bodies, and people who speak about the sector - and yes, being led by the data and research does frequently see me being put in the naughty corner for the upset it can cause to other bodies because it can sometimes contradict their narratives and positions...

But to be clear: I never intentionally try to embarrass anyone publicly, but have an idea that if someone is going to be making decisions that affect their enterprise and personal future (and that of their family and wider community by association) then surely we should be offering the best-informed insights and options, because it's they who'll have to live with the consequences of those choices, not us?

So - to this latest research and what I'm reading from it (although other interpretations may be, and are, available: please check out the report yourself and draw your own conclusions): Backbone of Britain - State of Social Enterprise 2025;

and as with all research, remember to approach with caution: large data sets like these only reflect the 'main middle' - there will always be exceptional stuff happening around the edges...

the sector is very unequal

Roughly half of all social enterprises are below the VAT threshold by turnover (currently £90,000), yet their average number of employees is reported as being 6. Assuming that people aren't being employed on a 1-day week basis (the only way you could get these 2 numbers to line up), this suggest a sector that is made up of a lot of small social enterprises, with a disproportionate influence of a few very large ones on the overall picture we're being presented with.

legal structure choices and experiences continue to throw up surprises

The number of CICs in the sector appears to be starting to 'flat-line' over time (which is in keeping with longer-term trends about the numbers of CICs from the CIC Regulator), in contrast with Companies Limited by Guarantee (the most commonly used, and favourite choice for social enterprises for over half a century, before the CIC was proposed by government).

This contrast between CIC and CLG isn't constrained to their seeming popularity - CLGs are also reported as typically generating higher incomes than CICs.

But the historical OG of all legal forms continues to outpace all other choices when it comes to how large their turnovers typically are - co-op societies aren't going anywhere soon (which is also reflected in their having a far lower wind-up rate than both CICs and CLGs).

an increasingly weak financial position and outlook 

fewer social enterprises are reporting being able to generate profit, with nearly half now only able to achieve a financial break-even. But this seems to be galvanising social enterprises to focus more on making sure they're getting the most of what cash they are generating:

-  1 in 3 of all social enterprises seeking support say it's in relation to strengthening their financial management;

- there's a reducing trend of how far social enterprises are able to invest in training and development for their teams;

- there's a significant increase in social enterprises seeking support around the topic of redundancy, suggesting a sector that's starting to recognise the need to make hard choices about its future.

most social enterprise trading models remain in avoidance of delivering  public services

In keeping with historical trends, the main customer type of all social enterprises isn't the public sector to deliver contracts on behalf of, but us, the general public - only 1 in 5 social enterprises base their business model on delivering public sector contracts, and 2/3 have never engaged in this type of activity. 

But for those that do, 1/3 report struggling to engage with procurement processes and systems - suggesting still more needs to be done to level the playing field, despite 20 years of national campaigns, programmes, initiatives, and lobbying by different sector bodies.

social investment offers are increasingly out of touch with the sector?

There's a growing trend of social enterprises saying that social investment offers are too expensive and/or not designed to offer them what they need, with a growth in high street banks being turned to for finance instead.

But there's also a weaking of the wider sectors' ability to raise investment in general: the typical amounts being sought to be raised, and the likelihood of success in doing so, both continue to fall...

a determined sector, nonetheless

But in the face of the above, the social enterprise sector appears to be doggedly resilient and sheer bloody minded about finding ways to keep going:

- where investment is being sought, it's for stuff like buildings and equipment, showing a long-term strategic planning focus, rather than looking for 'quick fixes';

- similarly, the topics that make up the top 1/3 of all requests for support relate to strengthening systems for the long-term, rather than 'quick wins': governance, leadership, impact, and accessing training opportunities;

- and while the development of new offers and services continues to be the main way in which most social enterprises are seeking growth, that they're doing it with less investment shows 'frugal innovation' at work (pointing to a high degree of resilience and adaptability; although 1 in 5 also say that their ability to grow and adapt in these ways in being hampered by a lack of suitable, accessible, or appropriate support for them).

