After 20 years, people's love affair with CICs seems to waning (or, did anyone else spot that CICs are now becoming rarer in the wild?)

I've always had a personal interest in the government's flagship legal form for social enterprises, the Community Interest Company (CIC), for lots of different reasons.

And I find myself regularly revisiting various published data sets about them - not (always) for idle curiosity, but usually because at least once a year I'm asked to write a feature article about them, or offer comment as part of a national programme or event. And I always try and make sure I'm speaking/writing from a place of actual fact, rather than regurgitating truth illusions about them...

Now, if you know my reputation in relation to CICs, then you may be thinking that I'm about to talk about the data published by the CIC Regulator into how many investigations they've opened in response to complaints and concerned raised with them about the conduct of CICs. Sorry - I'm not, although this number (and trend) is worryingly still zero, despite public frustrations shared by the Fundraising Regulator earlier this year about complaints people are making to them about CICs; and the BBC, Police, and others publicly raising concerns about CICs last year...

I'm instead looking at trend lines - those things you can draw on a chart that show a pattern between a set of numbers that keep changing each year.

I've been tracking data annually, as published by the CIC Regulator, about how many CICs they register each year, and how many they agree to wind up (spoiler: the closure rate of CICs is broadly the same as for all regular private companies, and always seems to have been). 

This is a pretty chaotic chart at first glance, but when you ask excel to plot the 'trend line' (the overall year on year average based on all the numbers across all the years), then there suddenly appears to be a tipping point emerge:

Somewhere around 2023, the average rate at which new CICs are forming (their year on year % growth) became less than the average rate at which they're being wound up (how many are wound up that year as a % of the overall total).

Which means that unless something shifts (and its hard to see what, after the announcement earlier this year that the CIC Regulator will be being wound up itself before the next general election, with no real detail of what this means for existing or future CICs), then CICs will become increasingly fewer in number (based on more of them will be being wound up than are being registered to replace them).

I wondered aloud several years ago if the honeymoon for CICs might be over in light of the exponentially growing number of complaints people were making about them to the CIC Regulator (none of which were ever acted on) - but this data which now shows how people are now choosing them (or not), seems to suggest that 20 years after they were launched as part of a government policy agenda, the honeymoon for them really is now over?

more awkward moments for CIC Regulator?

OK - so this post is in my bucket of 'more likely to cause upset and controversy', but sometimes you have to be unpopular for the sake of trying to further a debate or conversation, in trying to figure something out for yourself...

I've never hidden my confusion about CICs since they were first mooted by a drunken solicitor, as to what it is that they actually add to the social enterprise sector (there's nothing unique in them that you can't have in any other legal form, they're no more attractive or eligible to apply to grant making bodies than a 'regular' company, and don't enjoy any of the tax breaks that charities do).

But I was always encouraged by the CIC Regulator in its early days - for its being open to engage in critical debate, and willingness to hear and receive arguments that there may be parts of the CIC design which needed to be reviewed.

However, in more recent years, I can't help but start to think that the CIC Regulator is increasingly doing not just itself a disservice, but also the CICs that it oversees, and the wider social enterprise community:

In the past the CIC Regulator has:

• Publicly stated that in order to protect trust in the CIC brand, that it will never disclose or reveal any investigations it opens, or actions it takes, against any CIC (including to the persons who may have initially raised concerns about it with them). But such secrecy surely only builds mistrust, especially as its in complete opposition to the position of every other regulatory body.

• Stated untruths about the general public's relative trust in CICs over Charities.

• Created a governance code for CICs, to help guide and inform Directors of them as to best understanding the legal duties associated with being such, and how to effectively lead a CIC in this capacity - but never told any CIC about it (and it's not even hosted anywhere in their website pages).

• Admitted that there are parts of the CIC legislation that don't make sense, and shouldn't be as they are, but don't have any direct powers to act on this when it's brought to their attention.

And more recently: 

from late 2023 to the present - I've noticed that I'm increasingly meeting more 'new' CICs (registered in last few years) who are missing core details in their registration documents which should have meant that the CIC Regulator automatically rejected their application: 

• they don't have any stated social objects clauses in their Articles; 
• they don't have any statements about how their profits will be used; 
• there's contradictory details about the named recipient in their asset lock.

- These are part of the key features of being a CIC, which are apparently regulated and assured by the CIC Regulator (except they're obviously not).

in 2024 - the BBC exposes a the illegal, unethical, and questionable management practices of a CIC that have been taking place over several years. The feature drew national interest, response, and comment from the Fundraising Regulator, Police, safeguarding bodies, and even the Charity Commission. But there were no responses from the CIC Regulator to any requests made to it for comment (including not even an acknowledgement of the request).

in the spring of 2025 - I've just been approached by a CIC who's annual accounts were accepted by Companies House, but it's taken the CIC Regulator a further 6 weeks to spot and request that they amend the CIC34 part of their return in relation to an oversight on the CICs parts about a note in the accounts. 

But the CIC has fulfilled its filing obligations with Companies House, so is surely legally compliant - its hard to understand how the CIC Regulator would then take nearly another 2 months to check what was submitted: a Regulator is surely supposed to check everything is in order before accepting them as being filed? So if Companies House have already accepted the accounts (which the CIC34 forms part of), then it's hard to see what/how the CIC Regulator can do to enforce getting any such oversights subsequently resolved, as they relate to documents that have already been legally accepted? 

The only resolution I can currently think of to this contradiction is that CICs are subject to even more confusing regulation, which means that even though they've been told by one regulator that they're compliant, another could then overrule that decision - which in this instance would mean that the CIC in question is suddenly and unexpectedly facing backdated fines, prosecution, and being struck off the register by Companies House for not submitting compliant accounts when they were supposed to have (even though they were told they had at the time), because the 2 regulators that CICs are subject to, don't seem to be able to work that well together as we all think they do?

I know many people extoll CICs as a great legal form - and I've always been open to hearing their arguments, experiences, and evidences. On occasion, I've also agreed with them that this legal form really was the best choice for them. But when the regulator of a legal form that was so publicly marred in controversy as it was in the national media last year; and when so many 'advisers' seem to keep reiterating 'truth illusions' about CICs; and that their Regulator seems to be increasingly 'asleep at the wheel', surely only makes us more concerned about how far we can trust and have confidence in any enterprise adopting this status?

But as always, I'm open to people helping me spot what I've otherwise missed, and if the weight of evidence so compels me as it has in the past, to once again change my mind...

  

  

how to (instantly) lose credibility as a key-note speaker

We've all been to conferences, webinars, and other events where there are headline speakers presented to us in a fanfare of excitement - and we all find ourselves getting whipped up in anticipation of what they're going to say, and then as they're delivering their message/story/challenge, we find ourselves moved to start to take action and make changes in our lives and businesses.

But what if the changes we make because of what these big name people exhort us to, are actually based on lies, and these high-ticket speakers are actually misleading us?

In the last few months, I've been at events where some of the 'big names' touted as to why I should attend them have based their whole arguments on different un-truths, including:

1) it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in something

2) according to the laws of physics, bees shouldn't be able to fly

And if you're reading this thinking - but those things are true, please ask yourself this: how do you know they're true? Chances are, you believe them because you've heard them repeated by lots of people over time. (This is know as 'the illusionary truth effect'.) I'm pretty sure, you won't haven't researched either for accuracy or published research, because you already believe them to be true so, don't need to fact-check them.

My concern about this perpetuating of un-truths as part of people supporting their ideas or arguments, that they want us to act on is this:

- If you're asking me to believe the ideas you're presenting to me, but the foundations that you're building them on simply aren't true, then:

a) you've shown you can't be bothered to do some simple homework / fact-checking, which makes me wonder what else in your approach is similarly 'lazy'?

b) if you're asking me to trust you by relying on things that have been proven to be untrue, then that's a hard ask...

Reflecting on my own experiences and feelings of when key-note speakers have 'shown themselves up' in this way, I find myself immediately 'switching off' to want to listen to anything else that they're wanting to offer and argue - because I simply feel I can't trust it, and that they obviously don't have any respect for me as their audience. 

Which is a shame, as I also realise I may be missing out on some good stuff that's buried amongst the fallacies and untruths that they're unwittingly perpetuating, which only serves to contribute to false understanding about what we and others might really be capable of... 

So please - any of you out there who are speakers or headline attractions at events: do us the courtesy of showing that you respect us as your audience and fellow human beings, and do a quick check of your facts before you unwittingly succumb to the illusionary truth effect, and tell us do things based on 'facts' that just aren't true (and never have been).




debunking the 10,000 hours rule - https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/ 

debunking that bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly - https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/bumblebee-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics 

"I couldn't tell who was in the room, and who was on zoom.."

Last weekend, I was part of supporting a hybrid conference - which was about how we 'do' hybrid (hope that's not too meta of a concept to open a blog post with?)

As a facilitator who's part of the IAF England & Wales team, earlier this year we were considering how to re-assert ourselves as a body of practitioners, and also re-spark our community of facilitators, after being without our customary annual conference for the last 2 years (Covid, and all that). 

Someone (possibly me) suggested that we do it as a hybrid event - giving us the chance to share, try out, and learn from others how we do events where people are both 'roomies' and 'zoomies'. 

And while there's lots of other posts people are making about their experiences of it across social media, expressing how having it as hybrid was far more enjoyable and engaging than many were fearful it would be otherwise, I wanted to pause to reflect on my experience of leading a session about how we do networking in hybrid ways.

Given that we all know (in theory) how to do networking in person, and we've started to feel our way with it on-line in breakout rooms, etc over the last 2 years of pandemic, I wanted to try out the notion of doing it 'hybrid' - where the people networking together are both on-line and in a room at the same time.

I also wanted to explore some of what each side felt like they were missing out on, in not being in the others' physical/virtual space. 

So, as part of the session, I posed a flipped question to both groups - what did zoomies feel they were missing out on, by not being in the room; and what did the roomies feel they were missing out on by not being a zoomie.

Interesting, there were lots of frustrations and FOMOs expressed on both sides, but in 'headline':

- if you're on-line in a hybrid event, you miss the spontaneity and potential for physical contact with other human beings;

- if you're in the room at a hybrid event, you can feel more vulnerable and at risk from not having access to your usual home comforts, and having less recourse to being able to 'get out' if you feel they need to.

  

So - some good learning that highlights that not everyone is keen to rush back to doing everything in person (or if we are, we need some careful considerations). 

And there was also lots of other great learning throughout the conference about the realities and practicalities of both managing, and being part of, hybrid events.

(SPOILER: despite our not spending any money on tech, and the venue not being set up for hybrid, we managed to lash-up makeshift roving cameras and mics in ways that impressed everyone both on and off line, showing that it doesn't have to be that technically difficult).

But for me, the key message from my session wasn't about how to run hybrid networking in a tech way, but in how I approached it as a facilitator in recognising that there were 2 groups of people with different different starting/engagement points.

Encouragingly, how I planned the session and facilitated the networking seemed to work really well for people, with comments being made afterwards such as:

- "this experience has made me more confident about doing things in a hybrid way"

- "when we were doing the networking, I hadn't realised who was in the room/on zoom until afterwards!"

So for anyone who's either planning, or thinking about being part of, a hybrid event - my takeaway would be this: as important as it is to get the tech doing the things you need/want it to, it's just as important to also think and plan how you're going to structure the sessions and activities within it to help everyone feel part of it, regardless of how they're joining it.

be kind, above all else in your professional life

As a consultant-type (of sorts), I'm often seen as someone who is clever, knowledgeable, experienced, etc. Most other consultants you see will probably present themselves as being these things as part of assuring you that they're worth your spending your money on them.

But I've often wondered how far these things really matter when businesses, co-ops, charities, social enterprises, universities, government bodies, and others who invite me to work with them, are really wanting and valuing these attributes.

And my wondering about this has, over the years, seen me introduce some unusual practices (such as asking people what they think my superpower is, and not being overt about the various qualifications I've come to hold ), and subsequently also make changes to how I work as a result of what I learn about how I'm seen, and how people value what it is I'm able to do with/for them.

So why am I sharing this with you here? If you're someone who's kindly offered me feedback about my working practices in the past, you'll know this already. If you're someone else, you may be thinking that this may be sound vaguely interesting, but it's all very personal, and are struggling to see the relevance of why I'm reflecting on it so openly?

Well - wonder no more, because I now have an empirical data set (of sorts) to help me validate these ideas!

