Four Elements of Social Enterprise for Structural Change

Social enterprise can contribute to positive economic, structural change by modelling a new way of doing business; and I believe there’s four elements they must be practicing as part of a new model.

Social enterprise and charity generally exist to address the results of inequality and disadvantage; feeding the poor, educating the disenfranchised, employing the unemployable. Where social enterprise differs from charity is by modelling a new way of doing business, a model that creates equity, a model for people and not solely for profits.

Social enterprise for structuralchange (1)

The Four Elements which I think are essential for social enterprise to create a fairer society through business are:

The Business model – A social enterprise must trade for a social, cultural, or envirnomental purpose (without a viable business model a social enterprise is a charity).

Openess and Transparency – In order to be exemplars of the sharing economy, social enterprises should be as open source as possible. Food Connect have been doing this for a decade, sharing software, knowledge, and skills freely to be a driver in the Fair Food movement in Australia.

Social enterprises should extend this openess to their financial modelling; showing people how they make money, where it gets spent, and what their profits (or not) are. Fear of showing up failure is understandable; but failure is our greatest lesson. By showing the world how we make or lose money, and where we spend it, we liberate ourselves from the tyranny of “keeping up appearances” associated with conventional (and some social) enterprises, who maintain secrecy in order to appear successful. I’m not advocating for a detailed PnL to be published every month, but at least a high level (and honest) overview would be a good start.

Outcome and Impacts – A social enterprise must be creating positive social outcomes and impacts, be measuring them, and then publishing them just as it should be publishing its financials. There are so many tools on offer to do this, social entrepreneurs just need to make the decsion to start measuring today.

The Structural Change – Is two fold:
1. Social enterprises should have a high level analyis of the structural issues causing the problems they exist to address. Without understanding that Trickle Down has failed, or why Arundhati Roy says Gush Up is creating massive wealth disparity, it’s difficult to move forward to create a fairer world; we’ll just keep operating in the same paradigm.

2. Social enterprises should be modelling a new world of doing business which runs counter to everything we have been taught about business; about competition, scale, and the profit motive.

The new world of busines needs to be acting collectivley and collaborating (that’s why we set up the Queensland Social Enterprise Council – so we had a collective voice); and there are already great examples of this in practice such as worker-owned coops, B-Corps, and enterprises creating foundations for profit distribution into ‘for-good’ work.

The way we will create great change is through educating ourselves as practioners about the dynamics of economic power, and creating demonstrable ways of doing business in a new paradigm. If not, we may as well be placing band-aids over the open wound of disadvantage.

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why are definitions of social enterprise important?


Here’s a quick blog post I wrote on LinkedIn:

Why are definitions of social enterprise important? Why am I still interested in this debate ten years on from running my first social enterprise? These are the questions I asked myself this week as I pondered the importance of keeping a tight definition in the wake of social enterprise being highly represented in the Australian of the Year awards across categories, and raising the profile nationally.

As a practitioner of more than a decade’s experience in social and private business; and as someone who has helped shape the sector, and frame the debate in Queensland alongside many wonderful colleagues, I care deeply.

For me the importance of a tighter definition and a deeper conceptualisation lies in legitimacy; for customers of social enterprise, for practitioners, and for future social entrepreneurs. There may always be grey areas, and in truth social entrepreneurs operate across the continuum of social enterprise and social innovation, across a spectrum of social entrepreneurship.

The necessity of a continued debate is a ‘time thing’ due not only to the recent Australian of the Year Awards, but also because the sector is still immature and without a widely acknowledged narrative. The main problem I see is when organisations relying on charity to operate and with no apparent business model (that includes trade) are called social enterprise. They may be social, and they may be innovative, and they may create wonderful feel good outcomes for people in need; and they may even be driven by social entrepreneurs, but they are not social enterprises.

This article by Social Good Stuff ably demonstrates that in order to be a Social Enterprise, you need to trade, and not rely wholly on grants and donations to survive. If you’ve got no trade, you’re all social and no enterprise.

