jump to navigation

Money not laws 23 June 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU, social economy.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

160623 EP SE report coverThe European Parliament has published a report on the social economy. I’m glad to see it features a lot of good practices we identified in SEN, like the UK’s Social Value Act and the Le Mat social franchise, although the authors seem never to have visited the SEN website.

The study packs a lot into its 120 pages. It has 6 big-country studies (DE, ES, FR, IT, PL, UK), boxes on EQUAL, DIESIS and Mondragón, and makes some interesting proposals on taking the social economy forward:
– a digital transformation – on the grounds that “The digital single market can help protect Europe’s economic and social model and increase citizens’ well-being, by being a key component of the renewal of public services”;
– indicators of added value other than GDP
– a clear definition.

So it comes up with another new definition:
“Distinctive features of the social economy can be identified – par ricochet – on the basis of what sets them apart from other enterprises. These elements include:
(i) the primacy of people: the social economy is based on the primacy of the individual and of social objectives over capital,
(ii) sustainable growth: the overall aim of the social economy activities does not emphasise the pursuit of profit and its distribution to the owners as an ultimate goal,
(iii) social and economic balance: in conducting their activities, social economy actors are engaged in a social aim and
(iv) democratic governance: social economy entities function in accordance with democratic, transparent and participatory decision-making processes.”

I think the social economy could improve service delivery by using digital tools more, and that the EU agenda should give an explicit place to them. Measures of social value are definitely needed, and the SBI as well as SEN worked on this. The main issue is for stakeholders such as public authority customers to start using them.

It’s difficult to disagree with the four ‘distinguishing features’ above, but I’m not sure they are any clearer than all the definitions we’ve navigated between so far. I fear that the again repeated call for a supposedly clear EU-wide definition misses the point. Will it enable very much to actually happen? It’s much more to the point to improve access to public funding programmes such as the ESIFs and to private investment in projects on the ground, and to help the sector’s federal support bodies to do their job. As in: “Existing social innovation and social investment programmes tend to reflect a focus on investor-led models and could be opened up to innovation based on member capital and on participatory innovation.”

See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578969/IPOL_STU(2016)578969_EN.pdf

Bremain 18 June 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

Of course I’ve become infuriated and dismayed by the referendum campaign, and doubt that even Jo Cox’s incomprehensible murder will bring campaigners to their senses.
Of course also I’m something of a Brussels insider – but this is a rational choice, by a political refugee from Thatcher, you might say.
I’ve been dismayed by one of my oldest friends teetering on the brink of voting ‘out’ because he sees the EU as undemocratic (people who live in glass houses…) or – an argument even harder to counter – not up to the job of world unification (but it’s the best approach we have). I’ve been annoyed by facetious French calls that Britain should just go away and leave Europe alone (playing with fire). And I’m intrigued to wonder how much the referendum result will matter: whichever way it goes the Tory party will be riven down the middle so the sniping will go on. I’ve been given pause for thought by being called a ‘transnationalist’ in the ESF community, as if transnationality was something odd, rather than being the raison d’être of it all.
Multi-level governance and subsidiarity are complex arguments to make. It seems to me that the popular sentiment against ‘Europe’ is a matter of displacement, a sleight of hand by the UK’s own politicians. The government has hollowed out democratic accountability, stripped local government of its relevance though centralisation and privatisation, so that people have lost their sense of agency. The country they “want back” has been stolen from them not by Brussels but by Westminster.

Social innovation is more than start-up support 8 March 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU.
Tags: , , , ,

The BENISI project aimed to identify 300 social innovations and help them to scale up. But faced with the enormity of this task it seems to have fallen back on promoting start-ups, without assessing whether they are either social or innovative.

I’ve just come back from the BENISI final conference and I have to say I am disappointed. I encountered at least two circular arguments, and ended up quite unsure whether the project was promoting social innovation, social enterprises or just start-ups.

A circular notion of growth

Firstly, the presentation of the project’s outcomes was couched in purely economic terms. It measured whether a business had scaled up by whether its revenue hadP1000111 BENISI grown – and then reported that one of the requirements for growth was financial investment. An unsurprising deduction. Even less surprising is that innovations that generate revenue are easier to scale. The only social outcome reported was employment growth, which is a by-product of revenue growth rather than a social outcome in itself. Social impact can grow even without revenue growth – for instance if a better method of delivering social services was replicated. If it was more efficient, revenue might even fall. In fact many ‘social innovations’ rely on using IT to cut the cost of service provision, and along with it cut the jobs they provide.