So overall, it initially looks concerning (although with some signs for hope) - but we should never read research in isolation: looking at comparable trends for both traditional charities, and private businesses, shows these themes are being similarly felt there (and usually to a more painful extent!).

And if this reflection seems overly critical, then maybe it is - but as a sector, social enterprise has huge potential if it can only plug into the right things. And from this latest mapping, it might seem that some of the things which were created to do just this for the sector may be starting to struggle to keep up with what's needed from them?

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/ 

Whatever happened to Social Firms England?

When I first started working in the social economy (a time before the likes of Social Enterprise UK, Locality, and Unltd), there were already some well established bodies - including what become known as Social Firms UK.

It emerged in the 1990s, when there were a series of European funded programmes across the country that explored how businesses could create and sustain employment for people with a disability as part of their ongoing business model - at that time, a revolutionary concept.

And it its early years, it undertook pioneering research, lobbying, and policy work that's influenced the rules we see today that mean there's greater recognition and support in the workplace for people with disabilities; quality standards such as the disability confident employer; and also that bodies such as Social Enterprise UK now exist (Social Firms UK was one of its founding members).

Ultimately, it's responsible for the recognition that a legitimate purpose for any social enterprise is to create and sustain employment for people who find themselves disadvantaged and discriminated against in the labour market through no fault of their own or choosing (the 'social firm' model of social enterprise). It also amassed an enviable resource library of case studies, research, and guides, for any 'social firm'; were involved in some of the first national programmes to deliberately create social franchise models to help scale the reach and impact of the sector; and also developed one of the first national sector toolkits for reporting social impact.

But in recent years, its fortunes have waned - it launched its own accreditation standard, the Social Firms Star, which few enterprises adopted; and as part of the devolution agenda, separated itself into Social Firms England, Social Firms Scotland, and Social Firms Wales.

I realised recently that I'd not had anything land in my inbox from Social Firms England for a few months, so looked them up, only to find that it has been dissolved in March 2023 - with no announcement to their email list, social media pages, or any other media outlet. Looking at their last accounts, it seems that it had increasingly struggled financially to be able to maintain itself.

Across the other regions, Social Firms Scotland merged with SenScot (the Social Enterprise Network for Scotland) in 2021, although SenScot itself now seem to be struggling on the basis of their last filed accounts, and that their website domain is no longer is use?;

however Social Firms Wales still seems to be actively continuing to offer support to the social firms model of social enterprises.   

So I'm left wondering, whatever happened to Social Firms England - it was one of the pioneers of the modern landscape of the social enterprise ecosystem today, and also held a lot of valuable research, knowledge and learning that would still be of interest to individual ventures, as well as bodies looking to better support the sector as a whole.

Does anyone know where those resources may now reside, and why, unlike with other social enterprise infrastructure bodies, there was no announcement, reflection, or celebration of the impact it had had on the wider sector over its lifetime? 

So how do you actually start a social enterprise?

'Social enterprise' is a phrase that seems to be increasingly commonplace, and something that we're all being encouraged to start-up to if we think we have an idea for a new project or a business that might do some good in some way.

There's also a lot of 'stuff' about them out there: mapping by Social Enterprise UK; webinars on how they can best report their impact and how they're changing the world for the better by Social Value UK; offers of funding for how they can support local communities continue to recover from the impact of the pandemic; and such like...

But I'm often approached by people who want to know the answer to a much more basic question about social enterprises - how do I actually set one up?

Well, the good news if that I've been running seminars, boot camps, and webinars covering this for about the last 20 years, and hopefully will be able to distil them down into a few pithy bullet points in this blog to help you start to chart your adventure into the lands of social enterprise...

1) You'll already have a (social) idea, but is there actually the potential for a trading enterprise in it? 

Have you identified people or organisations who might be willing to pay you money (which is different to offering you philanthropic grants) for what you're going to be doing? 

2) How are you going to raise the money you need to get it started?

