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?

now I'm no longer twenty

You may have noticed that my blog posts this year have been a little different.

That's because 2025 has been the 20th anniversary of my business, and as part of 'celebrating' this milestone (over 90% of all start-ups don't make it this far), I wanted to commit to doing a few things:

1. 
   get more people to talk about toilets;
   
2. write and publish a 20-year retrospective of perspectives on how this journey to date has been so far;
3. and being more open and honest about things that we might usually shy away from, or consider 'too unprofessional' to share openly.

What happened this year

As this is the last scheduled of post of the year, it's usually the one were people look back over what they've done this year that they think has been most important - and this one is no exception to that custom, except I'm focussing more on what I think I've learnt and experienced by my attempts to mark 2025 as my porcelain anniversary:

- admitting to, and drawing the curtain back (a little more than I have done in the past) on the crises I've endured doesn't seem to have lost me any work (and actually made people more interested in me). It's also meant that others who are navigating their way in self-employment / small business ownership have been more encouraged by hearing that it's not just them that 'certain types of stuff' happens to.

- a year goes by more quickly than you think it does. I started in January by twinning my office toilet, but then it was the start of summer and the book I'd originally intended to have out in the world for the spring was still having pages added to it... but I managed to get it out in the end, and was rewarded by Amazon declaring it one of their top100 bestsellers of the year!

- in trying to make sure I also did the other things I meant to (like completely refresh my website), I messaged and tagged others as part of trying to ensure some accountability for myself in making sure everything I wanted to achieve actually happened. But none of them were able to help me keep in track with those things - and I don't think it was because they were rude or insensitive, they're just caught up in life and all the unexpected things that the universe throws at us each day that we have to prioritise and juggle. (And there's always next year to try and catch up with this 'still to do' list?).

What didn't happen this year

Which brings me to a key reflection about life overtaking me more times during the year than I hoped it would (usually for dramatic reasons connected to my being a sole unpaid sandwich carer) - and that's ok, as the other things I'd hoped to do to tie-in with this milestone anniversary year (refreshing my website, getting the 2nd edition of my first book done), can still be done next year (or maybe the year after that...)

How well did I celebrate 20 years compared to how others do it?

I also paused during the year to reflect on how others celebrate milestones in their own respective organisations. Most involved cake (which is always a good thing), but these also seemed to be fleeting moments - surely if we're serious about creating impact through what we do, then the way we celebrate our achievements should similarly leave some form of legacy or lasting benefit?

The moral of this festive story?

And maybe that's the key message of this end of (calendar) year reminisce - enjoy your anniversaries, because life is hard, and we need all the encouragement we can get. 

But don't blow it all on a single cake (maybe take out a monthly cake subscription?) - try and find ways that you can create artefacts and reminders of how you've managed to keep these plates spinning that you never thought you'd be handed. They'll then act as future encouragements not just to you, but to others too...

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 

What Sherlock Holmes thought about my book

I've always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes for as long as I can remember - and while Jeremy Brett's portrayal in the 1980s Granada TV show will always be my personal favourite, I've also enjoyed all the other actors' portrays and re-imaginings of the role too.

As I've also shared in the past about having 'fan boy' moments in the sector, I recently found myself wondering what a (fictional) hero of mine might make of my first book, about imposter syndrome...

Sadly, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is no longer with us to be able to take up his pen to craft the tale of how a conversation between Holmes and Watson might play out, where they to be musing over my monograph while residing at 221b Baker Street - so I did the next best thing, and asked AI.

Reassuringly, it seems to suggest that Holmes would have approved...

Scene: Baker Street. Holmes stands by the fireplace, the book in hand. Watson enters with tea.

Watson: You’ve been absorbed in that book for hours, Holmes. Another monograph on poisons?

Holmes: Hardly. It is Adrian Ashton’s Loving Your Doubt. A curious title, yet one containing a commendable premise.

Watson: Doubt? Most people try their best to avoid it.

Holmes: Precisely why most people think poorly. Doubt, Watson, is the beginning of all sound reasoning. This author argues much the same.