A circular notion of impact

Then there was the workshop on impact measurement, in which I was astounded to be told that the three factors making for impact are the values of its workers, the corporate culture and the management methods. That’s all very well, but these are not indicators of impact. They are drivers of impact, or as another participant contributed, indicators of a capacity to achieve impact. Impact is what happens in the outside world, and is about improved quality of life for the enterprise’s intended beneficiaries. Intention should not be confused with success.
Regrettably values, culture and management are not enough – witness how many social enterprises run by the best-intentioned value-led people you could possibly imagine nevertheless go bust and fail to achieve any impact.

Where’s the evidence?

Maybe BENISI could not have been expected to prove scaling in a 3-year timeframe. Maybe the project has served its purpose in making social innovation visible to a larger number of people – reportedly 14,000 have been reached.
But there is deep confusion over what the object of the exercise was. The discourse was about social enterprise, but no one is measuring these enterprises’ social impact – or at least the summary report did not attempt to make any sense of what social impacts the 300 projects did report. Surely one must at least one of them must have got some clients into jobs, or taken x tons of poisonous heavy metals out the waste stream, or housed some poor people, or cut its energy consumption, or even just got some letters of appreciation from its clients?
Unless an enterprise has a notion of what it is trying to change, and measures and reports on whether it is achieving that, then it is not a social enterprise. Having an explicit social goal is one of the principles of social enterprise the European Commission set out in the Social Business Initiative.
Social enterprises reportedly measure impact mostly as an internal management tool (“you can’t manage what you can’t measure”), but it’s also useful in building customer loyalty and essential in getting impact investors on board. Also see EVPA guide.
Public funders like the ESF are also keen to fund social innovation – but taxpayers’ money has to been seen to be benefitting somebody. Otherwise the fascination will fade.

Social what?

It seems to me that the Impact Hubs are hard at work promoting start-ups, and that many of these will be innovative in some way, but that doesn’t make it social innovation and it doesn’t make the start-ups social enterprises.
I also missed any explanation of what the different methods for scaling are – are they social franchising or organic growth or new products or new markets or acquisition or what? And then I’d like to have known which of them were tried, and which worked best in the sample of 300 enterprises. I was left wondering whether scaling is any different from good old growth. Maybe it is just that ‘growth’ is a taboo word which is too reminiscent of capitalist economics.
I left when a speaker pronounced that it was a problem that no social enterprise had yet done an IPO. That’s a key feature of a social enterprise – it can’t be floated on the stock market as a financial investment!
So that’s the trouble: social innovation is everything to everybody, and the name of social enterprise is being taken in vain.
To protect the guilty, this report is made under Chatham House rules.

3 factors in mainstreaming social innovations: needs, social policy-makers and financers 24 February 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

I’ve just been at the kick-off meeting of the Social Innovation Community (SIC) project, which involves many of the big names in social innovation and is co-ordinated by AEIDL. Its job is to establish a Europe-wide community of social innovators, comprised of 8 or more networks on issues such as public sector innovation, corporate innovation, digital innovation and the social economy.
I was struck by the debate on which part of the phrase ‘social innovation’ is more important. For ZSI in Vienna, the more important point is that innovation policy should become more social. For me, the point is that social policy-makers should become more innovative.
It seems to me to be misleading to model social innovation too closely on the model of technological innovation. New products are often invented out of love for the product itself – a desire to improve the way something works. Inventions become innovations once they have successfully made it to the market – i.e. they are economically successful. The main beneficiaries are the producer and the purveyors of the new thing.
Social innovation on the other hand has to start with the apprehension of a human need, and the people who benefit will typically not be the inventor or the purveyor, but the clients. Ideally, as in the case of a co-operative, both producers and customers will benefit, and altruism and self-interest will both be satisfied.
In mainstreaming social innovations, it seems vital that the theoreticians of innovation as a process take a back seat and prioritise three things:
– the identification of need, through stakeholder participation and mapping
– the engagement of social policy-makers who are the people who can close the implementation gap
– the bringing on board of the institutions which can provide finance for social innovations – including public authorities, funds likes the European Social Fund and corporate philanthropists as well as crowdfunding platforms.

EU funding for sustainability and inclusion 22 February 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

The Green Group in the European Parliament has compiled a very useful compendium of sources of European funding for sustainability and inclusion. Your Guide to EU Funding covers the ESF (p14), CLLD (p19), FEAD (p25) and everything else from Horizon 2020 downwards.