It's very rare than a start-up enterprise of any kind will have customers who line up in advance of it officially opening for business, to pay for the services and goods before they've even seen them. So have you thought about not only how you'll raise the cash you need for those early bills, but also where you'd be happy to seek it from?

3) Do you see yourself as a lone hero, or part of a 'Scooby gang'?

Creating any new enterprise is hard work and risky. Social enterprises even more so, because of the additional dimensions they have (balancing social mission with need to generate cash; trying to keep a set of values and ethics central in every decision made; feeling a responsibility to try and save the world...). So do you feel you can take it all on by yourself, or are you looking to recruit others to work with you in developing, leading, and managing it (and how will you ideally structure these relationships between you all)? 

And what measures can you think about putting in place to support yourself (after all, if you're supporting the birth of this exciting new social enterprise, whose looking out for you in return)?

The next steps in starting up a social enterprise flow from these, and may seem far more mundane in comparison, but are true for any enterprise thinking about starting up:

- create some budgets to help you manage costs and make sure you're going to be charging the right prices;

- pick a legal structure that will help you manifest and protect all of the above;

- register the enterprise with HMRC and whichever regulator is responsible for the legal structure you've picked, and open a bank account;

- do some marketing;

- Oh yes: and get out there to tell people you're now 'here' and so some selling!

Once these are in place, then everything else you come across out there about how social enterprises can thrive and prosper should start to make more sense.

But if you'd like to explore these steps in more detail, chat about how to tell if your idea really does have sufficient potential to be a trading enterprise, or would like to know about any other aspect of social enterprises, feel free to get in touch: I'm always happy to have an initial conversation by phone or video without charge or obligation.

why you shouldn't trust your business adviser

why do we keep insisting on keeping social and 'regular' entrepreneurs apart, when both have the same sh!t to deal with..?

In my experience of supporting various start-up programmes throughout the UK over the last 20 years, and having walked alongside many for part of their journey, most entrepreneurs don't call themselves that. 

They're simply people trying to make a go of an idea to either help them fix a problem they see in their community or help them get a bit more financial security for themselves (usually both).

So I'm increasingly frustrated when I keep seeing national sector bodies re-enforcing a narrative that social and non-social entrepreneurs need special treatment that somehow doesn't seem to apply to the other:

• the School for Social Entrepreneurs recently posted about the 5 ways that social entrepreneurs best learn - but if you took out the 'social' in the title, you'd instantly recognise them as being exactly the same way that any non-social entrepreneur prefers to learn too...

• and the recent Good Deals conference emphasised the impact that being a social entrepreneur has on their mental health - echoing the findings of the World Economic Forums' own research into the mental health of all entrepreneurs around the world... (but not seeming to make any reference or links to this...)

It therefore seems that if you identify as social or not as an entrepreneur, you're probably going to be sharing the same needs, concerns, and preferences for how you access the support you want - and this isn't anything new either: cross-sector research I did into social enterprises, charities, and private businesses all the way back in 2003 (an era of dial-up internet!) found that regardless of which sector people identified as being part of, they all had the same development needs and shared preferences for how they accessed learning and training.

And to my mind that suggests that we're continuing to miss a trick in amplifying the impact that entrepreneurs could be making on society's problems, and the wider economy - why are we creating this artificial segregation of entrepreneurs based on their founding motivations, when the support they need is the same.  And surely by learning and growing together they might better encourage, inspire, challenge, and ultimately "be" more than the sum of their respective camps..?

In the enterprise programmes I've been fortunate to have been able to manage and lead over the years, I've always sought to encourage such a 'mixing it up' philosophy, and although none were ever evaluated on the grounds of it being mixed-sector entrepreneurs, no-one in them seemed to have any problem in undertaking their journey as an entrepreneur with the others who had differing visions or motivations to their own.

So when we will we start to see (social) enterprise support agents admit that these divisions between sectors aren't really that valid or justifiable, and in doing so, be able to be more inclusive in releasing support into our wider communities and economies for the benefit of all..?

are community businesses starting to fail, or are we simply becoming more honest about the true nature of them..?