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Impact Data

At the social enterprise I lead we measure our social impact in a number of ways including some good old fashioned number crunching. Did you know that between July 2010 and July 2015 SEED employed 67 people, 47 (70%) of whom have been long term unemployed and/or marginalized from mainstream employment; during that time we earned almost $2Million in income from trade; paid $780,000 to, and created over 32,500 hours of employment for people who had previously been long term unemployed and/or marginalized. During this time SEED facilitated payments of $191,600 in PAYG tax to the federal government.

Many of our employees from a long term unemployed and/or marginalized may not have been employed elsewhere due to, in some cases mental illness, addictions, or disabilities. The above data shows that social enterprises create real economic and social value in the communities in which they operate, and for the state and federal governments. 

It is vital that social enterprises are able to articulate their outcomes through good use of data. And, its not just hard, quantitative employment data. At SEED we have also measured our social impacts via a 2011 Social Return on Investment (SROI), a 2013 Social Impact Assessment (SIA), and as it’s now 2015 and we committed to bi-annual reporting, we have just completed a new SIA and are awaiting the final report from the University of Queensland’s Masters in Development Practice course.

  I look forward to sharing more results and stories when they come in.

‪#‎socialEnterprisePays‬ ‪#‎socialEnterpriseWorks‬SEED SOCIMP 2010-2015 FY

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Community over competition

In the small suburb where I live, where the shopping strip is often referred to as the Village, there has recently been a disturbance in the usually harmonious business community. This has been caused by a pop-up coffee shop opening just two doors away from an existing, long standing, popular, hole in the wall coffee shop.

The owner of the new pop-up already has an established coffee shop in an adjacent suburb.

So, why has this ruffled feathers, particularly my feathers? For me the very fact of setting up a very similar business (I would image on a shoestring as its a pop-up) just two doors from a long standing existing business could be seen as aggressive competition; especially when it also appears the new business is attempting to compete on price (at first advertising coffee at $3 all day when the standard rate in town is $3.80 – $4.00). As we know, in business, no-one wins in a price war.

I have been running businesses and sitting on boards in Brisbane for the last ten years. I love business, start-ups and entrepreneurialism. I know that business has the power to effect great social change, but also the power to do harm. I am mostly interested in the new forms of business that have ethical and social considerations at the fore, e.g LUSH, Buffed, SEED PPM etc. These businesses show me that we don’t have to continue to do business they way its been done for the last hundred years (ultra competitive markets), because clearly the market is not always right.

To save relying on the flawed free-market methodology, I believe that when a new business owner writes a business plan they should do Community Risk Analysis; asking “if I open a business here, how will that affect others in this community” – what is the scale and probability of negative (and positive) community and social impact.

Overtly aggressive competition is anathema to everything I believe in; it’s a patriarchal, last century business  model, especially  in small towns. A debate was had on facebook when this pop-up popped up, with defenders of the free market stating that ‘people didn’t complain when other cafes started selling coffee in the ‘village’; these arguments were quickly responded to by people pointing out that those other cafe’s in question were not two doors (10 metres) away from an existing business and “have a point of difference from one another”.  There were other tired arguments on how customers will choose the best coffee etc, but these miss the central problem; the moral question of setting up two doors away from an existing almost identical model.

When we rely on the ‘market is always right’ type of argument we miss the point that, as Naomi Klein says, (the capitalist) “system doesn’t think as an entity; it thinks as  collections of self-interested profit-seeking units”;  and those self-interested profit-seeking units don’t take into account the effect one small business opening close-by to an existing similar business will have on the people that own the first business and of the staff that work there.

It seems fairly clear after living her for ten years that local residents enjoy the ‘village’ atmosphere, including the supporters of the pop-up business; but surely in village life businesses tend to be more collaborative and supportive. It’s time we put that into practice.

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Failure lessons

So, we didn’t get the Social Enterprise India tour up. We simply didn’t get enough people signing up to come with us to explore social enterprises in India this October. It’s upsetting for myself and colleagues, and for those people that did sign up for the tour.