Download: http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/2014_2020_YourGuidetoEUFundingLowRES.pdf

By contrast, as part of building up the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the Commission has issued guidance on how to combine public and private funds – for instance in a ‘layered fund’ where the Structural Funds can be used to limit the risk too private investors.

Webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2016/02/22-02-2016-investment-plan-for-europe-new-guidelines-on-combining-european-structural-and-investment-funds-with-the-efsi

How to use CLLD 21 February 2016

Posted by cooperatoby in EU.
Tags: , ,

LEADER in peopleCommunity-led local development means delegating development decisions to multistakeholder Local Action Groups. There’s a goldmine of info on how to implement CLLD from the FARNET transnational conference in Edinburgh on 8-10 Dec 15.

Well-proven through LEADER, CLLD is now taking off more broadly with €9.3 bn of ESIF funds allocated across 28 Member States and an expected 2,500 rural areas and 300 fisheries areas setting up LAGs and FLAGs. CLLD is also possible in urban areas in 11 MSs.
One key tip is how Poland uses 3 simplified cost options (SCOs), for:
– a lump sum for preparatory support (rather like the €15,000 preparatory grant in Flanders’s ESF transationality call in Jan 16 [link]
– a flat rate for running costs and animation
– a lump sum for business start-up

Another is how Sweden is using CLLD to integate migrants

Missing links 29 November 2015

Posted by cooperatoby in EU, Social enterprise.

EQUAL archived website front pageThe other day I was dismayed to find that my habitual Google searches for ‘Social Business Initiative’ and ‘EQUAL’ didn’t work anymore. Both sites contain a wealth of useful reference documents on EU policy. Prime suspect was the Digital Transformation, the Commission’s search-and-destroy mission on its wonderful web presence, whose stated objective is to “help people find the information they are looking for quickly and easily” but which in fact has the opposite effect by erasing history and disabling countless external links.

Happily I found that links I’d previously written into Wikipedia articles still worked. What has happened is that the Commission has obscured them. In the case of the SBI it’s an accidental result of the merger between the Enterprise and Internal Market DGs, and in the case of EQUAL it seems to be sheer bloody-mindedness that the EQUAL archive site is hidden from search engines.

Anyway all is not lost. Here are the links: SBI: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises/index_en.htm

EQUAL: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal_consolidated/

Employee ownership stalling 15 January 2015

Posted by cooperatoby in cooperative, EU, Social enterprise.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

EO in Europe 2007-14Employee share ownership is almost the other side of the coin from the investor-led type of ‘social business’, in that it addresses the third dimension of social enterprise – participation – rather than a company’s objective (social or not) or profit distribution policy.

It is based primarily on an individualist model and is conceived of as giving individual workers an incentive to work harder, by sharing the returns with them through the payment of dividends, thus increasing returns for investors too. But it can have a collective dimension, as in the case of ESOPs, where worker shareholdings are held and voted by an employee trust. It is also generally held to improve the efficiency of work organisation. There is some overlap with the social economy in the case of Spain’s 11,500 sociedades laborales, in which pubic authorities can invest for local economic development purposes.

Employee ownership has progressive intents in that it shares the fruits of labour more equitably, and also deters hostile takeovers (though it does not prevent corporate takeover as in the case of Britain’s bus companies). Many governments have therefore enacted measures to encourage it, and until 2011 it has been steadily growing. The European Federation of Employee Ownership (EFES) annual survey reports that in 2013 8.75 million employees 31 European countries held fractionally under 3% of company capital, worth in total €267 billion (an average holding of €30,000). However its latest annual survey finds that although in 2014 this total rose to €310 billion, the number of employee shareholders has now stopped:

For the third consecutive year in 2014, the number of employee shareholders decreased in Europe. This should be a warning signal for everyone. In fact, the number of employee shareholders in continental Europe decreased by 500.000 persons (-8%) from 2007 to 2014, while the number increased by 200.000 persons in the UK (+8%). These changes are clearly related to the regressive fiscal policies in many European countries, while in contrast, the UK chose to double the fiscal incentives for employee share ownership, considering it is a key element of recovery and an investment for the future.

Employee ownership is one the tools we need to transform the economy, so the reversal of this growth trend is worrying as well as surprising.