A few years ago, there was a jamboree around 'community businesses' - enterprises that are led by the community they're based in; operate and trade to meet the (social and health) needs of those local areas; and generally make that area a better place for everyone to live and work in it.

This was precipitated by the formation of Power to Change - a charitable trust whose remit is to nurture, encourage, and support the growth and impact of this sector of businesses.

Over the last 5 years since it's creation, Power to Change has initiated a range of programmes and support, which have, in turn (and to me at least), seemed to also catalyse a range of other good things starting to happen through other support bodies to the sector.

However, one of the things about Power to Change that's impressed me most, is its commitment to research, data, and openly sharing it's findings. I've drawn on some of these published findings in previous blog posts, in exploring what they can add to other researches and data from other bodies in seeking to better understand specific themes, but this time thought I'd look at their own data on the community businesses they exist to support, from a longitudinal perspective.

I've always thought that having more than a "this year vs. last year findings" is important in any context as it means you can better start to identify trends, blips, and other happenstance events (last time I did this it was on complaints received by the CIC Regulators against individual Community Interest Companies, the findings of which still cause shock amongst people I share it with...)

And when I look at the 4 years worth of 'State of the Community Business Market' reports that have been collated and published to date, I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't be making more noise about the general state of community businesses, and in particular, how the sector appears to be worsening...

As some who've read previous blogs of mine may recall, I don't claim that analyses like these are based on sophisticated or technical regression techniques and other sensitivity analyses in data sets, but merely what a regular lay-person might find if they were to apply some basic maths to the headline figures reported.

In this instance, I took the figures from the last 4 years of reports, and worked out the average (mean) figures of what a typical community business looks like from the headline figures in each - the charts highlight the story, but in summary:

1) there seems to be a general overall increase in the numbers of community businesses (up 2,000 over the last 4 years), but...

2) the average income of community businesses has fallen by nearly £20,000 (roughly 10%) over the same period;

3) the average value of assets they hold each has fallen by over £150,000 (roughly 60%);

4) they're employing 20% less people, and, before anyone points out that that's because they're making greater use of volunteers - the number of volunteers has also fallen too (by around 50%)...
5) they're also becoming more reliant upon grants over trading to help sustain themselves, and continue their activities into the future

Now, it may be that this is all easily explainable: in the reports themselves, Power to Change are very clear and open that each year the methodologies used to research and generate the data are changing - so there's a strong argument to debunk the above on the basis that I'm not comparing like-for-like. Except... for the figure about the overall number of community businesses which seems to be on an upward trend - if anything, this would suggest that the methodologies are actually getting more effective and precise in identifying and profiling community businesses. 

And if this is the case, then that surely means that a combination of things may be going on:

1) the strength and scope of community businesses, upon which national policy and investment programmes have been based, have been over-estimated, which means that the support now available isn't actually what's most needed...

2) Power to Change has been 'too successful' in inspiring a faster than historic growth in the sector of new community business start-ups, whose financial and operational standings will be far more immature (weaker) than their more established counterparts, and this is skewing the overall averages - although the age of community businesses isn't something that's closely monitored in these reports, parallel mapping by Social Enterprise UK highlights that most of the wider social enterprise sector (of which community businesses form a part), are disproportionately 'young' in comparison with private businesses).

So - all in all, a false alarm for community businesses after all?

Maybe, but as I pointed out earlier, I've done this rough analysis on the basis of how someone taking the headline figures from these annual reports might look at them (and perhaps be unwitting misled?)

And given that other national support initiatives, investment, support, and funding programmes usually take a year or two to 'roll out', in light of them being potentially based on flawed assumptions and data, will this mean that they 'miss their mark', unless they regularly pause to reflect on findings such as these about the wider sector that they're working in, and respond accordingly..?

defining success in enterprise support means not measuring what you think you should

We need a way to check that everything we spend money on, or invest our time in, has worked - otherwise, how do we know if it was the right thing to do? how can we learn from the experience otherwise? and if we don't have some type of indicators of success, how can we be accountable to the people whose money we've spent doing it?