As with any failed project we need to understand why. I think there’s a few reasons:

  1. We started marketing too late in the year – not giving people enough time to contemplate (what for many is) a big trip to India
  2. We didn’t spend enough money on marketing – getting it to the right target market
  3. We didn’t spend enough time on marketing – creatively using our personal relationships to sell the trip
  4. I became so busy in the social enterprises I currently run SEED, and the Garden Gate, and Chairing the Qld Social Enterprise Council  that I could not devote time to marketing that was required to get the message out.
  5. I had a family crisis in the UK which I had to fly back to which impacted on my already heavy work schedule, and left an emotional scar that is still healing.

Lessons learnt?

  1. Don’t underestimate the amount of time and money new projects take
  2. You can’t predict the future; when we started the project I had no idea that I would be running a second social enterprise (Garden Gate) – for reasons too complex to go into here. And I couldn’t predict a family crisis in the UK which I flew back to.
  3. Don’t bite off more than you can chew (although fine to say in hindsight)

We may have another go at this project next year, but at the moment I can’t see my schedule allowing it, so it could be on the back-burner for a while yet.

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Leave a comment

Why definitions of social enterprise are important

Social enterprise, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship

Why are definitions and conceptualisations of social enterprise important? Why are we still talking about them ten years on from when I first entered the sector? These are the questions that I have asked myself this week as I have pondered the importance of keeping a tight definition of social enterprise.

As a practitioner of more than ten years’ experience in community, social and private enterprise; and as someone who has helped shape the sector, and frame the debate in Queensland by being a founding member (and inaugural Chair, returned three times by members) of the peak body, the Queensland Social Enterprise Council I have enough skin in the game to commentate on definitions. I may not have academic rigour, but I have a valid and I hope nuanced contribution to make in the debate.

For me the importance of a tighter definition and a deeper conceptualisation lies in legitimacy; for customers of social enterprise, for practitioners, and for future social entrepreneurs. There will always be grey areas, and in truth social entrepreneurs operate across the continuum of social enterprise and social innovation, across a spectrum if you like, of social entrepreneurship.

The necessity of a continued debate is a ‘time thing’, mainly because the sector is still immature and without a developed or coherent narrative. As we progress our economies into what is projected to be a more sharing space, where Millennials (Gen Y) will drive companies that have deeply held, valid, and acted upon Corporate Social Responsibility policies, and business will use social missions to drive their work, the urgency to keep a tight definition will dissolve and fade. But, in the meantime a continued discussion is required.

Two definitions

There are numerous definitions of social enterprise worldwide but I list here two that are user friendly, suitable to the Australian context, and in my opinion work-able. We start with a definition I argued for (after many years of round table discussions and dialogue in the Brisbane sector); it is the definition used by the Queensland Social Enterprise Council:

A Social Enterprise is ‘a business operating for a social purpose’* and will commonly have the following attributes:

  • Social Objectives are core to the purposes and focus of the enterprise
  • Limited distribution of profits and/or distribution of profits with the purpose of maximising social impact – the majority of profits are reinvested in the enterprise and/or an associated social entity and are used to maximise social impact.
  • Mixture of capital inputs – the enterprise is often supported through blending of earned income, grant income and philanthropic income.
  • Blended Value Creation: Generation of social/ecological/ cultural returns (or a combination of these) in addition to a financial return

*(Adapted from Ingrid Burket’s Typology – definition from the UK Social Enterprise Coalition)”

Almost twenty years ago (1996), the  European Commission funded a research program undertaken by researchers from (at that time) all fifteen member states of the European Union to discover social enterprise in each member state:

The “EMES European Research Network….. devoted itself to the definition of a set of criteria to identify organizations likely to be called ‘social enterprises’ in each of the 15 countries forming the EU by that time. Such a set of criteria was to be considered as a ‘working hypothesis’, not necessarily encompassing the whole reality of social enterprises; but, as it turned out, this initial set of indicators proved to be a fairly robust and reliable conceptual framework.” (3)

Most importantly, such indicators were never intended to represent the set of conditions that an organization should meet to qualify as a social enterprise. Rather than constituting prescriptive criteria, they describe an ‘ideal-type’ in Weber’s terms, i.e. an abstract construction that enables researchers to position themselves within the ‘galaxy’ of social enterprises. In other words, they constitute a tool, somewhat analogous to a compass, which helps the researchers locate the position of the observed entities relative to one another and eventually identify subsets of social enterprises they want to study more deeply. Here, we just list those indicators, without providing the comments that were carefully phrased for each of them…..

Four criteria reflect the economic and entrepreneurial dimensions of social enterprises:

  • a continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services;
  • a high degree of autonomy;
  • a significant level of economic risk;
  • a minimum amount of paid work.

Five other indicators encapsulate the social dimensions of such enterprises:

  • an explicit aim to benefit the community;

  • an initiative launched by a group of citizens;

  • a decision-making power not based on capital ownership;

  • a participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity;

  • a limited profit distribution.” (3)

To further define the concept I have listed in the notes section Social Traders extensive typology of social enterprise.

The problem with current definitions

 According to Duniam and Eversole from the University of Tasmania (2013)

“Social enterprises in Australia take a range of organisational forms, including incorporated associations, companies limited by guarantee, sole proprietorships, cooperatives, and others (Barraket et al. 2010, pp. 26, 37; Eversole & Eastley 2011, p. 25). The legal structures used by social enterprises overlap with those of private companies and not-for-profit organisations; ‘thus, it is difficult to identify social enterprises or distinguish them from other kinds of organisations based on legal structures alone’ (Barraket et al. 2010, pp. 26, 37). For this reason, there are significant empirical challenges here as elsewhere to identifying social enterprises” (1)

 There is also the summing up below by Duniam and Eversole:

“Social enterprises can be defined broadly as organisations that conduct economic trading activities to resource their social or community mission. The nature of the ‘trading activities’, the extent of the ‘resource’ generated and invested, and the range of potential ‘missions’ are all deeply debatable (see for example Barraket & Collyer 2010). While there is a generally shared understanding of social enterprises as organisations that combine (some form of) economic enterprise with (some form of) social mission, a universally agreed definition is elusive. For the purposes of this report, we will define social enterprises as organisations that use trading activity to achieve a social mission; recognising that while the particularities of this definition may be easily disputed, the broad nexus between social mission and economic trading sits at the heart of what defines ‘social enterprise’.” (1)

As Duniam and Eversole point out, “Social enterprise is therefore a longstanding practice, but (with) a relatively new language to describe it.” Of course, each country around the globe will have it’s own nuanced language to describe social enterprise and it’s own social economy which will have developed as a result of its political and social history.

Social enterprise and social innovation

My friend and colleague Amelia Salmon often asks the following question of the curious, new social entrepreneur seeking her advice or guidance; “you may be a social entrepreneur, but are you running a social enterprise?” By this she means that too often people are claiming the mantle of social enterprise when in fact they are running a socially innovative program, or a for profit business with some social outcomes (but not a social mission), and not a social enterprise. This is where the definitional debate becomes heated, and perhaps binary.

According to work by Dees and Anderson (2) there were a plethora of definitions and descriptions of entrepreneurial behaviours with social aims in America from the 1980’s onwards; and so:

“To classify the different conceptions, Dees and Anderson (2006) have proposed to distinguish two major schools of thought. The first, and still dominant, school of thought on social entrepreneurship refers to the use of commercial activities by non-profit organizations in support of their mission. Organizations such as Ashoka fed a second major school, named by Dees and Anderson, the ‘social innovation’ school of thought.” (in Defourny and Nyssens 3)

The history of social enterprise across Europe and America (and I would argue Australia) according to Defourny and Nyssens (3) has come from the Not for Profit (NFP) sector and the cooperative movement, with many NFP’s having operated businesses to finance their social missions for decades. The newer iteration, to emerge in the 1990’s out of the traditional NFP sector in Europe and followed here in Australia were “‘work integration social enterprises’ (WISEs). The main objective of work integration social enterprises is to help low qualified unemployed people who are at risk of permanent exclusion from the labour market. WISEs integrate these people into work and society through a productive activity (Nyssens 2006).”  (in 3).

Social enterprise has historically grown from community development frameworks; from collectivist forms of addressing social problems, encompassing collaboration and developmentalism; as Duniam and Eversole point out:

“In Australia, the emergence of social enterprises often signifies that local people have mobilised local resources to solve local problems in response to social or market disequilibrium within the community or place (Pritchard & McManus 2000). Social enterprises can also be considered agents of place, as they emerge from place and undertake activities to benefit that place” (1).