Watson: Does he now? And is he correct?

Holmes: On the whole, yes. He insists that the insecurities which plague so many—what you medical men call “imposter syndrome”—are not signs of weakness but opportunities for inquiry.

Watson: A rather optimistic view of self-criticism.

Holmes: Rational, not optimistic. When a man doubts himself, he has a chance to examine the origin of that doubt. If he pursues it logically, he may discover either a flaw to correct or an illusion to discard. Both outcomes are useful.

Watson: So you approve of the book?

Holmes: I do. It teaches readers to do consciously what I often do instinctively. Were Scotland Yard to adopt its lessons, we should see far fewer bungled investigations.

Watson: Holmes, I suspect that were Scotland Yard to follow any book you approved of, the prisons would be overflowing.

Holmes: One can but hope, Watson. One can but hope.

how I decide what to charge you

In the spirit of my commitment to try and be more open and transparent in this, my 20th year of business, I've decided to do something very un-British: talk openly about money.

Specifically, how it is I decide what my rate should be when I'm quoting my fee as part of how I would like to work with you.

I've thought about 'pulling back the curtain' like this this for a while, because:

1. there can often seem to be a lot of mystique and mystery around how consultants/freelancers types like me set our charges (and keeping things hidden usually only makes them worse for everyone in the long run);
2. as a trainer/facilitator, there's lots of encouragements and exhortations for people like me to charge by our value (what the job is worth to you, the client), not the time it takes us to do it (so I wanted to offer another perspective on this).

Ultimately, I try and keep my pricing easy and transparent for all of us - I have a set day/hourly rate that's same for everyone. This means I'm less likely to confuse myself, or cause others to get confused if they talk with each other about what I charged them for their respective projects. There are, of course, exceptions to this:

1. a client who states that there's already a fixed budget or rate that they pay all consultants and associates, which means I'll bill them on that basis (assuming I'm happy with the rate that they offer, and that this may mean a reduction in the scope and depth of work that I might have otherwise delivered);
2. subject to circumstances, I'm not completely averse to offering a goodwill discount to a client (but I can't give all my pricing secrets away in a single post here, so you'll have to come back to learn what those circumstances might be another time);
3. or when I offer to work on a purely pro bono basis (for more clarification on what it takes you to get into that bucket of my pricing, see this previous blog I wrote)

To the point about the basis of my choosing to charge in this way: I've personally always preferred to set a rate on the time I'll spend on a job. This is because:

1. it means I can offer more transparency and openness in my relationship with a client in how I'm working with them (which hopefully helps engender more trust and 'human-ness');
2. many of the types of organisations I work with have to report back to a funder or commissioner on how/why they've spent money on me; and that usually involves showing a rate based on days/hours. If I take a pricing approach that helps match this, it makes life slightly easier for them, which hopefully helps us all get along better?
3. the same work or outcome will be worth different amounts to different groups, depending on their relative circumstances - which means that a fixed value price would represent a bargain to some, but 'paying-over-the-odds' for others; 
4. my primary motivation for why and how I'm running my business is to 'earn enough' to support my family. I'm afraid I don't have any aspirations to scale my enterprise to the point where I can start to buy castles, etc. So although I recognise this 'pay as you use me model' potentially limits my earning potential, I'm OK with that. (Or at least, I am for now - ask me again in a few years time: the world and our personal circumstances are always changing, and having a castle to ride out the end of the world in might not be the worst place to be..?).   

But just because this is my preference, doesn't mean that I always adopt it. There are occasions where I'll agree a fixed fee for a project with a client in certain circumstances (see earlier references to this).

And to the 'money shot' piece in this blog about how I decide what my day/hourly rate is...

I'm afraid it's rather boring - I have a spreadsheet that tracks typical charges across different sectors, and for different types of services. Into this I add various national sector bodies' own regular benchmarking studies (such as ipse's); and charges I'm offered by agencies and other bodies where I'm working as their associate - and then average them all out.