Some readers of my blog will be aware that I have a slightly unusual business model as a freelancer, in that I always try and find, and work though, funded programmes when supporting clients - I have an idea that as well as making my work more transparent and accountable, I'm also helping someone else 'tick their boxes' with regards to helping them spend their budgets where it might be of most benefit.

But within any funded support for enterprises or charities, there's an element of reporting against 'indicators of success': how many jobs were created, how much more turnover does the organisation now generate, what new products or services have been introduced to the marketplace, and such like.

However, I've always had a concern that having such reporting measures, while useful for the reasons I've referred to above, risks the supported organisation starting to focus on doing the wrong things.

Case in point: in recent years, there has been a rise in interest in encouraging more charities and social enterprises to take up the option of 'social investment' (loans and debt) to help them grow and do more good in the world. This has been through programmes offering funded consultancy, workshops and training, and such like. And having been involved in supporting the delivery of several of these, the reporting of any group who accessed support through it has invariably focused on how much of an 'investment' the organisation has now secured.

But the problem with this focused approach to reporting on the success of the support is that its prejudiced and biased - my experiences (and that of many others) through programmes like these, is that many organisations receiving subsequently support find that their business model will never be able to generate the financial returns, nor satisfy the diligence requirements, of investors, however good the support they receive has been.

So they, and their funded supporters, face a quandary: 'fudge' the reporting to suggest that a loan deal is imminent (but never quite materialises), or be honest, and risk the funder asking for their money spent on the support back, with it apparently having failed to achieve what they wanted it to.

And it's a pattern I've seen in other funded business support programmes in other sector over the years as well, with private businesses in initiatives aimed at stimulating job creation and economic growth.

So does this mean that funded enterprise support will never achieve its aims, or that we can never trust what these funders share as the collated impact of their programmes, in many of the reporting of it's activities being 'less than completely transparent'?

I'm inclined to suggest that there's a third option we have, and it's one which I'm encouraged to see some providers of such funded enterprise support starting to take: funders of these programmes starting to openly recognise that the way they measure and consider the success of their intervention should consider a wider range of outcomes, rather than a simple binary measure as has been traditionally used. 

And a leading example of this is the Social Investment Business, whose reflections on 5 years of programmes supporting social enterprise access social investment is identifying this:

"Success should not be solely defined by growth or whether investment is raised. 

Instead, improving resilience should be the primary aim."

So perhaps we can all take encouragement from this and have a little more courage in future when reflecting on the benefits that come from engaging with offers of business support and how we report this, and be open to the good things that happen when we do?

based on official statistics, my support to enterprise is far better than what the government pays for...

Business support comes in all sorts of forms, in all sorts of places, and from all sorts of people.

But the question that all entrepreneurs face when navigating the options out there, should be "is it any good?"

And there are all sorts of ways in which you can start to consider the quality, validity, appropriateness, (and even legality!) of the support you find and the advice you're offered through it:

- what qualifications does the person have? (but as I've shown before, a qualification is only an assurance that the person has been taught something, it's usually no indication of how knowledgeable or competent they actually are...)

- what recommendations have others made about them? (but again, I've evidenced how you can't trust any such endorsements a person may have received...)

So what's left? Well, how about statistics relating to performance? After all, it's how the success of any contract or project is usually considered, and the government's flagship business support programme, the growth hubs, are regularly applauded on the basis of these.

But the latest published self-congratulatory statistics about the performance of these growth hubs suggest that they may not actually be that great in practice, and when I compare my own performance against theirs, I seem to come out in a far better light:

Growth Hub - only 5% of all businesses who contact them actually get some 'real' (in person) support

Me - only about 5% of people who contact me by websites, social media, email, or phone don't get the opportunity to have a 'real' (in person) contact and support

Growth Hub - 87% customer satisfaction

Me - 98% customer satisfaction

Maybe this is why I was named as one of the UK's top10 business advisors by Government, and have a trophy cabinet of national and international awards, and the growth hubs don't?

Or maybe it's a case that there's are lies, damned lies, and statistics...?

if you want support for your startup, you'll likely need to ignore your ethics...

I find myself in an unusual conundrum as an enterprise advisor who also has a pretty explicit set of values and ethics in how I approach the way I work:

Over the last few years, government has consistently reduced the amount of resource and support available to people who want to start up different types of businesses as a route to employment, generating jobs, changing the world in new ways, and such like. This has meant that the support that so many entrepreneurs of all types need and value is increasingly scarce.

At the same time, high street banks and financial services bodies seem to be moving into this business support space through creating startup grant funds, developing (free) incubators and workspace, and sponsoring national thematic enterprise support initiatives.

All seems pretty straightforward? And economists would probably point to this as an example of how market forces are creating responses that people and enterprises need, without the need for state intervention.

But here's the rub - a recent survey of the 'ethical-ness' of high street banks seems to suggest that those who are scored as 'most unethical' are the ones doing the most around these startup and social enterprise support initiatives. A case of 'buying your way out of a guilty conscience'? (http://www.thegoodshoppingguide.com/ethical-banks-and-building-societies)

And for the entrepreneurs accessing this support - some won't care where the money's coming from, but I see that people increasingly are interested in how that money has come to be on the basis of choices about where they choose to invest their own savings, suppliers they choose to procure from, and the places they try and recruit their staff from.

Market forces are all well and good, but remember that the market isn't a person - it doesn't have ethics or values like you or I. And that likely means that entrepreneurs' difficult choices will only be added to in the future when they start to weigh up the ethics of accepting the support that they know that their enterprise needs, but comes at a cost of having been raised from investing and trading in practices that they'd otherwise be very uncomfortable with...

crowdfunding grants for your project - the shape of things to come or a dystopian future?

I find myself talking a lot about crowdfunding these days - partly because I'm starting to deliver more training and learning programmes around strategic finance and managing accounts, but also because it seems to be a space where more grant makers are moving into...

I've always held that the main benefit you can derive from crowdfunding isn't about the money, but rather proving interest and demand, and building a tribe of supporters. I've also always argued that it's a lot of hard work to make a crowdfunding campaign a success (most fail to reach their targets, or come anywhere close to them...)

Recently though I've started to notice grant making bodies starting to increasingly move in the crowdfunding space - offering 'top up' grants to groups and projects who raise either a minimum amount, or who offer to match the amounts raised in this way (step forward Power to Change Community Shares Booster, Santander's changemakers, el al). And in some ways this makes sense: grant making bodies only have so much cash to go round, and want to make sure that their money makes the most impact where they spend it. So to have a project that shows it has high levels of public and community support from people already donating to it, would seem to be a good indication that it will do very well in having a body of people already wishing to support it and see it succeed.

And there are also calls from various national sector bodies that even if charities don't integrate crowdfunding into their income generating strategies, everyone should try it at least once... 

But... crowdfunding can be a fickle game. It takes a lot of time and skill to be successful at it. It's also a form of popularity contest in trying to get a community to support your project over someone else's. And what about those projects and activities which, while we all agree are worthy and needed, are also those which we might struggle to otherwise offer support to if they started crowdfunding?

Crowdfunding can generate all sorts of benefits and unexpected outcomes. It can also be a large waste of time and effort. But is a space that people and funders are increasingly interested in - and if we haven't tried it, how can we have any credibility when we try and subsequently argue that its not for us?

Like Oscar Wilde (or someone like him) famously may have once said - try everything once, apart from Morris dancing; but I'd say just make sure you go into it with your eyes open and don't believe all of the hype...

the Korean perspective... (I may be funnier than I think I am?)