Whatever the definitional difficulties, social enterprise is building the future 14 January 2015

Posted by cooperatoby in cooperative, EU, Social enterprise.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Another excellent post from Les Huckfield, who traces the evolution (or degeneration) of the idea of ‘social enterprise’ in Britain since 1998, when Social Enterprise London was founded. the idea had collectivist roots but never succeeded in bridging the gap between the (democratic) cooperative model and the (more hierachical) voluntary sector/charitable model. Under New Labour the idea was transformed (or deformed) to include investor-driven enterprises. Under the Coalition it has degenerated to cover public service spin-outs majority owned by venture capitalists but misleadingly labelled ‘mutuals’. He concludes:

Public Service Mutuals, like Social Enterprise, are becoming a term of public derision, killing off what’s left of the cooperative and mutual idea.

The fatal loophole is the inclusion of the fatal word ‘primarily’ in the UK government’s definition of social enterprise:

A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners.

The most interesting point is made by Jim Brown, who in 2003 suggested that it was not so much the government as the co-operative movement that was responsible for this dilution of principle. This is logical for co-ops, whose members do indeed have a right to a distribution of trading surpluses, in the form of a rebate or bonus related to their contribution to the co-ops business (e.g. as customers, suppliers or workers). But the loose way it was phrased also conveniently leaves the door open for distributions to investors of capital. If it was due to co-operative movement lobbying, then one would also have expected participation (if not full democracy) to have figured in the definition – but it is absent.

European parallels

The Trojan horse that was inadvertently let into the gates of social enterprise by the different visions of the co-operative and voluntary sectors might never have been born had Britain made the distinction that exists in Italy between co-operatives in general and social co-operatives. Although Italy introduced a legal definition of the social enterprise (impresa sociale) in 2006, in practice it is synonymous in most Italians minds with the social cooperative (cooperativa sociale). Italian social cooperatives can in fact distribute up to 80% of profits may be distributed, however interest is limited to the bond rate and dissolution is altruistic (assets may not be sold off).

The ambiguity over profit distribution has been carried over into the European Commission definition, which to its credit does include the criterion of participation:

The Commission uses the term ‘social business’ to cover an enterprise:

– whose primary objective is to achieve social impact rather than generating profit for owners and shareholders;
– which operates in the market through the production of goods and services in an entrepreneurial and innovative way;
– which uses surpluses mainly to achieve these social goals and
– which is managed by social entrepreneurs in an accountable and transparent way, in particular by involving workers, customers and stakeholders affected by its business activity.

This definition has the necessary virtue of inclusiveness, and is leading to a European convergence, with successive Member States introducing legislation and support programmes. However in practice, operationalising the criterion of whether trading profits are ‘primarily’ or ‘mainly’ reinvested is problematic, because most businesses (excluding asset-strippers) reinvest a large part of their profits. A minimalist interpretation, as adopted by the UK’s Social Enterprise Mark, sets the bar at 50%. This criterion was a major stumbling block in the way of the Commission’s mapping study, whose summary was published last November. This study (led by Charu Wilkinson of GHK with me as a member of its scientific committee) had great difficulty setting the boundaries, and adopted the criterion:

It must have limits on distribution of profits and/or assets: the purpose of such limits is to prioritise the social aim over profit making.

Les Huckfield deplores the loss of co-operative self-confidence, but there is an upside. Even today, most social enterprises in European are co-operatives. Yet beyond that, the social enterprise meme is attractive to many people with varied political views who see the evident malfunctions of modern capitalism. It offers them a way forward, and its broad appeal should be seen as a sign of its success and its potential. It is clearly making a very cogent criticism, and saying that corporate social responsibility is not enough. A new economic model is needed. Whatever the definitional difficulties, social enterprise is building the future.

Inclusive entrepreneurship lives 10 December 2014

Posted by cooperatoby in EU.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Just as the COPIE website is about to disappear from cyberspace (but many of its results are preserved for posterity on Wikipreneurship), the European Employment Policy Observatory has published a report on start-up incentives across the EU which finds that they can have a positive effect on inclusion:

“Start-up incentives are more effective in reducing unemployment than other ALMP policies. Moreover, the positive effects seem to be particularly beneficial for the low-skilled.”

However the potential for scaling up these measures seems to be limited:

“Start-up measures tend to be small in scale with limited potential for a large-scale impact on the unemployment register.”

See: Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: Start-up incentives in Europe – EEPO Review

See also: OECD page on inclusive entrepreneurship, including policy briefs

%d bloggers like this: