Developing strong social enterprises : a documentary approach

Social enterprises are diverse in their mission, business structures and industry orientations. Like all businesses, social enterprises face a range of strategic and operational challenges and utilize a range of strategies to access resources in support of their venture. This exploratory study examined the strategic management issues faced by Australian social enterprises and the ways in which they respond to these. The research was based on a comprehensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with 11 representatives of eight social enterprises based in Victoria and Queensland. The sample included mature social enterprises and those within two years of start-up. In addition to the research report, the outputs of the project include a series of six short documentaries, which are available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/SocialEnterpriseQUT#p/u. The research reported on here suggests that social enterprises are sophisticated in utilizing processes of network bricolage (Baker et al. 2003) to mobilize resources in support of their goals. Access to network resources can be both enabling and constraining as social enterprises mature. In terms of the use of formal business planning strategies, all participating social enterprises had utilized these either at the outset or the point of maturation of their business operations. These planning activities were used to support internal operations, to provide a mechanism for managing collective entrepreneurship, and to communicate to external stakeholders about the legitimacy and performance of the social enterprises. Further research is required to assess the impacts of such planning activities, and the ways in which they are used over time. Business structures and governance arrangements varied amongst participating enterprises according to: mission and values; capital needs; and the experiences and culture of founding organizations and individuals. In different ways, participants indicated that business structures and governance arrangements are important ways of conferring legitimacy on social enterprise, by signifying responsible business practice and strong social purpose to both external and internal stakeholders. Almost all participants in the study described ongoing tensions in balancing social purpose and business objectives. It is not clear, however, whether these tensions were problematic (in the sense of eroding mission or business opportunities) or productive (in the sense of strengthening mission and business practices through iterative processes of reflection and action). Longitudinal research on the ways in which social enterprises negotiate mission fulfillment and business sustainability would enhance our knowledge in this area. Finally, despite growing emphasis on measuring social impact amongst institutions, including governments and philanthropy, that influence the operating environment of social enterprise, relatively little priority was placed on this activity. The participants in our study noted the complexities of effectively measuring social impact, as well as the operational difficulties of undertaking such measurement within the day to day realities of running small to medium businesses. It is clear that impact measurement remains a vexed issue for a number of our respondents. This study suggests that both the value and practicality of social impact measurement require further debate and critically informed evidence, if impact measurement is to benefit social enterprises and the communities they serve

Resourcing social enterprises: approaches and challenges

This is the second publication from the Bankwest Foundation Social Impact Series and includes preliminary findings from the Supporting Development and Growth in the Community Sector in Western Australia research program. This report is the first output of the Social Enterprise Financial Resilience project, which forms part of the program. Despite increasing interest in social enterprise, there is limited understanding about the factors that support the capacity for social enterprise to deliver social objectives. In particular, we know little about how social enterprises access and use financial and other resources to sustain their businesses and how this can influence their organisational resilience. There are suggestions that social enterprise and small private for-profit businesses face similar barriers to accessing commercial finance (Burkett, 2010; Mavra, 2011). However, there are also factors specific to social enterprise – related to their organisational structures, their business purposes, and their operating environments - that influence how social enterprises attract, use and choose financial and other resources. With regard to financial resources, there is growing interest in and popular discussion about social finance in general and impact investing in particular. Yet, the financial needs, barriers and effects of certain forms of finance on social enterprise resilience and impact remains unclear. The purpose of this report is to review the existing evidence about the resource needs and behaviours of social enterprises, and their barriers and opportunities to accessing financial and other resources. We augment this review with comments from workshops and interviews undertaken with 15 Western Australian social entrepreneurs, and seven social financiers and policy professionals in May-June 2015. Unpacking the financial needs and behaviours of social enterprises provides a platform for better understanding of the factors that affect financial resilience of social enterprises in Western Australia and beyond, and the tools we need to support such resilience. Of course, organisational sustainability requires access to resources beyond finance; we consider in this report wider resourcing needs and their implications for financial resilience.&nbsp

Finding Australia’s social enterprise sector: final report

Executive Summary Social enterprises are organisations that: Are led by an economic, social, cultural, or environmental mission consistent with a public or community benefit; Trade to fulfil their mission; Derive a substantial portion of their income from trade; and Reinvest the majority of their profit/surplus in the fulfilment of their mission. This document reports on the research findings of the Finding Australia’s Social Enterprise Sector (FASES) project. FASES is a joint initiative of Social Traders and the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology. It is a first attempt to identify the range and scope of social enterprises in Australia. The methodology utilised in this research included: a review of existing literature and methods of social enterprise mapping; establishment of a project website and preliminary discussion paper to stimulate public engagement with defining and identifying Australian social enterprises, which resulted in four online responses to the discussion paper and 157 nominations of social enterprises to be included in the research; a series of workshops and interviews with 34 key informants to assist in defining social enterprise for the purposes of the research; identification of the social enterprise population through a combination of web and media review, review of existing databases and feedback through the project website; development and administration of an online survey; and collation and analysis of secondary data. Five hundred and thirty-nine organisations commenced the online survey, of which 365 were valid social enterprises according to our definition. Based on pre-existing research data and information from our survey, we estimate that there are up to 20 000 Australian social enterprises. This estimate takes into account that some not for profit organisations have multiple business ventures, and that not all social enterprises are incorporated as not for profits. Our survey results suggest that the Australian social enterprise sector is mature, sustainable and internally diverse with regard to mission and organisational structure. Amongst the 365 survey respondents, 73% had been operational for at least five years, and 62% were at least 10 years old. Australian social enterprises seek to fulfil a diversity of missions and serve a wide variety of beneficiaries. As a whole, the dominant foci of our survey respondents were on creating opportunities for people to participate in their community, and on finding new solutions to social, environmental, cultural and economic problems. Australian social enterprises operate in every industry of our economy. Our survey data suggest that they trade predominantly in local and regional markets and focus on fulfilling their missions at local and regional goals. However, some social enterprises operate in international markets and seek to respond to missions of international scope

How work integration social enterprises help to realise capability: a comparison of three Australian settings

Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) are a response to reconfiguring social support for disadvantaged people. Here, theory and methodology from social geography were applied, to consider capability realized in/by three Australian regional city WISEs. Data were gathered using observation and interviews with supervisors and employees. Coding identified capability, then analyzed by physicality, people, narratives and practices to explore how WISEs ‘assemble’ capability. Comparing across cases highlighted elements that contribute to capability realization. Evidence generated reveals features of work and organization design that might be deployed to enhance capability realization. Social geographical approaches provide insights into how social enterprises generate value

Using micro-geography to understand the realisation of wellbeing: a qualitative GIS study of three social enterprises

Social enterprises are promoted as a method of welfare reform, to transition people out of disadvantage by addressing poverty, unfulfilled capabilities and social exclusion. This study explores how three Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) in Australia help to realise wellbeing for their employees by mapping their micro-geographical experience of wellbeing. By mapping the sites within a social enterprise where wellbeing is realised, we provide a practical, empirical and replicable methodology that is useful for gaining insights into where and how wellbeing realisation occurs. This situates wellbeing as an upstream place-based resource likely to influence downstream health outcomes

Optimising social procurement policy outcomes through cross-sector collaboration in the Australian construction industry

Purpose – Social procurement policies are an emerging policy instrument being used by governments around the world to leverage infrastructure and construction spending to address intractable social problems in the communities they represent. The relational nature of social procurement policies requires construction firms to develop new collaborative partnerships with organisations from the government, not-for-profit and community sectors. The aim of this paper is to address the paucity of research into the risks and opportunities of entering into these new cross-sector partnerships from the perspectives of the stakeholders involved and how this affects collaborative potential and social value outcomes for intended beneficiaries. Design/methodology/approach – This case study research is based on a unique collaborative intermediary called Connectivity Centre created by an international contractor to coordinate its social procurement strategies. The findings draw on a thematic analysis of qualitative data from focus groups with 35 stakeholders from the construction, government, not-for-profit, social enterprise, education and employment sectors. Findings – Findings indicate that potentially enormous opportunities which social procurement offers are being undermined by stakeholder nervousness about policy design, stability and implementation, poor risk management, information asymmetries, perverse incentives, candidate supply constraints, scepticism, traditional recruitment practices and industry capacity constraints. While these risks can be mitigated through collaborative initiatives like Connectivity Centres, this depends on new “relational” skills, knowledge and competencies which do not currently exist in construction. In conclusion, when social procurement policy requirements are excessive and imposed top-down, with little understanding of the construction industry’s compliance capacity, intended social outcomes of these policies are unlikely to be achieved. Originality/value – This research draws on theories of cross-sector collaboration developed in the realm of public sector management to address the lack of research into how the new cross-sector partnerships encouraged by emerging social procurement policies work in the construction industry. Contributing to the emerging literature on cross-sector collaboration, the findings expose the many challenges of working in cross-sector partnerships in highly transitionary project-based environments like construction

Social procurement and its implications for social enterprise : a literature review [Working Paper No. CPNS48]

This paper reviews the available academic and policy literature to identify the possibilities and limitations of social procurement, and the factors that enable its implementation. In doing so, it aims to contribute to an evidence-based approach to social enterprise development in Australia, and to provide practical information of use to both policy makers and social enterprises considering social procurement arrangements. Based on the available evidence, the dominant focus of this review is on social procurement by governments

Changing the rules in use? An examination of social enterprise in local governance

As multi-stakeholder entities that explicitly inhabit both social and economic domains, social enterprises pose new challenges and possibilities for local governance. In this paper, we draw on new institutional theory to examine the ways in which locally-focused social enterprises disrupt path dependencies and rules in use within local government. Rather than examining the more commonly asked question of the influence of the state on social enterprise, our purpose here is to examine the impacts of social enterprise on governmental institutions at the local level. Our discussion is based on a mixed-methods study, including an online survey of 66 local government staff, document analysis, and in-depth interviews with 24 social enterprise practitioners and local government actors working to support social enterprise development in Victoria, Australia. We find that, in some instances, the hybrid nature of social enterprise facilitates ‘joining up’ between different functional areas of local government. Beyond organisational relationships, social enterprise also influences local governance through the reinterpretation and regeneration of institutionalised public spaces