Whereas social innovation has grown from the Bill Drayton / Ashoka model which focuses on (often) sole entrepreneurs acting in socially innovative and commercial ways.

Social innovation, as I am describing it, seems to me to be embedded in the individual, hero entrepreneur mode. These are very different approaches to identifying, and addressing social problems; one is a democratising way of working with the people, the other is a top down, working for the people model. This is not to cast judgements on either way, but it is a way to start to differentiate between the two models.

So, I feel we can use these important descriptors in contemporary Australia; Social Enterprise (SE) and Social Innovation (SI).

As mentioned, there is generally a structural difference between SE’s and SI, with SE’s coming historically from a Not for Profit (NFP) Organisation sector, and SI from the sole / individual entrepreneur framework (driven by and supported by University Business Schools – Harvard being one of the early adopters). Note – the type of social innovation espoused by Dees and Anderson can be melded with the type of social innovation described by Joanne McNeil – see notes for a full explanation of McNeil’s type.

This is where I must admit my own personal bias. I come from the NFP sector, having worked in community development and service delivery for many years, and with a degree in Social Policy; I have a bias towards WISE type social enterprises as I have discovered over many years of working with people from disadvantaged backgrounds that the quickest way to lift someone out of poverty is to give them a job. However, for people experiencing multi layered disadvantage such as mental ill health, disabilities, drug and alcohol misuse, multi-generational poverty etc, the concept of working in a mainstream job is not only difficult to comprehend, but difficult to achieve. This is where WISE’s come into their own; they are better and more efficient than the job placement assistance offered by Federally funded JSA’s (Job Services Australia) and DES’s (Disability Employment Services), they create real, impactful employment and social outcomes using business principles (by running a social enterprise) to address social problems (unemployment etc).

The Social Innovation explosion amongst Millennials (Gen Y); evidenced in Australia by the graduates of the Foundation for Young Australians, School for Social Entrepreneurs, and Impact Academy in Brisbane, are creating social impact across a wide range of issues, with many focusing on IT related projects such as websites connecting people ‘doing good’ to people looking to assist those doing good. Or, for the ‘One for One’ model where in the example of Toms Shoes –

“The premise is simple: customers buy a pair of shoes and a pair of shoes are then given to a child in need…. the company has ventured into eyewear. For each pair of glasses purchased, someone else receives a pair of prescription glasses or medical care that improves his or her sight.” (4)

These people are clearly social entrepreneurs, but are they really running social enterprises? I have some concerns that some people are using the language of social enterprise when they are running effectively (even if impactful) social programs or even traditional charities. For example, a traditional NFP organisation which is funded by Disability Services Queensland to provide social supports (outings) to people with disabilities living in Disability Services Queensland ‘group’ homes is, as you would expect, a program of a community organisation. When that organisation then offers a similar service on a fee-for-service basis to people with disabilities living with their parents (or other careers), are they suddenly a social enterprise? No, they are still a program of a NFP organisation, but are they are innovating? Yes.

Another example would be a community centre renting out its hall to yoga teachers, dance classes etc.  Are they a social enterprise? No, they are a NFP organisation, but they are diversifying their income. They are not a social enterprise because they are not a business operating for a social purpose’.

Lastly an innovative person who develops a sexual health program targeted at high school aged children, who then sells the program to schools is running a socially innovative program, not a social enterprise.

Ashoka’s website focuses on social entrepreneurs and does not mention social enterprise, proving that you can be a social entrepreneur, create incredible impact, but not run a social enterprise:

“Ashoka Fellows are leading social entrepreneurs who we recognize to have innovative solutions to social problems and the potential to change patterns across society. They demonstrate unrivaled commitment to bold new ideas and prove that compassion, creativity, and collaboration are tremendous forces for change. Ashoka Fellows work in over 70 countries around the globe in every area of human need.” (5)

Social innovation - social enterprise (2)

Why does it matter?

As Duniam and Eversole point out; “While public policy interest in social enterprise in Australia is relatively recent, there is a growing awareness of social enterprises as organisations, and growing interest in the idea of the social enterprise sector.” And “McNeill (2009) has also claimed that a recognisable social enterprise ‘movement’ still remains underdeveloped in Australia, possibly because of the strong ‘risk-averse’ culture within the public sector” (1)

This goes to the heart of my concern about stretching definitions and legitimacy; risk aversion amongst our biggest potential customer – Government Procurement Officers; a ‘risk-averse’ profession that oversees (in Queensland at least) a spend of “$17 billion on goods and services each year, on anything from building and maintaining hospitals, to delivering services for our most vulnerable Queenslanders, to buying paper and school supplies” (6).

In fact in meetings with several local government officials, and state government bureaucrats including procurement officers (with billions of tax payer dollars to spend), and with politicians of all persuasions, I have been asked time after time how to define social enterprise, with the majority of their concern being placed on legitimacy of the Not for Profit structure, on ownership, and on employee type. This is undoubtedly due to contestability issues in procurement.

Defourny and Nyssens discuss this issue in relation to the European perspective, but it equally applies to Australia:

“In Europe, specific governance structures of the social enterprise are put forward with a twofold objective. First, a democratic control and/or a participatory involvement of stakeholders reflect the quest for more economic democracy, in the tradition of cooperatives. They therefore add to constraints on the distribution of profits with a view to protecting and strengthening the primacy of the social mission, which is at the very heart of the organization. Secondly, those two combined guarantees (often involving a strict nondistribution constraint) often act as a ‘signal’ allowing public authorities to support social enterprises in various ways (legal frameworks, public subsidies, fiscal exemptions, etc)“ (2).

So, again my point is, if we water down the definition we risk alienating our biggest potential customers who will lose faith in the legitimacy of the sector.

Isn’t the fact that both Social enterprise and social innovation are changing the economy for the better enough? Why differentiate?  

In many ways, yes it is more than enough. I have dedicated the last decade at least to this sector and I live my principles and ethics through my work and business practices. I truly believe that the social entrepreneur movement, and in particular millennials, have the ability to completely change the individualistic, private profit driven capitalist economy that has seen, as Arundhati Roy calls it ‘Gush Up’; where money is concentrated in the hands of the few (see also Piketty) and where trickle down has proven not to work to the extent it could or should have done.

However, in the current paradigm, in order to change major procurement practices, opening the market to multi-million dollars’ worth of new business for the sector, enabling customers to choose social enterprise with confidence we need to keep faith with current definitions.

A sort of Bibliography

1 Social Enterprises and Local Government A Scoping Study February 2013 Mary Duniam and Associate Professor Robyn Eversole, Institute for Regional Development, University of Tasmania, in partnership with the Australian Centre of Excellence in Local Government.

2 Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B., 2006. Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: building on two schools of practice and thought. Research on social entrepreneurship, ARNOVA occasional paper series, 1 (3), 39–66 in Defourny, Jacques andNyssens, Marthe(2010) ‘Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1: 1, 32 — 53

3 Defourny, Jacques and Nyssens, Marthe (2010) ‘Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1: 1, 32 — 53

4 accessed 12.7.15

5 accessed 12.7.15

6 accessed  13.7.15


1  McNeill, J. (2013b). Enabling social innovation – opportunities for sustainable local and regional development. Paper presented at Social Frontiers: The Next Edge of Social Innovation Research Conference, Glasgow Caledonian University, London, 14-15 November 2013

“Social innovation is a complex concept that combines all the vagaries of innovation processes with the messy nature of social issues and outcomes. Increasingly however, definitional debates accept that social innovation works at two levels: addressing issues in social relations – also called process changes; and addressing social needs – also called outcomes changes. In this, both the ‘ends’ and the ‘means’ are implicated – social innovations being ‘good for society’, whilst also improving the capacity of citizens to act (see Nicholls & Murdock 2012, and Mulgan 2012). In practice, social innovation refers to a kind of innovation driven by social and environmental needs and built on an underlying ethic of collaboration (‘co’ or with, rather than to and for) – distinguishing it from the longer tradition of research into innovation driven by market and/or technological interests.