This may seem convoluted, but for me, its the most equitable basis I can currently think of to come up with the number I put on your quotation which isn't accidentally feeding into a 'race to be the cheapest'. As to do so would ultimately only mean that the work is of a lesser standard, and also my fellow freelancers and consultants would also suffer from having more pressure on them to charge less than they might be able to afford to, at the cost of their (and their family's) own quality of life.

My hope in sharing this all openly here is:

1. it will be of some encouragement or help to others who are starting out on their own respective journeys as freelancer/facilitator;
2. it will help my (and others') clients better appreciate the thinking that some of us consultants/trainers do in how we come up with our bill to you;
3. it will also feed into a wider conversation that will help the wider pool of us in our collective sectors.

I should also namecheck Jodie Newman of the Content Shed as part of this post, because it was her prompts at a recent call I was part of with her that led me to decide to create this post. So if you think this was brilliant, go check out her Shed; if you think it wasn't, then blame me for the poor execution of the idea...

The Global Sustainable Development Goals aren't just for saving the planet - they also help with quality management and professional standards

10 years ago the United Nations launched the global Sustainable Development Goals - a basket of 17 thematic aspirations that, if pursed well, will help see our common world a generally better place to live, work, and play for all of us (as well as those animals and vegetations that we also share the planet with too).

And in the year that followed, I redesigned the impact reporting framework I'd started to create for my own enterprise around it.

The goals, and my engagement with them in this way, have subsequently drawn ongoing interest and recognition - most recently from a new global special interest group who asked me to be their inaugural guest speaker. Specifically, the group is made up of facilitators who are all part of the global International Association of Facilitators, and who were keen to explore and understand different perspectives in how facilitators (one of the capes I sometimes don) have thought about how the Goals relate to their practice and profession.

As always, when I have opportunity to share some of my own story in this way, I try to deliberately pause to reflect on it afterwards. This post is therefore what struck me as being of most interest and encouragement from my side of the screen (but if you manage to join this interest group - links below, you'll also get to read other's take-ways to add to these):

Good ideas take time 

Most people who have a passing awareness with the Goals might know that they were launched in 2015. 

But they weren't officially adopted until 2016, the first guidance about reporting against them wasn't published until the year after that - and it took 3 years to even get to their launch point after the concept for them was first agreed and started to be explored in 2012.

So whatever your aspirations might be to create change; design new systems; and see people adopt new ways of working - take some consolation that it took the UN 3 years to get to the point of being able to start to get some early adopters to commit to adopt these Goals after they first started to talk about the idea of them.

You don't (and shouldn't try to) do it all

One of the few regrets I have in this life, is that I didn't buy all of the mugs I once saw in a shop window, with the message "you can't save everyone" printed on them.

The Goals are no different - they were never designed or intended to be adopted in their entirety by any single organisation. That's why I've focussed on working to 5 of the 17 Goals: it means I can hopefully be more credible in how I'm presenting myself in how I'm contributing to them (i.e. I'm not making what many would see as incredulous claims about how my different business offers are helping to improve the biosphere for life under the sea).

Altruism isn't (and shouldn't be) the only motivation for all of us that adopt the Goals 

As part of my reflections with the group, I'd mapped the Goals against the IAF's professional standards for facilitators. In doing so, it highlighted how taking a Goals-based approach to how you design and deliver your work very easily demonstrates how you're meeting and working to occupational and quality assurance standards - so there's also a clear direct business case for the Goals to be picked up, as well as an ethical/moral one.

My using the Goals helps others to contribute to their delivery

As my business model and ways of working are wrapped around the Goals, then the more I work, the more I'm delivering against them. Which means that whenever a client commissions me, I'll do more work = more delivery against the Goals.

I'm not aware that any client has ever engaged me solely on the basis of this, but it's an additional assurance I can offer them as to the wider benefits they get from using me as their consultant?

We don't usually think about how the Goals help us have better conversations about our role in local communities and the wider economy 

I was struck by how most people hadn't fully appreciated the wider importance of small and micro businesses, and how we can encourage and support these by trying to prioritise them in our own respective supply chains - despite us all bemoaning when a large employer closes their site, and the wave of unemployment this causes with the knock on effects to other businesses, families being able to remain in the area to find new work, etc.