I had the opportunity this summer to spend a week mentoring a cohort of South Korean social entrepreneurs as part of the UK leg of their international MBA. And while pictures have been shared on instagram, twitter, and such like, as to the various adventures and activities that people got up to, I thought it might be useful to reflect on what I think that South Korea can teach us about how we do social enterprise in the UK, having spent a week thinking about it from their perspective;

at the end of the week, all the entrepreneurs shared what we mentors had offered and challenged them over which has caused them to rethink either their business models and assumptions, or how they'll launch and scale their enterprises in the future. This was though all giving short presentations to us as the mentors, as well as to their fellow student entrepreneurs, and university professors. And while all agreed that they greatly valued the time we had been able to offer them as mentors, and shared something different in relation to their own specific enterprises, there seemed to be some common themes around:

• the benefits of mentoring in getting 'back to basics' - its good to have assumptions challenged, and start to simplify things to make them more manageable
• testing enterprise ideas with a wider group of mentors, all of whom have different backgrounds and perspectives, is valuable in identifying new options and opportunities
• having a range of mentors to draw upon (rather than a single mentor as many other enterprise support initiatives offer), allows access to a far wider range and number of contacts and other models and initiatives of direct relevance and benefit
• there's also a cultural difference as to what constitutes a 'social need' in South Korea that the UK would struggle to recognise as being relevant for a social enterprise to have as its mission, but perhaps this echoes some of the confusion we still have here in the UK as to the different ways in which we define and recognise a 'legitimate' social enterprise by the forms it can adopt?
• Many also seemed to espouse a new mantra that we mentors think may be attributable to their session with Nick Temple of Social EnterpriseUK - J.F.D.I.

• (and there were also some nice comments that students directly made about me as part of their presentations:
• "As we all came to realise, Adrian is very humorous"
• "Adrian was a great encouragement to my self-esteem as I realised that this enterprise will be the hardest thing I ever do in my life")

I also reflected on some of the themes that seemed to regularly come up as part of the mentoring sessions I was delivering. It's telling that these seem closely related to issues that are also particularly pertinent and relevant to all (social) enterprises in the UK today?:

1. Mapping and reporting the impact we create offers a range of benefits that we don't usually recognise it for:
1. it helps prioritise service and product development
2. it contributes to marketing activity
3. it helps to identify potential future customers who benefit from what we do, but aren't paying us!
2. Branding is an often undervalued and underused 'tool' in helping us to not only differentiate ourselves from the competition, but also between the services we offer were they are targeted at different customers and beneficiaries, to mitigate possible confusion about us in our marketplaces

so perhaps as a sector, social enterprise has more 'common currency' globally that it might think it has - but how can we encourage and support that? Initiatives such as this that are hosted by Sheffield University are by far the exception, but all involved recognise the immense value it offers to everyone who was a part of it.

(And I'm also indebted and grateful to Darren Chouings for pulling it all together, and also my fellow expert mentors - none of whom I'll share the embarrassing pics I took of you here...

Jamie Veitch

Dave Thornett

Morgan Killick

Nickala Torkington

Andi Stamp)

the reason I blog

We're encouraged to start and run blogs for all sorts of reasons - build a following, enhance our brand, maintain a position in our industry, and such like;

and many people who blog share their posts across social media sites, encouraging us to 'like', and sign up for their latest posts via email or similar.

But there's a lot of people I know who have blogs that maybe shouldn't - not because they're not genuinely interesting people, or have valuable things to say, but because I get the impression from what they post (and how infrequently they post), that they've not thought about what the purpose of their blog is for. And I've always held that unless you know why you're doing something in your enterprise, then you're probably wasting time and energy that could be better spent on other things.

