Much has been said lately of co-operatives, mutuals and social enterprises. As long ago as 2004 Rebecca Harding at Delta Research was arguing for a new definition of social enterprise and if anything the waters have become murkier since. If there is a problem in the lack of a definition, and I am in the 'there is a problem' camp, it is that the lack of a definition is holding back the growth of the sector.
That is not the same as saying that we need any new legal forms of enterprise as suggested by Luke Fletcher on the Social Enterprise website (http://www.socialenterpriselive.com/section/features/policy/20120117/social-business-%E2%80%93-the-missing-piece-the-social-economy-puzzle), there are already plenty of ways of creating the right legal forms. It is not types of trading vehicle that are holding back growth but the unidentifiable nature of the underlying enterprise that is the problem.
This manifests itself in two ways. Firstly, it is very difficult to measure the sector, and therefore to judge its overall impact and growth, when its trading vehicles are indistinct from any other. Secondly, it is very difficult for those choosing where to spend their money (state commissioner or individual) to know exactly who they are dealing with. As pure 'show me the money' capitalism finds social enterprise a more serious competitor it can be guaranteed that it will find ways of looking more and more like social enterprise. Whilst I understand all of the arguments about encouraging risk capital by allowing investors to share in the profit of social enterprises, the line needs to be drawn clearly somewhere or it will be possible for anyone to call themselves a social enterprise just because one of their directors bought a Big Issue last week.
This to me is the crux of the problem, and it is especially valid in an age where myriad new social enterprises are being encouraged to bid for state contracts but without any clear structure to support the way that they are to compete. Either the Government has no vision on the subject or its vision is of a huge free for all in which capitalism morphs into whatever it has to look like to retain its share of the business and then runs off with the money as always.
Two things are therefore required, in my opinion. A clear definition of what constitutes a social enterprise and the opportunity (not a requirement) for enterprises which wish to do so, and meet certain criteria, to use a new alternative suffix to Ltd, Plc and LLP. My suggested definition in the Green Paper is "commercial enterprises which trade with defined social goals and which are permanently and beneficially owned by their community" and perhaps they might be designated as SET - social enterprise trust?
On a separate but related subject I am not convinced that mutuals or employee-owned businesses should actually be in this group at all. I struggle to see them a social enterprise, they are just a more homely version of capitalism. Social enterprise should be for the benefit of a wider community and should return a substantial part of its profit to that community in one way or another. I would not rule out employee or investor ownership of a part of such enterprises but it must be controlled and they must be kept away from the main stock exchanges and vulture capitalists by means of their own grouping within the corporate sector. There is a danger that because capitalism has gone to such an extreme we now embrace anything that isn't purely capitalist as a social enterprise. That would be equally wrong and may well let 'free for all' capitalism back in the door to ensure that social enterprise never gets to any useful scale or even dies.
The suggested change would therefore achieve two things: it would provide a stronger platform for investment in the sector, even for partnerships with commercial firms, and it would enable to sector to be measured, rewarded (perhaps through tax or other incentives) and protected. The Unofficial Big Society Green Paper (www.bigsocietygreenpaper.org) goes further and suggests that many of the public sector spin outs should join an entirely new sector which remains in state ownership, but that is too big a diversion for now, we must first clear the fog.
Not long ago we had Lansley and Cameron giving different definitions of what constitutes social enterprise and now we have a push for co-operatives. Although this is welcome I see it as a further blurring of the lines between pure capitalism and social enterprise which can only be to the benefit of the former. Something clearly needs to be done or the cynic in me will have to conclude that Cameron is in fact a double agent - trying to appear #socent friendly whilst playing divide and rule with the sector. In that case the Big Society will have been nothing other than a tool to persuade the poor to help themselves whilst keeping any popular movement toward social enterprise (and its attendant gradual redistribution of wealth) under full central control.
No comments:
Post a Comment