I recently came across Google's Ngram viewer, which is a nifty little site that allows you to track how frequently any given words have been used across all books published. So I thought I'd pop in a few keywords about how as consultants we think we're supposed to portray ourselves, and a few about how people seem to value the way that I work with them (click on the image to open the original google page and graph):

All those words about how the support consultants and advisers are supposed to 'be' and the attributes they're valued for, all pale against the approach to how we work with you.

Fortunately, kindness is one of the KPIs that I track within my annual impact report (listed as 'grace' and 'pro bono'), along with knowledge; so I know that I'm making sure I try and keep this at the forefront of how I work with people (following the adage that "we manage what we measure").

As consultants or advisers we're often initially commissioned on the basis of expertise or specific skill, but as the Ngram and my experience suggest, those things become far less important in the working relationship that we subsequently form when delivering on the agreed project. 

But I wonder how far others might agree with this?

spreading some 'polite anarchy' (and pretending to spider-man)

Bit of a different post, this one (just to warn you).

I was recently interviewed as part of an ongoing podcast series (which is hosted on youtube) called 'Delightful Dissent' - exploring a range of assumptions we make in how we work together, and think about how we approach different circumstances in our lives.

You can catch-up with the arguments and stories about how I explored an assertion about how our trust in others, and our relationships with them, is damaged/enhanced in equal measure when we bring challenges in the workplaces and communities we're part of:

NB: you may need to follow a link in this window to watch the recording, or you can jump directly to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzj55l-pGhQ 

But watching it back (and having watched a few in the series before me), it struck me that I've probably managed to come across as rather 'unprofessional':

• you can see me enjoy a single malt whiskey throughout the conversation;
• I openly retch when the topic of marmite is raised (I'm in the haters camp);
• I encourage Matthew and I to play at being spider-man;
• lego makes an appearance with an encouragement from me that we should all play with it more;
• and I advocate that we should all try and revert to being more of who and what we were as children (because being an adult sucks a lot of the time).

But watch it through, and check out some of the other conversations in the series and see what you think - did I go too far, lower the tone of what should have been a more sombre and thoughtful process, or should I have pushed it further?

why you shouldn't trust your business adviser

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?

how the CIC Regulator protects people's trust in social enterprises by not telling anyone anything about the complaints or concerns we make to them...

If the title of this post sounds counter-intuitive, that's because I'm still struggling to reconcile the inspiration for it: a statement by the CIC Regulator in their latest annual report about how they strive to help protect the CIC brand:

"our approach is to neither confirm nor deny whether an investigation is taking place...to protect the integrity of the CIC." (p.12)

and if you follow this through to the CIC Regulator's published guidance on making complaints about CICs, you'll find that if you do raise a concern, you'll find that this opaqueness goes ever further in that they won't "publish or tell the complainant about the outcome." (p4)

This seems to be a little odd at best for a number of reasons:

1) all other regulators are usually transparent about investigations they opened and reached a decision on (unless there are over-riding legal reasons or concerns);

2) a 'back of the envelope' study I did into CIC complaints a while ago found that we, the general public, were increasingly raising concerns about them to the Regulator, year on year - and...

3) ...as most complaints received by the Regulator relate to a CICs governance, then why not share some of the details of these with us all, so we can better structure and manage CICs to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes in better protecting the shared brand and respective integrity of the wider CIC community..?

Worryingly, the CIC Regulator also reveals in this latest annual report, that for the first time since CICs were introduced (14 years ago) they've actually acted on a complaint to investigate the affairs of a CIC. (Although they don't disclose any details of this, so we can't learn from other's mistakes in strengthening our own respective understandings and practices).

There's a relationship between trustworthiness and transparency, and if the CIC Regulator isn't being transparent about how they're handling the concerns people are raising about individual CICs, then there's a limit to how far we'll not only be able to feel we can trust them to protect the reputation of the social enterprises they're responsible for, but also how much faith individual CICs will have in them to act with any integrity themselves as their regulator.

All of this isn't meant as another CIC-bashing post (goodness knows, I seem to make enough of those already!), but part of my questioning aloud about some of the wider practices in the social enterprise sector that more of us should surely be aware of and asking about, if we're to make sure that as a movement, we're as credible and impact-ful as we have the potential to be.

But, all in all, I'm reminded of a post I made about the CIC Regulator a few years back, wondering aloud why it was that they were giving away so many free branded air fresheners...