Social Franchising is seen by many as a Holy Grail or magic
bullet to so many: depending who you speak with, it’s about:
- · scaling your enterprise for even greater impact (Unltd)
- · generating even greater impact in addressing social ills in society and communities throughout the country (various government policies and politicians)
- · the way to increase the number of successful social enterprises to ‘critical mass’ (Social Firms UK)
and lots of other reasons, all of which are broadly in
keeping with the sentiment that social
franchising is talked about as a growth strategy for existing social
enterprises to achieve more of the good they deliver.
But I’m wondering if everyone’s missed a really obvious trick
here, and actually missed the point of what social franchising is actually
really doing in practice: it’s a way of fast-tracking the creation of consortia
within the sector without all the time and energy usually needed.
There’s lots of interest in consortia for all sorts of
reasons (easier to procure larger contracts, greater purchasing power, saving
costs on shared back office functions, etc), but consortia development always
begins with the assumption that there are a number of existing groups who identify
some common shared interest.
And surely Social Franchising offers the same things as
consortia: a larger scale of linked activities through which it might (amongst
other things) collectively more easily procure larger contracts, share
administrative functions to reduce overhead costs, greater purchasing power,....
The difference is that the consortia that emerge in this way would do so
without the need for the usual time-consuming and costly negotiations that are
otherwise needed. They would also emerge more in line with current real market
trends and opportunities rather than simply because “it seems to be a good idea...?”
I for one would therefore like to see some dialogue happening
between the various sector bodies that are currently encouraging and
facilitating consortia and social franchises in completely separate ‘silos’ to
each other. It may be that nothing comes of such chats, but it could perhaps
unlock a new way of approaching both the development of consortia and how
successful social enterprises look at how they franchise themselves...
Adrian, I like your thinking. I agree that social franchising and consortia building have a lot in common. I think the two key differences are that most effective consortia share geography but offer differing, complimentary services. Franchises tend to be geographically dispersed and offer the same services. This is fine in negotiating UK-wide deals (cf Foodbank and Tescos), but less useful in delivering most public sector contracts which tend to be awarded regionally (e.g. Work Programme) or locally (e.g. local authority care provision). That said, there is almost certainly a lot to be gained from shared learning across the two silos.
ReplyDelete