The key strand of research that links social innovation activity to the local and regional development context focuses on social exclusion, voice in governance and decision-making, and social organising (for example, see Moulaert et al 2013; Moulaert et al 2005; MacCallum et al 2009) and is therefore characterised as part of the ‘social relations’ conceptual strand of social innovation theory (Nicholls & Murdock 2012:17)”


Social Traders Ltd has identified the key types of social enterprises as listed below.

  1. 1. Australian Disability Enterprises (ADE)

ADEs are businesses developed to employ those experiencing difficulties in finding or maintaining employment in mainstream businesses due to disability, or those who choose to work in an ADE. ADEs have a dual focus of providing employment for people with a disability and operating a commercial business. There are 415 ADEs that employ approximately 22,000 people with disability across Australia.

Typical operating environment

Varying substantially in size, ADEs mostly operate from factory outlets, while others provide work and training in the community or at the work sites of mainstream employers.

Examples include:

  • packaging and assembly
  • horticulture
  • furniture manufacture
  • hospitality
  • printing and distribution services
  • recycling and salvaging.
  1. Intermediate Labour Market Companies (ILMC)

ILMCs are businesses that create a bridge to the open labour market for individuals experiencing long-term unemployment and other significant disadvantage in the labour market.

Typical operating environment

ILMCs typically provide participants with fixed-term jobs in real work settings where they receive high quality accredited training and personal support. Due to their focus on both commercial returns and pathways to work, they are best suited to labour intensive industries, and industries with quick skills acquisition, skill shortages, clear pathways to employment and high ratio of trainees to each skilled operator.

  1. Social Firms

Social Firms are not-for-profit businesses with the specific mission of undertaking commercial work to create employment for people excluded in the labour market as a result of mental illness, disability or other disadvantage.

Typical operating environment

It is a supportive work environment that typically maintains an integrated workplace designed to meet the needs of people with a disability and employing between 25-50% of employees with a disability or disadvantage.

  1. Community Enterprises

Community Enterprises are developed by individuals or groups to address local issues or community needs.

Typical operating environment

Most Community Enterprises in Australia are incorporated as cooperatives. There are also a small number registered as unlisted public companies. They operate in a number of sectors from finance and retail to design and manufacturing.

  1. Cooperative Social Enterprises (CSE)

CSEs are democratic, member-benefit businesses which are formed to meet defined social needs of its members. They provide a model for responding to a common need facing a group and strengthening communities through values and structures that foster self-help, self-responsibility and equality. There are over 2,000 CSEs operating in Australia.

Typical operating environment

Most CSEs are owned by and serve a single stakeholder group, such as parents (child care cooperatives), low income tenants (social housing cooperatives), the aged and infirm (meals on wheels cooperatives). Due to legislative support, most CSEs are found in Victoria and New South Wales and are prominent in the child care, social housing and Indigenous services sectors.

  1. Fair Trade Social Enterprises (FTSE)

Businesses that exist to benefit producers and workers in developing countries by paying fair prices for products

and commodities which they on-sell in developed countries.

Typical operating environment

Some FTSEs are established as wholesalers to retail and business outlets while others may operate as retailers themselves. By providing consumers and business with fair trade alternatives, they provide an important example to other traders of what is possible when the interests of people and planet are given prominence.

  1. Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFI)

CDFIs are independent financial institutions that provide community finance products and services to individuals, organisations, enterprises and communities who are underserved by, or have difficulty securing finance from, mainstream financial institutions.

Typical operating environment

CDFIs take a range of forms, including Social Banks, Community Development Credit Unions, Community Investment Funds, Enterprise Loan Funds and Personal Finance Providers.

  1. Charitable Business Ventures (CBV)

CBVs are run by not-for-profit organisations to raise income which is reinvested in their charitable purpose. Some align their product with their mission, while others raise income through business activities unrelated to their mission.

Typical operating environment

Some CBVs operate as divisions within charities, while others are separately incorporated as companies. They include smaller ventures, such as opportunity shops and community book stores, through to large trading companies.

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why our social enterprise tour to India will be different


I’m starting this post with a long quote from Michael Hobbes in New Republic. His essay is a must read for anyone interested in International Development (including international social enterprise development). This quote, for me, is about the problems with quick fix, do unto others, scalable solutions to poverty:

It seemed like such a good idea at the time: A merry-go-round hooked up to a water pump. In rural sub-Saharan Africa, where children are plentiful but clean water is scarce, the PlayPump harnessed one to provide the other. Every time the kids spun around on the big colorful wheel, water filled an elevated tank a few yards away, providing fresh, clean water anyone in the village could use all day.