The Goals prompt us to think about who we're doing business with, and how this in turn helps build more resilient local communities in the context of seemingly increasingly unpredictable economies and extreme weather events.

We're all already doing more than we realise

Through breakout room reflections, people shared a range of practices that they already used that were aligned with the Goals, but who hadn't realised the importance or impact of, before correlating them in this way. This meant people were more encouraged to continue and build on these models of working. And, within the framework of the Goals, they'll now be able to more easily share with others, as encouragement and challenge for them to consider doing similar.

If you'd like to know more about the conversations which are exploring how the Global Goals are being supported through the work of facilitators, please check out the IAF's Special Interest Group at: https://www.iaf-members.org/site/chapters/sustainable-development-goals

And a recording of the story sharing of my history with, thinking about, and approach to the Goals can be watched again via my YouTube channel:

Why social entrepreneurs (can) never retire

In my decades of walking around different parts of the social economy, there's something that's always personally bugged me - far too few people encourage us to openly talk, and think about, how we get paid (and how much we should be paid).

The focus always seems to be on supporting a person or groups' shiny social enterprise idea, and how to help it create as much impact in the world as possible. There's an implicit assumption that the social entrepreneur leading it will not only be able to give the emerging and growing venture whatever it needs from themselves personally (time, energy, own money, etc), but that they'll be able to do so indefinitely without needing to take anything from it to balance/in recognition of this.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any talk of 'succession' or 'exit' (such as we see in 'mainstream' business support programmes). There's little or no option for social entrepreneurs to take any form of future 'sweat equity' in lieu of foregone wages, the lost time they've incurred in otherwise having been able to build up savings for their own retirement, etc; (does this mean we may see future generations of social entrepreneurs retire into poverty?).

This also creates problems beyond those for the individual person as outlined above - most people who pick up, or are offered the badge of 'social entrepreneur' aren't in privileged or independently wealthy positions. They (we) need to continue to earn money to pay our rent and bills with. And as social enterprises are usually relatively slow to start to be able to generate enough cash to offer and sustain wages, this usually means many start life as 'side hustles' alongside other paid work that the person needs to maintain so they can still afford to live. This in turn, creates more tensions and potential issues for these new social enterprises, as they're being managed with a part-time/split-focus founder.

But despite the potential gloom in the above, I'm starting to see/take some encouragement from a small but growing trend of people who seem to be similarly feeling able to start to talk more openly about the social enterprises they're developing, and who need to recognise and reconcile these tensions and possible contradictions - this has led to my being asked to explore more 'group structure models' (using combinations of linked legal forms to help best manage the tension between a founders' personal, and their respective communities' needs, both now and into the future). It's also involved my starting to be approached by the leaders of more established social enterprises and charities, asking for support with salary benchmarking (although to date, this has highlighted how in general and as a whole sector, we usually pay our people and selves less than in other sectors for broadly similar roles, and this includes with making less provision for future pension and retirement).

I also recognise the tension that underpins all of this - if what we're doing is to ultimately create social good, then to pay better wages etc, we need to charge more. But how can we feel comfortable doing this when we see that the communities we support are in poverty, etc? 

But if we don't find ways to start to address these elephants, then we risk losing talent and skills as people may begin to feel that they can't continue to trade off their personal futures for the sake of helping others today - and actually, research from Social Enterprise UK shows that social enterprises are generally more likely to be profitable if they're trading in areas of deprivation; so it seems that there are ways to reconcile this apparent contradiction.

 

I have an idea that the only way we can start to break this taboo of social entrepreneurs being able (encouraged, and allowed) to pay themselves both today, and with regard for their future retirement chapters without feeling guilty for doing so, and the limitations it's placing on the sector as a whole, is by trying to talk about this more openly and in grown-up ways.

To this end, I'd encourage anyone reading this to share, reply, and engage in these conversations where and how you're able to (although I recognise that talking about money isn't something we Brits do very well). But if no-one talks about it, then nothing can ever change...