So - in the interests of trying to encourage others who blog (or are thinking about it), a recap of why I blog (all of which could be seen as aspects of "I'm a freelancer and it gets very lonely sometimes"):

1. Most social media channels make it difficult to be able to present a reasoned idea in them. Readers of a blog are more self-selecting in wanting to spend more than 3 seconds on my latest update, which means although there may be fewer of them in comparison, they're more likely to want to engage in the debate and discussion I'm seeking;
2. I've no regular team of colleagues who I get to hang out with in the office/kitchen/lunch/etc on a regular/frequent basis - people whom I would otherwise use as my 'sounding board' to reflect on experiences and ideas to make sure I wasn't starting to loose touch with reality. A blog acts as my surrogate 'chat while the kettle boils' - in essence, I'm looking to you all to help me spot if I'm starting to 'loose the plot' in how I think about, and approach, the work that I do;
3. As a freelancer I have no formal or regular appraisal or line management. I've therefore created what many see as an extensive and envious/commendable CPD framework for/around myself. My blog forms part of this - giving me a space to critically reflect on aspects of my work, and how I approach it;
4. I have an idea that many enterprises suffer because of hype and spin in the wider sector - making poorly informed decisions because they're not aware of the 'bigger picture', or possible alternatives. I'm always keen to challenge this when I come across it, and my blog is a route through which I can do this (don't believe me? check out some of my previous posts about CICs, and why we shouldn't be listening to our sectors' leaders...)

In all of the above, I'm always keen to get comment and response from people to help me:

• better develop my own understandings and approaches to issues
• assure me of my (relative) santiy
• make sure my knowledge and skills are as current and relevant as they can be for the sake of groups I support
• (make sure I'm not becomming libelous...)

So there you are - the 4 reasons I try and blog at least once a month.

I suspect many of these won't be shared by other bloggers, but if they are - please let me know where I've gotten it wrong in the comments below!

statistically speaking, turns out I really am "better than your average consultant"!

As someone who’s self-employed with no line management, one of my challenges is trying to figure out just how good I really am – client testimonials are great feedback (and always appreciated), but I recognise they’re also very subjective. For example, not everyone likes marmite – and I’m aware that not everyone appreciates my approach at times (as evidenced by the rare occasions when my bendy people[1] have been thrown back at me during training courses I’ve delivered…)

And this desire to reflect truly on my ability isn’t just for vanity’s sake – as a freelancer I need to know how I can best pitch myself to clients, and I also need to know where I should focus the investments I’m able to make in myself, to further enhance the service I can offer to said clients.

That’s why I’m always keen to find ways to benchmark myself against my peers and others. Earlier this year, this saw me publicly share the results of my having my approach to reporting my impact compared against the internationally agreed principles of social accounting[2] – pleased report that compared with other consultants, and enterprises of a similar size to me, I seem to be well ahead of most others out there doing work around impact reporting.

It’s also why I try and offer my services through third parties and funded programmes – having an impartial project manager or broker between myself and a client can offer a more objective view of my services and performance. This is because they’ll have similar pieces of work to that I’ve undertaken to compare me against. One such programme is Big Potential[3] – offering awards to social enterprises to allow them to ‘buy in’ specialist support from the likes of me, in their ambitions for growth and in exploring the relevance of social investment as part of those aspirations.

Unusually for such funded programmes, Big Potential annually publish a ‘performance table’[4] of all us consultants who it engages with, in supporting social enterprises. While this is a relatively simplistic table of measures (the number of our clients we’ve support to apply for awards from the programme vs. the number of those clients they’ve agreed should be supported by their chosen provider), it’s nonetheless a useful reference in offering another of the types of benchmarks that I’m looking for.

And the latest table reveals a few interesting themes when I looked at the figures – I seem to be the only active freelance consultant on the approved provider list (the others being larger firms), and there’s no correlation between how many clients a provider supports the applications of, and the likelihood of them being awarded support for them:

Oh – and running the numbers to create some simple averages, it seems that I’ve supported more than the typical average number of clients to apply to this programme, and they’ve had a greater than average success rate when I have!

So – as well as (most of) my clients saying nice things about how much they enjoy my working with them, there’s also a growing body of statistical data that shows I’ve better than the average consultant.

My mum will be pleased.

---

[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianashton/albums/72157624272560700

[2] http://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/how-far-is-my-social-impact-reporting.html

[3] http://www.bigpotential.org.uk/

[4] http://www.bigpotential.org.uk/provider-performance