PlayPump International, the NGO that came up with the idea and developed the technology, seemed to have thought of everything. To pay for maintenance, the elevated water tanks sold advertising, becoming billboards for companies seeking access to rural markets. If the ads didn’t sell, they would feature HIV/AIDS-prevention campaigns. The whole package cost just $7,000 to install in each village and could provide water for up to 2,500 people.

The donations gushed in. In 2006, the U.S. government and two major foundations pledged $16.4 million in a public ceremony emceed by Bill Clinton and Laura Bush. The technology was touted by the World Bank and made a cameo in America’s 2007 Water for the Poor Act. Jay-Z personally pledged $400,000. PlayPump set the goal of installing 4,000 pumps in Africa by 2010. “That would mean clean drinking water for some ten million people,” a “Frontline” reporter announced.

By 2007, less than two years after the grants came in, it was already clear these aspirations weren’t going to be met. A UNICEF report found pumps abandoned, broken, unmaintained. Of the more than 1,500 pumps that had been installed with the initial burst of grant money in Zambia, one-quarter already needed repair. The Guardian said the pumps were “reliant on child labour.”

Gideon Mendel/Corbis
PlayPumps were going to harness the energy of children to provide fresh water to sub-Saharan African villages. They didn’t.

In 2010, “Frontline” returned to the schools where they had filmed children laughing on the merry-go-rounds, splashing each other with water. They discovered pumps rusting, billboards unsold, women stooping to turn the wheel in pairs. Many of the villages hadn’t even been asked if they wanted a PlayPump, they just got one, sometimes replacing the handpumps they already had. In one community, adults were paying children to operate the pump.

Let’s not pretend to be surprised by any of this. The PlayPump story is a sort of Mad Libs version of a narrative we’re all familiar with by now: Exciting new development idea, huge impact in one location, influx of donor dollars, quick expansion, failure.

So, the problems are, as I mentioned in the opening sentences, ‘scale-mentality’ which comes from the corporate world, and from large NGO’s, Governments, and Development Organisations who’s leadership often comes from the same corporate life; and the ‘doing to’ mentality, rather than learning from and ‘doing with’ local people, who nearly always own the solutions to their problems.

I see this often in social enterprise, where we are implored to find scalable solutions. Where to be investable as a social enterprise, is often code word for scalable. This is a cookie cutter, franchise model of doing social enterprise, where replicability is required. But, we know that organisations (and enterprises) trying to address complex problems with enterprising means are often working at ground level with communities, understanding their micro-climates, and individual needs.

When ‘solutions’ are fostered onto communites, i.e through international development aid programs or social enterprise models that may have worked someplace else we see unintended consequences arise:

The fancy academic term for this is “complex adaptive systems.” We all understand that every ecosystem, each forest floor or coral reef, is the result of millions of interactions between its constituent parts, a balance of all the aggregated adaptations of plants and animals to their climate and each other. Adding a non-native species, or removing one that has always been there, changes these relationships in ways that are too intertwined and complicated to predict.

According to Ben Ramalingam’s Aid on the Edge of Chaos, international development is just such an invasive species.

Why am I writing about this phenomenon and linking it to our Social Enterprise India trip? It’s because I believe we take a different approach. We honour the culture, traditions, and expertise of each enterprise we will visit; the unique set of circumstances that have led it  to successfully create social impact in its own right. We approach the visits of these enterprises with respect and with a view to learning from the founders, workers, and beneficiaries; and then, to linking our learnings to the problems we are trying to solve at home.

Take a different perspective onsocial

So, I’m immensely looking forward to our trip, and to learning lots about social enterprise and entrepreneurship in India. If you’d like to learn from the do-ers, people on the ground, then you should come too, and share the journey with other people passionate about social enterprise; on your return to your home country armed with an action plan, I hope you can affect great change too. Apply here

Posted in A Social Entrepreneurs Diary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment